7 ms·
> Regardless of your opinion on Maduro, you can still acknowledge that the head of a sovereign state being captured (...) Note the US administration contends t
by dataflow 9mo ago
> Regardless of your opinion on Maduro, you can still acknowledge that the head of a sovereign state being captured (...)
Note the US administration contends that he wasn't the legitimate head of state. [1] [2]
[1] https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/marco-rubio-nicolas-maduro-not-president-venezuela/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/marco-rubio-nicolas-m...
[2] I'm (obviously) being sloppy regarding head of state vs. head of government.
- delfinom 9mo agoWell Russia contends Zelensky isn't the legitimate head of state of Ukraine.
- incrudible 9mo agoYou have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to contend that Zelensky is not the democratically legitimated head of state of Ukraine. For Maduro, it's much simpler: He lost the election, yet he remained in power.
- blell 9mo ago[flagged]
- incrudible 9mo ago> Then, he suspended the next election and no more elections have been celebrated ever since. Yes, but that may have something to do with the fact that his country was invaded and he has been at war ever since. Suspending elections for that reason is legitimate by "our" standards.
- AnimalMuppet 9mo agoWe didn't suspend elections during World War II. We had been attacked (and overseas parts had been invaded and conquered), and we were at war. Elections still went on as normal. Even during the Civil War there were elections, even though there was fighting in some of the states that were voting.
- wiseowise 9mo ago> We [industrial superpower dwarfing whole axis combined, surrounded by ocean with no neighbors who can challenge us and unique geography that makes it literally impossible to invade at the time] didn't suspend election during World War II. We had been attacked [parts so insignificant compared to the whole that there was no reason to even consider delaying elections]... This is the most `ShitAmericansSay` argument ever. What's next? Poland should've held elections while being pounded from both sides? Russia had "elections" during WWI and look where it ended up.
- Hikikomori 9mo ago[flagged]
- dzikimarian 9mo agoYou forgot to add that Ukrainian opposition leader supported suspension.
- andyjohnson0 9mo ago> Then, he suspended the next election Zelensky did not suspend elections. Ukraine's constitution prohibits the holding of elections under conditions of martial law. "However, martial law—imposed after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 and still in place as the war continues—has prevented elections from taking place. Under Ukrainian law, elections cannot be held while martial law is in effect to ensure continuity of governance and support the nation’s defense." [1] [1] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-presidential-elections-amid-war-political-legal-and-security-challenges https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-presidential...
- hypeatei 9mo ago> Then, he suspended the next election No, he didn't do that personally. Ukraine's constitution mandates that elections not be held during times of martial law (i.e. war) Even if that wasn't a thing, do you think holding elections while bombs are going off is a good idea?
- AnimalMuppet 9mo agoI think following the constitution is a good thing, even if bombs are falling. I mean, look, people are dying, and yet the country is not just hunkered down in bunkers for the last four years. Life is going on. People are getting up and going to work and coming home and eating dinner and going to bed. Surely they could also go and vote... if the constitution did not say what it says.
- hypeatei 9mo agoI would agree, but Russia has shown that they're not about fair elections in their own country and they've bombed plenty of civilian targets throughout this conflict. I'd assume that Putin would crank up the notch about 10x on all fronts if he knew elections were taking place to make it impossible to have anything resembling a fair process.
- StephenMelon 9mo agoIt just wouldn’t be possible to have a fair election when a sizeable percentage of the population is living under foreign occupation.
- Sabinus 9mo agoUnder occupation, in Europe, and in the army on the frontlines. It's a difficult thing to achieve even without Russia determined to interfere in the process.
- wiseowise 9mo ago> He won the election in the most corrupt country in Europe. He won by a landslide regardless of corruption (if there ever was one during those elections). Everyone was fed up with Poroshenko, and Zelensky was seen as a new wave, young politician who will bring change (on top of his popularity as a comedian). > he suspended the next election and no more elections have been celebrated ever since. By "he" you mean constitution of Ukraine?
- ulfw 9mo agoAs opposed to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin of Mother Russia, who won every single one of his extremely fair and properly done democratic elections with a landslide. 88.48 at his last democratic election! So beloved!
- iknowSFR 9mo agoBookmark this comment because it’s going to be very relevant in a few years.
- kcplate 9mo ago[flagged]
- sigmarule 9mo agoSeems silly to ignore that the last date in your list had an event closer to what OP is referring to than any other year, no? Considering he was already crying election fraud in 2016 you could certainly view this as a line with upwards slope…
- kcplate 9mo agoI’m sorry…did I miss martial law being declared in 2021? Did I miss Trump being president from 2021 through 2024?
- AlecSchueler 9mo agoOk, now who can do the toppling? What if China had done this?
- incrudible 9mo agoDone what, exactly? Abduct Maduro?
