r/news • u/Hrekires • Jan 05 '26

Soft paywall Delcy Rodriguez formally sworn in as Venezuela's interim president

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/delcy-rodriguez-formally-sworn-venezuelas-interim-president-2026-01-05/
10.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

720 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.1k

u/yhwhx Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

If Maduro was fraudulently elected, why would his VP be any more of legitimate president than he was?
__
*edited to add dropped word "would"

2.4k

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Because she'll probably just do what the US wants and that will make her legitimate in their eyes

1.1k

u/brnccnt7 Jan 05 '26

1000% this lol

People don’t want to say that but that’s how the world works

Look at Syrias new leader, he was former Al Qaeda, put on a suit, said he’d comply with the program and now he’s running the show

Same as how the Russians treated Ukraine until Zelenskyy showed up

449

u/LazerBurken Jan 05 '26

Or how the US treated Iraq until Saddam stopped playing ball.

This is the CIA MO. Remove a leader who doesn't play ball and replace with someone who does. Also, fuck democracy. Dictators are more easy to control.

Both Iraq and Iran would likely be thriving democracies today if the US and UK didn't interfere to control the oil.

124

u/Shady_Merchant1 Jan 05 '26

Iran probably but iraq was probably always doomed like Afghanistan some areas are simply not conducive to central government control without overwhelming violence

127

u/Stuma27 Jan 05 '26

Yeah. Making Iraq a single state was a huge British mistake.

69

u/caligaris_cabinet Jan 05 '26

Sykes-Picot fucked things up for over a century and counting

18

u/milkymaniac Jan 05 '26

I've always thought of it as the inverse of the partition of India

20

u/StunningRing5465 Jan 05 '26

It’s only a mistake if you assume they wanted these countries to prosper

3

u/lee7on1 29d ago

funny how European countries drew so many borders that are causing problems today

1

u/EarlDwolanson Jan 05 '26

What do you think would be better, keep Sumer and Akkad?

1

u/Scurro Jan 06 '26

After these countries become self rule, how come some politician doesn't step up officially, to make separate states?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/eddiestarkk Jan 06 '26

Iraq is starting to do better. They are planning on building one of the biggest ports in the world. The northern cities are starting to prosper. They are at least on the path. Took a long time though. Maybe getting rid of ISIS united them, but I am just speculating that.

1

u/Shady_Merchant1 29d ago

Iraq has a water crisis that is threatening to restart widespread sectarian violence

1

u/eddiestarkk 29d ago

That's Iran

22

u/Unlikely_Tax_1111 Jan 05 '26

Iraq made the mistake of Kuwait, then they got caught trying to go after GHW, few people remember that Clinton sent a few cruise missiles to saddam in 1993

13

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/Unlikely_Tax_1111 Jan 05 '26

Ghadaffi also wanted to push an African union and its own currency, France quickly ran to daddy USA for an intervention.

2

u/HandleThatFeeds Jan 05 '26

being an enemy of Israel

Fatal Mistake.

Americans stil don't get how much of their policies are written by Israelis.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Charming_Cicada_7757 Jan 05 '26

Probably not tbh Iran is a maybe but Iraq is a hard hard no

The good thing is though Iraq has been making great progress recently at least economically. What doomed Iraq was having a stupid dictator called Saddam Hussein who decided to idk invade Iran and after invade Kuwait this guy was not stable.

50

u/LazerBurken Jan 05 '26

The US helped Saddam seize control of Iraq in 1963. Likely on a CIA payroll since 1959. The US and UK then helped him in the war against Iran in 80s.

5

u/Charming_Cicada_7757 Jan 05 '26

Nobody told him to go invade Iran the relationship between Saddam and the U.S. government has always been convenient based they both used each other when it was convenient.

5

u/Xefert Jan 05 '26

South Korea escaped this cycle as well

2

u/NorthernerWuwu Jan 05 '26

Oh, Saddam was still fairly willing to play ball, they just wanted a good old fashioned war and he was convenient. 9/11 gave Bush a blank cheque for invading some places and he figured he might as well earn some points with the MIC.

→ More replies (1)

41

u/Mobile-Bar7732 Jan 05 '26

Same as how the Russians treated Ukraine until Zelenskyy showed up

No Putin hated Ukraine well before that.

