Venezuela’s election in the crosshairs of new US regime change scheme
Venezuela’s election in the crosshairs of new US regime change scheme
As Venezuela prepares to head to the polls in July, the US has already started drumming up suspicion and doubt around the electoral process.
You're viewing a single thread.
The USA under Trump tried to depose the Venezuelan leader only 5 years ago or so. Speaking of Trump, a large portion of the USA is currently striving to elect someone who tried to overthrow democracy in their own nation. Electoral scrutiny is all well and good, but is the USA really the right arbitrator given their domestic election problems and history of interfering in Central/South America? What do Venezuelans think about US involvement?
Biden successfully deposed of Pakistan's elected leader lol.
Source?
Imran Khan was coup'd in 2022 for his independent foreign policies and replaced with a pro-US puppet (who sent weapons to Ukraine and bombed Iran), despite Imran being highly popular in Pakistan.
He won this year's election from jail despite the whole election being completely filled with vote-rigging. It's not quite clear where things are gonna go from here.
I asked for a source or evidence. You provided a statement made by Imran Khan himself. A statement by a politician claiming that the US backed a coup in Pakistan is not evidence.
Edit: Why are people downvoting? Do you guys take politicians' statements as fact now? What is your bar for evidence?
Leaked cable:
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/
IK being charged by attempting to disclose the secret cable:
Wow. So i read the full transcript. A few points.
-
We don't know where this document originated and the intercept has not authenticated it (they at least claim as much)
-
Nothing Lu said is out of line. Which part do you take umbrage with? Khan is definitely putting his spin on this.
It's pretty much been confirmed because Imran Khan released parts of the message that match the version the intercept received much later, of which I already pointed out he was charged with breaking the state secrets law.
Lu was very set on wanting Imran Khan gone via the NCV. This cable wasn't meant to negotiate anything with Imran Khan or even tell him to rectify his stance on Ukraine. He said clearly that ties with Washington deteriorated and would only be restored if IK was removed.
More importantly, the cable was directed towards the Pakistan army who has the ultimate power in Pakistan (and incidentally has been bribed several times before). They did as they were asked and helped the NCV succeed by helping the opposition bribe and coerce party members to swap sides overnight. Then, they swiftly arrested IK, banned PTI as a political party, tortured and killed their party members, assassinated some journalists, shutdown the internet, banned Twitter, and called it a day.
It's nothing new for the USA or even Pakistan, it's just that this was probably the first grassroots populist party in Pakistan to ever get a chance at running the country and it lasted all but 5 seconds because that invovled the idea of foreign sovereignty which is something the USA doesn't like.
They can and will use whatever means necessary to keep their leverage in the global geopolitical scene.
I read the content of the transcript. A lot of leaps are being made from one diplomat's statements. Lu simply said they don't want to cooperate with a leader that is rubbing shoulders with Putin and it's perfectly reasonable considering a) Pakistan is the recipient of US foreign aid b) Putin is doing his best to annex every territory around Russia that he can before anyone stops him. Whatever Pakistan did to oust him needs further proof that it is directly caused by US interference. I haven't seen that yet.
Edit: you know what guys; this one politicians claims and a random cable is all we need. No further proof needed. American imperialism genocide colonialism western hegemony -- did I get all the poli-sci 101 buzzwords in yet or did I leave any out? Someone needs to create an 'america bad' phrase generator already. That is the sum of discourse on Lemmy after all.
Maybe don't be so offended when people rightly criticize your country. You didn't choose to be born there.
-
Really, someone physically in the space with direct experience of the event in question is not evidence? It's because he's brown and worships a god from the wrong part of the world, isn't it?
The downvotes are because of your petulant whining.
Asking for evidence is "whining". Gotcha.
No, no, the whining is the whining.
We should not ask for evidence and accept any blog post as news. Our masters will be pleased. Anyone dare ask for evidence will invite only downvotes on lemmy.ml. Asking about such downvotes is "whining". We shall not question our masters. Slurp slurp. Please, more off that delicious cum from lemmy.ml world news.
Hahaha are you trying to make a new copy pasta or something
Then Russia interferes with US election. It’s election interference all the way down.
