Onder welke voorwaarden kan de VS een militair conflict winnen?
6-1-2026
Rather than treating Venezuela as a moral drama or ideological conflict, this analysis focuses on terrain, regime cohesion, strategic depth, and imperial limits. From Vietnam to Iraq to Panama, the United States has followed a familiar playbook when intervening abroad. Venezuela breaks that model. Professor Jiang explains why: Venezuela lacks the conditions that allow for fast regime collapse American military superiority does not translate into political victory. Sanctions, air strikes, and covert pressure lead to managed escalation, not control Geography, popular legitimacy, and external alliances change the outcome.
The most likely scenario is prolonged stalemate, not regime change. This is not a defense of any government. This is a cold structural forecast of how power actually behaves. If you are tired of propaganda, surface-level punditry, and moral theater—and want to understand how conflicts really end—this episode provides a clear, rational framework. Topics Covered Game theory and imperial decision-making.
Why Vietnam and Iraq succeeded where Venezuela won’t. The limits of air power and sanctions Why America avoids full-scale invasion. How controlled conflict becomes a negotiation tool What a “win” actually means in modern geopolitics This is predictive history, not opinion. This content is an educational reconstruction of Prof. Jiang’s lectures arguments for archival study and geopolitical interpretation.
Deel dit bericht
pageviews: 20