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo agoHmm, you don't see a simple connection, where China is the counterparty in this power struggle?
- AlecSchueler 9mo agoYes, for example, or forcefully remove the leader of the country of your choice.
- incrudible 9mo agoIf they had removed Maduro because he's an illegitmate autocrat funneling drugs into the US, I'd be deeply confused, considering he's on their side.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- erkt 9mo ago[flagged]
- balakk 9mo agoI wonder if this emboldens china to do the same to Taiwan..
- erkt 9mo agoChina gets Taiwan without any US intervention as soon as our chip foundries have been built state side. Xi is patient.
- elektronika 9mo agoZelensky has suspended elections since Russia invaded. He hasn't had a chance to be voted out, and probably will never get one.
- Sabinus 9mo agoThe Ukrainian Constitution suspends elections in a State of Emergency. The State of Emergency is renewed regularly by the Ukrainian Parliament. The Ukrainian people are broadly supportive of Zelensky, who is publically open to holding elections if given the space and resources to do so. Which is a ceasefire, and some time and money.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo agoYou think you are making a counter argument, but you just managed to be welcomed to the end of the thought process of this exercise as contending can be done by just about anyone. It reinforces a bad precedent.
- only-one1701 9mo agoI contend my net worth is actually 9 figures
- phtrivier 9mo agoCase in point : if you had the biggest military in the world, and no one to credibly oppose you, you'd have a lot of arguments to convince everyone that your bank account is actually full. Lesson 1 of W.Spaniel course on international relationship is that "international order" is the longest running form of anarchy. Pray you stay on the good side of the Emperor closest to your home. It's a good thing the current emperor is old - at least we have patience and trusting biology as an option. Successions are often messy, and I don't see Emperor Trump as the kind to cautiously pick his heir.
- xg15 9mo agoThat's easily written if you're in the country that benefits most from that situation, not so easily in other countries. The entire post-WWII system with the UN and international law was an attempt to change this.
- btilly 9mo agoThat is a misunderstanding. The stated and actual purposes of the UN are different. The actual purpose was to give great powers a place to negotiate with each other, so that we wouldn't get a third world war. That is why the 5 most powerful countries were permanently put on the security council with complete veto powers.
- xg15 9mo agoI imagine this is the difference between how it's taught in Europe and in the US.
- btilly 9mo agoYou imagine wrong. It was a point that I first remember seeing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer. Who is not from the US, but is an expert on the subject. It was in his documentary series War, but I don't remember which episode.
- christkv 9mo agoSo did the EU parliament and a whole range of European countries
- jessriedel 9mo agoI think the (disputable) argument is that, for global stability and equilibrium reasons, there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators.
- Muromec 9mo agoWe are not hovever optimizing for stabilitybanymore in Kali Yuga that we are living through
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- IMTDb 9mo agoCompanies can become « too big to fail » and dictatord can become « too powerful to fall » ?
- close04 9mo agoGeneral rules don’t apply to superpowers or the countries they protect. China, US, Russia get to do whatever their military or economic power affords them, unprovoked aggression, war crimes, terror acts. There are general rules against war crimes and they still happen day after day, under flimsy excuses. Bombed a hospital or a wedding party? There was a suspected terrorist there. White phosphorus over civilians? It was just for the smoke screen. Overthrew a government overseas? Freedom for those poor people.
- wiseowise 9mo agoRussia is a regional power, though.
- close04 9mo agoThe definition is probably not very precise. They started a war of aggression and every other country is tiptoeing around them. Iraq was also a regional power and got a very different treatment. So the “power” line isn’t so clear. China on the other hand doesn’t get visibly involved in almost any remote conflict and they’re obviously a (if not the) superpower.
- ycombinary 9mo agoYou know the president said that the Epstein files were a democrat hoax, right? I feel like at this stage the US administration could contend that the moon is in fact made of cheese and news agencies would respond by running news stories about the implications of this on future possible lunar missions.
- ndsipa_pomu 9mo agoInteresting that they felt the need to redact a hoax and even include an innocent photo of Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson that was redacted to make it look suspect.
- ycombinary 9mo agoI'm so bored. Trump is a sex offender. He's also a convicted criminal. He is also completely devoid of ethics or morality. But because of the car crash that is American politics, you have to address all of this through the theatre of the set of documents associated with the world's most infamous paedophile (who also appears to be his best mate). It's exhausting.
- ndsipa_pomu 9mo agoWell, I'm just an onlooker, so I don't have any influence on U.S. politics. I'm just constantly astonished that the U.S. people would vote for such a charlatan. Twice.
- ycombinary 9mo agoSocial media and tech companies are effectively helping external actors (and malicious internal actors) to break western democracy.
- ndsipa_pomu 9mo agoQuite - that's been patently obvious since the Cambridge Analytica scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Ultimately, there's a war between the haves and the have-nots and one side clearly has more resources.
