The Venezuela Crisis
Can Venezuela return democracy to the people?
So what's going on?
Venezuela has been going down a dangerous path for years. The problems began with political discontent and corrupt officials, leading to extreme hyperinflation and shortages of food and medicine. When Maduro, the current President, was in his first term of office, his leadership sent the economy into a freefall and many citizens place the blame on his socialist government. He was widely disliked, therefore when he was re-elected into a second term in May of 2018, everyone was suspicious.
It turns out many of the opposition party candidates weren’t allowed to run in the election. Maduro’s government takes even further by threatening to lockup and jail the opposition, which caused many candidates to flee the country. With all this corruption, Maduro’s re-elections was not seen as valid by Venezuela’s opposition controlled National assembly. Therefore, Guaidó, the opposition leader, citing articles 233, 333, and 350 from Venezuela’s constitution (which explains that in such cases, the head of national assembly shall take over as acting President), declared himself acting President on January 23rd of this year. Guaidó has gained enormous recognition as the acting President of Venezuela. International recognition has come from Canada, USA, UK, Argentina, Brazil, and many more.
"If the aid gets in, Maduro is shown to have lost control of the situation; if it doesn't get in, we show that Maduro doesn't care for the suffering of the people." —Juan Miguel Matheus, an MP for the Opposition
On February 23, a ship from Puerto Rico with about six American citizens operating it, carrying 250 tons of humanitarianaid on board, was forced to turn back when the Venezuelan Navy threatened to open fire. Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello addressed this by issuing a statement that read this is “a direct threat against a humanitarian mission being carried out by American citizens.” The Maduro governments continued resistance to accept foreign aid has escalated to a point where violent protests are taking place along the border where trucks with humanitarian supplies have been trying to reach people in need. Most of the violence is being perpetrated by Maduro’s governments while the opposition and those who are in need are facing tremendous obsticles to get supplies. “[People] braved tear gas as they rescued boxes of emergency food and medicine from burning trucks during violent clashes on the Colombian border with security forces blocking the entry of US-supplied humanitarian aid.”
So how can Venezuela return to a democratic country?
The main way Venezuela can regain democracy is that the power of the military must switch over to acting President Guaidó. The military must discontinue the support for a corrupt leader who burns food and medical supplies in front of its own starving and sick citizens. “How many of you national guardsmen have a sick mother? How many have kids in school without food?” Guaidó asked. In a press conference with the President of Colombia, Guaidó said the military did not owe loyalty to such a cruel regime. The only way Venezuela can move forward and amend the economy for the benefit of its citizens is a complete overthrow of the current military power. With recommendations from other nation leaders, including the US and Canada, Venezuela needs to initiate a military coup to return the power of the state to the rightful party, accept international help, and create an environment that lessens the possibility of extreme government corruption.
About the Creator
Shelby Cheveldayoff
Currently pursuing a Political Science degree at University of Saskatchewan
Freelance writer with a focus on politics, human & environmental rights, health & well being
Keep reading
More stories from Shelby Cheveldayoff and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Canadian Diplomats in Cuba Continue to Contract Mysterious Illness
This month marks the 14th Canadian diplomat to become ill while working in the Canadian embassy in Cuba. In total 27 diplomats and their families have reported contracting a type of mysterious illness in the same way their American counterparts in Cuba have also been experiencing. The symptoms include nausea, dizziness, headaches, nose bleeds, and trouble concentrating. The complaints began back in the spring of 2017; Canadian diplomats simultaneously began to experience the same symptoms and were complaining about a strange sonic boom like noise around the time the symptoms started. The victims realized that they could be suffering from the “Havana Syndrome” the term that explains the mysterious illness that had previously affected around 24 American diplomats and their families while in Cuba.
By Shelby Cheveldayoff7 years ago in The Swamp
Why Black History Matters in America?
