Korybko: Regime-Tweaking, Not Regime-Change, Is What The US Just Achieved In Venezuela
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The piece leans hard on the idea that Washington “regime-tweaked” Venezuela, as if that’s a cleaner, more responsible category of intervention. But swapping personalities while leaving coercive structures intact is still a bet with real costs, and the public deserves clarity about what was done, why, and under what authority. Conservatives don’t need romantic talk about “democracy promotion” to see the stakes.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
.jpg?itok=Z13iPS4f)
Korybko: Regime-Tweaking, Not Regime-Change, Is What The US Just Achieved In Venezuela Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,This refers to keeping the targeted state’s power structure in place but after some (at times significant) changes that advance the meddling state’s interests.Some critics of the US’ “special military operation” in Venezuela claim that it didn’t succeed despite President Nicolas Maduro’s capture since the “Chavismo deep state” that he presided over remains in place.This refers to the explicitly ideological elements of his country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies but can be expanded to include governors and trade unions among other groups.The point is that removing Maduro from the political equation didn’t result in regime change.That...
Original source:
Read at ZerohedgeHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The piece leans hard on the idea that Washington “regime-tweaked” Venezuela, as if that’s a cleaner, more responsible category of intervention. But swapping personalities while leaving coercive structures intact is still a bet with real costs, and the public deserves clarity about what was done, why, and under what authority.
Conservatives don’t need romantic talk about “democracy promotion” to see the stakes. The questions are rule of law, public trust, and whether this move actually advances national security instead of creating another long-tail mess that spills into our border and our energy markets.
If the goal is energy stability and limiting China’s footprint, fine. But that should be pursued through clear objectives, lawful leverage, and measurable outcomes, not vague confidence that a new strongman will “do what we want.”
A serious America First policy is judged by results and restraint. The principle at stake is accountability in foreign policy, not wordplay about what kind of “change” it was.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.