- gpm 9mo agoIt's also widely acknowledged that elections in Russia are rigged, and yet the US was quite angry at Ukraine over Russia's (false, as it turned out) claim that Ukraine attacked Putin...
- kdavis 9mo agoThe 3rd section of the 14th amendment[1] states that no person having engaged in insurrection[2] shall hold any office, civil or military, in the United States. So technically Trump isn’t a legitimate head of state either. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [2]https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/g-s1-104190/capitol-riot-trump-jack-smith-transcript https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/g-s1-104190/capitol-riot-trum...
- RemainsOfTheDay 9mo ago[dead]
- andsoitis 9mo ago> The 3rd section of the 14th amendment[1] states that no person having engaged in insurrection[2] shall hold any office, civil or military, in the United States. So technically Trump isn’t a legitimate head of state either. Was he tried and convicted? As far as I know the powers that be instead decided for some reason to attack him on other charges (sexual misconduct, corruption, etc.)
- derbOac 9mo agoThe Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump engaged in insurrection as a matter of fact. That is, they deemed it so obvious from the evidence presented (much of which was publicly available) that it didn't require a trial for determination. This was appealed to the US Supreme Court, who didn't rule that this wasn't true, they ruled that the 14th amendment needs to be applied by Congress for reasons of consistency across states... which sidestepped the entire issue and was a dereliction of duty in my opinion, in the sense that they are the highest court and could have ruled on the issue of insurrection, or at least required some kind of jury proceeding at that time. They basically didn't do their one job. Then Jack Smith later amassed a case about it, with grand jury approval. He ran out of time to try and convict Trump before he was elected, basically published a summary report of his case. Recently he testified before a congressional committee about it and asserted he was extremely confident Trump would have been convicted. He testified that he never consulted with Biden about the case, and asked that the rest of his materials from his investigation be publicly released. Legally speaking there is a strong argument that Trump engaged in insurrection; he's just been shielded from the consequences by political maneuvers and poor timing. Put differently, one state supreme court decided he so obviously engaged in it that it didn't require a trial. Another federal attorney presented his evidence to a grand jury and they decided he was likely to succeed if it went to trial. My personal belief is historians will look at the evidence presented and conclude that US Congress made catastrophic mistakes by not impeaching Trump the first time (for obstruction of justice first, and insurrection second), and that SCOTUS made an equally catastrophic mistake (or corrupt decision) by not ruling on insurrection as the highest federal court, either on its own or with a grand jury trial.
- xg15 9mo agoHonestly, I'm getting increasingly fascinated with the utterly absurd logic that states are putting into their justifications for war. You get "preemptive self defense" that urgently requires "buffer zones" on foreign territory, which then mysteriously become your own territory and have to be defended with even more buffer zones. Some Terror Regime of Literal Nazis is doing Unspeakable Atrocities to its own population which practically forces you to invade the country purely out of empathy and the goodness of your heart. Nevermind that the population has never asked for the invasion and will in fact be worse off through the war than before - and that this other state who is your ally is doing the exact same things, but then it's suddenly "realpolitik" and just the way the world works. Someone has broken the law of his own country. "Internal affairs" or grounds for invasion? Depends if he is your ally or enemy. Pardon the cynicism, but my growing impression is that war justifications only serve as discussion fodder for domestic audiences and have very little to do with the actual war.
- mullingitover 9mo ago> war justifications only serve as discussion fodder for domestic audiences and have very little to do with the actual war. Two things intersect here: "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - Carl von Clausewitz "Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex" - Frank Zappa There's a third quote that kinda sums it all up neatly: "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." — George Orwell The media in the US, being a wholesale production of the oligarchy now, has been brazenly honest about the fact that this is purely a large-scale looting of Venezuela.
- xg15 9mo agoThose are some good quotes. Just speculating, but I wonder if there is another purpose as well: To hand the military a story it can tell itself to assure they are still the "good guys" - i.e. ensuring "troop morale". If you have thousands and thousands of servicemembers, not all of them might submit to drill or be motivated by money or career advancements or other personal goals - some people might ask questions about the bigger picture, about why they are doing an operation, etc. I imagine for situations like this, it's useful for an officer to have some ready-made answers available that they can use to counter those questions, even if the answers really don't make a lot of sense. For all the personnel who executed the Maduro operation, the "we're just helping law enforcement to arrest a criminal" story was probably the practical reality for the last months, no matter how ridiculous it is in the larger context.
- throw0101a 9mo ago> Note the US administration contends that he wasn't the legitimate head of state. [1] [2] Trump contends that Biden wasn't the legitimate President because the 2020 election was rigged. If Trump ends up contending the 2026 mid-terms are not legitimate is that valid too? Are they able to act on those contentions to… do stuff?