The United States of America is celebrating their 250th anniversary in 2026. I'm proud to be an American and as someone who was born here, I wouldn't imagine myself living anywhere else. This is a country where opportunities are possible. Where anyone can be successful in anything they desire to do. Equality, community, and togetherness are the backbones of what America is and should be about. However, we have an administration who wants to erase and disregard those who have made positive, meaningful impacts in our country, specifically Black figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and Maya Angelou. President Trump and his administration have been constantly complaining and fighting against what they call the "Woke agenda". They use this excuse as a distraction from other issues they refuse to address, such as the high cost of living, climate change, and inflation. That equality is dividing America, when in reality, it's bringing us together. Being woke is not tied to a specific political party. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you can still care about other people and their plights. Compassion and empathy for others isn't tied to a political party, either. We were taught as children to treat others the way we want to be treated and not judge others because they're different from us. Caring about others isn't a personal attack on your beliefs. It doesn't make you any less of a person. People who are easily offended over African American figures, past or present, or anything related to it, are grasping at straws. Current and future generations need to know who people like Harriet Tubman and Shirley Chisholm were, especially in the classroom. Black History is part of American History. It should be recognized, not hidden or forgotten. Besides, you can't shield children from everything, just because your feelings are easily hurt.
By Mark Wesley Pritchard 5 days ago in The Swamp
Ukraine’s Strategy to Kill 50,000 Russian Soldiers a Month: A Sign of Confidence or an Indicator of Weakness?
Few statements in modern warfare are as arresting as this one: Ukraine’s strategy is to kill 50,000 Russian soldiers a month. Whether spoken openly or inferred through battlefield reporting, the figure has circulated widely among analysts, commentators, and military observers. It represents not just a number, but a philosophy of war—one rooted in attrition, endurance, and the grim mathematics of prolonged conflict. But what does such a strategy actually mean? Is it a sign of Ukrainian confidence—proof that Kyiv believes it can outlast and outfight a numerically larger enemy? Or does it signal weakness, an admission that decisive breakthroughs are no longer realistic? The answer lies somewhere between resolve and necessity. Understanding Attrition Warfare At its core, a strategy centered on killing large numbers of enemy soldiers is a form of attrition warfare. Instead of rapid territorial gains or dramatic maneuvers, success is measured by: Enemy casualties Degradation of manpower Destruction of equipment Erosion of morale Attrition is not glamorous. It is slow, costly, and psychologically exhausting. Yet history shows it has often determined outcomes in long wars—from World War I’s trenches to the Iran-Iraq War and beyond. Ukraine did not begin this war intending to fight an attritional campaign. Its early successes relied on maneuver warfare, surprise, and precision strikes. But as the conflict dragged on, the battlefield changed—and so did Ukraine’s options. Why the Number Matters The figure of 50,000 Russian soldiers per month is not necessarily a literal operational target. Rather, it represents a threshold—the level of losses at which Russia’s ability to sustain the war begins to crack. Russia has a larger population, deeper reserves, and a long history of absorbing enormous casualties. However, even for Moscow, losses on this scale strain: Training systems Officer corps Logistics Domestic political tolerance If Russia loses tens of thousands of troops monthly, replacements become less effective, less motivated, and less experienced. Over time, quantity stops compensating for quality. From Ukraine’s perspective, this is the war’s central calculation. A Strategy Born of Constraints To understand whether this approach signals confidence or weakness, it’s essential to examine why Ukraine may be pursuing it. Limited Resources Ukraine does not have infinite manpower. Its population is smaller, and mobilization carries political and economic costs. Prolonged offensives that trade territory for lives are unsustainable. Instead, Ukraine has leaned into: Precision artillery Drones and loitering munitions Long-range strikes on logistics Defensive fortifications These methods aim to maximize Russian losses while minimizing Ukrainian casualties—a classic asymmetric approach. Western Aid Realities Ukraine’s strategy is also shaped by the nature of Western support. While allies have provided weapons, ammunition, and intelligence, that aid has often been: Delayed