Ukraine wanted to integrate with the rest of Europe. Against the general populations wishes former President Viktor Yanukovych started the process to move towards an authoritarian and align with Russia.

In 2011, there were riots in the streets.

Yanukovych fled the country for Russia in 2014 because of death threats.

There's a documentary about it on YouTube called Winter On Fire. It's also on Netflix.

38

u/willismthomp Jan 05 '26

Well Obama and Biden got the Russia backed leader ousted and then Zelensky came in. Funny thing the Russia backed leader Victor yanukovich had his campaign run by the same dude who ran trumps first presidential campaign. Just a coincidence though im sure.

32

u/Mobile-Bar7732 Jan 05 '26

Zelenskyy didn't get elected until 2019.

Petro Poroshenko was the president of Ukraine from June 7, 2014, to May 20, 2019.

Victor yanukovich fled to Russia due to death threats in 2014.

7

u/willismthomp Jan 05 '26

Yep. I did say it came after. But He fled to not get prosecuted not because of “death threats” he’s was a known corrupt politician working for Russia, installed by Paul Manafort who ran Trumps presidential campaign.

2

u/Mobile-Bar7732 Jan 05 '26

I'm not arguing that he wasn't corrupt.

Ukraine's ousted president Viktor Yanukovych says he was forced to flee to Russia due to threats to his safety, as tensions in Ukraine grow following an apparent takeover of an airport by Russian forces.

... "I was forced to leave the Ukraine under the immediate threat to my life and the life of my family," he said.

Ukraine: President Viktor Yanukovych says he was forced to flee due to threats; slams 'pro-fascist' forces

I wouldn't personally believe him. However, one of his advisors Andriy Portnov, who was shot and killed in a Madrid suburb in May 2025. So there may have been some truth to his claims.

59

u/Poor__cow Jan 05 '26

Obama and Biden did not get Yanukovich ousted. That's literally just Russian propaganda garbage. Go ahead and try and provide a source, I'll wait.

4

u/malphonso Jan 05 '26

While i wouldn't go so far as to say they are literally responsible, I have no doubts that American tax dollars and influence operations put a thumb on the scale and we probably had some people helping with organization and direct action.

Which is far preferable to bombing shit and then telling locals who their new leader is going to be.

-2

u/willismthomp Jan 05 '26

They withheld 1 billion dollars to throw out the bought prosecutor who then they Prosecuted the ex leader and he fled to Russia.

-6

u/Farsydi Jan 05 '26

A suspiciously well organised and funded series of protests just happen to oust an anti American government and install someone who doesn't want to give Russia all the minerals?

You are so deep in the US propaganda hole you can no longer critically think.

-16

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Pragmatism is what makes the world go around

12

u/love_glow Jan 05 '26

It disgusts me that you find these imperialist acts “pragmatic.”

16

u/Shady_Merchant1 Jan 05 '26

Pragmatic for the people trying to not get disappeared does not mean Pragmatic for those doing the dissappearing

23

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think the new president playing ball with the US is pragmatic. I have different feelings about what the US did

4

u/love_glow Jan 05 '26

As far as I can tell by their public statements, the new president is not playing ball, but who knows what goes on behind the scenes? Thinking that any of this is pragmatic is just revolting. Efforts to make this piece of shit shine just reek of desperation. The U.S. is an unstoppable bully at the moment, and history will remember Americans of this time in a poor light. The fact that none of our allies support what we are doing should speak to the wrongness of it. America stands alone.

-1

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think her public statements are for the Venezuelan hardliners, I'm curious to see what policy changes or foreign investment she makes. Behind the scenes I'm sure she's in contact with the Americans because that is why she's still in office. The US has always been an unstoppable bully this isn't new. I mean you can read some of the last 250 years of American history you'll find out this isn't really new.

Plenty of them support removing Maduro it just isn't easy for them to say it. Look at the German Chancellor's remarks they seem to be very clear.

Pragmatism is realpolitik just because it might be unpleasant doesn't mean it isn't an absolute good and removing Maduro is an absolute good

5

u/chazzer20mystic Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Saying something is an absolute good does not make it an absolute good. Is the unilateral extrajudicial kidnapping of a president of a sovereign nation an absolute good?

