Even if Venezuela goes to hell even deeper, she still deserves the prize for what she has already done!
The way she, and her team, managed to convince venezuelans that the election mattered, and to prepare to gather the evidence of the elections under constant threats from the government, that we all knew they were going to steal, and do it entirely peacefully, was an extremely impressive achievement on its own.
Disclaimer: I'm not accusing you of (intentionally or unintentionally) doing this but your comment brought up the issue.
For a lot of horrific events in the world, you will find a bias exposed by the use of active vs passive voice. Compare:
- "100 children died". How?
- "100 children killed". By whom? Why? How?
- "100 children killed in conflict". Between who? How? Why?
' "100 children killed in air strike on refugee camp by X". Oh...
The point is that a lot of people treat what is happening in Venezuela like it's some kind of unavoidable natural disaster like an earthquake. This reinforces the idea that nobody is responsible and, more improtantly, there's nothing we can do.
Venezuelans are being intentionally starved to death by economic sanctions (that's what sactions are). Why? Because Maduro is bad. Sound familiar? It should. Castro was bad. Saddam Hussein was bad (despite being a US puppet for decades).
The actual issue is that these people threaten the interests of Western companies. That's it. That's the only thing that matters.
Maduro, Castro, and Saddam Hussein are/were bad. Castro and Hussein, at least, committed murders to maintain power and Maduro pulled a coup after he lost an election.
Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.
In 1988, Saddam Hussein dropped nerve gas on Kurds. Saddam was then a US ally and a foil against Iran. The US had propped up that war killing millions of Iraqis and Iranians for almost a decade for basically a net zero outcome. Why was Iran an enemy? Because the US deposed the democratically elected government in 1953 becasue they threatened to nationalize their own oil reserves.
Do you see a pattern here? Like at all?
The key point is that Saddam could drop nerve gas on Iraqi citizens and it still didn't change him being a US ally (and puppet). We don't care about someone being "bad". We never have. Saddam only ceased to become an ally when he invaded Kuwait and threatened our truly regional ally, Saudi Arabia.
All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets.
Hungary is a member of NATO and a US ally despite Viktor Orban essentially overthrowing democracy and genuinely being bad.
We helped overthrow Basher Al-Asaad. The al-asaads were former US allies too by the way. Why? Because now they were bad. Who is the new Syrian president? A man by the name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Who is that you might ask? A former al-Qaeda leader, you know the guys were the Big Bad [tm] for 9/11. But that's OK, he (allegedly) cut ties with al-Aqeda in 2016 so all is forgiven. Let's not look too deeply into 15 or the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi.
Here's the lesson: whenever the US says someone is being punished, bombed, sanctioned, invaded or whatever because they're "bad" know that it's a lie. I mean they might be bad. But that's never the reason for whatever the latest punitive action is. Always, always, always the reason is become the interests of US foreign policy or Western companies is being threatened.
It's wild to claim Saddam was a US ally just two years before Iraq invaded Kuwait against US demands and got bombed by the US in the Gulf War. You are confusing offshore balancing between Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war with "ally". You need to look up the definitions of these words.
And to claim Assad was a US ally is even more outrageous, where to even start. He was a Russian ally and a Hezbollah ally, not a US ally. All of his military equipment came from Russia. All of his air support came from Russia. He allowed Iranian arms to flow to Hezbollah and was supported on the ground in Syria by Hezbollah. And he is now hiding in Russia playing video games after killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. He and the US had a common foe in ISIS for a period, but they were otherwise antagonistic over the duration of the civil war.
Saddam was a de facto US ally till 1988. The relationship ended with the end of their mutual interests.
US sent terrorism suspects to Bashar regime to be tortured after 9/11.
Yeah eventually both relationships fell out but all the vile things both did happened under US watch, and US only stepped in when political/economic clash happened.
We are adhering to definitions of words. The US engaged in classic offshore balancing by backing Iraq when Iran gained the momentum on the frontline. There was no alliance between Iraq and the US.
waiting for details on how "backing Iraq" is materially different from an "alliance" with Iraq...I'm hesitant to throw yet _another_ word into the mix but there's an entire wikipedia page on US "support" for Iraq.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the US is extremely hypocritical. The US has a long history of overthrowing democracies and supporting dictators, all in the name of "democracy" (oil, mostly).
That doesn't make Maduro a good guy, though. Nor Castro. Nor Batista, for that matter. And Orban is widely seen as Putin's ally in the EU. Most Europeans would rather be rid of him, but you can't just kick a country out of the EU, unfortunately.
Or Trump. He's as bad as the others. He'd certainly like to be. He wants to turn the US into the same kind of dictatorship.
> All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets.
That's not all. Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime, nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. He replaced a brutal dictatorship with another brutal dictatorship, a communist one, and ran the Cuban economy into the ground.
> Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime
...so naturally, the solution is to make the life of the people under that regime even worse by sanctioning the country?
> nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis.
in other words, did things that threatened American interests.
The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis didn't begin on October 16, 1962. Nor did it begin when the Soviet Union put missiles on Cuban territory. It began when the US put nuclear missiles (Jupiter MRBMs) in Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. Those were quietly removed months after the crisis because of a secret agreement between JFK and Khrushchev.
And yes, Cuba nationalized assets. As I said. You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is the US doing colonialism and imperialism a good thing that needs to be defended exactly?
And let's say Batista and Castro were both brutal dictatorships (which is what you said), why is one bad and one good? Why is one an ally and another a mortal enemy? You're making my point: the US does not and never has cared about people being bad or doing bad things. It's purely about economic interests. That's it.
Oh and Castro's involvement in Latin America? I'm sorry, what? From overthrowing the government in Guatemala in 1954 at the behest of a US fruit company to propping up Pinochet in Chile to Noriega in Nicaragua to El Salvador to Columbia and so on, let's compare Castro's impact and legacy to that of the US and see who has done the most harm, shall we?
The Cuban economy suffered because the US starved it. But of course Castro gets the blame for that too.
Yes, but the point is that sanctions don't get rid of those people, they're just collective punishment on the population. (Plus are used for propaganda if the blame for an economic crisis in a country is put entirely on its regime or economic system and the fact that the country is currently under sanctions is conveniently omitted. See again: Cuba, Venezuela)
At the end of the day the purpose of sanctions is to deliberately worsen the quality of life of the population in the sanctioned country. That can't be a tool for good.
The uncritical, unfounded, white supremacist equivalence of the names of Global South heads of state that share nothing other than their inclusion in the never-ending spectacle of a collapsing and always fascist empire’s hitlist. I’m reminded of how this abomination of a country relentlessly linked Marcus Garvey (Black nationalist and Capitalist) and W.E.B. DuBois (Black pan-Africanist and eventually communist) both with the label “Bolshevik” and “Communist threat” as justification for surveillance, incarceration.
This “dictator” meme, played out for the last 100 plus years is tired and tiring especially in a place that has a higher incarceration rate than USSR in the 1930s ( or Cuba ) and is currently snatching up folk for the crime of speaking Spanish, while US Southern Command blows up Venezuelan fisherman for the crime of feeding their families.
Venezuelans are being starved by the sheer incompetency/corruption of its leaders. It’s a kleptocracy.
The collapse started way earlier than the sanctions. It’s funny, but it’s even insulting that some people cannot comprehend that there is evil beyond their own frontiers. Not everything wrong that happens in the world is because an empire is meddling, we are also capable of being useless by ourselves!
> Not everything wrong that happens in the world is because an empire is meddling, we are also capable of being useless by ourselves!
A petrostate kleptocracy can still trickle down enough scraps for it's people. An empire that controls global markets that sanctions an petrostate kleptocracy into just a kleptocracy, can't. The reality is no amount of competent governance is going to enable a petrostate like VZ to not be a shitshow if it's sanctioned from maintaining extractive infra (techstack controlled by empire) or sell in global markets. It's not about just being useless, but the inability to be useful no matter what you do. Yes, VZ got fucked from oil $100->$40 pre sanctions, but that's still a survivable/pivotable scenario than oil production going from 3 mbd to 400k mbd due to sanctions that prevents reconstitution of production. There's a reason economic freefall stabilized when Cheveron got license in 2022 that brought production back up to 1mbd.
Now you can argue a "competent" government would have conceded to Monroe (like Machado) in the first place, or not pissed off US in backyard. Like, I get it, you're living through the shit, but don't be economically/geopolitically naive, US didn't sanction VZ because muh democracy decline under Muduro when US props up other petro authoritarian MENA states. The only difference is US meddle with those that align with US interests and not, and US meddling is what makes or breaks petro states.
>In Washington, American officials offer differing assessments of the talks. One U.S. official said the reports of negotiations over the lifting of sanctions and access to the Venezuelan market was “not an accurate assessment of what took place.”
...
>As Mr. Grenell and Mr. Maduro’s envoys negotiated a deal, the leader of Venezuela’s main opposition movement, María Corina Machado, pitched her own economic proposal in Washington.
Did you not even read the article, like it's 2025, posting NYT article regarding US adversary like VZ and analyzing it naively is useful idiot behavior. That said, Trump is not a LIO woketard and someone Maduro thinks can be negotiated with, the fact is Maduro is fine with operating under US umbrella, provided US didn't do retarded shit like try a muh democracy regime change like under past US admins. Of course US establishment would still prefer a tool like Machado, but there's a chance under Trump that they'll accept Maduro. That's why the article talks about both Machado an and Maduro parallel barginning. This just 101 signalling, dangling Machado for more Maduro concessions - Machado isn't actually an option, because you know, she'll get disappeared if Maduro thinks US can actuall regime change with her. Hence Machado and this sus (granted marginally deserved) Nobel peace prize is good pressure to get Maduro to concede more. The fact that Maduro is making offer is because he knows there's framework for him staying in power, unlike past US admin zero-sum/maximum pressure play with Guaido. He know's a non-democratic VZ like non-democratic MENA petrostate that aligns with US interests is workable under Trump who is moving away from democracy promotion to realist foreign policy especially with recent strategic shift in focusing on South America.
GenX leftists think every problem in the world is caused by "corporations" and if you think any given problem is not caused by "corporations" they will assume you're lying. It goes beyond believing in conspiracy theories; they're literally incapable of believing in something /unless/ it's a conspiracy theory.
Most recent examples being "climate change is caused by 100 companies" and "housing prices are caused by BlackRock" which are both entirely fictional.
(There is an obvious rightist equivalent of this which has historically caused a lot more problems.)
This is the issue with all populist ideologies, where there is one monolithic boogieman that explains all ills. The real world just doesn't work like that. It's an interesting case study into confirmation bias and bad quality thinking, I guess.
Letter from the President and Prime Minister Mossadegh on the Oil Situation and the Problem of Aid to Iran dated July 9, 1953 (emphasis added) [1]:
> It was primarily because of that hope that the United States Government during the last two years has made earnest efforts to assist in eliminating certain differences between Iran and the United Kingdom which have arisen as a result of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. It has been the belief of the United States that the reaching of an agreement in the matter of compensation would strengthen confidence throughout the world in the determination of Iran fully to adhere to the principles which render possible a harmonious community of free nations; that it would contribute to the strengthening of the international credit standing of Iran; and that it would lead to the solution of some of the financial and economic problems at present facing Iran.
Effect on National Security Interests in Latin America of Possible Anti-Trust Proceedings, June 1, 1953 [2]:
> Elsewhere in Central America, institution of the action would greatly stimulate movements to nationalize the properties of the Company. Such nationalization is now threatened to some degree in all countries in which the Company operates, particularly in Costa Rica through the possible accession to the presidency of Jose Figueres, who is not a Communist but is openly speaking of nationalization. To the extent such nationalization is achieved, it would not only affect a private company, but would have direct and far-reaching repercussions on our strategic position.
National Intelligent Estimate: CHILE: THE ALTERNATIVES FACING THE ALLENDE REGIME, June 29, 1972 [3]:
> n the basis of the record so far, Chile’s future course remains to a large extent an open issue. To be sure, the regime carried out a substantial part of its program during its first year, particularly in the economic area. With little effective opposition—indeed, in many cases with a broad consensus—Allende nationalized key economic sectors, redistributed income in favor of the poorer classes, and accelerated land expropriation.
I don't understand why don't deal with Maduro but Trump regards Putin as practically an old friend, while both treat their people equally shitty. Same with some other countries, what is the litmus test?
Is this a serious question? SK is a strong ally of the USA and along with Japan bolsters their presence in this part of Asia. China, a geopolitical enemy of the USA, is also lightly allied with NK.
The Venezuelan regime makes money from oil. They do not need to involve the population to generate most of the GDP.
To them, spending resources to have a healthy and happy populace is just a waste of money that would otherwise go to the rulers of the regime. The CGP "Rules for rulers" explains how this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
They stay in power with the help of a paramilitary group of bullies that intimidates people: colectivos. The Venezuelan colectivos are based on the Cuban CDR (committee for the defense of the revolution). And there are other elements of the Cuban "model" of staying in power that has "worked" for 66 years, that Venezuelan regime has adopted. And the CDR resembles the Nazi Sturmabteilung in their modus operandi.
So in the end what's holding the regime together is all violence, all the way down.
The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population, the result is a regime. Scalable and cost efficient AGI will do the same to countries that do not make most of their GDP from extracting natural resources because once the citizen is not needed for wealth generation, territorial control, etc., their political representation goes away.
> The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population, the result is a regime. Scalable and cost efficient AGI will do the same to countries that do not make most of their GDP from extracting natural resources because once the citizen is not needed for wealth generation, territorial control, etc., their political representation goes away.
Doesn't Norway bring that conclusion in doubt? The state gets massive revenue from oil as well as oil-financed investments, but is still very much a democracy.[0]
It might be that democratic countries are more resilient to that kind of effect because (and to the degree that) they already decouple productive power from representation.
E.g. a welfare state doesn't make sense from a purely GDP-selfish perspective, beyond as a crime-prevention tool, since people on disability benefits don't work. But they still exist.
Sometimes I believe that democratic systems can also be so polarized (as america) and rest of the countries that they simply split a country into two pieces somehow.
One might want lets say welfare to the youth/masses and the other wouldn't want it sometimes it feels like just to differentiate themselves from the first or to just contradict it.
We have sort of stopped coming to common agreements in republicans and democrats and heck some democrat bsky user pasted me an AI pic for something and when I said that it doesn't actively contribute to the thread they had the balls to say "Google things.Do your own research. Research." Like uh okay mate, we are on the same page but even then they came across as passive agressive :/
We just infight and never try to reach conclusion's man. And if we do and become tolerant, some intolerant freak hijacks the system, maybe the system's broken a little, I am not sure. but I know its the best hope
It is possible that in a future where territorial control is done by robots and drones that are mass produced and maybe even self-replicating, and the scientific and economic output comes from AGI, there won't be ballot boxes anymore. There will be also no food stamps, hospitals, a justice system or anything that benefits the common person. Everyone will just be building power plants and datacenters and robot factories while being supervised a robot or being implanted with a motor control chip, or being processed into Soylent green to be fed to a chemical reactor to power a data center with the same level of indifference we currently have for animals in industrial farming. All while the people running the dystopia party all day and take selfies while not caring at all.
The difference is that leadership and wealth has agency and power. Of course the coming dystopia will serve to benefit them exclusively. Who do you think is calling the shots here today? Billionaires are. These are products designed for them by people they hired. The idea of using profit to create a billionaire is already inefficient and yet, that is how most of these companies are structured to burn profit on enriching the few vs having the ceo live like a monk and putting everything back into the company.
Leadership and wealth are quite fluid in major transitions.
Read up on the US robber barons and they didn’t come from old money. The relatively recent (80’s to today) round of Tech billionaires don’t hail back to earlier great fortunes and most VC investors lost money compared to a simple index fund.
The first few rounds of AI investors are already getting screwed.
It's actually now used in a lot of political science papers.
It means a particular combination of autocracy and oil-dependence. It results in especially toxic regimes, that can be kept stable for quite a long time.
Such countries already have not only smoke alarms but also building codes and layers of safety systems.
The analogy matches a person who goes to a place with high fire risk and no safety systems in place and through tireless effort introduces common sense measures to protect people.
You may think that but Alfred Nobel disagreed and it is his prize. If she fits the criteria is another question but it was certainly not intended to just be about real wars and real peace (whatever that is).
den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och afskaffande
eller minskning af stående arméer samt bildande och spridande af
fredskongresser
shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and
promotion of peace congresses
English translation is taken from Wikipedia and not totally exact but close enough.
I would say that is likely a correct translation as the original text refers to nation as in a group of people with a shared culture. But, yes, it is not nation as in country. So the original text refers to fraternity between peoples of different cultures, not of fraternity between countries.
From the quote it doesn't seem like Alfred Nobel had civil or political rights in mind with his prize. (Not that it bothers me to give it to civil rights activists though)
It does because Alfred Nobel cared about internationalism and pacifism, neither "real wars" nor civil rights. I did not say she was a worthy winner just that we should look at what the will actually says instead of just inventing an own definition.
Excuses me, English isn't my native language but how isn't “fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”[1] talking about actual war between countries (which I'm pretty certain is what yostrovs was talking about with (arguably clumsy) “real war” phrase.
Consider this. There are circumstances in Venezuela that some would consider worthy of a civil war. This award winner has chosen peaceful resistance, acts that may have prevented war.
So, first off: as a matter of "taste", I really don't like the idea of giving the Peace prize specifically to anybody whose attitude is "where's my Nobel?" It should be going to somebody who believes in the cause they're fighting for and fights with no expectation of recognition, not to somebody looking to add a feather to their cap. This probably shouldn't be a criterion when choosing the winnner, but it does make me happy if the choice is consistent with this principle.
Second: If, by the end of 2026, the Israel/Palestine ceasefire is still holding, if there is real progress towards lasting peace, if Trump's administration carries on acting as a mediating force in the conflict, then, by all means, maybe he should win the 2026 prize. As of today, he just got them to sign a piece of paper. To be clear, that is still an important milestone, it makes the world better than it was a week ago, and he should get credit for getting it done. It's just not the achievement he wants us to believe it is (yet?).
Third: The man thrives on conflict, he sows divisivenes at every step. He's literally deploying the military domestically. Whatever merit there is to his peace deals doesn't nearly amount to enough to make him a net positive force for peace in the world. And that should be a factor in choosing the winner.
Ah yes, the man actively murdering civilians via illegal drone strikes in the Caribbean and invading US cities with the Department of War, who launched dozens of missiles from stealth bombers over Iran and who has greatly expanded the drone war that Biden has mostly ended.
I would love to hear a discussion between you and those who believe Trump has pulled off the diplomatic coup of the century so far. A dispassionate observer might see a touch of TDS. Not me of course.
Nobel Peace Prize: to the "person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
I love how the TDS is used to describe the vast majority of people in the world who see the obvious faults of a geriatric narcissist intent on authoritarian rule and not to describe his supporters who blindly subscribe to all manner of contradictory and previously loathed positions simply because he changes his mind.
Or said another way - wouldn’t “TDS” be better used to describe those who spent the last decade insistent on free speech as a sacrosanct issue, the national debt as our primary concern, political targeting by Federal law enforcement as a universal sin, and states rights as the Foundation of our liberties while the Admin works contrary to each of those points in especially galling ways…
From the New York Times "The Daily" podcast today:
Mark, what you've described and what we're seeing unfold is genuinely an impressive feat by Trump. To be able to capitalize on what seemed like this giant setback. Israel literally bombed the negotiators and the mediators. To turn that around and get a deal that Biden couldn't get done, that no other leader in the world had managed despite trying for two years straight. It is significant achievement. He was able to bring these sides together that had shown no willingness to end the war. And now they've come to this agreement. And it should also be said that one of the biggest things here is that he was willing to put pressure on Netanyahu in a way that President Biden was unwilling to do. Why do you think that's the case?
I think there's a few reasons. First, I think Trump genuinely wanted to end the war. He campaigned on ending the war in Ukraine and in Gaza.
Too late for this year, but if it holds it should be considered for next year.
This is like buying tickets to watch your favorite sports team win first place. It's good to support the boys, but you'd didn't do anything. The rest of Trump's thinly veiled autocratic tendencies — whether they're rhetoric aimed to rile up opponents or real goals — have done little to promote fraternity amongst nations & people.
This is, as yet, being reported in contradictory ways when I went looking to see if it was correct so here’s the link to where she appears to do this, assuming the post is authentic (no reason to believe otherwise but these days…)
"Political expediency makes for strange bedfellows, news at 11!"
I'm not even sure I'm against everything Trump is up to (it's unclear to me); I just don't like the autocratic moves: it's unamerican, and bad for democracy. It's setting a standard & an allowable behavior that could be exploited by bad people.
It should be considered all right, but the committee is also going to look at the whole person and Trump isn't exactly the Gandhi-like figure you'd expect to win the prize.
I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed, but he's also driving a wedge in the US that can't be ignored. Sending American troops against its own citizen: not exactly Nobel-prize worthy.
> I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed
This is a strange thought considering his actions.
Between drone strikes, mishandling of COVID, dismantling of foreign aid, defunding American health care, cutting off Ukraine support at several critical moments, encouraging and materially supporting Israel, he may actually end up (or already be) responsible for the most deaths of any president.
> I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed
While I do understand this might be true in essence, things are a lot more complicated. He's said some heinous things that riled up actual loonies into a frenzy more than once. Deliberately. Not peace price material IMHO.
(To be fair, I generally lean left, but I don't agree with Obama getting the prize in 2009 as well, what with the targeted assassination program and all)
Its almost like there should be a Nobel "anti-prize" denouncing these people.
It remains to be seen if this turns into anything. He deliberately misunderstood the Palestinians and made the proclamation that everything was fixed. The Palestinians have to give up some major things for this to work, things they were previously unwilling to do, and are probably still unwilling to do.
The nominations for this year's prize closed January 31st; anyone doing anything worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize after that date may be considered for next year.
> To turn that around and get a deal that Biden couldn't get done,
Biden had different pressures. E.g. I suspect that he judged that the knife-edge election he was facing didn't allow him enough leeway to put more pressure on Israel.
In addition Netanyahu made it easier to force through a settlement given he'd manage to alienate practically everyone, including uniting the Arab world after that unbelievable strike on Doha.
If you were a cynical person you could also ask whether this settlement owes anything to Trump's personal narcissist saviour complex or need to distract from domestic issues such as the Epstein files...
Still, even despite some significant scepticism about Trump's motives, I think there is a reasonable case to be made for awarding him the prize. It was still a significant (maybe even brave) jump to break with American political orthodoxy to put this kind of pressure on Israel, and the practical result of this could be very significant in terms of saving lives and potentially long-term peace in the region. We also need to encourage these kind of acts, even (or especially) amongst unlikely peacemakers like Trump.
Let's see what it looks like next year, though. Middle East peace deals don't have a great history of holding together.
I would love full transparency to the Biden Admin's dealings wrt Israel.
I've wondered if one of the (under reported) pressures was the realpolitik geopolitical machinations of containing Iran. Especially wrt Iran's closer ties with Russia and China.
But even with insight, I would not forgive.
The whole thing just angers and saddens me. Neighbors killing neighbors. For nothing.
So many missed opportunities, snafus. Imagine what could have been. Normalization between USA-Iran (post-9/11, pre- "Axis of Evil"). Some kind of accommodation for coexistence. Nurturing democracy and development throughout the middle east.
And on and on. Going back decades, generations, ...
Trump does not fit the criteria set out by Alfred Nobel. By increasing the NATO spending he worked against "the abolition or reduction of standing armies" and he has made the "fraternity between nations" a lot worse with random threats which I doubt would weight up his "promotion of peace congresses".
I really hope they would not award someone the prize who works so blatantly against the word and spirit of the criteria in the will.
"...he was willing to put pressure on Netanyahu in a way that President Biden was unwilling to do."
Unwilling or unable? Netanyahu hated Biden and has done everything in his power to sabotage anything Democrats have done to try to help resolve the conflict, even prior to Oct 7.
Not even sure there's evidence of the pressure? What pressure?
Trump let Netanyahu run roughshod, and the proposed peace agreement (which almost certainly won't hold) is pretty... let's say vague... about the plan for Gaza post hostage-release.
All that's happened here is another agreement to exchange hostages for prisoners, which has happened multiple times in this war already. Not much else is actually agreed to and obviously even less has actually happened.
Unwilling. Biden has been a Zionist and Netanyahu/Likud supporter for decades. They put on a show in press briefings but did nothing behind closed doors, instead kept supplying them.
Far more importantly, this might force Trump to continue the pressure on the Israelis, whose very nature is to be untrustworthy, not worth trusting, since they love not just violating agreements but also using agreements as a lever for abuse. There are all the typical Israeli fingerprints all over the current deal that the Israelis will likely use to bring the whole thing back down around Trump unless he can maintain pressure. This prize increases the slim likelihood that he will have to of he covers that prize as much as it seems he does. I do not think he can or will though, and the Israelis may just even persuade him that they have a far more juicy prize to offer him instead.