Politically constrained Insufficient for rapid breakthroughs Without overwhelming superiority in air power or armor, Ukraine cannot easily replicate the kind of decisive offensives seen in past wars. Attrition becomes not just a choice, but a necessity. The Case for Confidence Supporters of Ukraine’s approach argue that targeting massive Russian losses reflects strategic confidence, not desperation. Confidence in Intelligence and Targeting Ukraine’s ability to inflict heavy casualties relies on: Real-time intelligence Western surveillance support Advanced targeting systems The consistent destruction of Russian artillery, command posts, and troop concentrations suggests Ukraine believes it can maintain this kill rate over time. That belief implies confidence in its operational capabilities. Confidence in Russian Weakness Ukraine’s leadership may believe that Russia’s apparent resilience is overstated. While Moscow can mobilize bodies, it struggles with: Poor training Corruption Low morale Weak junior leadership High casualty rates magnify these problems. A force that replaces veterans with barely trained recruits becomes increasingly brittle. From this perspective, killing 50,000 soldiers a month is not unrealistic—it is the path to eventual collapse. The Case for Weakness Critics, however, see the strategy as a warning sign. Lack of Breakthroughs Attrition-focused strategies often emerge when: Maneuver options are exhausted Offensives stall Defenses become impenetrable Ukraine’s counteroffensives have achieved limited territorial gains at enormous cost. Emphasizing enemy casualties can sometimes mask the absence of strategic momentum. If killing becomes the primary metric of success, it may reflect an inability to achieve decisive outcomes. Unsustainable Expectations The figure of 50,000 per month also raises questions about credibility. Casualty figures in war are notoriously unreliable. Inflated estimates can: Shape public perception Maintain morale Justify continued sacrifice But if expectations are set too high, they risk backfiring. When reality fails to match rhetoric, confidence erodes—both domestically and among allies. Russia’s Willingness to Absorb Losses A central gamble in Ukraine’s strategy is the assumption that Russia will eventually break under sustained casualties. History offers mixed lessons. Russia has endured catastrophic losses before—often with little immediate political consequence. The Kremlin tightly controls media narratives, represses dissent, and frames casualties as patriotic sacrifice. However, modern Russia is not the Soviet Union of World War II. Today’s society is more connected, more consumer-oriented, and more sensitive to prolonged instability. Whether Russia’s tolerance for losses has a breaking point remains one of the war’s great unknowns. The Human Cost Behind the Numbers Focusing on monthly kill rates risks abstracting the human reality of war. Each number represents: A life lost A family destroyed A trauma multiplied For Ukraine, emphasizing enemy casualties may be psychologically necessary—but it also underscores the war’s moral weight. A strategy defined by death reflects a conflict with few remaining illusions. This reality complicates the notion of “confidence.” Sometimes endurance, not optimism, drives such choices. Information Warfare and Messaging Statements about killing tens of thousands of enemy soldiers also serve an information warfare function. They aim to: Signal resolve to allies Deter Russian escalation Undermine Russian morale Reinforce Ukraine’s narrative of resistance In this sense, the strategy is as much about perception as battlefield outcomes. Confidence, here, may be performative—but performance matters in modern war. What This Strategy Says About the War’s Trajectory Whether confident or constrained, the focus on attrition suggests one clear reality: Ukraine is preparing for a long war. Not months—but years. A war where: Victory is incremental Gains are measured in degradation, not conquest Survival itself becomes success In such a context, killing 50,000 soldiers a month is not an end—it is a means to keep the conflict winnable. Conclusion: Confidence, Weakness, or Something Else? Ukraine’s apparent strategy to kill massive numbers of Russian soldiers each month is neither pure confidence nor simple weakness. It is a reflection of: Strategic realism Structural constraints Calculated endurance Ukraine believes it can survive longer than Russia can tolerate loss. That belief contains confidence—but also acknowledges the limits of what is possible. In wars of attrition, victory does not always belong to the strongest or the fastest. It often belongs to the side that can endure the longest without breaking. Whether Ukraine’s calculation is correct remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the strategy reveals a nation that understands the cost of war—and has chosen to pay it slowly, deliberately, and with eyes wide open.
By Zahid Hussain2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.