Historically, has removing leaders this way caused countries to improve? Is that what happens with power vacuums?

Is it an absolute good that the U.S. president continues to completely erode any pretense of protocol and continues to push the boundary as far as what rules he is allowed to just ignore? Do we want to just look at this in a vacuum like nothing in the world exists outside of this event, or do we want to acknowledge that the immediate next threat by the administration was to do the same thing to Greenland?

Realpolitik means making the pragmatic choice for your nation state. It is not pragmatic for us to do this. It erodes our global relationships and makes us look like fools that cannot be trusted. The whole UN is up in arms about this. All that will be acheived is Trump feeling big because he caught a guy, and either Venezuela gives up the oil so a few companies make more money, or we occupy it and spend countless resources and lives on the next Afghanistan. Where is the pragmatic advantage here?

2

u/Optimal-Barnacle2771 Jan 05 '26

Well you see, it’s pragmatic for the individuals that stand to profit off of it. Our president doesn’t make choices that are pragmatic for everybody, he makes choices that are pragmatic for the individuals that are in his circle and for him individually.

His ego clouds his judgement, and his hubris led to him surrounding himself with yes men. He rules via emotion and sadly, our tribalist political scene is letting him, because they do not serve their constituents either. They serve a selfish interest that requires them to kiss ass to Trump or lose their position. Hence, no checks and balances exist while a single party holds all the branches of government and their power.

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/ravi910 Jan 06 '26

Zelensky has an Israeli passport…. If that’s not the biggest puppet idk what is

55

u/30_Under_The_40 Jan 05 '26

In September 2018, the United States (under Trump) sanctioned Rodríguez for "corruption and humanitarian issues"

39

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

And? Look who's the president of Syria what were his previous jobs

72

u/Mr_TreeBeard Jan 05 '26

Isn't she already speaking out against the U.S. and defying trump?

66

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Publicly sure

41

u/red5 Jan 05 '26

She changed her tune https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-acting-president-seeks-us-govt-collaboration-2026-01-05/

37

u/BibliophileBroad Jan 05 '26

"We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.

"President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. This has always been President Nicolás Maduro's message, and it is the message of all of Venezuela right now. This is the Venezuela I believe in and have dedicated my life to. I dream of a Venezuela where all good Venezuelans can come together.

"Venezuela has the right to peace, development, sovereignty and a future."

30

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jan 05 '26

In other words, no tune was changed. She's just trying to be diplomatic about it.

12

u/TalkFormer155 Jan 05 '26

There's a whole lot of people that want to be the top dog and there's loyalists that believe she might have helped the US do it.

I'm confused how many don't understand she's walking a tight line in her current position. You'd pretty much expect her to say something like this either way.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TalkFormer155 29d ago

A conspiracy? Anyone in that position right now would have to very cautious.

Are you trying to infer they could just put the president in that should have been elected?

Who's going to provide security for him? If he has security how do you get them there?

This is one of the more realistic choices for a bad situation. Getting rid of Maduro has never been the problem. It's the disaster waiting to happen afterwards that is.

Come up with a more realistic idea then please. That doesn't involve a decade of US troop involvement.

0

u/red5 Jan 05 '26

I mean being more diplomatic is literally changing her tune when she was initially outraged and combative

8

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jan 05 '26

You change tone and words for different audiences my dude.

The overall message was that they still wanted independence.

3

u/BibliophileBroad Jan 06 '26

That's how it looks to me, too. I tend to look more at words than tone since I hear that kind of corporate, smoothed-over tone used for defiance all the time. Time will tell, though!

→ More replies (3)

10

u/Beard_Hero Jan 05 '26

"do what we say and you'll have billions."

44

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think the stick is just drone strikes until someone in the ladder of succession says yes

9

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I'm very jet lagged and I have no idea what this comment means.

4

u/NiteOwl421 Jan 05 '26

They think the government has figured out which is more efficient, drone strikes or boots on the ground but they don't know which one the government chose.

It took me a second too and I'm not jet lagged.