I think Trump wanted to force the rather compromised committee to make a similarly foolish decision as giving Obama the prize, which would have then permitted immediate Israeli breach of the settlement.
Not to take away from Machado’s work, but this year’s prize is at the very least political, to both appease Trump in line with the above and also send a message in the face of the war build-up against Venezuela. At the same time their decision also facilitates the American takeover through less than lethal means by CIA revolution and the combined pressure of it all on the Venezuelan government. Machado is in fact a CIA asset, whether she realizes it or not.
Machado is in fact a CIA asset, whether she realizes it or not.
If you think Eastern Europe was liberated without involvement from the CIA, which has a mixed history w.r.t. competent ops in that region, I've got a Nobel prize to sell you.
No. I just don’t care for America “liberating” other people in direct violation of the founding principles of America before it was overtaken by all manner of parasitic foreign vultures that want to commandeer America for their own little ethic agendas and priorities that expose all of them as not actually being American, regardless of what the paperwork says. You can’t be made American when America exists in name only anymore.
If you've been paying attention, you see that Trump is not, as you put it, appeased at all. He doesn't know who Machado is. He utterly and publicly and loudly missed the irony.
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were not hijacked by ethnic agendas, again,, as you put it. The outcome they achieved was the whole point of the Cold War. It was an outcome with bipartisan support over the course of decades. Defending the value of that outcome by supporting Ukraine and NATO is also not anything as small as an ethnic agenda.
There’s kidnapping, imprisonment, torture and rape of political dissidents.
They created an exodus of 8 million people.
Starved the population.
Killed people in the thousands in the favelas and other poor areas without a trial.
Steals elections.
To me that’s a regime at war with its own population and it deserves all the condemnation possible and all the support necessary to help transition back to democracy.
What he is being accused of is a tiny fraction of what has been proven to have taken place in Gaza, under the protection of the west.
Yet the aircraft carriers are poised in the gulf to enact a third regime change operation in this oil rich country America wants under its thumb with a puppet running it.
This is the PR campaign beforehand, just like the "WMD" PR campaign in the run up to Iraq, with a woman who supports genocide in Gaza (https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036 ) being lauded with a nobel peace prize. This is probably to lend her legitimacy when she becomes that puppet.
Saddam was a bad man too but he was an average evil. The warmongers who want to destabilize every country with oil, send in the tanks and install yet another Western puppet to maintain an iron grip on global oil supplies are a very special and unique kind of evil.
I’m not going to engage in a competition of tragedies. You are replying to a venezuelan with relatives and friends that have suffered and still suffer the consequences of the regime.
Just stop and think for a moment before even think about downplaying or comparing what is happening in my country with other world conflicts, and please don’t even dare to explain what I’ve been living.
We've heard it all before, we speak english so you're not a true venezuelan, you're part of some rich caste, you're not brown enough, you're a bot, etc ... 25 years of this bullshit no matter where we go. The international left abandoned us, the international right uses us as circus act.
Of course it'd be easier for your narrative if we were defenseless people begging in our native tongue for help. It's harder when a lot of Venezuelans are actually highly educated and want to control their own country and destiny.
>> IME the venezuelans who ended up abroad speaking English almost exclusively and up being people whose families were sucking on the teat of the oil wealth under the pre Maduro government before he ripped it out of their mouths and redistributed the wealth
you mean the almost 10 million of us that left, 1/3 of the population? the 2.5 million that went to Colombia alone by foot? or the ones that that walked all the way to Peru and Ecuador to meet discrimination and xenophobia. Those are all sucking on the oil teat? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis)
>> So i guess you want this Iraq style military operation to happen. I pity your relatives for what you want to happen to them.
No one wants that, and no one said they want that. Stop making stuff up
Gotta love when foreigners explain to me what my country is going through. And they don’t even stop to think about what they are doing, it’s borderline insulting.
Dude, now you're just being racist. So the only true Venezuelan for you is the one that can't actually stand on it's own and speak to the world? I'm privileged because I speak English?
You have no idea who I am, you're making assumptions based solely on the language I use to speak to you.
And once again, no one is talking about war, you're the only one going on about it. No one wants a war and we want Maduro out, not mutually exclusive by a long shot.
And what's Iraq got to do with this? Stop making everything about the US
All countries that have a regime have many factions: supporters, opposition, those who are well-intentioned and those who would just like their side to get into power again and suppress those others. Your lived experience as a Venezuelan is not imbued with some infallible essence that just wants peace and justice and good things; all people, also those who are telling the honest truth, have their own limited perspective and motivations and cannot speak for The Country alone.
We certainly accept this when the topic is some country that we know better here. We don’t accept the proclamation of an-ordinary-American as the infallible voice of the people. Why should we treat other countries differently?
So given the above, the other poster is within their right to compare tragedies and speculate about whether the price was deserved—it’s a competition—, and you can’t trump that by saying “but my lived experience”.
The Palestinian diaspora is also around 8 million. Chavez and Maduro made the Venezuelans poorer than the Palestinians. I think Israel (and Stern/Irgun before that) has killed more than Chavez/Maduro in all its "defensive" wars of conquest. The Israeli Supreme Court seems to be surprisingly reliable and fair, even to Palestinians. Venezuela's courts are entirely under regime control.
... and yet the consequences of what's going is as if there was war, the economy is suffering as if there was war, the people are fleeing as if there was war and dying as if there was war
But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth.
I think the reality is that the five exclusively Norwegian politicians on the Peace prize committee are politicians. And they act accordingly. What if the committee would consist of Russian politicians exclusively, or Venezuelan ones?
> The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States president Barack Obama (b. 1961) for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
> But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth.
They only give out one prize, which means that no matter which they pick, there will be dozes of impoverished and unjust places that don't get recognized by it. That can't be used to reject a choice, since it's true no matter what choice they make.
The difference between whataboutism and discussion is that in discussion you propose an alternative. For example: how about that real estate developer who has fumbled multiple diplomatic initiatives?
Its like the Iraq war all over again, you gobble this shit up like its sophisticated propaganda. Like she literally went on Fox&Friends to glaze Trump bombing those Venezuelan boats and supports US sanctions hurting her own citizens. You think she is some sort of popular resistance fighter or something? You Americans are so fucking stupid its hilarious.
Any meaning associated with the Nobel Peace Prize was demolished when Obama got it without having done anything meaningful except running a campaign on 'Hope'. This was the person that subsequently ok'd 3,000+ drone strikes in Afghanistan, a huge number of which caused heavy collateral damage. Imho, the Nobel Peace Prize should have no money associated with it and be given only posthumously.
To paraphrase the Nobel writeup: he advocated international cooperation, denuclearization, social progress, and work to reverse climate change.
This was against the backdrop of a president who lied to the UN so he could depose a dictator, initiated ground invasions of two countries, had a VP who openly advertised that he was okay with doing evil stuff to accomplish his objectives - e.g. Gitmo and Abu Graib, and created a regulatory environment that led to the GFC.
That prize was awarded to Obama but it was meant for the US electorate for embracing what you reductively call "hope".
And then electorate turned around and voted for Trump twice, republicans loosing their minds over president being black. And this year, Trump wanted the prize.
• Vietnam War and Bombing of Cambodia: Kissinger played a key role in the secret bombing of Cambodia and the escalation of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, which expanded the conflict, resulted in significant civilian casualties, and destabilized the region, enabling the rise of the Khmer Rouge and contributing to mass deaths.
• Bangladesh Genocide (1971): Kissinger and President Nixon strongly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship during its violent suppression of Bangladesh’s independence movement, despite well-documented human rights abuses and U.S. officials’ warnings about atrocities.
• Support for Dictatorships and Coups in Latin America: He was instrumental in U.S. support for right-wing military coups, notably the 1973 ouster of Chile’s democratically elected president Salvador Allende, and the subsequent support for General Pinochet’s regime, which was responsible for widespread human rights violations. Kissinger also backed Operation Condor, a campaign of repression and assassination by South American dictatorships.
• Indonesia and East Timor: Kissinger has been implicated in supporting Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which led to widespread killings and humanitarian abuses.
• Undermining U.S. Principles and Rule of Law: Kissinger’s tenure saw numerous secret operations and violations of U.S. and international law, including illegal arms transfers and covert interference in foreign elections and governments.
• Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks: He was accused of interfering with peace negotiations in 1968, potentially prolonging the Vietnam War for political gain.
He was a war criminal and a Nixon crony who among other things started the US practice of overthrowing democratically elected regimes to install US backed military juntas
These days? Kissinger has always had public critics. In fact, in 1973 two members of the Nobel Committee resigned in protest.
Anyways, the first couple paragraphs of his Wikipedia is an introduction.
>Kissinger is also associated with controversial U.S. policies including its bombing of Cambodia, involvement in the 1971 Bolivian and 1973 Chilean coup d'états, and support for Argentina's military junta in its Dirty War, Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor, and Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Bangladesh genocide.[6] Considered by many American scholars to have been an effective secretary of state,[7] Kissinger was also accused by critics of war crimes for the civilian death toll of the policies he pursued and for his role in facilitating U.S. support for authoritarian regimes.[8][9]
I gotta agree. I'm not sure Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back in that particular regard.
That said, it depends on how old you are. I think there are a lot of young people on HN, and for them, maybe that was a meaningful indication of a purportless Nobel Peace Prize?
Some slightly older than them may have checked out with the whole Aung San Suu Kyi - Arafat - de Klerk thing.
They don't really attach much import to that prize in any case because of the bad taste those picks left in their mouths.
I guess I mean that every generation kind of learns anew that, "Hey.. wow, this prize doesn't really mean what it did even 60 years ago."
It's definitely the Nobel Prize that's the most politically biased and least merited by winners at the median over the last 30-40 years.
Kissinger's actions lead to a whole hell of a lot of people achieving the peace of the grave. I don't think that's what Alfred Nobel had in mind for the prize.
To be fair, the Obama administration specifically designed rockets that did not carry high explosives, but rather sharp blades intended to kill individuals with minimal risk of collateral damage.
If you're looking at it like how an athlete would get a gold medal, maybe? Even then, the fact that an unqualified person (such as with doping and cheating) was given a medal, doesn't take away from someone's accomplishment.
But back on Obama, was your expectation that he wouldn't hurt a fly? Did he start a war? Did he not set the stage for withdrawing from two wars (both justified imho!)? Did he order the killing of anyone who wasn't a legitimate military target? I'm not saying he should have been given any award, and certainly his was premature, but it is hardly without precedent.
The peace prize is given to leaders who worked towards peace. It gives them recognition, sort of like a pat on the back so they won't give up.
Would you rather a retired politician get the prize so he can boast about it? or an active politician so that he now has the prize as a reminder of their promises and work towards peace?
He said it best:
"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. But the US did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and conflicts in Syira, Libya and all over the world sprung that were too easy for the US to be involved in but the US didn't. The US military responded to various natural disasters providing crucial aid, such as with the 2011 Haiti earthquake.
I think this sentiment is held largely by people who don't want to be bothered by nuance and who have an immature concept of peace, one that doesn't involve violence or military action (despite concepts like "peace keeping force" existing).
I said eventually, and he did set the stage for the pull out. he could have done the opposite and established longer term commitments. Honestly, my view is that both countries should have been incorporated as US territories. $20tn is not a small amount, and by virtue of being the aggressors, they've lost their right to self-rule (yes, even in without wmd's Saddam was taunting support for US's enemies).
Without which an eventual withdrawal wouldn't have been possible. If he didn't do all that, the reason behind the war to begin with (afghan's hosting terrorists) wouldn't have been solved making withdrawal impossible. You'll note, there are no terror plots originating from Afghanistan now. And to be fair, most of that credit goes to Bush, but Obama didn't dismantle what Bush started just for the sake of appearances of pleasing the Nobel committee. Say what you will, but he did great militarily.
Obama considered the war in Afghanistan justified- at least that is my recollection from one of his debates with McCain. Obama considered the Iraq unnecessary- and got him elected.
in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
You're 100% right. I disagree with him about Iraq but you're right that it was part of what got him elected. it made him look like a person that take the country in a new direction.
I think history would agree eventually that his timing was unfortunate. The changes in technology (social media, smartphones,etc..) and the 2008 financial crisis culminated in large scale social changes and dissatisfaction. That along with aging politicians stuck in their old ways was a huge challenge. And he could have maybe overcome all that except for the fact that even in Obama's own lifetime, half the country didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites, so he had to deal with the racism.
It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards.
China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far.
If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him.
One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.
There's never a "right time". This is akin to arguing that LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act was "a catastrophe". Sure, it energized generations of racists to become angry, flip the south, abuse the filibuster, and cause lots of pain, but these people never go away, and if the choice is "no progress" or "progress with some pain" the latter is very much preferable.
The sentiment wasn't because of Obama, it was because of the Koch brothers and others like them funneling billions to corrupt American discourse.
Over decades they funded conservative think tanks and academia to make their libertarian ideals more widely accepted. They funded the tea party and divisive mentalities. Others like Rupert Murdoch built up media empires to drive lies, outrage, and manufactured stories to build anti-government sentiment. None of that was Obama's doing.
I think the financial crisis was a pretty big thing and Obama handled it about as poorly as humanly possible. It set the stage for everything getting much worse.
People in general had a very high expectation of him. The right expected him to fail because he's black, the left expected him to be better than white democratic presidents because he was black. He was just a well meaning decent human being trying to lead a country. there are worse and better presidents for sure. But he wasn't the disruptive and young new leader people hoped for.
There are many, MANY ways things could have gone dramatically worse. There are things that could have been done better, but "as poorly as humanly possible" is a trivially wrong statement.
Here's one way he could have handed it dramatically worse with a huge amount of empirical evidence: started lobbing random tariffs and abandoning trade deals and going isolationist.
The civil rights act didn't result in the collapse of America. Yes, racists will always exist. I get that you want progress, but move a big ship too fast and it tumbles over and sinks. Progress has to be progressive to be effective and lasting. What's the point of progress that will be reversed in the next election cycle?
But again, people being racist to Obama isn't the catastrophe I outlined. It isn't even trump. But the chain of events he set off and the collapse of this greatest republic. I called it back then, I liked Obama, but this is America, he wasn't even far-left or that controversial but the reaction to him will tear apart the country. America like it or not is the new rome, and when rome's fall, there is usually times of upheaval and instability until a new rome takes its place. Except things are at an exponentially more connected and interdepndent state. The '08 financial crisis alone started in the US and destablized the whole planet. Countries are now learning to rely a lot less on the US, to do less business with the US,etc.. realizing the risk relationship with the US carries.
I'm not even talking about the current admin and their lunacy, but consider that even if in '28 a more sane administration recovers all the allied relations and financial reputations, who is to say that in '32 there won't be someone even worse than trump? I'm sure after trump, his family would be in line to take his reign and build upon what he started.
The Koch brothers, fox news, etc.. they still care about money and they've always been around. It isn't even "racism" so to speak, that's just the excuse they're using. such people historically used religion or national pride instead. The gift Obama gave is riling up enough of the people that weren't even voting to begin with to vote for trump. and the DNC deciding hillary clinton was a good idea, just like kamala harris because they're good politicians. people voted for obama (twice!!) because he represented change. Yet "occupy wallstreet" happened under him. People voted for trump..you guessed it, change. But none of that matters, what matters is the source of wealth. If I had to speculate, the country will split up and Whatever new state has California will become the new center of power and finance because of silicon valley, sure. But also because of geography. Spain, England, Portugal rose because of their geographic proximity to the new world, as did Rome with the levant , baghdad, persia,etc.. with China & India,etc.. geography and its influence on wealth and commerce. California is on the west coast, close to east asia, south america and canada.
There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. you're right about that. But timing the right thing properly makes the difference between making the whole thing worth it and a lasting change vs making it performative and temporary. I like to think the only reason these people aren't actively plotting the return of slavery is because LLMs are more efficient.
Obama basically created the modern drone war, with his heavy investment in drone killings in all of the middle east. He is also the first US president to openly admit to ordering the assassination of a US citizen without trial.
Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.
Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial.
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
> Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial
This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted.
This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France.
> As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage?
No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon.
Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
> This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism.
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
I would prefer if awards were given to people for something they achieved, not for something they promised to achieve.
The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider.
Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.
Unfun fact, the Arab Spring was caused by a spike in food prices, not from any sort of political or leadership changes or behavior. The spike in food prices came from an unfortunate combination of bad weather in Russia and Obama's policies (specially biofuels). To his credit, Obama pulled the plug on the biofuel disaster after about 6 months but by then, it wasn't spring anymore and the Syrian civil war had already begun.
Trump is a jerk. and he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. He isn't the type of person that is afraid of looking bad because he broke a promise, he's more likely to use a peace prize to justify violence because after all, it has to be someone else's fault since he has a peace prize awarded to him.
Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone.
I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
> ...he makes a million promises and keeps like 10.
Depends on who he's making the promises to.
Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way.
In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
> Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe.
Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president?
I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
Not so much the backlash, but what it means for America and the now old world order. Everything he stood for now requires a civil war or worse to sustain it.
Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract.
You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now.
Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes.
Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.
I think you're ignoring a lot of realities of US politics and the US government structure as set forth in the constitution. Remember after he got ACA through (which was a really big achievement), there was the tea party backlash. Dems lost the House by a big margin and nearly lost the Senate. That made it very difficult to get the kinds of revolution you're hoping for. Yes, I agree that he should've jailed bankers (and he shouldn't have chosen Geithner as his treasury secty), but I think he had too many wallst-beholden advisors there that told him that if he did that it would lead to all kinds of economic trouble. Not sure what your beef with the ACA is (probably that it didn't go far enough towards universal healthcare, and I can agree with that, however given the political realities it was a pretty great achievement.)
I don't have a beef with the ACA, it just happened to be Obama's priority, not the voters'. Occupy wallstreet wasn't about health care. You hit on the nail about his advisors,etc.. that's why maga keeps using "deep state" as a rhetoric.
Obama ran on change, he shouldn't have been "listening to advisors" like bush did with Iraq.
If he jailed bankers for example, both the left and right would support that, except the corporate ruling class and other politicians. The ACA on the other hand, there is a lot of misinformation around it that made it a partisan thing, and we still don't have universal health care, despite all the work he put into it.
I'm not saying it's fair, but even most on the left expected him to be a force of change, and that's mostly because he's black. The thing is, democrat presidents spend their first term cleaning up after the previous guy anyways, so I get it isn't realistic. But look at how trump is basically trampling on the constitution, long established norms and institutions,etc.. Obama didn't need to do all that, but he tried to be moderate and safe. Racists were going to hate on him no matter what, he needed to piss them and his own party off enacting change. Moderation and stability was not why he was elected.
And I think the democratic party lost its head a bit because Obama became president, they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia, which caused a lot of moderate people, and even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals to revolt against the left.
All that said, I have no idea what can be done to fix things. I just wish I knew how to brace for the fall.
> it just happened to be Obama's priority, not the voters'.
I think it depends on the voters. A lot of people at that time were not able to afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Or they'd have a plan that would get cancelled when they ran into an actual serious illness because the insurer would find some pre-existing condition that was ubiquitous. I was very glad that the ACA passed. Could it be better? Sure, but given the political realities it is what it is.
> even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals
What opportunities are gen-z voters losing out to because of liberal ideals? If anything, the Democrats were much better on helping people pay for college, job training, etc.
> they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia
But as you've indicated above, Obama wasn't even all that liberal. More of a centrist which seems to be what you're critical of if I'm not mistaken? Biden was probably more of a classical liberal.
While I completely agree with the loss of actual meaning, however I do think it's nice that we tell people they did well while they're still alive. Assuming they did actually do something to deserve it that is.
Obama can’t possibly be the catalyst for your disregard of the NPP. There were far more controversial picks for decades prior.
This obsession with Obama’s award is just further evidence Fox News decides what we recall and get angry about. It comes up every single year. It’s a meme at this point. Obama but not Arafat or Kissinger? Get out of here lmao
Arafat and Rabin received it for "their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."
Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ received it because they "jointly worked for a ceasefire and for bringing peace to Vietnam," though Lê Đức Thọ refused it and Kissinger did not attend the ceremony.
Obama received it nine months into his Presidency for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having few if any concrete foreign policy achievements.
Obama could have at least matched Kissinger by ducking the ceremony, or even by refusing it like Lê Đức Thọ did because it wasn't justified.
Amazing that we're actually debating which of the warlords created the most peace per fatality inflicted in a discussion on the merits of their Nobel Peace Prizes.
That alone, in a sane world, would tell you these people had no business having a Nobel Peace Prize. At least Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ had the common decency not to stand at that podium. Most of those other Nobel Peace Prize winners did not have that kind of self awareness.
It’s mostly conservatives IME going “Trump deserves the peace prize” while also saying “the peace prize is meaningless because Obama got one.” Depending on the context and who they are talking to they emphasize one side of that or the other.
In the context of Trump trying to get one too, isn't that pretty obvious to bring up? Perhaps we could talk about Jimmy Carter's war crimes too, he got a peace nobel as well. Committing war crimes is a bit like breathing for US presidents.
Yeah but not sure how real it is, if Trump is serious about regime change war in Venezuela it would make sense to have their Juan Guaidó 2.0 puppet win it instead to manufacture consent for the war. So perhaps he got what he wanted anyway.
I think the GOP lost its mind when a black man won the Presidential election and had the audacity to get the peace prize as well. It has never left their news cycle since that time and why Trump is obsessed with getting a NPP.
This is such a highly disingenuous bad faith argument, Obama won it in 2009, are you suggesting the Nobel committee should have used some time travel technology to peer into the future?
No, the point is that Obama won it in 2009 when he had literally done nothing, except having won an election. The point about what happened after is just to show that the committee was not prescient and full of foresight, that it did turn out that the man who had simply won an election based on promises did not live up to those promises.
Don't get me wrong. She has firmly opposed maduro and is a beacon of hope for many in Venezuela but she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful yet? She is just a career politician that just happens to be in the opposition of the venezuelan goverment when Maduro (a dictator) is in power. But she hasn't done anything extraordinary to merit the award.
Don't get me wrong, but perhaps what was missing was greater media coverage and genuine interest in Venezuela's situation.
María Corina Machado orchestrated a HUGE covert months long operation to collect tally sheets from the overwhelming majority of voting machines during the 2024 presidential election. Her team trained poll watchers to demand vote receipts (as legally permitted) then capture and transmit that data through various channels, even from the most remote regions of the country.
There are documented cases of people—poll workers and participants in the plan—being imprisoned or even killed for their involvement.
Thanks to this operation, the website resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com exists, where venezuelan can verify the actual vote count per candidate, backed by fingerprint records and the serial numbers of both the software and hardware used.
These verified results confirm that Edmundo González was the true winner of the election.
The data provides undeniable evidence that Nicolás Maduro installed himself as a dictator, with the full support of the national electoral authority, which, to this day, has refused to release the official election results (a procedure that has historically been routine).
You can also verify the results here https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ (a whole story behind this hostname). Again, only possible by the María Corina's huge effort
Sounds right from the playbook of the superpowers, when an oil rich country has a government that doesn't allow them to profit from their oil resources - (1) demonize the current leader and government, (2) Give international publicity and recognition to a politician ideologically friendly to them (3) Destabilise the unfriendly government by launching an internal / external war against them (4) Install the friendly puppet politician as the leader of the country (while shouting "democracy has won", if you are western superpower) (5) Profit!
This comment reads as deeply ignorant and callous toward the treatment of the Venezuelan people by their government. Fully 1/3 of Venezuelans have fled the country due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement. As someone who reads Spanish I can tell you the the media in non US aligned Latin American countries is regularly reporting on the dictatorship in Venezuela.
Not everything is about oils or some conspiracy of western governments.
And what’s funny is that I’m even willing to trade oil deals if someone gets rid of the murderer kleptocracy that stole Venezuela from us. So yeah let’s do some oil deals if you help us get back to democracy.
Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
I have little doubt she did a lot of good practical work for Venezuelan democracy (to expose Maduro's government). But her ideology - accept foreign invasion (which will inevitably kill innocent venezuelans) and privatizing oil reserves (which will inevitably result in undemocratic fallout of the profits) - is unfortunately not that of peace and democracy.
I wish she would more look at Norway as an example, which is a rare case of oil profits being shared collectively and democratically.
I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Venezuela had the biggest oil earnings of its history during the early Chavez years and all that money was pilfered. The oil industry infrastructure, the electric infrastructure is currently in shambles due to lack of investment, maintenance and corruption. Part of the recovery of Venezuela will require external investments just to get production back to the levels we had before this calamity.
They also took massive loans in exchange for future oil at insane prices, when people argues that we are going to lose our oil if X or Y happens to me it doesn’t mean anything, because we already lost it with these inept criminals in the government anyway.
