Venezuela: Preplanned Provocation by Washington,”The Indirect Adaptive Approach” to Regime Change
The Hybrid War on Venezuela is reaching its climax following the preplanned and coordinated provocation of the US and its “Lima Group” allies to recognize Juan Guaidó as the country’s “interim president” after he swore himself into office on the day that the Bolivarian Republic celebrated the 1958 ouster of a former strongman. The symbolism is intentionally designed to send a message to the Venezuelan people that Maduro will be their next leader to be overthrown, as well as signal to the international community that “the people are rising up against the regime”. This didn’t just happen out of the blue, however, but is the culmination of the US’ carefully calibrated regime change strategy over the years that follows the model laid out by the author in his similarly titled 2015 book, “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change”.
What follows is a simplistic summary of what the US did to bring the Bolivarian Republic to the brink:
- Develop A Multifaceted Motive To Justify The Time And Effort
- Externally Disrupt Macroeconomic Development
- Exploit Governmental Mismanagement
- Unleash Previously Organized Color Revolution Cells
- Establish Parallel Governing Structures
- Rely On Designated Proxies To “Justify” Further Intervention
As can be seen, the US carried out surgical interventions at crucial stages of the Hybrid War on Venezuela, with each one being intended to escalate the situation in parallel with various acts of terror. Regrettably, there is no “ideal solution” since both sides are “playing for keeps” and it’s literally all or nothing to each of them. “Compromising” for the so-called “greater good” might embolden the foreign-backed “opposition” to “go in for the kill” just like what happened in February 2014 with the spree of urban terrorism popularly known as “EuroMaidan”, though Maduro might come to conclude that this outcome is “unavoidable” if put under enough pressure and could therefore “peacefully accept” to participate in a “phased leadership transition”. On the other hand, he and the military might fight it out to the end if they believe that they have the majority of the population on their side, just like President Assad did under comparable circumstances, though nevertheless possibly portending a similar outcome of a prolonged conflict and what might turn out to be one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Andrew Korybko, Global Research, 2019
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research