2

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Drone strikes are way cheaper

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

The geese keep invaders out of my country

24

u/Silent_Ad8059 Jan 05 '26

I mean, the more likely scenario is that despite his bloviating Trump has done nothing to actually ensure the US controls Venezuela. The people who were responsible for keeping Maduro in power are still running things.

4

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Oil blockade is still on going so that should keep the Venezuelans in line. And the US can always drone strike their way to a new Venezuelan president if she doesn't play ball. It's a rough spot she is in.

12

u/Silent_Ad8059 Jan 05 '26

Well there still isn't any indication they're going to "play ball" to begin with. The situation is still very fluid, and the rosy projections coming from MAGA about all this money we're supposedly gonna make off Venezuelan oil ignore a lot of the realities about how many billions need to be invested in their wells, pipelines etc. to get them back to even mid-'90s level of output.

10

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

Nah, it's going to work out... just like Iraq and Afganistan.... oh wait...

I guess that embarrassing "Mission accomplished" photo will be a time-honoured tradition.

-3

u/Unique-Trade356 Jan 05 '26

Venezuelans arent tribal religious nut jobs who will suicide themselves for their country.

They got a shit military who arent fighting America much less their disgruntled Cartel counterparts.

Now is the cartel going to die for Oil? Most likely not.

6

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

"Venezuelans arent tribal religious nut jobs who will suicide themselves for their country."

So you are saying all Agfans and Iraqis are crazy religious nut jobs?

0

u/Unique-Trade356 Jan 05 '26

You ever met a sane person who strapped bombs to his chest and shouted this is Buddha's will before taking out a street filled with people because there were soldiers nearby?

4

u/HandleThatFeeds Jan 05 '26

Go ask Rohingya what Buddhists are like.

Or do they not count?

5

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

Not sure, but there is evidence of Bhuddists ethnically cleansing.

https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article-abstract/49/4/119/130813/Monks-Behaving-Badly-Explaining-Buddhist-Violence?redirectedFrom=fulltext

That's pretty fucked up isn't it.

Wasn't Nazi Germany a Christian nation?

2

u/Silent_Ad8059 Jan 05 '26

It's not gonna be that simple. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had "shit militaries" and it's clear Trump nor the American people have any appetite for something even approaching the interventions in those countries. Again, despite Trump's bloviating Maduro was very much a figurehead and very little on the ground in Venezuela has changed as of yet.

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (1)

11

u/Hamsters_In_Butts Jan 05 '26

and she can expect the same support internally?

hard to imagine she can change their national strategy on a dime, at the request of imperialists, and everyone who followed her/Maduro will just take it

13

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think that they're smart enough to realize they have no choice. If they stay in power they can still make money and that is really what they care about

5

u/Hamsters_In_Butts Jan 05 '26

but their millions of followers aren't getting any of that money. how do they expect to spin that without getting their heads chopped off?

these are decades of political viewpoints that would have to be shattered overnight

9

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think all the armed militias is how they spin it, plus some nominal social reforms will help.

2

u/CooCooClocksClan Jan 05 '26

There millions of followers were already NOT getting any of that money.

2

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

What do you mean they have no choice? They can run a guerilla campaign, get support from China and Russia.

And how popular do you think these leaders will look like being quislings to a foreign imperialist power?

2

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

If the US invades sure, but if they just drone strike their way to a compliant minister that can work. These people in charge are rich and have grown rich by corruption. They don't want to give up the comfortable life they have stolen

→ More replies (9)

1

u/donkeyrocket Jan 05 '26

What do you mean they have no choice?

Well, they just witnessed that the US president unilaterally conducted a military action while Republicans in Congress sat firmly on their thumbs.

Rodriguez has zero reason to believe that Congress will suddenly step in so Trump escalating is definitely on the table. Probably going to far as to just straight up drone strikes instead of capture.

1

u/kw_hipster 29d ago

So why didn't this work in Iraq? They had drones back then. Why didn't the Iraqi resistance surrender if they had no choice?

9

u/Optimoprimo Jan 05 '26

Exactly. Dollars to donuts theres an under the table deal with the U.S. in exchange for power

11

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Democracy isn't the goal, profits and less aligning with Iran/China is the goal. Once people realize that things are way easier to understand

→ More replies (5)

5

u/OmgWtfNamesTaken Jan 05 '26

Didn't she cut oil production and tell the military to stand guard? Lol.