Edit: even Maduro is now offering our country’s riches to the US in exchange for remaining in power:
> I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Note that while you're not, the Nobel Peace prize winner unfortunately is. And honestly, much more so than privatizing oil, I think this would be the end of even the sham democracy that currently exists. The examples of countries becoming more democratic after a foreign military invasion intent on regime change are entirely restricted to the losing powers in WW 2.
> Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
Yes. Norway is basically the only real democracy with a nationalized oil firm, and they found oil after having been a democracy for like 100 years. Everywhere else state oil companies are piggy banks for tyrants and prevent the country from investing in economic development because they don’t need private tax revenues. State oil companies are a trap.
I think you missed my point - how can you claim you have democracy if you're not allowing your citizens to decide what to do with national resources (by privatizing them)? Privatization is a trap as well.
Private/state distinction matters only a little in practice for democracy. What matters is whether people have democratic control (equal participation on decision-making) over these structures.
> due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement
Let's be real, sanctions play a big role in the economic decline of Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy. In fact, it's a very problematic totalitarian regime, where women have limited rights and the royalty has been known to kill enemies. They very much mismanage money, with ridiculous projects, ostentatious lifestyles if you're royalty or the elite, and have the "highest prevalence of modern slavery of all countries in the Arab States region" [1].
Saudi Arabia is doing well economically though because it isn't sanctioned by the USA, and you don't hear bad press about it's totalitarian regime, or corruption, etc. because it's a USA ally.
If the USA cared about how people are treated by their government, they'd be in Sudan or Congo. The USA cares about getting rid of Maduro, so they will make it as difficult as possible for the Venezuelan regime to make money from its oil, while pointing out all that's wrong and blaming Maduro for everything.
I'm not saying things are well in Venezuela, or that Maduro is a good leader. I'm saying this is all part of a playbook that's been successful before, and it's reductionist to not blame the USA for Venezuela's decline.
Sanctions are absolutely not the reason for economic decline. Chavez installed cronies into the national oil company who ran it into the ground, and Maduro spent the everything they had on the security state. Both successive regimes have made private industry nearly impossible.
You're creating a false dichotomy. It is true that Venezuela is very poorly governed, and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular, in order to try to inflict economic suffering on the common people. This is the whole sadistic, and nonsensical, point of sanctions - inflict suffering on common people in hopes they'll blame their government instead of people inflicting suffering on them, overthrow their government, and then align themselves with the people inflicting suffering on them.
Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
The countless human rights violations, stealing elections etc. predate the sanctions. This honestly feels like patronizing. Look up the UN reports of all the human rights violations happened over the last couple of decades there.
Wiki conveniently has a nice graph demonstrating the real GDP/capita in Venezuela [1], which is reasonably reflective of the economic crisis. In 1980 it was around $16,000. By ~2013-2014 it had peaked a bit higher than $18,000 and had risen dramatically faster than the average for Latin America.
In 2014 there were mass protests against the government, in reality it was an attempt to overthrow the government, which was responded to with brutality. That brutality was met with sanctions. Today their GDP/capita is about $5000. That's obviously going to be explained in part by the decline in oil prices around the same time, but not to that degree, to say the least.
* - As an addendum here it's also unclear to me how exactly Wiki is calculating that figure and whether it accounts for, in any way, the substantial scale of emigration from Venezuela. If not, then the relative decline is even larger than it sounds.
Not quite. A useful term related to sanctions is overcompliance. You can read the exact verbiage of some of the earliest sanctions here. [1] In a nutshell engaging in any form of trade (including transfer of expertise or whatever else) that directly or indirectly benefited a sanctioned person could trigger extremely harsh penalties.
Many government officials in Venezuela have direct involvement with various industries, including oil. So it suddenly becomes this extremely complex and dangerous mess when doing any trade whatsoever with Venezuela. This is why their economy completely collapsed following the sanctions.
Absolutely, which makes this whole thread all the more absurd, or at least typical. It seems increasingly likely we'll get a war in Venezuela, likely supported by this Nobel Peace Prize winner, with the goal of installing her in power. It seems Guaido is out of fashion? Anyhow, if "we" win, and she gets installed, you know the first thing she's going to do? Trade access to your natural resources for wealth and power. They're the only reason the US is there. And then in a decade you'll be ranting against her.
Look at the history of people the US sponsors in regime change operations around the world, and how things turn out. So long as they're loyal to the US, first and foremost, anything goes. Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Humberto Castelo Blanco, Augusto Pinochet, Efrain Rios Montt and many more though I'm limiting myself to the Americas. Of course I can fully understand the perspective that 'anything must be better than this shit show.' But it often turns out, in hindsight, that that's not exactly the case.
And in general this is a big part of the reason that I'm highly opposed to the US meddling in countries around the world. There's always such a heavy price to pay in American dollars and the blood of others. And.. for what? Yeah yeah, this time it's different...
My man the alternative we are currently suffering is WAY worse, you think we care if we do business with the US once we recover our democracy? It’s what I’m expecting. The country needs a lot of foreign investment, the US was our main partner before these criminals came to power.
> and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular
This is not at all true. A large share of Venezuelan oil is refined in Texas by Citgo for PDVSA. The US could easily stop that but doesn’t. The sanctions are on regime ghouls, the military, and some state companies run by the security apparatus. None of which existed before the 3rd time the Chavistas stole an election and jailed their opposition.
> Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
No. They wouldn't. The Venezuelan government has proven extremely incompetent to produce oil.
What the Trump's tariffs have shown to the world is that, in the scale globalization is today, trade with the US doesn't matter that much anymore. Case in point: Brazil. After Trump stuck 50% tariffs on them, their exports to other countries grew much more than enough to offset the loss to the U.S.
The US embargo on Venezuela is a lot like its embargo in Cuba, Iran and North Korea: it is not the cause of people suffering but is an excuse by those corrupt and incompetent regimes to hide their failures.
And look, what a coincidence that this so called neo-liberal "opposition" leader of Venezuela plans to privatise her countries oil companies (and other industries) again, and return it to their original owners (again, just another remarkable co-incidence that her father was the President of such a private company that was nationalised):
> Machado defines herself — and her party, Vente Venezuela — as “liberal” (or neoliberal, depending on how you look at it), both politically and economically. Her political vision revolves around reducing the size of the state as a provider of public policies, supporting entrepreneurship and promoting the free market, as a means of creating wealth and jobs in a devastated economy. Her vision of government is similar to what Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan had in mind ... The presidential candidate has proposed privatizing the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — a taboo in local politics — and returning all the companies that have been expropriated by the Chavista regime to their rightful owners. This also includes Siderúrgica Venezolana — a company that her father (who died this year) was the president of, before it was seized ... Her vision on the distribution of social funds is somewhat more American than European, as is her deeply anti-communist discourse.
Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics, but I am quite tuned to what is happening to it internationally. And I can confidently state that Trump or the US don't have the best interests of Venezuela when it tries to bring "democracy" there through war (internal or external). We all know that it is rubbish to call Venezuela a "narco-state". And we all know how much the Trump administration truly cares about "democracy", whether in the US or in Venezuela. The simple fact is that, along with Cuba, Venezuela remains a persistent thorn for the Americans in South America (their "backyard") because of their inability to dominate them politically. To make matters worse (for Venezuela), Venezuela has the world's largest proven reserves – roughly 18% of the global total – in the vast Orinoco Belt. (That’s more than Saudi Arabia and Canada, though Venezuelan crude is harder to process). Russia and China have invested in Venezuelan oil industry and that has further rattled the US as it brings both the Russians and the Chinese to their "backyard".
(I'll believe the west's "concerns" on Venezuela's "democracy" and "human rights" when they overthrow the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE - where western companies are allowed to profit from oil resources in these regions - and bring "democracy" there).
Don’t make everything about yourself. We are in a big trouble just as it is and we could use all the help we can, even from the US regardless of who is at WH at the moment.
> Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics
You should have stopped right there.
The reason western countries care about Venezuela’s democracy is twofold it was prior to the Chavez coup the oldest democracy in South America, and Maduro helps other anti-democratic leaders in Latin America rig elections and suppress opposition. He’s a regional destabilizing force.
If you think this is about oil it shows how little you know, please read a bit more before spouting off here, this isn’t Reddit.
That personal risk includes having yourself or loved ones thrown in prison without any contact to the outside world for however long the dictatorship sees fit.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
Not to diminish her valor and heroism. Mad respect. But how is that actually about peace?
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?
There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.
In my own country, Spain, the Francoist dictatorship (1939–1975) never attacked other countries or participated in any foreign wars (beyond sending a division of volunteers to WWII). Its domestic policy was highly repressive with common execution of political dissidents, etc., but in the sense of "no war" it was peaceful. The same goes for Salazar's Portugal, Hoxha’s Albania or Tito's Yugoslavia.
>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
A dictatorship cannot be peaceful. Peace is not merely “the absence of international war.” Peace is rooted in individual rights and freedoms.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
It sounds like repression —which if extreme enough approaches (civil) war. I’ll give you that but then we’d include Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries as well.
Sure. Now name people who are more deserving of the Nobel peace prize as this woman and explain their accomplishments and why it should make them a better pick. I'll wait.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
Every country should be rooting for our situation to be solved. We have way too many people abroad enduring bad situations that would be better back at home with a decent government and democracy restored.
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
I mean sure. Winning a war is also sometimes seemingly necessary to achieve peace. And violence is sometimes seemingly necessary to replace a dictatorship with democracy. In this case, it looks like they're awarding her the prize for her efforts to peacefully oppose dictatorship.
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
I suppose Venezuela has hope because it is a weak country with nominal US pressure agaisnt the current regime. Russia is self sufficient and has WMD (nuclear)
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
come on folks, no need to make everything about the US. The situation and evolution of Venezuela is vastly different. There are a lot of parallels, like with any other authoritarian government, and probably lessons the US opposition can learn, but don't equate the two as it overshadows the struggles Venezuelans have endured for 25+ years. Let them have their moment
Ok, I guess we'll see in 20 years (you did read the "20 years" part I hope?) if my assessment is correct. It was maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't have any doubts that Trump would like to be an "actual dictator" and is actively testing how far he can expand the limits of his power. Democracy in the US is more established than in other countries that have had authoritarian takeovers in recent years (Hungary, Turkey, Russia etc.), but we'll see if it's resilient enough.
It was more than tongue in cheek, it is a mix of anxiety and overreaction. None of this is happening except for the far left's mind. I see this constantly on reddit, it's a shame it gets posted here. You are trying to be over dramatic to get your point across and maybe try to get someone to see your viewpoint? It does the exact opposite.
huh, overreaction? As an outsider looking in, the US is looking more autocratic and totalitarian every week. I have 0 doubts Trump would like to become a "strong man" a la Putin, if he can.
I'm not saying that she isn't a good politician or that what she is doing is not a step in the right direction. I personally like her. All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
> All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
> Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards. And I do agree Nobel Peace prizes are purely performative, but this one alongside Barack Obama has been one of the most performative ones I can remember.
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in their decision process. But it seems easy for some people to forget that the Nobel is awarded by a completely private foundation whose sole purpose is to pursue one man’s vision for a better world. Pretty sure neither of our opinions matter on this, but certainly not your disagreement with their execution of their own responsibilities.
Of course my opinions matter, because I hold it. I don’t particularly care about your
view on your opinion mattering, maybe you can have a heart to heart with someone about that.
The Nobel committee is supposed to follow certain guidelines that were set up by Alfred Nobel, and ideally their decisions should make sense because it’s a prestigious prize. The committee consists of regular people who absolutely can be criticized for their stupid decisions, whether their stupid decisions match Nobel’s vision, how their stupid decisions affect the wider world because of the prestige of the prize, or whatever else I or anyone else feel like.
> They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
We can only hope that she will not behave like the previous career politicians that got the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years.
Abiy Ahmed (2019), from Ethiopia, ended the cold war with Eritrea. Then he launched a war against the region of Tigray, with mass rapes and mass civilian killings. He harassed the free press, and turned the country into an autocracy.
Juan Manuel Santos (2016) from Colombia and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2011) from Liberia later appeared in Paradise Papers because they had secret offshore companies in Panama and Barbades. Their political activity was more tame after the prize than before. Both ended their presidential tenures with plummeting approval rates, especially because of corruption allegations.
Barack Obama (2009) received the Prize for his generous discourses on foreign policy, just after being elected. Then he lead the USA to more war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Libya. He helped Saudi Arabia invade Yemen (UN states this war killed 300,000 people). He helped the Egyptian army with its coup, that killed thousands of opponents and sent 60,000 in jails (including the elected president who died there).
In my opinion, this prize is, most of the time, a dark and heavily political joke.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but people are awarded the prize based on what they've done, not based on what they might do in the future.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
Obamas was explicitly given as a hope for the future
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
Ideally, we would accept the recipients as being of “certified good character”. But the stability of this pattern shows chronic lack of basic insight into the awardees, IMO.
No, ideally you'd understand under what basis the prize is handed out, and then draw your conclusions from that (or avoid thinking something specific will happen in the future based on the prize itself).
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
Obama didn’t actually do anything but get elected and said nice things. When he got the Peace Prize, people all over the world were confused and thought it was a joke.
He then went on to become the longest-serving war president [1]:
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
At least they had fun with it, remember "Terror Tuesday's"? And once he even apologized when they accidentally bombed a hospital full of white people. Cheney's situation room was probably like Dr.Evils lair. Obama and Hillary Clinton was more like https://youtu.be/dDJa1_fLVeA vibes.
Baraka Obama won the prize for not being George W Bush and for being the first black President of a country with a terrible history of enslaving and mistreating black people.
Side note: Democracy will not work in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood loses popularity and/or Islam in the region becomes more moderate. Until then, you're just going to end up with the same situation as Ethiopia and Tigray with a Brotherhood-dominated government and the Copts.
It makes your statement apply more to almost every other country on the planet more than the US. Its like complaining to Luxembourg about poverty. And I will mock ignorance (especially about history) wherever I find it.
Yip, when reading his post I thought this would be the most obvious example. She was given the award for protesting a government that was cracking down hard on protest. She then took power and, at the minimum, was complicit in a literal genocide. In many ways I think this award should not be granted to 'resistance' types because they have a recurring habit of becoming even worse than that what they were resisting. And it obviously should not be given to political leaders based on words instead of actions. Actually maybe this prize shouldn't even exist - it's quite a joke, especially relative to the prize for the sciences.
The peace prize is often given to people still working on something, not having achieved something. In that way it is different from the science prizes.
I think that is a understandable approach (providing support), though it can lead to giving the prize to people who never achieve any of their goals. Whether that’s a worthy trade off I do not know.
Being the opposition leader there is already something extraordinary. While other opposition figures have ended up coziying up with the regime she hasn’t relented. All while important members of her party have been imprisoned or murdered.
She’s also in hiding since the last elections, likely on an embassy but undetermined.
In a dictatorship, running against the leader involves more personal risk than in a country that is already democratic. Also, democracies tend to be more peaceful than dictatorships; my understanding is that efforts to transition from dictatorship to democracy may be regarded as a contribution to peace.
She also received the Sakharov Prize not long ago; if she had to receive only one, the latter would be easier to explain.
What exactly do you mean by "career politician?" Being a member of the opposition in a dictatorship means giving up material wealth and putting your life & liberty on the line.
People imagine political movements as something to accomplish in their lifetime. When the real movements are multi-generational and involve planting trees you'll never enjoy the shade of.
I get frustrated in the US we are always thinking in terms of the next election. Movements that effect lasting change: civil rights, national independence movements, ending slavery, heck even the current conservative regime in the US, are all multigenerational efforts with clear principles and goals that get passed down.
That reminds me a bit of former winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who got the prize in 1991, while not having done or said that much at the time of the award, other than be a political prisoner.
I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.
Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.
Aung San Suu Kyi was just another "compliant native" similar to those the British installed prior to leaving the colonies.
The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.
It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.
Calling Nehru "installed" by Mountbatten misses the crucial context of the time. Nehru was the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress, which had been the primary force behind the independence movement for decades and had overwhelming popular support. Mountbatten's appointment was more of a constitutional formality in the transfer of power, not an act of kingmaking. It's like saying the Chief Justice "installs" a newly elected president.
The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.
Not if that might bring the anger of the Empire down on them in full. There's a reason even totalitarian regimes don't apply the same amount of force to all of their political enemies.
Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.
Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.
As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.
It's so disappointing to see many folks engaging with the troll you are. You made this account just to post this garbage. Why didn't you post with your regular account? You can't even face folks on the internet. Do you think you have what it takes to face a dictator in the real world?
Yes but this is a way for them to give it to someone who supports Trump’s worldview so that they can try to dodge the controversy and pressure being put on them to give it to Trump
She managed to convince a people of a country that has been entrenched in authoritarianism that the vote was rigged without using violence.
Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won.
Without anybody using violence to do it.
Those who think there is nothing to be done but to counter authoritarianism without another authoritarian, or violence, or just to give up and suffer it - might be inspired by this.
I'm not the NNC but that seems like a "meaningful accomplishment".
You could ask: "Sure, allright, the populace was convinced that election was a sham. But... Maduro is still in power so she still hasn't done much". Let me flip it around, perhaps: What did Gandi ever actually accomplish? Isn't it the same thing: Show that violence is not a necessary element, get the people to reframe the situation a bit?
Can we prove Gandi sped up the UK's exit? Even if we can, one of those holocaust level holy heck humanity can get extremely dark moments in history that is rarely talked about is the absolute terror that occurred during the split of the Raj into India and Pakistan.
My point is: Judging the eligibility of a person for a peace prize on the basis of 'measurable meaningful accomplishment' is not how it works and probably shouldn't be how it works. It's either a bullshit prize (kissinger got one...) or it is like making a statue of somebody: It takes a person, turns them into a principle or ideal. Even though humans are much more complex than that.
The notion of "one is capable of being in opposition in an autocratic regime and get stuff done without resorting to violence" got a peace prize, but as per the dictat of Alfred Nobel, only people can get it, so, they stuck the label "Maria Corina Machado" on it. And that wasn't a bad labelling: She really did accomplish 'meaningfully' that goal, at least, I'd gather according to most folks' definition of the word 'capable'.
> Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won. Without anybody using violence to do it.
Exactly this happened in Belarus in 2020. Government wasn't shy of using its power though, many people got long prison sentences, many people had to run, nothing changed wrt to dictatorship. I don't see anything inspiring in this story honestly.
lol. Speaking of careers, leave it to HN to get a bunch of careerists whose main priority is their own pockets to engage in some armchair debate about how people who have likely done significantly more for the world than they will ever do don't deserve a peace prize.
The amount of presumption, ignorance, and lack of reflection in your comment is astounding. It shows that you don't take life seriously and/or don't understand what risks being an opposition party in a dictatorship actually entails.
The prize is a joke. Its almost an anti-prize at this point. Look at the company you would be with. I definitively would not want to be included in that group.
That's why she won the "peace" award. She wants trump to invade venezuela. If people didn't realize what a farce the nobel "peace" prize has always been. It's always been a geopolitical weapon having nothing to do with actual peace.
If the USA cared about the Venezuelan people they'd lift the sanctions. The USA cares about toppling a regime that knows its sitting on an oil gold-mine and wont let American companies freely run away with it.
You'd think people would give up on claiming we're trying to take other countries' oil when we didn't take any of Iraq's and instead became an oil exporter ourselves.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard this all before, literally dozens of times.
Sovereign states that have important natural resources or geopolitical position are always run by Bad Guys that we need to invade and kill. The media said so!
If you devote like, half an hour, maybe 1 hour, to hear Maduro and Cabello (who is more straight in his evilness) talking and to check the stories of exiled people from Venezuela instead of repeating any narrative then maybe you can buile an informed opinion and not empty useless comments.
Its fair. She done a crucial job uniting the different interests of the oposition of the venezuelan goverment/cartel.
Too bad they where so divided for so many years, that when they trully worked together to wind a election it was too late because now MAduro dont even care to steal the ellections in plain sigth and probably theres no more solution without violence.
I don't know much about her but it's truly sad to see how absolutely eeeeeveryyyyy media reporting about this have to report it with Trump, or in relation to his statements. Man must sucks to be her, limelight is still on Trump, truly a showman.
And to repeat my point that I do every year: Nobel peace prize is the only part of the price that is actually given out by a foreign political body (Norway, founding member of NATO and Oil nation) and not the Swedish academy.
It's famous recepients include presidents that bombed/joined war during/just after been given it and bloggers that kept blogging after surviving shootings. And Henry Kissinger
Petition to rename it to "Norwegian peace price". /signed, a Swede
That’s the irony of the situation. This should’ve been a clear win for Trump, using the prize to help bolster his status and direction on Venezuela. But then we got this absurd media storyline about him wanting the prize himself (probably to bury the government shut down news).
As an Ethiopian man, I view this new Nobel Peace Prize with profound skepticism, a feeling rooted entirely in the disastrous outcome of Abiy Ahmed's utterly undeserved award. The premature praise he received for peace-making quickly evaporated, leading instead to a catastrophic war and the fragmentation of our nation. His prize has been followed by widespread conflict, massive displacement, and an alarming return to authoritarian rule. For us, the entire Nobel Peace Prize now feels meaningless, a hollow symbol given its failure to prevent—or perhaps its role in emboldening—such terrible suffering in Ethiopia
For me, that skepticism began when Obama received the award. To his credit, he did not think he deserved it. But I have never viewed it in the same light since.
He surely started Libyan War by bombing the hell out the government forces and creating power vacuum. The war is still ravaging the country to this day
You seem to have come from another timeline, where that's reality. Wikipedia says:
> On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). The UN Security Council passed the resolution with ten votes in favour and five abstentions, with the stated intent to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity'
but I guess that's fake news...
But I'm more interested about how you can travel between timelines. Is it with a portal gun like in Rick and Morty?
Can you let Obama know Libya wasn't his fault and he bears absolutely no responsibility? He seems to be living in that alternate reality - you'd think he would be a better judge of what reality existed, but alas not everyone is as observant as you. Surely the US cannot be held responsible for any action of NATO, they have no relation with that organization at all.
While you're there you should also let Hilary Clinton know that she wasn't a war hawk either, and the no-fly zone just spontaneously appeared with no US involvement at all.
What are you saying exactly? Military intervention is not a war? Obama did not play a decisive role in starting it (mainly to sway away attention from the dragging Afghanistan war which he promised to end)? Or UN mandate makes it somewhat ok, considering NATO broke conditions of the UN resolution already in the first weeks of bombing (which was promptly objected by UN security Council members).
Make no mistake. Obama started this war for PR reasons. Had it not been for NATO bombing Libya would still exist as a state instead of a failed entity it is now.
By this logic Russia did not start Ukraine war but merely joined the internal conflict started by Ukraine in 2014.
It was hardly a civil war before NATO bombing, but rather protests which were brutally squashed by Gaddafi forces. Opposition lacked any means to wage a way before NATO started supplying them with arms too.
So in the timeline you're from, the Crimean invasion also was an internal conflict... interesting!
Also there, civilized societies should look away and just let it happen when people fighting oppression is being slaughtered. Well, that's quite similar to this timeline, because that's what's happening in Gaza and being ignored by "The West".
Well, oppression is exactly what people in Crimea and Donbass viewed Maidan events and did not want to have anything to do with this new Ukraine. Go do a research on Crimea referendum or gallups done by Pew or such and you will find out that secession was and still is the most popular option. And sure as hell people of Crimea do not want to be part of Ukraine again.
The UN mandate which NATO were given to use military force only to protect civilians was used as a figleaf to pursue a regime change operation instead.
In the context of that regime change operation they killed many civilians and left a humanitarian catastrophe in their wake. The country is beyond fucked but Hillary did get to say "we came, we saw, he died" afterwards, underscoring the lie. So mission accomplished?
For some reason the UN security council stopped approving NATO "humanitarian" operations after that and Russia started treating NATO expansion as an imperialist, existential threat.
He started a number of color revolutions though out MENA?
And let us not forget his assassination of an American citizen by drone strike for visiting the place of his fathers death, also assassinated by drone strike.
And if we want a “fun fact,” he is the only Nobel Peace winner to bomb and kill another, as commander and chief his forces bombed and killed innocents in a Doctor’s Without Borders outpost in Afghanistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike)
I think there's a very high bar of proof to "Americans are responsible for a popular revolution" when in practice there was a huge amount of effort by individuals on the ground, for example in Tahrir Square.
Obama did not make Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire.
Can we please stop propagating the flimsy conspiracies about the 2011 revolutions? They started entirely organically, but some unfortunately devolved into wider conflicts.
At worst, this conspiracy infantilizes Arab populations by removing their agency. At best, it’s false marketing for the CIA and other agencies.
Did Obama start the Afghanistan war? or the Iraq war?
Yes, he could exit those countries hastily. But that has its own cost. Getting in wars is the easy part. Getting out of one is the hard part. Ask Putin who went into Ukraine on a 3-day limited special military operation.