Except it stops at countries like Russia where the complete election is fake.
Unlike our glorious US empire where the elections are definitely totally legit (don't ask why Trump won despite getting less votes)
No liberal "democracies" are democratic in the first place on account of being capitalist dictatorships
Russia had no effect on US elections. Please update your understanding, it's years old now. The Mueller report was clear on this point - Russia's connections were far deeper and more effective (in both directions) with the Democrats than the Republicans
The point you're trying to make here isn't very clear.
Are you saying:
- That Russia didn't try to interfere with the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections?
- Or are you saying that Russia did try to interfere, but they were incompetent and couldn't actually do it?
- Or are you saying the Muller report clearly stated that there is a deep connection between Democrats and Russia, and only a much weaker connection between Russia and Republicans?
- Something else entirely or some combination of all of these?
They're points perfectly clear; it's right there in their first sentence. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
You're being unnecessarily hostile. There is a lot of ambiguity in the statement as I outlined my comment.
If you can clarify the point they were trying to make that would be great, if not you're proving no value to this conversation.
Read the fucking Muller report or a summary of its findings re Russia and you'll have your answer
Also unnecessarily hostile.
I've read the Mueller report and nothing in there supports your claims, which makes your statement even more confusing.
From the Wikipedia article on the Mueller report:
The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9]
More importantly:
However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/questions-mueller-russiagate/
Despite the Russian influence campaign, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.
So, despite Russian attempts at manipulating the population, Clinton lost because of the electoral college, an institution designed by the founders to ensure that minority land owners would always be able to override the popular will of the masses. Russia's political meddling is demonstrably far less effective than US meddling globally.
So your point is that Russia does try to interfere in American and other foreign elections, they just aren't very good at it?
The electoral college makes it easier for foreign actors to influence American elections. Instead of convincing 3 million people to change their votes from Clinton to Trump in order to effectively influence the election, the entities spreading FUD only need to influence a few thousand in key swing states.
From your Brookings article:
The bottom line is that the Mueller report clearly shows that the Russian information operations were highly adaptive to the political context in the United States, followed a seemingly well-thought out strategic plan akin to a marketing or public relations campaign, involved direction from Russian intelligence, and were incredibly effective in infiltrating American media while influencing public debate around the 2016 election.
The article from the Nation is a poorly sourced opinion piece from someone who seems to have a very poor understanding of how the Russian intelligence works. The key "gotcha" in the article is that IRA is not a Russian government agency, rather a private company run by Russian individuals.
This isn't in contradiction to the Mueller report, it's common for Russian intelligence (and other intelligence agencies around the world, including CIA and other American intelligence agencies) to use private corporations to carry their agendas. As pointed out by the Brookings article Russian intelligence directed the actions of IRA, even though IRA and its employees weren't directly employed by the Russian Government on paper.
There is no evidence (that I've seen) that Russia targeted swing states and swing voters specifically as you seem to be claiming. That was the accusation levied against Trump and Cambridge Analytica and even that claim fell apart for lack of evidence.
The point is that you retorted "it's election interference all the way down" when replying to a comment about how the USA should not be involved in arbitrating elections in other countries. You then went further to say that election interference stops at countries like Russia because the elections are fake.
But A) Russian interference in the USA is not the same as USA interference in Venezuela. Evidence: Russia did not actually manage to effect the election, only some of the discourse around the fringes. Meanwhile, the USA backed a coup in Bolivia and literally sent trained mercenaries to support them, and prop up the fake president, Juan Guaido, in order to create the problems that they can then solve with violence, coups, and puppets. And B) the USA has been interfering in Russian politics for decades, including supporting Navalnhy with literal logistics, security, and financing.
So get your fake "oh you're so disrespectful in your communications" pearl clutching liberal bullshit outta here and stop trying to pivot your way into a safe space where your world view remains intact. If you want your worldview to be unchallenged, then stick to watching the tube and leave the discourse to people who are willing to be wrong for the sake of an accurate understanding of what's happening in the world.
Remember when gore won the election and then Bush became president? Or when Hilary got more votes and then trump became president?