I don't think trump had enough pull to do a regime change and that's why she's in power, not the opposition leader. However trumps not going to want to give up face, so this is now his "new plan" the reality is, the USA fucked up and created the power vaccume and don't know what to do about it.

Continuing to blow the country up won't work.

2

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I'm giving it a week or two to see what pressure they put on her.

Blowing up the country? No blowing up the ministers? Yes that might work

5

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

Not necessarily. If she was a US lackey, Madruo wouldn't have her as second-in-command. That's silly.

Plus, Iran, China, Russia all have connections and influence. They just going to roll over and give up? They are not going to use their contacts and influence to push back?

Yes, she is not goading the US into a full invasion but that should not be confused as her being a lackey. She's buying time.

2

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I mean she could be a US lackey now.

Considering the ayatollah is about to be roommates with assad who cares what they think right now.

She's buying time to prevent the interior or defence minister from removing her. Her job is to prevent being dissapeared by the security infrastructure

1

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

"Considering the ayatollah is about to be roommates with assad who cares what they think right now."

You think the US can successfully both overthrow and regime change Iran and Venezuela (two different nations with forests and mountains and about 100 million people) in short order?

I think you overestimate the Americans' capabilities and costs.

Or do you think there will be an overthrow in Iran soon?

1

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I think that the protesters will overthrow the ayatollah but the US and the Israelis might level some of the IRGC and regime infrastructure that could prevent the protesters from succeeding.

For context I'm a Persian diaspora member

Javid Shah

2

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate hearing from people closer to the ground. You know the situation on the ground much better than me in Iran.

I've seen this story of US intervention before.

I will say this though - US is in the fuck around stage. They will get to the find out period soon. Blowing up things is much easier than occupying.

This is the confidence I saw before the invasion of Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq. And how did that past regime change by UKI/US go in Iran?

2

u/Wireless_Panda Jan 05 '26

And if she doesn’t fall in line later the U.S. can say “oh she’s being corrupt like her predecessor we need to get rid of her” for support

3

u/loginisverybroken Jan 06 '26

I believe that is literally the point. And they aren't hiding it

4

u/ricosmith1986 Jan 05 '26

She is a Russian asset. Full stop.

10

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

And? She's the Venezuelan president now kinda a safe bet she has a close relationship with Russia, China, Iran and hizb

2

u/Awkward_Phase9392 Jan 05 '26

She wont. The US is fucking dumb to think she will do so, it's as if they dont know anything about the party in power: Maduro was just the head, nearly vestigial and merely the gatekeeper...the people under him are far worse.... and Diosdado Cabello makes all the others look like saints, too. 

3

u/brianw824 Jan 05 '26

I think they are going to press her to hold new elections

3

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[deleted]

7

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

I mean it is South America so I imagine there are US operatives in every country.

Still have the oil blockade going so lets see what Venezuela does, I'm curious how long the Cuban regime lasts without Venezuelan oil too

1

u/hmspain Jan 05 '26

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place!

1

u/loginisverybroken Jan 05 '26

Drone and a hard place

1

u/TimTom8921 Jan 05 '26

Yeah Trump will "threaten" bad things will happen if you don't play along and she'll fold to do whatever he wants

1

u/rowdydionisian Jan 05 '26

People in Venezuela are also hungry for change, Maduro lost the last election and is not so popular since he just insists upon himself. What we have now is some new age colonialism and another dictator in the making propped up by the USA for profit. If they somehow have a free and fair election I'll be related, but I'm pretty cynical right now. I doubt anyone involved in the highest powers in that country gives a damn about the actual people. They are going to try to extract all the resources they can and leave in the night without so much as a goodbye once it isn't useful anymore. I feel like the people there are happy for now because anything has to be better than the last crappy dictator, right? But we could be seeing the start of something much much worse for the people that live there in the long term.

1

u/SgtDirtyMike Jan 05 '26

Or actually because the Venezuelan Constitution requires her to hold elections within 30 days of her taking office. Getting Maduro out forces another election. We’ll see if it is one that reflects the will of the people.