Bush Jr. got us into multiple wars and unlike his father did not limit the scope of them. His father did get us into a war with Iraq but was smart enough to keep it limited in scope.
Also, under Obama, the "wars" were not real wars like the Russia/Ukraine war where both sides are losing hundreds of people every week. But they were more like peacekeeping operations that occasionally ran into skirmishes.
> like the Russia/Ukraine war where both sides are losing hundreds of people every week.
Every week? If we just look at the Russian casualties numbers, its around 1000+ casualties PER DAY.
There was a recent leak of the death toll and the most active area's had a 2/5 dead rate, 1/3 "missing" rate, and the rest was wounded.
If we only count the death + "missing" over the entire front for Russia, its 500+ PER DAY.
Ironically, the Russian->Afghanistan invasion was WAY less deadly then what we see today in Ukraine.
Your point still stands about the US evolvement in Iran/Afghanistan, but darn your numbers really way below the actual body count in the Russian "3-day limited special military operation". Those are numbers from the first year, not the daily of the third year.
> Every week? If we just look at the Russian casualties numbers, its around 1000+ casualties PER DAY.
You are likely correct. I have heard of the high casualty estimates, but wanted to keep it conservative to not have someone complain about the estimate being too high.
Peacekeeping is like the UN sending troops in to monitor a ceasefire. These were wars. 35,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Overthrowing Gaddafi. Tens of thousands of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Drone strikes killing thousands of civilians in Pakistan. US foreign policy has equated “peace” and “stability” with its own military hegemony, being almost constantly at war to further its hypocritical ideology. It’s been a cash cow for the defense lobby.
Fun fact, the 2 longest periods of peace in history are called the Pax Romana and Pax Mongolica. The Mongolians and the Romans are known for fighting wars, lots and lots of wars. The only prolonged periods of peace in history are when one country or empire gets much stronger than the rest.
Another fun fact, the lowest per capita worldwide war deaths in a specific year in world history occurred in 2019.
And finally, when the US goes isolationist, the rest of you animals start killing each other instantly. So keep it up if you want a lot more "history" to happen in your lifetime.
Both the Pax Romana and Pax Mongolica saw their share of violence - plausibly comparable to 19th century Europe, or the Han and Tang dynasties, which which were not unipolar. We just don’t have good numbers for any of these cases. The long-history basis of your argument is flimsy at best.
The US itself only began resuming mass offensives with the decline of the USSR. But a world collapsing into unipolarity should lead to less conflict according to your view, as there would be less incentive for inter-state violence. The other pole was undergoing collapse, and the US sent soldiers, and continued to do so for decades.
But strictly speaking 2019 is part of a longer term downtrend in violence between nations after World War 2. That’s a trend that preceded American hegemony - a hegemony which is frankly a shadow of its former self. The real risk today isn’t multipolarity, it’s that the US is denial of multipolarity. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel. The US just doesn’t have the money to hemorrhage out to military disasters any more. It’s a house of cards growing taller and taller. What has no limit is the foolish arrogance of our leaders. The way to stop war is rarely escalation (anathema to the defense lobby).
And we are all human beings, US and non-US alike, not animals. It’s the capacity for compassion that makes us human, not the ability to kill.
If you ask me, Putin is welcome to end the Ukraine war at any time he wants! Getting out of a war is actually easy if you don't care what happens after that, e.g. in the case of Afghanistan accept as "sunk costs" the billions of dollars and thousands of lives that were lost during the 20 years that NATO was involved there.
Yeah two unpopular wars he did not start and spent a lot of effort figuring out how to get out of. He ended one and his vice president later ended the other.
Unlike the other Nobel prizes, the peace prize does not seem to be given as a reward for past achievements, but as an encouragement to continue current political engagement.
He won the award for his excellent ability of not being George W. Bush. In fairness, he really is quite good at this. I haven't really followed his career post-presidency, but reportedly he continues to not be George W. Bush to this day.
I mean I think you can go back well before that. At least to when Kissinger received it, while his co-laureate Le Duc Tho refused it on the basis that no peace had been achieved.
The notion that the Nobel prize is of any moral value, whatsoever, is faulty.
The Nobel Foundation is an attempt to make amends for the harms done by its founders invention of explosive materials - which subsequently birthed the military-industrial complex.
Its use of its material wealth to invest in index funds derives a great deal of wealth from weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies
.. In that sense, it has only been since 2017 that it has exclusively attempted to avoid profiting from investments in the Wests' military-industrial complex. However, there is a growing voice of discontent which claims that the Foundations' policy change to "avoid investing in controversial weapons systems" is a PR move, and not a real force for change.
Awarding the "Peace Prize" to a US' President who went on to drop more bombs per minute on innocent human beings than his predecessor, is not making amends.
No, I do not think that the Nobel Foundation is making amends. I think it is functioning as a propaganda tool of the very military-industrial complex from which it derived its wealth.
OK. I was looking narrowly at "The Nobel Foundation is an attempt to make amends for the harms done by its founders invention of explosive materials", but that was not in fact the issue.
I got downvoted so perhaps I should teach some history:
The North Vietnamese Communists were not freedom fighters. They were a criminal gang (with widespread but nowhere near total support from the population) who conquered North Vietnam and in the process killed many, raped many, tortured many, displaced many, made agriculture suffer, caused starvation, etc.
The conquest of South Vietnam also destroyed agriculture there, leading to mass starvation that killed at least 100,000 people.
He was a lot worse than Kissinger. There was a reason why the US fought against those bastards.
There's a "curse" in Nobel peace prize for sure. Not long after Obama got it, he got US dragged in to Libya and Syria. Merely 2 years after EU got it, Crimea was annexed during Ukraine trying to get closer to EU (and EU really did nothing about this).
Not to the fault of the people per se, but I see too much "awarded for effort, then oops turns out the complete opposite happened" with the peace prize.
Norwegians are known for their oil and salmon. not knowledge, but being spoiled. so maybe the committee are just painfully incompetent to the level we should now bet that Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years
> we should now bet that Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years
That much is obvious, given that:
- There are ongoing sanctions against the country by USA
- USA has a portion of its fleet just off Venezuale's shore, killing people in boats
- USA has an active $50 million reward for information leading to arrest of Venezuela's current president
- Current president's main rival is being internationally propped-up in the midst of all of the above, most recently by having the Nobel peace prize awarded to her
- That main rival has publicly supported US imperialism, promises privatization of Venezuela's energy resources, has called for US regime change in Venezuela, and is strongly Zionist and supporting a genocide
So, yes, Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years.
It's probably best to see the prize more as encouragement rather than endorsement of everything the person has ever done. Abiy Ahmed won the award "for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea". His actions in the last few years notwithstanding, he did do that. And insofar I can follow Ethiopian politics, his other actions from the early years were also generally in the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. At least in theory, celebrating and rewarding this kind of thing is good? I don't see how it would embolden him, or anyone else?
I apologise in advance for making light of the situation in your country, but did you find the peace awards more meaningless than Hinton's award for PHYSICS?!!
I won't deny some of the recipients are questionable, but I don't see how someone receiving the award or not would help prevent - or embolden - suffering in a country? I'm not familiar with what happened in Ethiopia, so apologies if this is obvious.
> This question will resolve as Yes if, before January 1, 2026, the United States carries out a military attack against Venezuela's territory or military forces.
Notice what they said: This year's peace prize is being given to someone for transitioning a country from dictatorship to democracy. They sure as hell aren't going to give it to someone doing the opposite!
They certainly wouldnt have given it to Hugo Chavez in 2002 when he overcame the American backed anti democratic coup to overthrow him.
Dissidents in countries which are enemies of the west? With enormous oil reserves? With an American fleet poised offshore ready for regime change? Definitely. Who are zionists to boot? Even better.
Dissidents in brutal, dictatorial countries (e.g. Saudi) which are allies? Hell no. Never. The nobel prize is a tool of statecraft and that would be a self defeating use of its PR potential to advance western foreign policy goals.
Venezuela is already heavily sanctioned and on the cusp of military invasion by USA. Machado is a core part of this campaign. She won't be sanctioned, she will be installed.
This isn't illegal but feels like it should be illegal. You don't see corporate officers trade their stocks right before a big announcement, because there are laws on it.
Other than the fact that polymarket is legally not a stock market, what really is the difference between insider trading on a stock market vs insider trading on polymarket? Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
The argument goes, the purpose of prediction markets is not to be fair, it's to provide information. Allowing insider trading benefits that purpose. And I think that's fair - this is not a place to invest your retirement savings, it's essentially gambling.
I kind of feel like abusing the information asymmetry when doing insider trading in a betting market should be illegal regardless if the purpose is to provide information or not, or if it's considered gambling or not. Just like doing so with stocks is illegal today.
The purpose of banning insider trading in markets is not "fairness". The purpose is to encourage participation. We want to promote investment in the stock market by the general public who don't have insider information, because that stimulates the economy by providing capital for productive businesses.
Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses. The only purpose of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions. Insider information makes the predictions more accurate. Unlike the stock market, we don't need to encourage public participation in prediction markets. In fact we might want to discourage it because it's essentially gambling. Therefore, we should definitely not outlaw insider trading in prediction markets.
Participation by the general public is an important part of prediction markets! That's the entire point of the wisdom of the crowd. Before an insider tilts the market in one direction, in the absence of much insider information, prediction market advocates point out that the prediction market will still capture information value that you can't glean from just one source.
If you discourage public participation in prediction markets "oh I will just lose my money to an insider a few hours or days before the final result, so why bother", then the end result is that nobody participates until an insider makes a big bet. Then the market is worthless until the insiders jump in. Is that really what prediction market advocates want?
The other point is that:
> Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses
Is not true. There's more than just capital in terms of cash. There's human capital (employees), brand value... and importantly, information. Which is what prediction markets intend to do in the future: become an information value source for productive businesses.
Money isn't the only unit of value.
Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
Emperically, we have plenty of participation by the public in prediction markets without a prohibition on insider trading. We don't need to encourage any more.
> Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information). Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
> Emperically, we have plenty of participation by the public in prediction markets without a prohibition on insider trading.
That's not true. As mentioned in this thread, the UK has laws in general against this (for betting). The USA also already has laws against specifically insider financial disclosures (Regulation FD) for corporations, that also applies to betting on prediction markets (Dirks vs SEC ruling in the general case). I'm not sure if Regulation FD applies to Nobel prizes, though, as that's not regulated by the SEC, and I'm not sure if the USA has general laws on illegal betting. But therefore, I do not think you can claim that "there is no prohibition on insider trading", as that's already clearly mostly illegal and thus already priced in for the public participation in prediction markets.
> It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information).
Again, the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources, so the status quo is already what I propose; you don't see insiders trade on predictions like "would OpenAI release GPT-5 in 2025" as that's against the law.
> Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
This is also not true. Bayes Theorem! The information does not need to be fully accurate, just more accurate, enough to update from P(A) to P(A|B) given P(B), where P(B) is the prediction market's price on a certain prediction! That means an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates, if you can derive information from it.
> an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates
I didn't say an inaccurate prediction market is completely worthless. But it is self-evident that an accurate prediction market is a lot more valuable than an inaccurate one.
> the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources
Not only are most markets not related to corporations including the most important ones, I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading. Everyone on Polymarket knows it's the wild west, and yet people still trade plenty.
> I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading.
Yeah, you're just describing humans behaving irrationally then. That's clearly not rational behavior (which to be fair, is totally expected for humans), which means that even if it's descriptive of the current markets now, that's not actually ideal.
Isn't that the entire point of the prediction market model? You derive the wisdom of the crowd by enabling smarter people who make better educated guesses as predictions (from the same access to information as others) to win out over time. They are incentivized to do this financially, by winning bets.
If markets just becomes "first person to cheat takes all", then there's no incentive to NOT cheat. So you drive away the people who power the prediction market in the absence of information. Over time, this means that the prediction market is just random noise until a leaker publishes news. At that point, you might as well as just skip the middleman and just make a website "LeakNews" where you can directly offer bounties that goes towards a reward paid out to a leaker for news you are interested in.
why? The purpose of the prediction market is not to be fair to market participants, it's to aggregate information regarding an event. There is a public benefit to allowing participants to bet on insider information. It could be even argued there is nothing unfair about it if everyone is free to do it/can anticipate others might have insider info. If we actually limited the market to participants who have insider information(not feasible because we can't verify), that'd be a great public utility. this is the next best thing for all those who don't participate in it. These are specialized markets and we shouldn't rush to 'protect' people who bet on very technical events happening.
> Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
I don't care either way but for the sake of argument:
Stock market is something you can't avoid (ignoring hermits), so an insider trade can ruin your pension fund or other financial wellbeing with you having no way to opt out of the risk, so the government protects you. (This is good!)
Polymarket is more like a bet between friends. You don't have to play but if you do understand it's unregulated and someone can cheat.
In the UK some MPs and police officers put bets on the date of the next general election on the basis of inside information. Apparently you can be prosecuted for cheating in a bet:
"The investigation, initiated in June 2024, focused on individuals suspected of using confidential information - specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date - to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets. Such actions constitute an offence of cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, a criminal offence."
The purpose of the stock market is to play matchmaker between companies and capital. Insider trading erodes trust of unaffiliated capital owners and thus hurts the purpose.
A prediction market, on the other hand, aims to provide the best possible probabilities on events (arguably), and "insider trading" helps that purpose.
Just the opposite. It's to the 'benefit of the market' to let insiders trade. That is, if you think that the point of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions (and the point of a financial market is to get accurate prices).
However, I agree that they might get rules against this. But not to benefit the market, just because people think this would be proper. Social desirability bias is strong.
In the long run, if participants feel they can't ever win because there's always an insider taking advantage, then participants might leave and that's to the detriment of the market. So it might be in the interest of the market to make sure everyone has a fair enough chance. Finding the right balance here is somewhat of an art.
This is similar to the way all football teams benefit from fair referees and even matches, even if sometimes it means they lose.
Also: the point of an exchange is to make money. Different types of exchanges have different fee structures, but generally their profit is a function of volume, so there primary objective is to attract volume. Since every trade / bet requires two participants, they need to balance the needs of both participants to make it work. Price discovery is a positive side effect of efficient and fair markets, which is why as a society we like them and encourage them, but it isn't what they are trying to achieve except inasmuch as it encourages participation.
> In the long run, if participants feel they can't ever win because there's always an insider taking advantage, then participants might leave and that's to the detriment of the market.
In the US, there's no general rule that protects you against trading against someone with insider information. Mostly what's forbidden is an employee X of company Y trading on her own account; but if X acts on behalf of Y, they can go crazy.
For you on the other side of the trade, it doesn't really matter whether you sell your Standard Oil stock to someone officially acting on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway who knows that next week Warren Buffett will announce that they are going to buy Standard Oil, or whether you are selling your stock to someone who has the same information, but is not officially authorised by Berkshire Hathaway.
Yet, people still trade in the stock market just fine.
I would suggest as a retail investor you shouldn't buy individual stocks anyway: just buy an index fund.
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and people still traded them.
In any case, your arguments suggest that exchanges should be able to decide whether they want to allow insider trading, and companies should be allowed to decide which exchange they want to list at (so they can indirectly decide whether to allow insider trading). No need for a blanket one-size-fits-none rule.
If you actually want to know 'why' people think so, have a look at all the discussions around insider trading in financial markets. No one is forcing you to buy stocks at gunpoint, either.
(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)
It's easier to justify stock markets banning insider information because there are ignorant participants through their investment funds who we would like to protect. Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events? Even if we ban on this one too, should we in general be able to create a market that explicitly allows insider information for some arbitrary thing, insideinformationverywelcomemarket, where everyone is aware it's the main point of the market or shall we just protect these people from themselves?
Yes, as I said there are good arguments for allowing insider trading at least in some circumstances (and some arguments against).
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and the market worked just fine.
My point in my earlier comment was that your question about 'why?' seemed a bit weird. You can look up the 'why?' relatively easily, even if you don't find it convincing.
> Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events?
Because some information affects the stock market. So Regulation FD already applies, for financial news.
> Even if we ban on this one too
The UK already banned this, see other comment above in this thread.
> insideinformationverywelcomemarket
You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". Or, basically a crowdfunded TMZ. TMZ will pay thousands of dollars for non-financial info on celebs and then publish that news. That that point, you're just describing a slightly classier crowdfunded TMZ.
It would be interesting to see if someone can develop insider trading tracking algorithms to uncover highly probable useful information out of prediction markets before major public announcements. It would be unfair to people involved in markets, but highly beneficial to everyone else, at least so long as prediction markets remain relatively niche.
Are you suggesting that an unregulated gambling system primarily advocated for by gamblers in an ecosystem rife with degenerate gambling and outright fraud that advertises itself with an entirely theoretical and vibes based theory of "better information" that is primarily filled with people desperate to make gambling a "good thing" and provides ample opportunity for the incestuous and deeply connected crypto community to fleece people who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be delicious targets...
You think maybe that might not be on the straight and narrow?
Maybe we should get people to bet on it! Gamblers routinely show that they have a strong understanding of the world, right? What? No I don't have a problem. Hey do you have a few dollars I can borrow?
I wonder if she would rather not have won it? Being the focus of frustration of someone with enormous capacity to thwart your efforts or even destroy your country can't be a pleasant position to be in. For her sake I hope he quickly finds something else to be pissed off about.
Things in the US seem to keep sliding toward further power centralization. Regardless of politics, that is bad policy of the highest order (bit).
Great opportunity for someone to create some effective opposition.
There is a medal in it!
Ironically, someone who badly wants a medal is actually in the perfect position to turn around the brain/competency drain, “bring back science”, boost US competition with China’s green tech wave, help Ukraine win (instead of the endless: “not lose for now”), fire the all the senate confirmed bozos…
If he did, a Nobel prize would be unconventional under the circumstances. But well worth it nevertheless.
No Rushmore. There isn’t enough room left on that mountain for that size of an ego. But maybe a genuine gold working toilet installation for Rushmore tourists.
———
Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment, reaffirming key points of the existing constitution with a highlighter for supreme justices with poor eyesight, might be one promising approach.
> “No person shall” [something, something] “hold any office” [something, something], “who, having” [something, something] “engaged in insurrection”, [something, something] “or given aid” [or incited, or encouraged insurrection, or threatened a vice president for not implementing an insurrection, or delayed relief for law enforcement engaged in stopping an insurrection] “or comfort” [or praise or approval or promises of pardons] “to the enemies thereof.”
> […All the powers of the purse given to the representative branch, with no provision for presidential “creative” reinterpretation…]
> [Etc., etc.]
If anyone wants to give a shout out to anyone building effective resistance to the avalanche of presidential power, essentially being voluntarily abdicated by the other two branches, I would be interested to hear of them.
(Traditionally that has been a very high consensus bipartisan issue. Not everyone, but most everyone.)
> Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Interesting point! Bit of a tangent, bit Brazil is in the process of holding Bolsonaro to account for power grabs that have a lot of similarities with what's happening in the US.
Too early to call their long term efficacy, but definitely one to watch.
I don't pretend to be an expert in Brazil's politics, but to my knowledge, Bolsonaro is in jail for money laundering and abuse of office for financial gain - is there genuine doubt about him being guilty? If not, it doesn't seem like a fair claim to suggest he's a political prisoner?
I think the point I was trying to make was, a few years ago, it looked like Brazil might all out stop being a democracy. It now seems more likely that democracy will continue, and the process of that de-escalation is an important one to watch.
>I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Trump, and the regime associated with him, are an exploitation of preexisting degradation of limited, democratic and responsible governance in the United States. The restoration of"good government" is the obvious counter to his rising dictatorship, but that would result in other existing power blocs (themselves also abusive, if not so gratuitously as Trump) loosing their own ability to exploit the system after he exits the stage. Faced with a choice between "stop Trump and end our own abuses as a consequence" or "let him run rampant and hope the US survives so that we can exploit it later" established American institutions have overwhelmingly gone with the second option.
The Democrats don't appear to be falling down the same hole.
They are not rallying for or under an Anti-Trump, but looking for a credible remedy for Trump.
Unfortunately, that is a much harder challenge, given how centralized their opponent party's representative power has become. Centralized power is so dangerous, because it is so effective.
And the Supreme Court's participation in that centralization adds a formidable head wind to any reform.
I just don't see the Democrat being able to take the same road. Even if they wanted to.
I think the future for now is balanced between Trump successfully tilting the next elections enough to continue to sideline Democrats, or attempting to do so and triggering a sea change/backlash that gives Democrats some significant power to attempt reforms with.
For the record:
Hamas leader Dr Basem Naim has publicly acknowledged Trump's part in bringing terrorists to the table, saying: ”Without the personal interference of President Trump in this case, I don't think that it would happen to reach this end, the end of the war.”
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with these sorts of casual throwabouts of extremely complex and unique geopolitical situations though. Gandhi existed in a particular moment and context - take the same man and put him up against a different regime, and you would not get the same outcome.
It's like how people talk up peaceful protest by referencing Martin Luther King. He was a major centralizing figure for civil rights, but he did not exist in a vacuum of context either.
Precisely. Liberation movements have various tools at their disposal. But using the same tool in a different context does not guarantee a similar outcome.
On Gandhi in particular, many do not realize that there were parallel movements inside India that did resort to violence. So the context is not as simple as it may seem.
It helped that WW-II broke the British. Non Violence needs an audience and a population that i) can feel shame ii) holds some power to do something about it.
Gandhi's protests were causing turmoil and dissent within the UK. Not to forget the fact that the massive Indian population had gone into civil disobedience as well, making it costlier to rule India. Anymore issues, including any harm to Gandhi would have caused massive problems for the British, both in India and at their own homeland. They had to spend to keep everybody safe and the situation normal. That wouldn't have been the outcome of a violent revolution. Summarizing, Gandhi's peaceful protest cannot be described in simple terms. There are a lot of nuances.
Gandhi's protests are a very valuable source of info on both violent and nonviolent protests. It's easy to talk about an armed or violent revolution. But it's not a decision to be taken very lightly. Apparently, both the sides of the American civil war went into it expecting it to somehow end in a few days! You know the carnage that followed. I have no clue why they held that belief. But it supports the fact that people almost always underestimate the cost of a war.
Non-violent protests are more effective at garnering support and mobilizing a huge movement. The human costs are also arguably lesser. I dont know if it's practical all the time. But it should be given a big chance if an opportunity exists.
Non violent resistance can be and has been crushed many times in history.
To win one needs to wield some kind of power or leverage. Non violence does not work if your adversary cannot be shamed by a moral high ground. It will achieve zilch in that case.
I mean, Poland managed to get rid of communist rule through a peaceful process(which doesn't mean people weren't arrested, tortured, intimidated and beaten). There was a desire for free and democratic elections and it happened.
"This recognition of the struggle of all Venezuelans is a boost to conclude our task: to conquer Freedom.
We are on the threshold of victory and today, more than ever, we count on President Trump, the people of the United States, the peoples of Latin America, and the democratic nations of the world as our principal allies to achieve Freedom and democracy.
I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!
The funny thing is, both sides can read your comment and assume you’re talking about the other side having the "wrong" opinion. It’s the kind of platitude that doesn’t really add anything, it just signals that you see yourself as being above "the wrong side", whichever side that happens to be.
Why do people have this weird idea that humans reliably pick the correct answer, even given infinite information?
Humans are incapable of being rational, it's not how our brains function. We can, with great effort, emulate what we think rational thought would be like.
Human brains regularly lie to themselves because it is cheaper or easier than actually processing input.
You know that fun retort: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?", and how it's always trotted out as this supposed retort to someone suggesting you ignore obvious info, but our eyes are lying to us constantly. There are tons of ways your eyes cheat, or lie, or outright ignore reality in favor of some internal model. This isn't even limited to optical illusions!
And the same is true of all sensory input we have. There are auditory illusions and ways your ears lie to you. There are things like phantom limbs that demonstrate your brain will ignore explicit and clear reality for no reason.
Humans are emotional creatures, like all biological creatures. Humans make choices emotionally
Do you think the most emotionally charged information will always be truthful?
The outcome we are experiencing was obvious, but people ignored it because that sort of implies that information needs to be filtered or curated and that makes people nervous.
I did not recognize her name, but after doing some research, I am impressed by her work, and do not have an issue with her getting the prize.
However, her accomplishments were also clear last summer, and I feel it would have been far more appropriate to give her the prize last year. Instead, it went to an organization that has been around for 70 years. While they have done great work, there was nothing they did specifically in 2024 that stood out, at least that I could find. So, clearly, Machado was not an obvious choice, at least last year.
Also want to add that I don't think Trump should have gotten it, simply because it is far too early to tell if the current "middle east peace plan" will actually turn out to be more than just fanfare.
A better statement would have been to have no peace prize this year.
Did not realize this, you are correct. I thought nominations were accepted until late in the year since so many people were "nominating" Trump, even before the middle east thing.
But I am confused, Obama got his prize in 2009, which would mean he did not receive it for anything he did as president, and before that he was only domestically focused, afaik.
edit - I also see from other comments that people were placing bets on trump for the prize, which would not make sense if he had to be nominated by 1/31
Trump will never win, nobody who floods the zone with a low signal/noise ratio will ever win this prize or any of the 'elite' prizes.
The low signal/noise ratio people are at best perceived as 'communicators' more often jesters.
If anything the anomaly of the social media era is that people who put themselves out there as low signal/noise ratio character are even taken seriously at all.
Prizes like that are given to people who are perceived to be special, the more you talk and yap the more you give people an opportunity to realize how NOT special you are and how NOT special your character is.
Peter Grant did it best with his clients Led Zeppelin back in the days, keeping them in the dark before and after the 3.5 hour shows.
It made my day a 100x better that they didn't cave and give it to Trump. Him sewing division at home is grounds for impeachment I'd hope but congress doesn't function anymore so.
Before authoritarian rule, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest nations in the global South (if not one of the wealthiest period in the 50-60s). Then Chávez came along and stacked the courts with lackeys, intimidated critical media outlets and harassed journalists, diverted state spending for political patronage, demanded loyalty oaths from underlings, injected "Bolivarian" ideology into schools and sports, took control of private industry...
I'd tell you what he did to elections but we'll all find out soon enough.
Would have preferred it going to aid workers in Gaza or something like that but an NED-funded dissident politician will do as long as it's not Donald Trump.
I sincerely pray that Maria Corina achieves her goals. Incredible bravery. I'm pretty sure she remains in hiding in Venezuela to this day
My "acid test" for whether or not someone on the left actually cares about freedom, democracy, etc is whether or not they support the Maduro government
She’s been in hiding since the last elections that Maduro blatantly stole. I lost hope myself about Venezuela but I wish the regime ends soon for those still there enduring it.
I understand your frustration. But you may want to avoid a foreign interference/invasion more than a bad regime. The former is arguably worse than the latter, though there are exceptions.
It’s been over 25 years since these thugs took power. I don’t care if one country or a coalition of countries gets rid of them. I would actually welcome foreign intervention at this point.
Like Afghanistan? Or Germany after WWII? You talk of these 'Foreign forces' as some sort of benevolent power liberating people from tyranny for charity. Wait till they stay back to extract payment for their 'efforts'. We have watched decade and decades of this moral grandstanding destroy weaker nations. And need I remind you how much these 'foreign forces' are responsible for creating the hellish conditions in South America though their interference in the first place? It's just replacement of one tyrant with another. Another that brings in weapons and troops from outside the country.
But just so you picture it: things are so dire there after 25 years that people would even cheer at any country intervening.
So let’s pause for a moment and think: what is the best alternative? Keep enduring the regime like the Cubans have been doing for double the time we have? That’s also a depressing outlook.
Of course it is. I'm not denying or downplaying how bad it is. These situations are scary as hell. They're not supposed to happen. And it must change. Venezuela deserves peace. But now imagine the alternative you're thinking of.
To start with, who was responsible for the political turmoil in South America for much of its history? Imagine another invasion. Do you expect them to withdraw as soon as the current Venezuelan regime has fallen? The regime that's virtue signalling now has a history of proudly brandishing their xenophobia and racism. What do you think life will be like under a remote controlled rule by them? There are plenty of examples around the world for how that will end. Is that the change you wish for?
> what is the best alternative?
The best alternative is for the native population to bring about change without foreign interference. But honestly, I have no clue if that's practical at all. I don't know any other solutions either. The people must decide for themselves as to how to resolve this. All I'm saying is that you must be careful about the intentions of anyone who steps in offering help. I sincerely wish that the Venezuelans win peace. Good Luck!
Thanks mate, that’s what the people have been trying for many years but it’s an uphill battle when they have the all the repressive means and the population does not.
I'm not very familiar with the situation in Venezuela. But the 'bad regime' is just a generic phrase that was not intended to convey the seriousness in any sense. However, what I can claim is that you totally ignored the seriousness of a foreign interference and invasion. Yes - a dictatorship is not a good situation at all anywhere in the world. But what good is it for a nation if one horrible regime is to be replaced by another? Do you know how many atrocities western militaries have inflicted in countries that they invaded in the name of liberating them? Many of them compete with the local tyrants on how cruel they can get. You wont learn much about it because the western media doesn't seem to care. Ask the people of countries that suffered western military invasion instead. I'm not sure you realize how much people outside the west resent the 'services rendered' in their countries. It's a long running trope around the world that if there is a serious conflict in any part of the world, it's sure to have the hand of one of two western powers in it. Yet, the western population pat themselves in the back for the virtues of freedom and equality. There are even those who are still proud of their colonial past, believing that they enriched their colonies somehow. Meanwhile, don't forget the depth of xenophobia and racism of the current regime that's virtue signalling with the intent to invade Venezuela.
> I'm not very familiar with the situation in Venezuela.
You should have stopped there.
> Do you know how many atrocities western militaries have inflicted in countries that they invaded in the name of liberating them?
Tell that to the Ukrainians who I'm sure would love USAF air support and for the 101st to come help out. I'm certain that no matter what the US does, you will complain about it. We could walk top the water and bring democracy and prosperity to Venezuela using the power of love you would still find a reason to complain.
One thing you will never do is actually think of the people on the ground (unless they agree with your specific political ideology). The rest of the world is getting tired of your obnoxious ideological rhetoric. We know you are only complaining because you don't want yet another far left failure out of power.
I'm in no mood to consider any sort of gatekeeping.
Like I said, much of the world is enjoying a lot of 'democracy and prosperity' that you delivered! If you choose a random conflict or crisis anywhere in the world and study its history, you will find your grimy fingerprints all over it, in 8 out of 10 cases. You still feel entitled to speak for the rest of the world as if everything revolves around you, despite being clueless about what they feel about your presence or involvement. And it comes with the customary "when did you ever thank us for what we did" style condescension that has become a persistent joke about you these days. This is exactly the type of hubris that landed you in the current crisis. If you want to see obnoxious ideological rhetoric, read your own statement imagining it's from a foreigner talking about your country. You'll see it if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
Definitely. Machado fits the profile of a "smol bean opposition" and is involved in a situation that USA government has great interest in (and she has great relationships with those on Capitol Hill). While Trump personally wants the award, the USG would have no qualms also lobbying for Machado as part of their "maximum pressure" campaign against Venezuelan sovereignty.
She's a vocal Trump supporter [1]. Last time Trump was president his administration did attempt to coup Venezuela [2]:
> Tapper returned to Bolton’s remark about having helped plan coups.
> Bolton said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”
> Tapper asked: “Successful coups?”
> Bolton said: “Well, I wrote about Venezuela in in the book and it turned out not to be successful.
> Before Bolton joined the Trump administration, it was widely reported that Trump wanted to use the US military to oust Maduro. In August 2017, Trump told reporters: “We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour.”
> “We want as our principal objective the peaceful transfer of power but I will say again, as [Trump] has said from the outset, and Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, all options are on the table.”
>The Nobel Peace Prize 2025 was awarded to Maria Corina Machado "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy"
>I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause - Maria Corina Machado
Seems to me democracy isn't her real priority or why flatter someone who tries to transition from democracy to dictatorship?
There is a lot of conflict in the world. Causes that seem more urgent and important than yet another supposed authoritarian regime in Latin America.
To my understanding the biggest problem in Venezuela (and it’s a big problem) is the terrible living conditions. I don’t know how much the supposed regime is to blame for that and if a supposed good government would have done a better job. Maybe a good goverment would have still managed a country with poor living conditions for the majority. But we wouldn’t hear about it in the news because The West has labelled it as a good government. (How selective is the reporting on countries with bad living conditions?)
I read the bio. I don’t know enough about Venezuela to judge whether she is a pro-democracy fighter or just another politician who wants power for herself. Certainly you can label any candidate pro-democracy if they oppose your most disfavorite regime.
So I’m not going to spend two hours researching what the Venezuela situation is about and whether this is a good award or if it’s just trying to stick a thumb in the eye of a regime that The West doesn’t like. Just so I can argue through six replies with five different people about (either) how downtrodden the Venezuelans are or how manufactured the outrage against the government is. (But you can guess which side I am most likely to fall on.)
Wake me up in two weeks when there’s a topic on democracy itself. And then the tone has shifted from Democracy Uber Alles to actually, did you know that Plato the most smartest man in the world was skeptical about democracy, actually I think a pseudo-democracy where only smart people get to decide would be great, actually.
It was a MAGA talking point from the start, meant for MAGA ppl... The chance he got it was 0%, because:
1- The Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of 5 Norwegians. Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help, it's probably even counterproductive. Random endorsements on Twitter don't matter either..
2- The committee values international cooperation, not trade wars, isolationism, or cozying up to dictators.
3- They prize the defense of democracy, not attacks on it.
4- The cherry on the cake: Machado got the prize while he's been threatening war with Venezuela itself. It almost feels like a big f*ck off
Your last comment isn't very consistent. For one thing the US recognizes Edmundo Gonzalez as the rightful president[1]. Machado helped him during the campaign last year. For another, Machado opposes Maduro's regime and she actually dedicated her prize to Trump.[2]
" She has expressed support for the use of force to depose the Maduro regime; one of her advisors told the New York Times that she has coordinated with the Trump administration and that she has a plan for the first hundred hours after his deposition"
Not sure what democratic mandate she has to be in charge post a foreign led military coup - though she is a graduate of the Yale World Fellows programme.
So rather than a big FU it would appear to be more likely to be an attempt to raise her profile to legitimise a US led coup.
Norwegians don't care about legitimizing US coups, and the current US administration is incapable of working with /anyone/ let anyone influencing Norway.
That's certainly ironic and I think the implications are concerning but don't you think Maduro is the one leading a coup? There is solid statistical evidence Gonzalez won the election.
Machado is manufacturing consent for Trump's planned invasion, so point 4 is a bit weaker than you might like. Imagine looKing at Iraq and saying "yeah, that's what I want for my country".
David Frum talked at length about self-abasement in MAGA public culture in his recent podcast for the Atlantic[1].
> I think it also becomes a real test of in-group loyalty to see who can outcompete in slavishness the other members of the circle, who are also competing to be slavish. That’s why you get these strange [phenomena] like Donald Trump’s physicians claiming that he’s the most physically vigorous president ever.
> Now, even when Donald Trump was younger, he was a big man, but he was never a great athlete. And now, as he approaches his 80th birthday, he’s obviously not physically fit.
> The fact is, you’re not just willing to tell a lie, but tell a lie that abases you, that makes you look foolish, that makes you look like you don’t care about yourself at all, that you only defer to the leader. That’s the real sign of loyalty. It’s flattery that is not meant to be believed but functions as a kind of system of in-group recognition.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to Chairman Mao (supposedly) swimming across the Yangtze River in his 70s at a pace faster than an Olympic champion of today.
There’s no meaning to any of it. It’s just propaganda and self-abasement for the purpose of loyalty competition to the leader. In fact, the more ludicrous, the better, because it means you’re willing to fully destroy any personal credibility you may have as a sacrifice to show loyalty.
And we might just take Greenland from them in retribution!
(oh wait, that's Denmark, but never mind, a certain president probably wouldn't know the difference; if some Fox News commentator said that Greenland belongs to Norway, he'd believe it).
See I truly respect President Boric from Chile, it’s one of the few progressive leaders from the region that has been outspoken about the Maduro regime and calling it what it is: a dictatorship. Unlike other leaders of the region who could be doing way more.
It’s pretty understandable for Mrs. Corina to take whatever support she gets internationally.
Providing her with this award while Trump's naval battle groups stand ready to attack Venezuela isnt helping arrest the collapse of the west's moral authority.
That’s like saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy supports Trump. Foreign politicians operate outside of U.S. domestic politics - they don’t get to choose other countries’ leaders. Their job is to use diplomacy to navigate international politics in whatever shape those politics happen to be in.
It's because he is the current president of the US and US support it's key for the liberation of Venezuela, she also supported Biden and Kamala Harris, have Kamala Harris won she would have "supported" her. And it's not like she supports Trump, she is not on favor of his policies but she knows his support it's necessary.
Yeah, I'm wondering if the Nobel Peace prize has anything to do with peace for people, or for her neoliberalism stance of protection of the free market that would usher peace for the business interests of oil companies [0].
I must confess I am no Venezuelan political expert, and it always gives me pause whether the economic siege that has been laid against Venezuela with the sanctions is about democracy, or about access to unrestricted markets (a la United Fruit Company — now Chiquita — and Standard Fruit Company — now Dole plc).
The problem in South America is that both versions are true. The outside exploitation pressures are extremely strong, so any vaguely socialist government succumbs to the temptation to squash the outside agitators .. and any local opposition who actually have a valid point or real anti-corruption objections. Running a moderate social democrat centrist country in that situation is not stable, instead you get pendulum swings from left to right and back again, with significant human cost along the way.
(exception maybe Costa Rica?)
To be clear, Venezuela is long past the "popular socialism" phase and decayed into the "strongman holding on" phase.
This is a tangent, but this type of You-Know-Who speech is so irritating. If you want to say Trump just say it, don't dance around it like he's some kind of god who'll punish you if you say his name in vain.
Because "just say it" doesn't work on many sites. I don't know about this site but anecdotally, I've seen that when I use certain words / phrases / names on YouTube or Reddit subreddits, those comments are either not shown at all (not shown even to me) or shadow-banned (not shown to others).
Another reason I don't just say it sometimes is to avoid trolling by fans of whatever or whoever I criticized.
people are getting in very real world trouble for saying negative things about certain people or their friends.
i’m not sure if you’ve seen how many people have lost their jobs for saying truths about kurk or how many people are losing jobs, scholarships, visas, education etc for saying things about a certain regime, but it’s happening, for real. they’re actively pushing to force people to turn over their social media accounts for review.
we can’t blame this poster for vagueposting here. i often pushback against vagueposting but in today’s climate we cant blame people for taking their personal safety seriously when it comes to vocalizing their criticisms.
I don't know about Russia but there seem to be loads of cases of people being arrested (or detained or harrassed by police) for holding up a blank piece of paper, including one case in Cornwall: https://netpol.org/2023/02/10/cornish-protester-assaulted-an...
People lost their jobs for cheering about someone being killed AND for justifying political violence. Full stop...
That you think anything else is copium of Russian quality. That you think that criticizing Trump would get you fired is absurd. You seriously need to work on yourself. You aren't getting push back for "telling the truth" (which is just repeating questionable things from journalists). You are getting push back for being a terrible human being. So terrible in fact that people are leaving the Dems just because they don't want to be associated with them, not for any policy or something the Reps did.
PS None of this would have hurt the Democratic Party if it wasn't for how you reacted to his death. It was truly the worst thing I have seen in US politics in my lifetime.
You assume that we're dealing with a rational person who has all their senses intact.
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
You're not dealing with anyone. There's a chap in the white house you don't like, and you want to have a pre-emptive go at him. Either he doesn't say anything, in which case you forget you said this. Or he is upset, in which case you feel justified in this. Or he's happy for the winner, in which case you feel like if he mentions it at all he must be upset.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
> I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
Trump might win it anyway. If he stares at Norway long enough and his minions find a way to harass the country (which is the MO these days), I have a feeling Norway will find a way to give him one (or two if he fancies), just like they found ways to not give it to many deserving people throughout its history, just because nations with convincing physical likeness would not have appreciated that.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
> What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Hamas broke the ceasefire on Oct 7 and killed 1000+ Israelis. Israel is justified in breaking every ceasefire with Hamas until the end of time. You should not negotiate in good faith with terrorists. There should be peace with the Palestinians, but not with Hamas.
Hasbara bullet points with no effort. Logically falls apart upon the most basic of inspections. For example, if a one day attack justifies a disproportionate slaughter for 2 years, then what is a merely PROPORTIONATE response to 2 years of slaughter? What is a merely proportionate response to 85% of all buildings destroyed and all infrastruction being turned to rubble?
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
Even if the Gaza deal stick, I don't see how one could receive a nobel prize while deploying army and starting a war in their own country in cities/states/counties led by their political opponents.
The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.
I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously).
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land).
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined.
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
I hope they’ve managed to convey this to the whitehouse.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
> I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
100% true, although the opinion is unpopular in this forum. In the end, this is rewarding some very bad people just because they oppose somebody (supposedly) even worse. But that doesn't have anything to do with "peace". This award lost its meaning a long time ago, maybe Netanyahu will be the winner next year.
Yeah it's the same a criminal dictator than the person risking her life to overthrown him peacefully. Maria Corina is trying to get all the support possible, and in Spain that support clearly comes from the right, not the left. Maybe because the two main left parties have well known ties with the regime.
Between Kissinger, Obama, the Myanmarese CIA asset, etc., it's basically the Nobel Crimes Against Humanity prize at this point. I'm surprised they didn't give it to the Orange Thing.
There has been some speculation that if Trump didn't win this one, he'll lose all motivation in making peace, at least in the near future. Like for example Gaza.
The man has the shortest attention span in history, and needs constant dopamine hits to continue on something.
But as I said in another thread, María Corina Machado is more than worthy - and well deserved. It is just such a shame that Trump will likely throw the biggest tantrum, and destroy stuff, for no other reason that he didn't get the big shiny thing he wanted.
> There has been some speculation that if Trump didn't win this one, he'll lose all motivation in making peace, at least in the near future. Like for example Gaza.
Were this the reason for him to receive it, he would deserve it even less, and erase every shred of dignity this award ever had.
lol!! Most people from rest of the world, minus west, knows what Nobel prize is all about. It is just a political tool for usa and west. Clearly, it about Venezuela oil and gold. Pathetic to see their hypocrisy and double standards.
Date: June 2025
Deal: Rwanda-DRC Peace Agreement
Parties: Rwanda, DRC
Desc: Preliminary White House deal + Qatar ceasefire; ends proxy wars over resources. RW troop pullout, DRC disarmament, investment.
US Role: Trump-brokered; signed late June, impl. July. Fragile per critics.
Date: July 2025
Deal: Cambodia-Thailand Ceasefire
Parties: Cambodia, Thailand
Desc: Truce halting border skirmishes (40+ killed, 300k displaced); med. by Malaysia w/ US-China input. Tackles old border disputes.
US Role: Trump supported via leader calls; started July 28, but accusations of violations linger.
Date: July 2025
Deal: Egypt-Ethiopia Peace Accord
Parties: Egypt, Ethiopia
Desc: De-escalates Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam tensions; water-sharing & security coop to avoid Nile conflict.
US Role: US shuttle diplomacy; fits African stability efforts.
Date: July 2025
Deal: India-Pakistan Truce
Parties: India, Pakistan
Desc: Renews/expands Line of Control ceasefire; cuts firing, opens econ corridors.
US Role: Personal Trump calls; credited w/ averting nuclear risks.
Date: July 2025
Deal: Israel-Iran Rapprochement
Parties: Israel, Iran
Desc: Econ normalization & de-escalation; security guarantees, less proxy fights in Syria/Yemen.
US Role: Brokered post-Iran nuclear pressure; called a "major stride" for stability.
Date: August 8, 2025
Deal: Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Declaration
Parties: Armenia, Azerbaijan
Desc: Ends 35+ yr Nagorno-Karabakh war; White House-signed. Creates "Trump Route" (TRIPP) corridor for trade/energy, cuts Russian sway.
US Role: Trump hosted & negotiated; boosts Caucasus transit/resources.
Date: October 8, 2025
Deal: Israel-Hamas Gaza Ceasefire (Phase 1 of 20/21-Point Plan)
Parties: Israel, Hamas (med. Egypt/Qatar/US)
Desc: Ends 2-yr war: ~100 hostages freed by Oct 13, prisoner swaps, troop pullback to pre-2023 lines, 72-hr truce. Long-term: Hamas disarm, Gaza rebuild under intl board (Trump chairs).
US Role: Trump's big win; Kushner/Witkoff finalized in Egypt. Hailed as "everlasting peace."
Is the Nobel Peace Prize given to people who accomplished a lot as individuals (like Maria Corina Machado) or people who accomplished a lot at scale without doing much beyond a few phone calls and document-signings, like Trump?
Because a few phone calls and document-signings can bring about many orders of magnitude more "peace units" in the world, if backed by the world's largest economy and the world's most effective military at projecting power.
The Nobel peace prize cannot be given to someone who rebrands the ministry of defence to the ministry of war and proclaims on a stage that he hates his enemies. These things are mutually exclusive.
Not only that. He has threatened to militarily invade countries like Canada and Greenland just because he wants what they have. He also asked his supporters to punch his critics in the face and offered to pay their legal fees.
And arguably it should not be given to someone who requests/asks/begs for it constantly and openly. It would brign about all sorts of bad incentives in something that should be a reward for good intentions and efforts.
Go on ..? On the face of it, a prize for holding back from being an asshole seems like a good thing, and perhaps a more worthwhile incentive than a prize for saints who would have been extremely virtuous anyway.
Incentivizing foreign interventions in conflicts "just" to earn a prize and risking to aggravate a situation/conflict/war does not sound good at all to me.
It's not about rewarding saints, it's about rewarding people who do genuine efforts to bring peace in this world.
You wouldn't want to incentivize a reckless vigilante just because some of the times it might lead to a desired outcome, disregarding all the times they'd get it wrong and would cause injustices (leading to more chaos, and not peace) just in their selfish pursuit of accolades and prizes.
Trump is openly mentioning that what he's doing right now is worth a prize, can't get closer to doing it "for the prize". He exaggerates all his accomplishment (no he did not end 7, 8, 9, etc. wars... barely even one).
All of this is done/said for one purpose, and it's not actually peace. It's one thing you can't reproach to him, he is pretty transparent in his intent when you give him a microphone. Do you think he will lose sleep over the peace in the middle east failing (once again)... or do you think he will care more about not getting the prize he literally mentions every time he's questioned about a war?
There doesn't need to be. Basic dignity and logical thinking tell you that an award for honest efforts to facilitate peace awarded to MLK and Mother Teresa cannot be awarded to someone like Donald Trump. And you see that obviously the Nobel committee shares this opinion, which is why he luckily did not receive it.
Have you checked some of the winners? Arafat is there and so are Kissinger - the napalm sticks on kids guy and Obama - the guy that shot hospitals and weddings in Afghanistan. Trump will fit right in.
Isolated, I think his efforts in the middle east, particular around normalising Israel's relations with its neighbours (though I believe he did fuck up handling Iran because of his personal bias) could have let to a peace prize in a few years time (maybe a shared one) and certainly be more deserved than Obama's, however I agree with others that all his other actions, including threatening to invade allies, should disqualify him.
You know, funilly enough, if trump's peace plan for the gaza war actually holds, then that idiot has somehow probably done more for peace than most nobel peace prize winners.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
1) 121 mentions of trump in 600+ comments does not mean more than 90% of the comments are trump. You know this of course, you are just lying. Why else would you mention a count of trump mentions as if your original assertion wasn't a percentage?
2) 90%+ of the comments here were never about trump. Not when you posted and not when I posted. You are lying. Even with the "even more trump comments" it is still nowhere near 90%. The sentiment is not "overwhelmingly partisan." Again, you know this, you are just lying.
3) Asserting that trump has nothing to do with the topic at hand is completely absurd, egregiously dishonest and ridiculous. You know exactly why people are bringing him up. Even Machado mentioned him when accepting the prize. The assertion is even more dishonest than you saying more than 90% of the comments here mention trump (an objectively false and easily refutable lie)
Who said there are no good news? For the people that never lived in a dictatorship here are a few reasons people were killed in one:
• grafitty agains the regime
• making anti refime jokes
• beeing a top official and saying you don't think the direction we are going is good
Beeing thrown in prison for years reasons:
• owning a walkie talkie. Can be used to organize a revolution they said
• listening to foreign radio stations
Even if Venezuela goes to hell even deeper, she still deserves the prize for what she has already done!
The way she, and her team, managed to convince venezuelans that the election mattered, and to prepare to gather the evidence of the elections under constant threats from the government, that we all knew they were going to steal, and do it entirely peacefully, was an extremely impressive achievement on its own.
What an impressive act of coordination from MCM
:standing-ovation:
Disclaimer: I'm not accusing you of (intentionally or unintentionally) doing this but your comment brought up the issue.
For a lot of horrific events in the world, you will find a bias exposed by the use of active vs passive voice. Compare:
- "100 children died". How?
- "100 children killed". By whom? Why? How?
- "100 children killed in conflict". Between who? How? Why?
' "100 children killed in air strike on refugee camp by X". Oh...
The point is that a lot of people treat what is happening in Venezuela like it's some kind of unavoidable natural disaster like an earthquake. This reinforces the idea that nobody is responsible and, more improtantly, there's nothing we can do.