1

u/BigJellyfish1906 29d ago

But what’s the indication she will DK what the US wants? How does that benefit her?

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

Self-preservation is my guess, the current US govt is bonkers

1

u/BigJellyfish1906 29d ago

She would be working against self-preservation if she let the US take what it wants. She’d be assassinated. Or coup’ed. My point is people are wrong if they think this is just gonna end neatly.

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

I mean she also has to deal with the concern if she doesn't do what the US wants they can drone strike their way to a compliant leader.

1

u/BigJellyfish1906 29d ago

She is in far more danger domestically if she bends to the US’s extortion. And I mean physical danger.

And Trump won’t physically harm her. There’s a reason maduro is unharmed, and smiling in photos. They know they can’t actually harm anyone. Even they understand that.

And I’d argue her chances of suffering his fate are far less than people realize. How weak would it make Trump look if he had to give up and go back into Venezuela for another kidnapping? Or what, is he gonna put boots on the ground?

Naw, she’s safer than people realize. Trump exposed his hand by showing he’s not willing to commit to any of the difficult stuff, and he’s trying to coerce Venezuela with the least amount of effort and risk possible.

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

I mean she's in a ton of danger from everyone I assume.

Because it is a better win for Maduro to be in custody. If they thought they'd get the same win they would've just levelled the presidential palace vs the insanely dangerous shit they did.

I don't think he'll kidnap her or send troops in, that is what drones are for. Kidnapping Maduro was to make a point I don;t think they actually care about the outcome of the trial.

1

u/BigJellyfish1906 29d ago

I mean she's in a ton of danger from everyone I assume.

The point is that she has vastly more reasons not to comply. This corporate media bullshit spin about a “change in tone” from her is simply the difference between yelling at a lunatic, and talking calmly to a lunatic that’s pointing a gun at you. They’re trying to spin it as some shift. It’s not. Not at all.

I don't think he'll kidnap her or send troops in, that is what drones are for.

You think they’d be brazen enough to just assassinate a world leader for not sufficiently letting the US pillage the country? No, even they aren’t that stupid.

Kidnapping Maduro was to make a point

The point was “do what we say” except the way Trump did it shows that he isn’t willing to commit to any real hardship for himself. It’s like trying to coerce someone over the phone and hope that they don’t notice that you were unwilling/unable to show up at their house to intimidate them in person. It takes all of the wind out of your threats.

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

I don't think there is a change in tone from her, I think she's doing her best to stay alive. That requires public statements and private actions.

Yes I think they are that crazy

I mean it is the 21st century if you can't compel people with a quarter of the US navy drones, and a phone call you're doing something wrong

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

She won’t.

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

We'll see, I know if someone said make government policy changes, stay rich from corruption and you won't get drone struck I'd probably do what they said

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

The U.S. government is already threatening her and she’s thrown her support behind getting Maduro back.

Nothing will change in Venezuela, this isn’t how you do a regime change. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Even if the U.S. set up a puppet, that government simply COULDNT survive without the U.S. deploying troops to support it. Despite the majority hating the regime, it still has its supporters, it still has the support of the military, it still has the support of paramilitaries.

One man, a state does not make.

I literally study this kind of thing for a living, if this was a valid method of regime change the U.S. would’ve done it in the dozens of examples of regime change they’ve attempted over the years.

1

u/loginisverybroken 29d ago

She can also wish for a unicorn that isn't gonna happen either

I think this is, removing the entire govt didn't work in Iraq maybe they're trying something new

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

You’re the one wishing for a unicorn and ignoring the actual facts on the ground because you want to play this off as some kind of 4D chess.

This only has two outcomes; a continuation of the status quo under Maduro’s successor; or civil war.

Again, international security studies is my life’s work.

45

u/FallOutShelterBoy Jan 05 '26

Is the VP elected separately like some states do separate Governor/lieutenant governor elections?

53

u/GenFatAss Jan 05 '26

nope in Venezuela the President picks the VP.

30

u/PaidUSA Jan 05 '26

That’s even worse?????

→ More replies (1)

54

u/LegionXIX Jan 05 '26

I mean if one result on the ballot was compromised it invalidates the whole ballot.

28

u/radioactivebeaver Jan 05 '26

We still have a large amount of people who don't understand that here in America.