Venezuelans are being intentionally starved to death by economic sanctions (that's what sactions are). Why? Because Maduro is bad. Sound familiar? It should. Castro was bad. Saddam Hussein was bad (despite being a US puppet for decades).
The actual issue is that these people threaten the interests of Western companies. That's it. That's the only thing that matters.
Maduro, Castro, and Saddam Hussein are/were bad. Castro and Hussein, at least, committed murders to maintain power and Maduro pulled a coup after he lost an election.
Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.
In 1988, Saddam Hussein dropped nerve gas on Kurds. Saddam was then a US ally and a foil against Iran. The US had propped up that war killing millions of Iraqis and Iranians for almost a decade for basically a net zero outcome. Why was Iran an enemy? Because the US deposed the democratically elected government in 1953 becasue they threatened to nationalize their own oil reserves.
Do you see a pattern here? Like at all?
The key point is that Saddam could drop nerve gas on Iraqi citizens and it still didn't change him being a US ally (and puppet). We don't care about someone being "bad". We never have. Saddam only ceased to become an ally when he invaded Kuwait and threatened our truly regional ally, Saudi Arabia.
All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets.
Hungary is a member of NATO and a US ally despite Viktor Orban essentially overthrowing democracy and genuinely being bad.
We helped overthrow Basher Al-Asaad. The al-asaads were former US allies too by the way. Why? Because now they were bad. Who is the new Syrian president? A man by the name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Who is that you might ask? A former al-Qaeda leader, you know the guys were the Big Bad [tm] for 9/11. But that's OK, he (allegedly) cut ties with al-Aqeda in 2016 so all is forgiven. Let's not look too deeply into 15 or the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi.
Here's the lesson: whenever the US says someone is being punished, bombed, sanctioned, invaded or whatever because they're "bad" know that it's a lie. I mean they might be bad. But that's never the reason for whatever the latest punitive action is. Always, always, always the reason is become the interests of US foreign policy or Western companies is being threatened.
It's wild to claim Saddam was a US ally just two years before Iraq invaded Kuwait against US demands and got bombed by the US in the Gulf War. You are confusing offshore balancing between Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war with "ally". You need to look up the definitions of these words.
And to claim Assad was a US ally is even more outrageous, where to even start. He was a Russian ally and a Hezbollah ally, not a US ally. All of his military equipment came from Russia. All of his air support came from Russia. He allowed Iranian arms to flow to Hezbollah and was supported on the ground in Syria by Hezbollah. And he is now hiding in Russia playing video games after killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. He and the US had a common foe in ISIS for a period, but they were otherwise antagonistic over the duration of the civil war.
Are we rewriting history here?
Saddam was a de facto US ally till 1988. The relationship ended with the end of their mutual interests.
US sent terrorism suspects to Bashar regime to be tortured after 9/11.
Yeah eventually both relationships fell out but all the vile things both did happened under US watch, and US only stepped in when political/economic clash happened.
We are adhering to definitions of words. The US engaged in classic offshore balancing by backing Iraq when Iran gained the momentum on the frontline. There was no alliance between Iraq and the US.
waiting for details on how "backing Iraq" is materially different from an "alliance" with Iraq...I'm hesitant to throw yet _another_ word into the mix but there's an entire wikipedia page on US "support" for Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...
As the late venerable Sir Humphrey Appleby said, politics is not about good or evil, but to survive to the next century.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the US is extremely hypocritical. The US has a long history of overthrowing democracies and supporting dictators, all in the name of "democracy" (oil, mostly).
That doesn't make Maduro a good guy, though. Nor Castro. Nor Batista, for that matter. And Orban is widely seen as Putin's ally in the EU. Most Europeans would rather be rid of him, but you can't just kick a country out of the EU, unfortunately.
Or Trump. He's as bad as the others. He'd certainly like to be. He wants to turn the US into the same kind of dictatorship.
> All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets.
That's not all. Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime, nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. He replaced a brutal dictatorship with another brutal dictatorship, a communist one, and ran the Cuban economy into the ground.
> Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime
...so naturally, the solution is to make the life of the people under that regime even worse by sanctioning the country?
> nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis.
in other words, did things that threatened American interests.
You don't know history.
The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis didn't begin on October 16, 1962. Nor did it begin when the Soviet Union put missiles on Cuban territory. It began when the US put nuclear missiles (Jupiter MRBMs) in Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. Those were quietly removed months after the crisis because of a secret agreement between JFK and Khrushchev.
And yes, Cuba nationalized assets. As I said. You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is the US doing colonialism and imperialism a good thing that needs to be defended exactly?
And let's say Batista and Castro were both brutal dictatorships (which is what you said), why is one bad and one good? Why is one an ally and another a mortal enemy? You're making my point: the US does not and never has cared about people being bad or doing bad things. It's purely about economic interests. That's it.
Oh and Castro's involvement in Latin America? I'm sorry, what? From overthrowing the government in Guatemala in 1954 at the behest of a US fruit company to propping up Pinochet in Chile to Noriega in Nicaragua to El Salvador to Columbia and so on, let's compare Castro's impact and legacy to that of the US and see who has done the most harm, shall we?
The Cuban economy suffered because the US starved it. But of course Castro gets the blame for that too.
> In Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow.
They were over 1200 miles away from Moscow, near Izmir, Turkey.
That's a couple hundred miles closer to Moscow than the Thor missiles that were in England.
Yes, but the point is that sanctions don't get rid of those people, they're just collective punishment on the population. (Plus are used for propaganda if the blame for an economic crisis in a country is put entirely on its regime or economic system and the fact that the country is currently under sanctions is conveniently omitted. See again: Cuba, Venezuela)
At the end of the day the purpose of sanctions is to deliberately worsen the quality of life of the population in the sanctioned country. That can't be a tool for good.
The uncritical, unfounded, white supremacist equivalence of the names of Global South heads of state that share nothing other than their inclusion in the never-ending spectacle of a collapsing and always fascist empire’s hitlist. I’m reminded of how this abomination of a country relentlessly linked Marcus Garvey (Black nationalist and Capitalist) and W.E.B. DuBois (Black pan-Africanist and eventually communist) both with the label “Bolshevik” and “Communist threat” as justification for surveillance, incarceration.
This “dictator” meme, played out for the last 100 plus years is tired and tiring especially in a place that has a higher incarceration rate than USSR in the 1930s ( or Cuba ) and is currently snatching up folk for the crime of speaking Spanish, while US Southern Command blows up Venezuelan fisherman for the crime of feeding their families.
Venezuelans are being starved by the sheer incompetency/corruption of its leaders. It’s a kleptocracy.
The collapse started way earlier than the sanctions. It’s funny, but it’s even insulting that some people cannot comprehend that there is evil beyond their own frontiers. Not everything wrong that happens in the world is because an empire is meddling, we are also capable of being useless by ourselves!
> Not everything wrong that happens in the world is because an empire is meddling, we are also capable of being useless by ourselves!
A petrostate kleptocracy can still trickle down enough scraps for it's people. An empire that controls global markets that sanctions an petrostate kleptocracy into just a kleptocracy, can't. The reality is no amount of competent governance is going to enable a petrostate like VZ to not be a shitshow if it's sanctioned from maintaining extractive infra (techstack controlled by empire) or sell in global markets. It's not about just being useless, but the inability to be useful no matter what you do. Yes, VZ got fucked from oil $100->$40 pre sanctions, but that's still a survivable/pivotable scenario than oil production going from 3 mbd to 400k mbd due to sanctions that prevents reconstitution of production. There's a reason economic freefall stabilized when Cheveron got license in 2022 that brought production back up to 1mbd.
Now you can argue a "competent" government would have conceded to Monroe (like Machado) in the first place, or not pissed off US in backyard. Like, I get it, you're living through the shit, but don't be economically/geopolitically naive, US didn't sanction VZ because muh democracy decline under Muduro when US props up other petro authoritarian MENA states. The only difference is US meddle with those that align with US interests and not, and US meddling is what makes or breaks petro states.
I think it’s you who is naive. Plus Maduro is even offering our riches to Trump if they leave him alone:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Seems he lost the anti imperialist mojo.
>In Washington, American officials offer differing assessments of the talks. One U.S. official said the reports of negotiations over the lifting of sanctions and access to the Venezuelan market was “not an accurate assessment of what took place.” ... >As Mr. Grenell and Mr. Maduro’s envoys negotiated a deal, the leader of Venezuela’s main opposition movement, María Corina Machado, pitched her own economic proposal in Washington.
Did you not even read the article, like it's 2025, posting NYT article regarding US adversary like VZ and analyzing it naively is useful idiot behavior. That said, Trump is not a LIO woketard and someone Maduro thinks can be negotiated with, the fact is Maduro is fine with operating under US umbrella, provided US didn't do retarded shit like try a muh democracy regime change like under past US admins. Of course US establishment would still prefer a tool like Machado, but there's a chance under Trump that they'll accept Maduro. That's why the article talks about both Machado an and Maduro parallel barginning. This just 101 signalling, dangling Machado for more Maduro concessions - Machado isn't actually an option, because you know, she'll get disappeared if Maduro thinks US can actuall regime change with her. Hence Machado and this sus (granted marginally deserved) Nobel peace prize is good pressure to get Maduro to concede more. The fact that Maduro is making offer is because he knows there's framework for him staying in power, unlike past US admin zero-sum/maximum pressure play with Guaido. He know's a non-democratic VZ like non-democratic MENA petrostate that aligns with US interests is workable under Trump who is moving away from democracy promotion to realist foreign policy especially with recent strategic shift in focusing on South America.
When will this stop being controversial? All you need to do is look at past winners of this farcical prize
It's debatable who's fault starvation is. Maduro might have something to do with it. I'm not sure how it threatens western companies.
GenX leftists think every problem in the world is caused by "corporations" and if you think any given problem is not caused by "corporations" they will assume you're lying. It goes beyond believing in conspiracy theories; they're literally incapable of believing in something /unless/ it's a conspiracy theory.
Most recent examples being "climate change is caused by 100 companies" and "housing prices are caused by BlackRock" which are both entirely fictional.
(There is an obvious rightist equivalent of this which has historically caused a lot more problems.)
This is the issue with all populist ideologies, where there is one monolithic boogieman that explains all ills. The real world just doesn't work like that. It's an interesting case study into confirmation bias and bad quality thinking, I guess.
Letter from the President and Prime Minister Mossadegh on the Oil Situation and the Problem of Aid to Iran dated July 9, 1953 (emphasis added) [1]:
> It was primarily because of that hope that the United States Government during the last two years has made earnest efforts to assist in eliminating certain differences between Iran and the United Kingdom which have arisen as a result of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. It has been the belief of the United States that the reaching of an agreement in the matter of compensation would strengthen confidence throughout the world in the determination of Iran fully to adhere to the principles which render possible a harmonious community of free nations; that it would contribute to the strengthening of the international credit standing of Iran; and that it would lead to the solution of some of the financial and economic problems at present facing Iran.
Effect on National Security Interests in Latin America of Possible Anti-Trust Proceedings, June 1, 1953 [2]:
> Elsewhere in Central America, institution of the action would greatly stimulate movements to nationalize the properties of the Company. Such nationalization is now threatened to some degree in all countries in which the Company operates, particularly in Costa Rica through the possible accession to the presidency of Jose Figueres, who is not a Communist but is openly speaking of nationalization. To the extent such nationalization is achieved, it would not only affect a private company, but would have direct and far-reaching repercussions on our strategic position.
National Intelligent Estimate: CHILE: THE ALTERNATIVES FACING THE ALLENDE REGIME, June 29, 1972 [3]:
> n the basis of the record so far, Chile’s future course remains to a large extent an open issue. To be sure, the regime carried out a substantial part of its program during its first year, particularly in the economic area. With little effective opposition—indeed, in many cases with a broad consensus—Allende nationalized key economic sectors, redistributed income in favor of the poorer classes, and accelerated land expropriation.
[1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/exchange-messages-...
[2]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v04...
[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve1...
I don't understand why don't deal with Maduro but Trump regards Putin as practically an old friend, while both treat their people equally shitty. Same with some other countries, what is the litmus test?
what interest does north korea threaten?
Is this a serious question? SK is a strong ally of the USA and along with Japan bolsters their presence in this part of Asia. China, a geopolitical enemy of the USA, is also lightly allied with NK.
Or rather was a strong ally? I bet you are not imposing 25% tariff to your strong ally.
> the interests of Western companies
no companies listed. anyways, the beef has gone on longer than there were important south korean companied
The Venezuelan regime makes money from oil. They do not need to involve the population to generate most of the GDP. To them, spending resources to have a healthy and happy populace is just a waste of money that would otherwise go to the rulers of the regime. The CGP "Rules for rulers" explains how this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
They stay in power with the help of a paramilitary group of bullies that intimidates people: colectivos. The Venezuelan colectivos are based on the Cuban CDR (committee for the defense of the revolution). And there are other elements of the Cuban "model" of staying in power that has "worked" for 66 years, that Venezuelan regime has adopted. And the CDR resembles the Nazi Sturmabteilung in their modus operandi.
So in the end what's holding the regime together is all violence, all the way down.
The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population, the result is a regime. Scalable and cost efficient AGI will do the same to countries that do not make most of their GDP from extracting natural resources because once the citizen is not needed for wealth generation, territorial control, etc., their political representation goes away.
> The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population, the result is a regime. Scalable and cost efficient AGI will do the same to countries that do not make most of their GDP from extracting natural resources because once the citizen is not needed for wealth generation, territorial control, etc., their political representation goes away.
That's a great insight
Doesn't Norway bring that conclusion in doubt? The state gets massive revenue from oil as well as oil-financed investments, but is still very much a democracy.[0]
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=t...
Sure. It’s also possible Norway is just an outlier and not the coming norm.
I personally - as an American of Norwegian descent - am proud of how they’ve built much of their country…and I hope we can learn from it.
It might be that democratic countries are more resilient to that kind of effect because (and to the degree that) they already decouple productive power from representation.
E.g. a welfare state doesn't make sense from a purely GDP-selfish perspective, beyond as a crime-prevention tool, since people on disability benefits don't work. But they still exist.
Sometimes I believe that democratic systems can also be so polarized (as america) and rest of the countries that they simply split a country into two pieces somehow.
One might want lets say welfare to the youth/masses and the other wouldn't want it sometimes it feels like just to differentiate themselves from the first or to just contradict it.
We have sort of stopped coming to common agreements in republicans and democrats and heck some democrat bsky user pasted me an AI pic for something and when I said that it doesn't actively contribute to the thread they had the balls to say "Google things.Do your own research. Research." Like uh okay mate, we are on the same page but even then they came across as passive agressive :/
We just infight and never try to reach conclusion's man. And if we do and become tolerant, some intolerant freak hijacks the system, maybe the system's broken a little, I am not sure. but I know its the best hope
According to this article, it was down to 1 Iraqi:
https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
The differentiating factor is that Norway wasn’t colonized.
Because they need they still need the favor of the populace for collective defense and territorial control.
The regional military powers have more population.
Rachel Maddow's "Blowout" is a must read related to this insight.
It is possible that in a future where territorial control is done by robots and drones that are mass produced and maybe even self-replicating, and the scientific and economic output comes from AGI, there won't be ballot boxes anymore. There will be also no food stamps, hospitals, a justice system or anything that benefits the common person. Everyone will just be building power plants and datacenters and robot factories while being supervised a robot or being implanted with a motor control chip, or being processed into Soylent green to be fed to a chemical reactor to power a data center with the same level of indifference we currently have for animals in industrial farming. All while the people running the dystopia party all day and take selfies while not caring at all.
At that point human leadership and wealth becomes just as superfluous as the rest of humanity. However it isn’t necessarily a stable system.
The difference is that leadership and wealth has agency and power. Of course the coming dystopia will serve to benefit them exclusively. Who do you think is calling the shots here today? Billionaires are. These are products designed for them by people they hired. The idea of using profit to create a billionaire is already inefficient and yet, that is how most of these companies are structured to burn profit on enriching the few vs having the ceo live like a monk and putting everything back into the company.
Leadership and wealth are quite fluid in major transitions.
Read up on the US robber barons and they didn’t come from old money. The relatively recent (80’s to today) round of Tech billionaires don’t hail back to earlier great fortunes and most VC investors lost money compared to a simple index fund.
The first few rounds of AI investors are already getting screwed.
For further reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
> The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population
Counterexample: China. Or plenty of African countries. Being a petrocracy certainly makes authoritarianism easier, but it's not at all a requirement.
Petrocracy is a weird term because it is not oil itself the one ruling but the ones who control the oil. We have a term for that, oligarchy.
It's actually now used in a lot of political science papers.
It means a particular combination of autocracy and oil-dependence. It results in especially toxic regimes, that can be kept stable for quite a long time.
[dead]
[flagged]
I would rather give the "Fire Safety" prize to the people who installed sprinklers and smoke alarms than to firefighters
And what does that look like in this context, eligible countries that haven’t been at war in a while get together at pat each other on the back?
That misses the analogy.
Such countries already have not only smoke alarms but also building codes and layers of safety systems.
The analogy matches a person who goes to a place with high fire risk and no safety systems in place and through tireless effort introduces common sense measures to protect people.
You may think that but Alfred Nobel disagreed and it is his prize. If she fits the criteria is another question but it was certainly not intended to just be about real wars and real peace (whatever that is).
English translation is taken from Wikipedia and not totally exact but close enough.Relevant in this context: The translation introduces “nations” , but the original talks about peace between “people”.
I would say that is likely a correct translation as the original text refers to nation as in a group of people with a shared culture. But, yes, it is not nation as in country. So the original text refers to fraternity between peoples of different cultures, not of fraternity between countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
How is the quote contradicting GP's position?
From the quote it doesn't seem like Alfred Nobel had civil or political rights in mind with his prize. (Not that it bothers me to give it to civil rights activists though)
It does because Alfred Nobel cared about internationalism and pacifism, neither "real wars" nor civil rights. I did not say she was a worthy winner just that we should look at what the will actually says instead of just inventing an own definition.
Excuses me, English isn't my native language but how isn't “fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”[1] talking about actual war between countries (which I'm pretty certain is what yostrovs was talking about with (arguably clumsy) “real war” phrase.
[1]: (emphasis mine)
Consider this. There are circumstances in Venezuela that some would consider worthy of a civil war. This award winner has chosen peaceful resistance, acts that may have prevented war.
Who would you give the Nobel Peace Prize to?
[flagged]
So, first off: as a matter of "taste", I really don't like the idea of giving the Peace prize specifically to anybody whose attitude is "where's my Nobel?" It should be going to somebody who believes in the cause they're fighting for and fights with no expectation of recognition, not to somebody looking to add a feather to their cap. This probably shouldn't be a criterion when choosing the winnner, but it does make me happy if the choice is consistent with this principle.
Second: If, by the end of 2026, the Israel/Palestine ceasefire is still holding, if there is real progress towards lasting peace, if Trump's administration carries on acting as a mediating force in the conflict, then, by all means, maybe he should win the 2026 prize. As of today, he just got them to sign a piece of paper. To be clear, that is still an important milestone, it makes the world better than it was a week ago, and he should get credit for getting it done. It's just not the achievement he wants us to believe it is (yet?).
Third: The man thrives on conflict, he sows divisivenes at every step. He's literally deploying the military domestically. Whatever merit there is to his peace deals doesn't nearly amount to enough to make him a net positive force for peace in the world. And that should be a factor in choosing the winner.
Ah yes, the man actively murdering civilians via illegal drone strikes in the Caribbean and invading US cities with the Department of War, who launched dozens of missiles from stealth bombers over Iran and who has greatly expanded the drone war that Biden has mostly ended.
Surely a prime candidate for a peace prize.
I would love to hear a discussion between you and those who believe Trump has pulled off the diplomatic coup of the century so far. A dispassionate observer might see a touch of TDS. Not me of course.
Nobel Peace Prize: to the "person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
I love how the TDS is used to describe the vast majority of people in the world who see the obvious faults of a geriatric narcissist intent on authoritarian rule and not to describe his supporters who blindly subscribe to all manner of contradictory and previously loathed positions simply because he changes his mind.
Or said another way - wouldn’t “TDS” be better used to describe those who spent the last decade insistent on free speech as a sacrosanct issue, the national debt as our primary concern, political targeting by Federal law enforcement as a universal sin, and states rights as the Foundation of our liberties while the Admin works contrary to each of those points in especially galling ways…
How many wars has President Trump really ended? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3599gx4qo
Is that even a question!? Ben Gvir, Smotrich, or Mileikowsky.
For raising the bar so high.
That would be far worse than Kissinger.
I was being sarcastic but definitely happy to see the down votes.
Not yet.
From the New York Times "The Daily" podcast today:
Too late for this year, but if it holds it should be considered for next year.This is like buying tickets to watch your favorite sports team win first place. It's good to support the boys, but you'd didn't do anything. The rest of Trump's thinly veiled autocratic tendencies — whether they're rhetoric aimed to rile up opponents or real goals — have done little to promote fraternity amongst nations & people.
"I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!"
-María Corina Machado 9:34 AM · Oct 10, 2025
This is, as yet, being reported in contradictory ways when I went looking to see if it was correct so here’s the link to where she appears to do this, assuming the post is authentic (no reason to believe otherwise but these days…)
https://x.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1976642376119549990
"Political expediency makes for strange bedfellows, news at 11!"
I'm not even sure I'm against everything Trump is up to (it's unclear to me); I just don't like the autocratic moves: it's unamerican, and bad for democracy. It's setting a standard & an allowable behavior that could be exploited by bad people.
It should be considered all right, but the committee is also going to look at the whole person and Trump isn't exactly the Gandhi-like figure you'd expect to win the prize.
I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed, but he's also driving a wedge in the US that can't be ignored. Sending American troops against its own citizen: not exactly Nobel-prize worthy.
> I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed
This is a strange thought considering his actions.
Between drone strikes, mishandling of COVID, dismantling of foreign aid, defunding American health care, cutting off Ukraine support at several critical moments, encouraging and materially supporting Israel, he may actually end up (or already be) responsible for the most deaths of any president.
> I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed
While I do understand this might be true in essence, things are a lot more complicated. He's said some heinous things that riled up actual loonies into a frenzy more than once. Deliberately. Not peace price material IMHO.
(To be fair, I generally lean left, but I don't agree with Obama getting the prize in 2009 as well, what with the targeted assassination program and all)
Its almost like there should be a Nobel "anti-prize" denouncing these people.
It remains to be seen if this turns into anything. He deliberately misunderstood the Palestinians and made the proclamation that everything was fixed. The Palestinians have to give up some major things for this to work, things they were previously unwilling to do, and are probably still unwilling to do.
Yeah it might be eligible but the academy won't change an upcoming winner in only a few days
The nominations for this year's prize closed January 31st; anyone doing anything worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize after that date may be considered for next year.
> To turn that around and get a deal that Biden couldn't get done,
Biden had different pressures. E.g. I suspect that he judged that the knife-edge election he was facing didn't allow him enough leeway to put more pressure on Israel.
In addition Netanyahu made it easier to force through a settlement given he'd manage to alienate practically everyone, including uniting the Arab world after that unbelievable strike on Doha.
If you were a cynical person you could also ask whether this settlement owes anything to Trump's personal narcissist saviour complex or need to distract from domestic issues such as the Epstein files...
Still, even despite some significant scepticism about Trump's motives, I think there is a reasonable case to be made for awarding him the prize. It was still a significant (maybe even brave) jump to break with American political orthodoxy to put this kind of pressure on Israel, and the practical result of this could be very significant in terms of saving lives and potentially long-term peace in the region. We also need to encourage these kind of acts, even (or especially) amongst unlikely peacemakers like Trump.
Let's see what it looks like next year, though. Middle East peace deals don't have a great history of holding together.
I would love full transparency to the Biden Admin's dealings wrt Israel.
I've wondered if one of the (under reported) pressures was the realpolitik geopolitical machinations of containing Iran. Especially wrt Iran's closer ties with Russia and China.
But even with insight, I would not forgive.
The whole thing just angers and saddens me. Neighbors killing neighbors. For nothing.
So many missed opportunities, snafus. Imagine what could have been. Normalization between USA-Iran (post-9/11, pre- "Axis of Evil"). Some kind of accommodation for coexistence. Nurturing democracy and development throughout the middle east.
And on and on. Going back decades, generations, ...
Trump does not fit the criteria set out by Alfred Nobel. By increasing the NATO spending he worked against "the abolition or reduction of standing armies" and he has made the "fraternity between nations" a lot worse with random threats which I doubt would weight up his "promotion of peace congresses".
I really hope they would not award someone the prize who works so blatantly against the word and spirit of the criteria in the will.
Those criteria sound like they should disqualify the person who actually got it.
Perhaps, but I was talking about Trump now. He would be a pretty big violation of the spirit of the will even if he would not be the first such.