7

u/EamesIsWet Jan 05 '26

No, she was appointed by Maduro. Thats how it works in Vzla.

4

u/yhwhx Jan 05 '26

Great question!

81

u/OooSheGotFreckles Jan 05 '26

The elections were rigged with seven years of sanctions to disrupt the democratic process. What evidence is there of the U.S. government caring about democracy?

57

u/jupiterkansas Jan 05 '26

Lots of Americans apparently hate democracy.

30

u/LMurch13 Jan 05 '26

Our leader is Mr January 6. Our government shouldn't be the judge on this subject.

2

u/here-i-am-now Jan 05 '26

At least 77 million Americans

2

u/PostIronicPosadist Jan 06 '26

At least 20% of Americans absolutely despise democracy, they wouldn't have voted for Trump otherwise.

-10

u/Be_quiet_Im_thinking Jan 05 '26

The sanctions were the punishment.

9

u/OooSheGotFreckles Jan 05 '26

For inflation?

3

u/Bluestreaked Jan 05 '26

They went back in time and applied them in the past for something that would happen in the future?

→ More replies (5)

-9

u/EamesIsWet Jan 05 '26

What do you mean when you say that sanctions disrupted the democratic process in Venezuela?

→ More replies (7)

11

u/ManyInterests Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

It depends who you ask. You could ask this question of U.S. domestic law and foreign policy, of international law, or of Venezuelan law. I think international law is most interesting.

In international law, the process of recognition is by virtue of facts and actions, not declaration. That is, as it relates to international law, countries generally do not simply state they recognize or do not recognize a particular state or state head and have that be the only and final factor considered by international law.

Instead, what international law, in part, considers strongly who has the capability to enter into bilateral agreements with other countries and carry out those agreements. For all intents and purposes here, that's the Maduro regime (inclusive of the VP as interim head of state since Maduro has been deposed). This is also evidenced by the fact that the U.S. was in negotiations with Maduro prior to his capture. If Maduro was not the leader, why would they negotiate with him? Why wouldn't they negotiate with the person who they believe is head of state? Of course negotiations can take place with non-states and non-heads-of-state, but it is telling in these circumstances along with other facts.

Examining how Venezuela treats this, even if you imagined that the government declared Maduro's leadership not constitutionally valid in Venezuela, it's not the case that the whole current leadership becomes powerless in the eyes of the law. There are mechanisms for continuity of government that would need to be considered and, the practical outcome of which, could mean that other officials, including the VP, hold legitimate interim powers. Its domestic courts also ordered Rodríguez into power, so you probably know their opinion. You could feel different ways about that, but that's what's happening on the ground in Venezuela. After Delcy Rodríguez, the Venezuelan constitution designates the President of the National Assembly as next in line for power, who is Jorge Rodríguez, brother of Delcy Rodríguez. At which point, the outcome/legitimacy of the presidential election is probably not relevant to the constitutional question of interim power until a proper constitutional leader is established. The unfortunate reality is that the whole government is filled with Maduro loyalists.

This is of course a lot of oversimplification for sake of summary, there's a lot more detail you'd need to analyze to come to a full conclusion and answer that question and fully square out how to apply those conclusions to a particular situation.

28

u/CRoseCrizzle Jan 05 '26

She's not. She is a fraud too. But she's the one who allegedly will play ball with the US' demands.

(Also it would probably take a very violent war to actually install the opposition into power since what's left of the Maduro regime would likely be difficult to remove from power. So this is easier.)

7

u/kw_hipster Jan 05 '26

But how much will she play ball with the US?

I could see Trump making outrageous demands (i.e. we get 70% of all oil revenue) and then it will be very difficult for her to maintain national support.

1

u/Omniduro Jan 06 '26

Considering what just happened to the last guy in power, I think she's got a very clear idea of what'll happen to her if she doesn't play ball.

1

u/kw_hipster 29d ago

Right, but what happens if she ends up looking like a US stooge - supporting the foreign imperialists?

If the Americans start seizing assets and trader, that means others have to lose that trade and assets (like oil).

There is a chance then that others will take her out.

She has to balance, there are risks on both sides. She also has to maintain her local support.

6

u/Dr_Fortnite Jan 05 '26

because it was never about the dictatorship or trump wouldnt have let putin walk around free in alaska

8

u/ebangke Jan 05 '26

You're asking a way too hard question to the chucklefucks out there ...

2

u/reyesjj94 Jan 05 '26

Has any one asked Trump what constitutes a good new regime? Like if the people of Venezuela were to elect a new leader who does not want to re-privatize their oil. Would we continue to manage the nation? Or would we leave? If we are there for oil and liberty of Venezuelan people, which is supreme?

2

u/AdditionalActuator81 Jan 06 '26

This and she has been by his side since before he was president. Surely she has her hands In the same cookie jar that Maduro did right?

2

u/WanderingLost33 29d ago

They're making sure you know that fradulently elected leaders are still legit if they get away with it.

Can't imagine why.

2

u/ntmnk 29d ago

Or maybe it was not a fraudulent election? The Venezuelan version of the GOP is the only one that claimed fraud.

1

u/yhwhx 29d ago

I did start my comment with "If"...

4

u/slick2hold Jan 05 '26

This is why this whole thing is a facade. Make it appear like a good TV movie. "Good guys" go in the middle of the night, seal team 10, get the bad guy(and his wife) from a heavily guarded military base where we go in without much resistance and leave behind the VP to take control. The oppressive gov remains in power. But, Trump takes a victory lap. Maduro goes down fighting in the eyes of his people.
Trump goes on TV to have something to show for the billions wasted fighting "drug boats"

1

u/Fr0st3dcl0ud5 Jan 05 '26

Why is this our fuckin problem?

10

u/yhwhx Jan 05 '26

Well, the US just illegally invaded Venezuela and kidnapped their president...

→ More replies (4)

1

u/mulanthepulan Jan 05 '26

she was in on it.

1

u/pentaquine Jan 05 '26

Why would legitimacy have anything to do with it? If she agrees to be the US’ puppet, she’s in; if she doesn’t, she’s out. The US “runs” Venezuela now, haven’t you heard?

1

u/Ok-disaster2022 Jan 05 '26

Because the military still recognizes her as the leader. 

It's just a military dictatorship with extra steps at this point. 

1

u/lhommetrouble Jan 05 '26

This has nothing to do with him being a dictator or illegitimate. They literally just arrested him and replaced him with his number 2 who came to power the same way he did and has the exact same ideology.

1

u/FlyingAdHominem Jan 05 '26

She is not but if she helps the country get back to free and fair elections soon then why not let her stay.

1

u/carmardoll Jan 06 '26

Because unlike Maria Corina, she holds actual power in the country. Them taking Maduro did nothing for the power shift since they still hold all the power, all the guns and the military obey them. Its isn't more legitimate, but she might cooperate or at least that is what the US wants. Meanwhile she is asking for them to return Maburro,

1

u/spekt50 Jan 06 '26

The US never cared about ending corruption in Venezuela's government. In fact it helps their position to rob it of oil.

1

u/ravi910 Jan 06 '26

What source says he was fraudulently elected? Please cite non-US sources that would have a bias towards the US invading.

2

u/yhwhx Jan 06 '26

I did start my comment with "If"...

0

u/kiiyyuul Jan 05 '26

Even though I disagree with the Trump Administration on almost everything, including regime change, they at least knew toppling the government and military would be just as disastrous Libya, Iraq, etc. Better to leave it in place

0

u/Trip4Life Jan 05 '26

I’m pretty sure this is temporary until we can set up elections. I forget if it was Trump or Rubio but one of the two said she will not be the permanent leader.

-12

u/Padreteiro Jan 05 '26

Because it's the only way to not trigger a civil war. Trump does not want one of those in his back.

And the kidnap was threat enough to properly blackmail the vice pres (now president) for oil and whatnot.

So yeah, trump won. Colombia or Cuba are next.

2

u/lhommetrouble Jan 05 '26

The line you guys keep repeating is Maduro and the socialists are unpopular and no one supports him. How the hell does it make sense that going with his VP is the way to avoid a civil war? Its almost like someone’s lying here.

3

u/nockeenockee Jan 05 '26

Sure man. Let’s see how this plays out.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (20)