I will personally try to refrain from commenting on the Venezuelan opposition since I do not know enough about them.
I hadn't heard of her either before today, I'm basing that on what people have said here - all good for sure, but unrelated to those criteria.
"...he was willing to put pressure on Netanyahu in a way that President Biden was unwilling to do."
Unwilling or unable? Netanyahu hated Biden and has done everything in his power to sabotage anything Democrats have done to try to help resolve the conflict, even prior to Oct 7.
Not even sure there's evidence of the pressure? What pressure?
Trump let Netanyahu run roughshod, and the proposed peace agreement (which almost certainly won't hold) is pretty... let's say vague... about the plan for Gaza post hostage-release.
All that's happened here is another agreement to exchange hostages for prisoners, which has happened multiple times in this war already. Not much else is actually agreed to and obviously even less has actually happened.
Unwilling. Biden has been a Zionist and Netanyahu/Likud supporter for decades. They put on a show in press briefings but did nothing behind closed doors, instead kept supplying them.
Biden wasn't even trying though.
Far more importantly, this might force Trump to continue the pressure on the Israelis, whose very nature is to be untrustworthy, not worth trusting, since they love not just violating agreements but also using agreements as a lever for abuse. There are all the typical Israeli fingerprints all over the current deal that the Israelis will likely use to bring the whole thing back down around Trump unless he can maintain pressure. This prize increases the slim likelihood that he will have to of he covers that prize as much as it seems he does. I do not think he can or will though, and the Israelis may just even persuade him that they have a far more juicy prize to offer him instead.
I think Trump wanted to force the rather compromised committee to make a similarly foolish decision as giving Obama the prize, which would have then permitted immediate Israeli breach of the settlement.
Not to take away from Machado’s work, but this year’s prize is at the very least political, to both appease Trump in line with the above and also send a message in the face of the war build-up against Venezuela. At the same time their decision also facilitates the American takeover through less than lethal means by CIA revolution and the combined pressure of it all on the Venezuelan government. Machado is in fact a CIA asset, whether she realizes it or not.
Machado is in fact a CIA asset, whether she realizes it or not.
If you think Eastern Europe was liberated without involvement from the CIA, which has a mixed history w.r.t. competent ops in that region, I've got a Nobel prize to sell you.
No. I just don’t care for America “liberating” other people in direct violation of the founding principles of America before it was overtaken by all manner of parasitic foreign vultures that want to commandeer America for their own little ethic agendas and priorities that expose all of them as not actually being American, regardless of what the paperwork says. You can’t be made American when America exists in name only anymore.
If you've been paying attention, you see that Trump is not, as you put it, appeased at all. He doesn't know who Machado is. He utterly and publicly and loudly missed the irony.
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were not hijacked by ethnic agendas, again,, as you put it. The outcome they achieved was the whole point of the Cold War. It was an outcome with bipartisan support over the course of decades. Defending the value of that outcome by supporting Ukraine and NATO is also not anything as small as an ethnic agenda.
There’s kidnapping, imprisonment, torture and rape of political dissidents.
They created an exodus of 8 million people.
Starved the population.
Killed people in the thousands in the favelas and other poor areas without a trial.
Steals elections.
To me that’s a regime at war with its own population and it deserves all the condemnation possible and all the support necessary to help transition back to democracy.
What he is being accused of is a tiny fraction of what has been proven to have taken place in Gaza, under the protection of the west.
Yet the aircraft carriers are poised in the gulf to enact a third regime change operation in this oil rich country America wants under its thumb with a puppet running it.
This is the PR campaign beforehand, just like the "WMD" PR campaign in the run up to Iraq, with a woman who supports genocide in Gaza (https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036 ) being lauded with a nobel peace prize. This is probably to lend her legitimacy when she becomes that puppet.
Saddam was a bad man too but he was an average evil. The warmongers who want to destabilize every country with oil, send in the tanks and install yet another Western puppet to maintain an iron grip on global oil supplies are a very special and unique kind of evil.
I’m not going to engage in a competition of tragedies. You are replying to a venezuelan with relatives and friends that have suffered and still suffer the consequences of the regime.
Just stop and think for a moment before even think about downplaying or comparing what is happening in my country with other world conflicts, and please don’t even dare to explain what I’ve been living.
[flagged]
wow, "I have a Venezuelan friend, let me invalidate your opinion as a local", no wonder this is a thing: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelasplaining
We've heard it all before, we speak english so you're not a true venezuelan, you're part of some rich caste, you're not brown enough, you're a bot, etc ... 25 years of this bullshit no matter where we go. The international left abandoned us, the international right uses us as circus act.
Of course it'd be easier for your narrative if we were defenseless people begging in our native tongue for help. It's harder when a lot of Venezuelans are actually highly educated and want to control their own country and destiny.
>> IME the venezuelans who ended up abroad speaking English almost exclusively and up being people whose families were sucking on the teat of the oil wealth under the pre Maduro government before he ripped it out of their mouths and redistributed the wealth
you mean the almost 10 million of us that left, 1/3 of the population? the 2.5 million that went to Colombia alone by foot? or the ones that that walked all the way to Peru and Ecuador to meet discrimination and xenophobia. Those are all sucking on the oil teat? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis)
>> So i guess you want this Iraq style military operation to happen. I pity your relatives for what you want to happen to them.
No one wants that, and no one said they want that. Stop making stuff up
Gotta love when foreigners explain to me what my country is going through. And they don’t even stop to think about what they are doing, it’s borderline insulting.
Im perfectly happy that a privileged venezuelan who has never had to live in a slum was insulted by my anti war stance.
Im just as happy that pro invasion iraqis in 2003 hated me.
Hate away. History will judge who is right.
Dude, now you're just being racist. So the only true Venezuelan for you is the one that can't actually stand on it's own and speak to the world? I'm privileged because I speak English?
You have no idea who I am, you're making assumptions based solely on the language I use to speak to you.
And once again, no one is talking about war, you're the only one going on about it. No one wants a war and we want Maduro out, not mutually exclusive by a long shot.
And what's Iraq got to do with this? Stop making everything about the US
I get that you hate Maduro.
Because of that you are voicing support for a woman who allied herself with fascists conducting the world's most recent racism inspired genocide.
This is an extremely uncharitable take. Do better.
You learned the script well and are good at regurgitating it. Congrats!
All countries that have a regime have many factions: supporters, opposition, those who are well-intentioned and those who would just like their side to get into power again and suppress those others. Your lived experience as a Venezuelan is not imbued with some infallible essence that just wants peace and justice and good things; all people, also those who are telling the honest truth, have their own limited perspective and motivations and cannot speak for The Country alone.
We certainly accept this when the topic is some country that we know better here. We don’t accept the proclamation of an-ordinary-American as the infallible voice of the people. Why should we treat other countries differently?
So given the above, the other poster is within their right to compare tragedies and speculate about whether the price was deserved—it’s a competition—, and you can’t trump that by saying “but my lived experience”.
The Palestinian diaspora is also around 8 million. Chavez and Maduro made the Venezuelans poorer than the Palestinians. I think Israel (and Stern/Irgun before that) has killed more than Chavez/Maduro in all its "defensive" wars of conquest. The Israeli Supreme Court seems to be surprisingly reliable and fair, even to Palestinians. Venezuela's courts are entirely under regime control.
... and yet the consequences of what's going is as if there was war, the economy is suffering as if there was war, the people are fleeing as if there was war and dying as if there was war
You don't need a war to have a lack of Peace!
to add to your comment, check out the list of the biggest refugee crises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_refugee_crises
Venezuela is number 5 by the number of displaced people, the rest are all wars, it's crazy for a country at peace
But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth. I think the reality is that the five exclusively Norwegian politicians on the Peace prize committee are politicians. And they act accordingly. What if the committee would consist of Russian politicians exclusively, or Venezuelan ones?
Nobel peace prize was always political. Obama got it. Gandhi was rejected.
This has confused me for long enough. What specific action did Obama do to be awarded the Nobel peace prize?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize provides a good overview of why he got the award and the surrounding controversy.
- Promotion of nuclear nonproliferation.
- Reaching out to the Muslim world.
I see. Thank you.
Obama and Gore both got it for not being Bush.
I can remember when that was a huge contrast.
It was probably premature.
But the relation between USA and the Arabic states were on an all time low after the Bush Crusade.
And Obama reached out to fix the relations. This is my recollection of it.
But i can agree that the rushed decision created problems afterwards for the committee. Like today when it is questioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
> The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States president Barack Obama (b. 1961) for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
Interesting summary. The relationship with some Arab speaking states has had some recent relevance.
Black. It had a very high approval rate in Europe.
> black
> throwaway48476
Every time.
> But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth.
They only give out one prize, which means that no matter which they pick, there will be dozes of impoverished and unjust places that don't get recognized by it. That can't be used to reject a choice, since it's true no matter what choice they make.
The difference between whataboutism and discussion is that in discussion you propose an alternative. For example: how about that real estate developer who has fumbled multiple diplomatic initiatives?
That would be a basis for discussion.
I don't know honestly if some people feed on negative attention or if they just live their life trying to fit square pegs into round holes
[flagged]
Obvious false equivalency fallacy.
Everyone you don't like is Hitler.
Democracy is not just when more than one "party".
Just because a fascist or fascist adjacent party is disallowed, does not mean democracy is absent.
Its like the Iraq war all over again, you gobble this shit up like its sophisticated propaganda. Like she literally went on Fox&Friends to glaze Trump bombing those Venezuelan boats and supports US sanctions hurting her own citizens. You think she is some sort of popular resistance fighter or something? You Americans are so fucking stupid its hilarious.
> You Americans are so fucking stupid its hilarious.
LOL. The person you replied to is from Venezuela:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:madacol+Venezuela&type=...
Any meaning associated with the Nobel Peace Prize was demolished when Obama got it without having done anything meaningful except running a campaign on 'Hope'. This was the person that subsequently ok'd 3,000+ drone strikes in Afghanistan, a huge number of which caused heavy collateral damage. Imho, the Nobel Peace Prize should have no money associated with it and be given only posthumously.
To paraphrase the Nobel writeup: he advocated international cooperation, denuclearization, social progress, and work to reverse climate change.
This was against the backdrop of a president who lied to the UN so he could depose a dictator, initiated ground invasions of two countries, had a VP who openly advertised that he was okay with doing evil stuff to accomplish his objectives - e.g. Gitmo and Abu Graib, and created a regulatory environment that led to the GFC.
That prize was awarded to Obama but it was meant for the US electorate for embracing what you reductively call "hope".
And then electorate turned around and voted for Trump twice, republicans loosing their minds over president being black. And this year, Trump wanted the prize.
Pretty sure they had already spoiled it by giving it to F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Henry Kissinger.
Can some ELI5 why Kissinger gets the heat all the time these days?
Asking genuinely as a person who is not familiar with the US political climate before the 90s…
A subset of the criticisms on Kissinger:
• Vietnam War and Bombing of Cambodia: Kissinger played a key role in the secret bombing of Cambodia and the escalation of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, which expanded the conflict, resulted in significant civilian casualties, and destabilized the region, enabling the rise of the Khmer Rouge and contributing to mass deaths.
• Bangladesh Genocide (1971): Kissinger and President Nixon strongly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship during its violent suppression of Bangladesh’s independence movement, despite well-documented human rights abuses and U.S. officials’ warnings about atrocities.
• Support for Dictatorships and Coups in Latin America: He was instrumental in U.S. support for right-wing military coups, notably the 1973 ouster of Chile’s democratically elected president Salvador Allende, and the subsequent support for General Pinochet’s regime, which was responsible for widespread human rights violations. Kissinger also backed Operation Condor, a campaign of repression and assassination by South American dictatorships.
• Indonesia and East Timor: Kissinger has been implicated in supporting Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which led to widespread killings and humanitarian abuses.
• Undermining U.S. Principles and Rule of Law: Kissinger’s tenure saw numerous secret operations and violations of U.S. and international law, including illegal arms transfers and covert interference in foreign elections and governments.
• Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks: He was accused of interfering with peace negotiations in 1968, potentially prolonging the Vietnam War for political gain.
Thank you, TIL.
He was a war criminal and a Nixon crony who among other things started the US practice of overthrowing democratically elected regimes to install US backed military juntas
look under the negative views section of his wikipedia article.
These days? Kissinger has always had public critics. In fact, in 1973 two members of the Nobel Committee resigned in protest.
Anyways, the first couple paragraphs of his Wikipedia is an introduction.
>Kissinger is also associated with controversial U.S. policies including its bombing of Cambodia, involvement in the 1971 Bolivian and 1973 Chilean coup d'états, and support for Argentina's military junta in its Dirty War, Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor, and Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Bangladesh genocide.[6] Considered by many American scholars to have been an effective secretary of state,[7] Kissinger was also accused by critics of war crimes for the civilian death toll of the policies he pursued and for his role in facilitating U.S. support for authoritarian regimes.[8][9]
Insane that Kissinger got it
And Aung San Suu Kyi.
Yeah.
I gotta agree. I'm not sure Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back in that particular regard.
That said, it depends on how old you are. I think there are a lot of young people on HN, and for them, maybe that was a meaningful indication of a purportless Nobel Peace Prize?
Some slightly older than them may have checked out with the whole Aung San Suu Kyi - Arafat - de Klerk thing.
They don't really attach much import to that prize in any case because of the bad taste those picks left in their mouths.
I guess I mean that every generation kind of learns anew that, "Hey.. wow, this prize doesn't really mean what it did even 60 years ago."
It's definitely the Nobel Prize that's the most politically biased and least merited by winners at the median over the last 30-40 years.
oh wow I didn't know about those figures getting the price, super crazy!!
They famously never gave it to Gandhi too, in spite of him being nominated 5 times [1]. It's crazy to me that Kissinger got it, but not Gandhi.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Maha...
Truly wild. Gandhi lived and breathed peace, almost to a fault. Kissinger is one of the last people on Earth among his contemporary to deserve it.
Kissinger's actions lead to a whole hell of a lot of people achieving the peace of the grave. I don't think that's what Alfred Nobel had in mind for the prize.
To be fair, the Obama administration specifically designed rockets that did not carry high explosives, but rather sharp blades intended to kill individuals with minimal risk of collateral damage.
If you're looking at it like how an athlete would get a gold medal, maybe? Even then, the fact that an unqualified person (such as with doping and cheating) was given a medal, doesn't take away from someone's accomplishment.
But back on Obama, was your expectation that he wouldn't hurt a fly? Did he start a war? Did he not set the stage for withdrawing from two wars (both justified imho!)? Did he order the killing of anyone who wasn't a legitimate military target? I'm not saying he should have been given any award, and certainly his was premature, but it is hardly without precedent.
The peace prize is given to leaders who worked towards peace. It gives them recognition, sort of like a pat on the back so they won't give up.
Would you rather a retired politician get the prize so he can boast about it? or an active politician so that he now has the prize as a reminder of their promises and work towards peace?
He said it best:
"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. But the US did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and conflicts in Syira, Libya and all over the world sprung that were too easy for the US to be involved in but the US didn't. The US military responded to various natural disasters providing crucial aid, such as with the 2011 Haiti earthquake.
I think this sentiment is held largely by people who don't want to be bothered by nuance and who have an immature concept of peace, one that doesn't involve violence or military action (despite concepts like "peace keeping force" existing).
The US did not pull out of Afghanistan under Obama.
I said eventually, and he did set the stage for the pull out. he could have done the opposite and established longer term commitments. Honestly, my view is that both countries should have been incorporated as US territories. $20tn is not a small amount, and by virtue of being the aggressors, they've lost their right to self-rule (yes, even in without wmd's Saddam was taunting support for US's enemies).
Giving him credit for something executed under an administration two presidencies later seems like a bit of a stretch in any case.
But especially in this specific case, where he actually presided over a dramatic US escalation in Afghanistan:
https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releas...
Without which an eventual withdrawal wouldn't have been possible. If he didn't do all that, the reason behind the war to begin with (afghan's hosting terrorists) wouldn't have been solved making withdrawal impossible. You'll note, there are no terror plots originating from Afghanistan now. And to be fair, most of that credit goes to Bush, but Obama didn't dismantle what Bush started just for the sake of appearances of pleasing the Nobel committee. Say what you will, but he did great militarily.
Obama considered the war in Afghanistan justified- at least that is my recollection from one of his debates with McCain. Obama considered the Iraq unnecessary- and got him elected.
in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
You're 100% right. I disagree with him about Iraq but you're right that it was part of what got him elected. it made him look like a person that take the country in a new direction.
A minor detail, surely.
>Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe.
What do you mean by this?
I think history would agree eventually that his timing was unfortunate. The changes in technology (social media, smartphones,etc..) and the 2008 financial crisis culminated in large scale social changes and dissatisfaction. That along with aging politicians stuck in their old ways was a huge challenge. And he could have maybe overcome all that except for the fact that even in Obama's own lifetime, half the country didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites, so he had to deal with the racism.
It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards.
China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far.
If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him.
One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.
There's never a "right time". This is akin to arguing that LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act was "a catastrophe". Sure, it energized generations of racists to become angry, flip the south, abuse the filibuster, and cause lots of pain, but these people never go away, and if the choice is "no progress" or "progress with some pain" the latter is very much preferable.
The sentiment wasn't because of Obama, it was because of the Koch brothers and others like them funneling billions to corrupt American discourse.
Over decades they funded conservative think tanks and academia to make their libertarian ideals more widely accepted. They funded the tea party and divisive mentalities. Others like Rupert Murdoch built up media empires to drive lies, outrage, and manufactured stories to build anti-government sentiment. None of that was Obama's doing.
I think the financial crisis was a pretty big thing and Obama handled it about as poorly as humanly possible. It set the stage for everything getting much worse.
People in general had a very high expectation of him. The right expected him to fail because he's black, the left expected him to be better than white democratic presidents because he was black. He was just a well meaning decent human being trying to lead a country. there are worse and better presidents for sure. But he wasn't the disruptive and young new leader people hoped for.
There are many, MANY ways things could have gone dramatically worse. There are things that could have been done better, but "as poorly as humanly possible" is a trivially wrong statement.
Here's one way he could have handed it dramatically worse with a huge amount of empirical evidence: started lobbing random tariffs and abandoning trade deals and going isolationist.
The civil rights act didn't result in the collapse of America. Yes, racists will always exist. I get that you want progress, but move a big ship too fast and it tumbles over and sinks. Progress has to be progressive to be effective and lasting. What's the point of progress that will be reversed in the next election cycle?
But again, people being racist to Obama isn't the catastrophe I outlined. It isn't even trump. But the chain of events he set off and the collapse of this greatest republic. I called it back then, I liked Obama, but this is America, he wasn't even far-left or that controversial but the reaction to him will tear apart the country. America like it or not is the new rome, and when rome's fall, there is usually times of upheaval and instability until a new rome takes its place. Except things are at an exponentially more connected and interdepndent state. The '08 financial crisis alone started in the US and destablized the whole planet. Countries are now learning to rely a lot less on the US, to do less business with the US,etc.. realizing the risk relationship with the US carries.
I'm not even talking about the current admin and their lunacy, but consider that even if in '28 a more sane administration recovers all the allied relations and financial reputations, who is to say that in '32 there won't be someone even worse than trump? I'm sure after trump, his family would be in line to take his reign and build upon what he started.
The Koch brothers, fox news, etc.. they still care about money and they've always been around. It isn't even "racism" so to speak, that's just the excuse they're using. such people historically used religion or national pride instead. The gift Obama gave is riling up enough of the people that weren't even voting to begin with to vote for trump. and the DNC deciding hillary clinton was a good idea, just like kamala harris because they're good politicians. people voted for obama (twice!!) because he represented change. Yet "occupy wallstreet" happened under him. People voted for trump..you guessed it, change. But none of that matters, what matters is the source of wealth. If I had to speculate, the country will split up and Whatever new state has California will become the new center of power and finance because of silicon valley, sure. But also because of geography. Spain, England, Portugal rose because of their geographic proximity to the new world, as did Rome with the levant , baghdad, persia,etc.. with China & India,etc.. geography and its influence on wealth and commerce. California is on the west coast, close to east asia, south america and canada.
There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. you're right about that. But timing the right thing properly makes the difference between making the whole thing worth it and a lasting change vs making it performative and temporary. I like to think the only reason these people aren't actively plotting the return of slavery is because LLMs are more efficient.
Obama basically created the modern drone war, with his heavy investment in drone killings in all of the middle east. He is also the first US president to openly admit to ordering the assassination of a US citizen without trial.
Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.
Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial.
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
> Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial
This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted.
This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France.
> As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage?
No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon.
Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
> This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism.
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
I would prefer if awards were given to people for something they achieved, not for something they promised to achieve.
The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider.
Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.
Unfun fact, the Arab Spring was caused by a spike in food prices, not from any sort of political or leadership changes or behavior. The spike in food prices came from an unfortunate combination of bad weather in Russia and Obama's policies (specially biofuels). To his credit, Obama pulled the plug on the biofuel disaster after about 6 months but by then, it wasn't spring anymore and the Syrian civil war had already begun.
Trump is a jerk. and he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. He isn't the type of person that is afraid of looking bad because he broke a promise, he's more likely to use a peace prize to justify violence because after all, it has to be someone else's fault since he has a peace prize awarded to him.
Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone.
I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
> ...he makes a million promises and keeps like 10.
Depends on who he's making the promises to.
Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way.
In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
> Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe.
Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president?
I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
Not so much the backlash, but what it means for America and the now old world order. Everything he stood for now requires a civil war or worse to sustain it.
Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract.
You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now.
Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes.
Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.
I think you're ignoring a lot of realities of US politics and the US government structure as set forth in the constitution. Remember after he got ACA through (which was a really big achievement), there was the tea party backlash. Dems lost the House by a big margin and nearly lost the Senate. That made it very difficult to get the kinds of revolution you're hoping for. Yes, I agree that he should've jailed bankers (and he shouldn't have chosen Geithner as his treasury secty), but I think he had too many wallst-beholden advisors there that told him that if he did that it would lead to all kinds of economic trouble. Not sure what your beef with the ACA is (probably that it didn't go far enough towards universal healthcare, and I can agree with that, however given the political realities it was a pretty great achievement.)
I don't have a beef with the ACA, it just happened to be Obama's priority, not the voters'. Occupy wallstreet wasn't about health care. You hit on the nail about his advisors,etc.. that's why maga keeps using "deep state" as a rhetoric.
Obama ran on change, he shouldn't have been "listening to advisors" like bush did with Iraq.
If he jailed bankers for example, both the left and right would support that, except the corporate ruling class and other politicians. The ACA on the other hand, there is a lot of misinformation around it that made it a partisan thing, and we still don't have universal health care, despite all the work he put into it.
I'm not saying it's fair, but even most on the left expected him to be a force of change, and that's mostly because he's black. The thing is, democrat presidents spend their first term cleaning up after the previous guy anyways, so I get it isn't realistic. But look at how trump is basically trampling on the constitution, long established norms and institutions,etc.. Obama didn't need to do all that, but he tried to be moderate and safe. Racists were going to hate on him no matter what, he needed to piss them and his own party off enacting change. Moderation and stability was not why he was elected.
And I think the democratic party lost its head a bit because Obama became president, they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia, which caused a lot of moderate people, and even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals to revolt against the left.
All that said, I have no idea what can be done to fix things. I just wish I knew how to brace for the fall.
> it just happened to be Obama's priority, not the voters'.
I think it depends on the voters. A lot of people at that time were not able to afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Or they'd have a plan that would get cancelled when they ran into an actual serious illness because the insurer would find some pre-existing condition that was ubiquitous. I was very glad that the ACA passed. Could it be better? Sure, but given the political realities it is what it is.
> even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals
What opportunities are gen-z voters losing out to because of liberal ideals? If anything, the Democrats were much better on helping people pay for college, job training, etc.
> they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia
But as you've indicated above, Obama wasn't even all that liberal. More of a centrist which seems to be what you're critical of if I'm not mistaken? Biden was probably more of a classical liberal.
Hitchens argued it best imho: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGSSzPuEaM
I was going to say Nobel Prize for Peace was irretrievably compromised when they gave it to Kissinger.
You didn't draw the line at Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat or even the European Union itself?!?
Do you object to the EU? This was very much founded as a peace project.
The EU is one of the most worthy winners if we read Nobel's will.
A very successful one so far. The current probability of a war between EU states should be close to 0.
While I completely agree with the loss of actual meaning, however I do think it's nice that we tell people they did well while they're still alive. Assuming they did actually do something to deserve it that is.
Obama can’t possibly be the catalyst for your disregard of the NPP. There were far more controversial picks for decades prior.
This obsession with Obama’s award is just further evidence Fox News decides what we recall and get angry about. It comes up every single year. It’s a meme at this point. Obama but not Arafat or Kissinger? Get out of here lmao
Arafat and Rabin received it for "their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."
Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ received it because they "jointly worked for a ceasefire and for bringing peace to Vietnam," though Lê Đức Thọ refused it and Kissinger did not attend the ceremony.
Obama received it nine months into his Presidency for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having few if any concrete foreign policy achievements.
Obama could have at least matched Kissinger by ducking the ceremony, or even by refusing it like Lê Đức Thọ did because it wasn't justified.
Amazing that we're actually debating which of the warlords created the most peace per fatality inflicted in a discussion on the merits of their Nobel Peace Prizes.
That alone, in a sane world, would tell you these people had no business having a Nobel Peace Prize. At least Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ had the common decency not to stand at that podium. Most of those other Nobel Peace Prize winners did not have that kind of self awareness.
Thank you, you’re making my point far better than I am. The entire discussion is out of whack.
I’m not saying I agree with his getting it but the amount of attention it has gotten and continues to get 17 years later is absolutely ridiculous
> obsession with Obama’s award
It is amazing how many hits you get when you Ctrl+F 'Obama' on this post.
The tankies are trying to discredit any criticism of Maduro
It’s mostly conservatives IME going “Trump deserves the peace prize” while also saying “the peace prize is meaningless because Obama got one.” Depending on the context and who they are talking to they emphasize one side of that or the other.
In the context of Trump trying to get one too, isn't that pretty obvious to bring up? Perhaps we could talk about Jimmy Carter's war crimes too, he got a peace nobel as well. Committing war crimes is a bit like breathing for US presidents.
It’s only obvious because Trump is weirdly obsessed with Obama’s achievements and sometimes even seems fueled by a desire to mirror them.
Yeah but not sure how real it is, if Trump is serious about regime change war in Venezuela it would make sense to have their Juan Guaidó 2.0 puppet win it instead to manufacture consent for the war. So perhaps he got what he wanted anyway.
I think the GOP lost its mind when a black man won the Presidential election and had the audacity to get the peace prize as well. It has never left their news cycle since that time and why Trump is obsessed with getting a NPP.
This is such a highly disingenuous bad faith argument, Obama won it in 2009, are you suggesting the Nobel committee should have used some time travel technology to peer into the future?
No, the point is that Obama won it in 2009 when he had literally done nothing, except having won an election. The point about what happened after is just to show that the committee was not prescient and full of foresight, that it did turn out that the man who had simply won an election based on promises did not live up to those promises.
Why does Trump want it so badly if it's just an award given to war mongers and drone strikers then?
There is only one possible explanation…
... the one guy who made fun of him at a comedy dinner has one and he doesn't.
Don't get me wrong. She has firmly opposed maduro and is a beacon of hope for many in Venezuela but she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful yet? She is just a career politician that just happens to be in the opposition of the venezuelan goverment when Maduro (a dictator) is in power. But she hasn't done anything extraordinary to merit the award.
Don't get me wrong, but perhaps what was missing was greater media coverage and genuine interest in Venezuela's situation. María Corina Machado orchestrated a HUGE covert months long operation to collect tally sheets from the overwhelming majority of voting machines during the 2024 presidential election. Her team trained poll watchers to demand vote receipts (as legally permitted) then capture and transmit that data through various channels, even from the most remote regions of the country. There are documented cases of people—poll workers and participants in the plan—being imprisoned or even killed for their involvement. Thanks to this operation, the website resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com exists, where venezuelan can verify the actual vote count per candidate, backed by fingerprint records and the serial numbers of both the software and hardware used. These verified results confirm that Edmundo González was the true winner of the election. The data provides undeniable evidence that Nicolás Maduro installed himself as a dictator, with the full support of the national electoral authority, which, to this day, has refused to release the official election results (a procedure that has historically been routine).
You can also verify the results here https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ (a whole story behind this hostname). Again, only possible by the María Corina's huge effort
Stunning. For making people realise this alone she deserved the prize.
[flagged]
This episode of TAL discussed vote tracking in Venezuela, might be interesting to HN folks.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/the-official-unofficial...
I was surprised to see https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ shows maduro as getting 30% of the vote.
Any explanation on why the site is named that way? Venezuela seems a far way off from "North Macedonia"
[flagged]
Sounds more like a Pulitzer than Nobel Peace Price.
On the other hand, Gore got one for less.
Well Kissinger got one, so by that logic the bar is set as low as it can be.
If Kissinger got one, maybe BB Netanyahu or Trump can get them too :D
But in that case let's do a rename! Nobel War Prize! That would also fit the ministry of war more.
Next year. Assured. It maybe a trio including Tony Blair too - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5j989107lo .
Imagine them being awarded the prize for a war they could have stopped from the beginning. What a travesty that would be.
A little premature, anyway. Let's get through 24 hours of a ceasefire first. That'd be an achievement these days ...
I think the method should also been taken in to consideration.
>Every Country has signed on! If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.
That's not negotiating.
There is even a Wikipedia section for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peac...
It's a better recipient than pretty much all of the recent previous ones, definitely better than all the presidents.
Sounds right from the playbook of the superpowers, when an oil rich country has a government that doesn't allow them to profit from their oil resources - (1) demonize the current leader and government, (2) Give international publicity and recognition to a politician ideologically friendly to them (3) Destabilise the unfriendly government by launching an internal / external war against them (4) Install the friendly puppet politician as the leader of the country (while shouting "democracy has won", if you are western superpower) (5) Profit!
This comment reads as deeply ignorant and callous toward the treatment of the Venezuelan people by their government. Fully 1/3 of Venezuelans have fled the country due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement. As someone who reads Spanish I can tell you the the media in non US aligned Latin American countries is regularly reporting on the dictatorship in Venezuela.
Not everything is about oils or some conspiracy of western governments.
And what’s funny is that I’m even willing to trade oil deals if someone gets rid of the murderer kleptocracy that stole Venezuela from us. So yeah let’s do some oil deals if you help us get back to democracy.
Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
I have little doubt she did a lot of good practical work for Venezuelan democracy (to expose Maduro's government). But her ideology - accept foreign invasion (which will inevitably kill innocent venezuelans) and privatizing oil reserves (which will inevitably result in undemocratic fallout of the profits) - is unfortunately not that of peace and democracy.
I wish she would more look at Norway as an example, which is a rare case of oil profits being shared collectively and democratically.
I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Venezuela had the biggest oil earnings of its history during the early Chavez years and all that money was pilfered. The oil industry infrastructure, the electric infrastructure is currently in shambles due to lack of investment, maintenance and corruption. Part of the recovery of Venezuela will require external investments just to get production back to the levels we had before this calamity.
They also took massive loans in exchange for future oil at insane prices, when people argues that we are going to lose our oil if X or Y happens to me it doesn’t mean anything, because we already lost it with these inept criminals in the government anyway.
Edit: even Maduro is now offering our country’s riches to the US in exchange for remaining in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
> I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Note that while you're not, the Nobel Peace prize winner unfortunately is. And honestly, much more so than privatizing oil, I think this would be the end of even the sham democracy that currently exists. The examples of countries becoming more democratic after a foreign military invasion intent on regime change are entirely restricted to the losing powers in WW 2.
> Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
Yes. Norway is basically the only real democracy with a nationalized oil firm, and they found oil after having been a democracy for like 100 years. Everywhere else state oil companies are piggy banks for tyrants and prevent the country from investing in economic development because they don’t need private tax revenues. State oil companies are a trap.
I think you missed my point - how can you claim you have democracy if you're not allowing your citizens to decide what to do with national resources (by privatizing them)? Privatization is a trap as well.
Private/state distinction matters only a little in practice for democracy. What matters is whether people have democratic control (equal participation on decision-making) over these structures.
> due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement
Let's be real, sanctions play a big role in the economic decline of Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy. In fact, it's a very problematic totalitarian regime, where women have limited rights and the royalty has been known to kill enemies. They very much mismanage money, with ridiculous projects, ostentatious lifestyles if you're royalty or the elite, and have the "highest prevalence of modern slavery of all countries in the Arab States region" [1].
Saudi Arabia is doing well economically though because it isn't sanctioned by the USA, and you don't hear bad press about it's totalitarian regime, or corruption, etc. because it's a USA ally.
If the USA cared about how people are treated by their government, they'd be in Sudan or Congo. The USA cares about getting rid of Maduro, so they will make it as difficult as possible for the Venezuelan regime to make money from its oil, while pointing out all that's wrong and blaming Maduro for everything.
I'm not saying things are well in Venezuela, or that Maduro is a good leader. I'm saying this is all part of a playbook that's been successful before, and it's reductionist to not blame the USA for Venezuela's decline.
[1]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...
Sanctions are absolutely not the reason for economic decline. Chavez installed cronies into the national oil company who ran it into the ground, and Maduro spent the everything they had on the security state. Both successive regimes have made private industry nearly impossible.
This is an utterly cartoonish take.
You're creating a false dichotomy. It is true that Venezuela is very poorly governed, and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular, in order to try to inflict economic suffering on the common people. This is the whole sadistic, and nonsensical, point of sanctions - inflict suffering on common people in hopes they'll blame their government instead of people inflicting suffering on them, overthrow their government, and then align themselves with the people inflicting suffering on them.
Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
The countless human rights violations, stealing elections etc. predate the sanctions. This honestly feels like patronizing. Look up the UN reports of all the human rights violations happened over the last couple of decades there.
Don't think you know what you're talking about. The sanctions to the country came way after the economic, social and political chaos.
Wiki conveniently has a nice graph demonstrating the real GDP/capita in Venezuela [1], which is reasonably reflective of the economic crisis. In 1980 it was around $16,000. By ~2013-2014 it had peaked a bit higher than $18,000 and had risen dramatically faster than the average for Latin America.
In 2014 there were mass protests against the government, in reality it was an attempt to overthrow the government, which was responded to with brutality. That brutality was met with sanctions. Today their GDP/capita is about $5000. That's obviously going to be explained in part by the decline in oil prices around the same time, but not to that degree, to say the least.
* - As an addendum here it's also unclear to me how exactly Wiki is calculating that figure and whether it accounts for, in any way, the substantial scale of emigration from Venezuela. If not, then the relative decline is even larger than it sounds.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela#/media/Fil...
No, those sanctions were on very specific people, not companies or industries. Those came later in 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_during_the_Venezuela...
Not quite. A useful term related to sanctions is overcompliance. You can read the exact verbiage of some of the earliest sanctions here. [1] In a nutshell engaging in any form of trade (including transfer of expertise or whatever else) that directly or indirectly benefited a sanctioned person could trigger extremely harsh penalties.
Many government officials in Venezuela have direct involvement with various industries, including oil. So it suddenly becomes this extremely complex and dangerous mess when doing any trade whatsoever with Venezuela. This is why their economy completely collapsed following the sanctions.
[1] - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/11/2015-05...
Our collapse predates the sanctions.
Also, Maduro is willing to trade our natural resources if it gets him more years in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Absolutely, which makes this whole thread all the more absurd, or at least typical. It seems increasingly likely we'll get a war in Venezuela, likely supported by this Nobel Peace Prize winner, with the goal of installing her in power. It seems Guaido is out of fashion? Anyhow, if "we" win, and she gets installed, you know the first thing she's going to do? Trade access to your natural resources for wealth and power. They're the only reason the US is there. And then in a decade you'll be ranting against her.
Look at the history of people the US sponsors in regime change operations around the world, and how things turn out. So long as they're loyal to the US, first and foremost, anything goes. Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Humberto Castelo Blanco, Augusto Pinochet, Efrain Rios Montt and many more though I'm limiting myself to the Americas. Of course I can fully understand the perspective that 'anything must be better than this shit show.' But it often turns out, in hindsight, that that's not exactly the case.
And in general this is a big part of the reason that I'm highly opposed to the US meddling in countries around the world. There's always such a heavy price to pay in American dollars and the blood of others. And.. for what? Yeah yeah, this time it's different...
My man the alternative we are currently suffering is WAY worse, you think we care if we do business with the US once we recover our democracy? It’s what I’m expecting. The country needs a lot of foreign investment, the US was our main partner before these criminals came to power.
> and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular
This is not at all true. A large share of Venezuelan oil is refined in Texas by Citgo for PDVSA. The US could easily stop that but doesn’t. The sanctions are on regime ghouls, the military, and some state companies run by the security apparatus. None of which existed before the 3rd time the Chavistas stole an election and jailed their opposition.
> Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
No. They wouldn't. The Venezuelan government has proven extremely incompetent to produce oil.
What the Trump's tariffs have shown to the world is that, in the scale globalization is today, trade with the US doesn't matter that much anymore. Case in point: Brazil. After Trump stuck 50% tariffs on them, their exports to other countries grew much more than enough to offset the loss to the U.S.
The US embargo on Venezuela is a lot like its embargo in Cuba, Iran and North Korea: it is not the cause of people suffering but is an excuse by those corrupt and incompetent regimes to hide their failures.
And look, what a coincidence that this so called neo-liberal "opposition" leader of Venezuela plans to privatise her countries oil companies (and other industries) again, and return it to their original owners (again, just another remarkable co-incidence that her father was the President of such a private company that was nationalised):
> Machado defines herself — and her party, Vente Venezuela — as “liberal” (or neoliberal, depending on how you look at it), both politically and economically. Her political vision revolves around reducing the size of the state as a provider of public policies, supporting entrepreneurship and promoting the free market, as a means of creating wealth and jobs in a devastated economy. Her vision of government is similar to what Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan had in mind ... The presidential candidate has proposed privatizing the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — a taboo in local politics — and returning all the companies that have been expropriated by the Chavista regime to their rightful owners. This also includes Siderúrgica Venezolana — a company that her father (who died this year) was the president of, before it was seized ... Her vision on the distribution of social funds is somewhat more American than European, as is her deeply anti-communist discourse.
Source: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-01/maria-co...
Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics, but I am quite tuned to what is happening to it internationally. And I can confidently state that Trump or the US don't have the best interests of Venezuela when it tries to bring "democracy" there through war (internal or external). We all know that it is rubbish to call Venezuela a "narco-state". And we all know how much the Trump administration truly cares about "democracy", whether in the US or in Venezuela. The simple fact is that, along with Cuba, Venezuela remains a persistent thorn for the Americans in South America (their "backyard") because of their inability to dominate them politically. To make matters worse (for Venezuela), Venezuela has the world's largest proven reserves – roughly 18% of the global total – in the vast Orinoco Belt. (That’s more than Saudi Arabia and Canada, though Venezuelan crude is harder to process). Russia and China have invested in Venezuelan oil industry and that has further rattled the US as it brings both the Russians and the Chinese to their "backyard".
(I'll believe the west's "concerns" on Venezuela's "democracy" and "human rights" when they overthrow the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE - where western companies are allowed to profit from oil resources in these regions - and bring "democracy" there).
You may also want to educate yourself on the real reason for the Gaza Genocide and why Trump and Tony Blair ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5j989107lo ) now plan to "directly administrate" Gaza - (1) https://asiatimes.com/2025/02/trumps-gaza-takeover-all-about... (2) https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-israel-brutal... ... As always, the sudden interest by the ex-colonials to bring "democracy" in Palestine is also about oil and gas.
Don’t make everything about yourself. We are in a big trouble just as it is and we could use all the help we can, even from the US regardless of who is at WH at the moment.
> Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics
You should have stopped right there.
The reason western countries care about Venezuela’s democracy is twofold it was prior to the Chavez coup the oldest democracy in South America, and Maduro helps other anti-democratic leaders in Latin America rig elections and suppress opposition. He’s a regional destabilizing force.
If you think this is about oil it shows how little you know, please read a bit more before spouting off here, this isn’t Reddit.
Imagine telling venezuelans living in venezuela, to go educate themselves about venezuela
Sire thing your links will be right and all my years suffering here are BS
[flagged]
Opposing a dictatorship at great personal risk, being exiled, banned from elections, and still leading a democratic movement isn't "nothing".
I think this prize recognizes her courage and fight for human rights.
Dismissing that as "just being in the opposition" ignores the reality of what it takes to stand up to Maduro's dictatorship.
That personal risk includes having yourself or loved ones thrown in prison without any contact to the outside world for however long the dictatorship sees fit.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
Exactly this. This dismissal itself is a large part of the problem. The audacity, wow.
Not to diminish her valor and heroism. Mad respect. But how is that actually about peace?
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?
There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace
Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.
In my own country, Spain, the Francoist dictatorship (1939–1975) never attacked other countries or participated in any foreign wars (beyond sending a division of volunteers to WWII). Its domestic policy was highly repressive with common execution of political dissidents, etc., but in the sense of "no war" it was peaceful. The same goes for Salazar's Portugal, Hoxha’s Albania or Tito's Yugoslavia.
Are we not counting Portugal's colonial war as "not peaceful"?
>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
A dictatorship cannot be peaceful. Peace is not merely “the absence of international war.” Peace is rooted in individual rights and freedoms.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
That's moving the goalposts.
Then I would argue that the current regime is at war with its own population.
Is there a civil war with guerrilla warfare? Or do you mean figuratively at war like the war on drugs?
The regime has been constantly committing crimes against the humanity. They created an 8 million people exodus.
They kidnap, torture and kill political prisoners.
Deployed the national guard on the favelas to kill indiscriminately thousands without a fair trial.
You can Google all the UN reports on these matters.
It sounds like repression —which if extreme enough approaches (civil) war. I’ll give you that but then we’d include Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries as well.
Sure. Now name people who are more deserving of the Nobel peace prize as this woman and explain their accomplishments and why it should make them a better pick. I'll wait.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
Every country should be rooting for our situation to be solved. We have way too many people abroad enduring bad situations that would be better back at home with a decent government and democracy restored.
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
If someone was working to bring elections to North Korea, then they too would deserve a Nobel.
I mean sure. Winning a war is also sometimes seemingly necessary to achieve peace. And violence is sometimes seemingly necessary to replace a dictatorship with democracy. In this case, it looks like they're awarding her the prize for her efforts to peacefully oppose dictatorship.
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
Maybe you’d of been satisfied if Dum’old Trump won it?
Moreover, she had been doing that for over 20 years. I am surprised by all her determination, her courage, and her luck to still be alive.
Then the dictatorship can't be as bad as Russia for instance.The opposition dies pretty quickly there. Or fell out of windows.
You think that doesn’t happen in Venezuela?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/fernando-alban...
I suppose Venezuela has hope because it is a weak country with nominal US pressure agaisnt the current regime. Russia is self sufficient and has WMD (nuclear)
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
>As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
So it isn't as bad as Russia. Putin hasn't such boundaries.
[flagged]
come on folks, no need to make everything about the US. The situation and evolution of Venezuela is vastly different. There are a lot of parallels, like with any other authoritarian government, and probably lessons the US opposition can learn, but don't equate the two as it overshadows the struggles Venezuelans have endured for 25+ years. Let them have their moment
Wow, ok. Comparing leading the Democratic Party in the US to leading a pro democracy movement under an actual dictatorship is a wild take.
It completely banalizes the risks people like Machado face just for opposing authoritarian power.
Pretending there's any equivalence between the two situations says a lot about your worldview, or lack thereof.
Ok, I guess we'll see in 20 years (you did read the "20 years" part I hope?) if my assessment is correct. It was maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't have any doubts that Trump would like to be an "actual dictator" and is actively testing how far he can expand the limits of his power. Democracy in the US is more established than in other countries that have had authoritarian takeovers in recent years (Hungary, Turkey, Russia etc.), but we'll see if it's resilient enough.
It was more than tongue in cheek, it is a mix of anxiety and overreaction. None of this is happening except for the far left's mind. I see this constantly on reddit, it's a shame it gets posted here. You are trying to be over dramatic to get your point across and maybe try to get someone to see your viewpoint? It does the exact opposite.
> None of this is happening
I take it you haven't read the news in approximately 6 months?
huh, overreaction? As an outsider looking in, the US is looking more autocratic and totalitarian every week. I have 0 doubts Trump would like to become a "strong man" a la Putin, if he can.
What makes you think otherwise?
[flagged]
Also, people's tendency to blame the victim. "You did this to yourself, you asked for it" etc.
It’s scary when the reality of the situation settles in, isn’t it?
Scarier when you understand that 20 years is way too long an estimate for this.
Europe is watching.
I'm not saying that she isn't a good politician or that what she is doing is not a step in the right direction. I personally like her. All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
> All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
> Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
So the conditions from the will are these:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
What is Maria Corina Machado doing is certainly impressive, and worth a reward. That being said.. (based on Wikipedia information about her)
I don't see how wishing a foreign country to militarily overthrow a regime in your country promotes peace.
If we also include democracy to that umbrella, I don't see how support of privatization of natural resources can be considered promotion of democracy.
She's probably not as bad as Milei but.. I would not rule out a similar outcome.
This award gives us hope and recognition as a country struggling to get rid of a dictatorship.
Every Venezuelan that aspires freedom should be proud today.
Can you list which of the recent nobel peace prizes were attributed according to your standards?
They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards. And I do agree Nobel Peace prizes are purely performative, but this one alongside Barack Obama has been one of the most performative ones I can remember.
> They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-...
If it is their own standards, then aren’t they implicitly in the better position to make those judgements than you?
Why would they be? They are just regular people who can make mistakes like everyone else. Don’t tell me Obama implicitly deserved it lol.
I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in their decision process. But it seems easy for some people to forget that the Nobel is awarded by a completely private foundation whose sole purpose is to pursue one man’s vision for a better world. Pretty sure neither of our opinions matter on this, but certainly not your disagreement with their execution of their own responsibilities.
Of course my opinions matter, because I hold it. I don’t particularly care about your view on your opinion mattering, maybe you can have a heart to heart with someone about that.
The Nobel committee is supposed to follow certain guidelines that were set up by Alfred Nobel, and ideally their decisions should make sense because it’s a prestigious prize. The committee consists of regular people who absolutely can be criticized for their stupid decisions, whether their stupid decisions match Nobel’s vision, how their stupid decisions affect the wider world because of the prestige of the prize, or whatever else I or anyone else feel like.
> They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
if you fight for justice peace and humanity the fight is the thing acomplished.
standing up and risking their lives for the good of humanity merrits more then a nobel price can give!
We can only hope that she will not behave like the previous career politicians that got the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years.
Abiy Ahmed (2019), from Ethiopia, ended the cold war with Eritrea. Then he launched a war against the region of Tigray, with mass rapes and mass civilian killings. He harassed the free press, and turned the country into an autocracy.
Juan Manuel Santos (2016) from Colombia and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2011) from Liberia later appeared in Paradise Papers because they had secret offshore companies in Panama and Barbades. Their political activity was more tame after the prize than before. Both ended their presidential tenures with plummeting approval rates, especially because of corruption allegations.
Barack Obama (2009) received the Prize for his generous discourses on foreign policy, just after being elected. Then he lead the USA to more war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Libya. He helped Saudi Arabia invade Yemen (UN states this war killed 300,000 people). He helped the Egyptian army with its coup, that killed thousands of opponents and sent 60,000 in jails (including the elected president who died there).
In my opinion, this prize is, most of the time, a dark and heavily political joke.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but people are awarded the prize based on what they've done, not based on what they might do in the future.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
Obamas was explicitly given as a hope for the future
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#2009...Ideally, we would accept the recipients as being of “certified good character”. But the stability of this pattern shows chronic lack of basic insight into the awardees, IMO.
No, ideally you'd understand under what basis the prize is handed out, and then draw your conclusions from that (or avoid thinking something specific will happen in the future based on the prize itself).
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
Obama didn’t actually do anything but get elected and said nice things. When he got the Peace Prize, people all over the world were confused and thought it was a joke.
He then went on to become the longest-serving war president [1]:
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
[1]: NYT: https://archive.is/diXo5
Seems pretty minimal if you subtract the steamy piles Cheney left him.
The point is what peace did he participate in before he won the Nobel peace prize? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
At least they had fun with it, remember "Terror Tuesday's"? And once he even apologized when they accidentally bombed a hospital full of white people. Cheney's situation room was probably like Dr.Evils lair. Obama and Hillary Clinton was more like https://youtu.be/dDJa1_fLVeA vibes.
The Obama prize decision kind of made the Nobel prize a joke.
Obama was kind of given the prize as soon as he was first elected, which was odd.
Of course it’s now led to Trump having a Peace Prize obsession, which sis not a bad thing.
Baraka Obama won the prize for not being George W Bush and for being the first black President of a country with a terrible history of enslaving and mistreating black people.
Side note: Democracy will not work in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood loses popularity and/or Islam in the region becomes more moderate. Until then, you're just going to end up with the same situation as Ethiopia and Tigray with a Brotherhood-dominated government and the Copts.
> of a country with a terrible history of enslaving and mistreating black people.
You should really learn about the history of the 19th century and the history of other countries wrt slavery.
Does it make my statement somehow untrue?
Also, save the snarky condescension for Facebook and Reddit.
It makes your statement apply more to almost every other country on the planet more than the US. Its like complaining to Luxembourg about poverty. And I will mock ignorance (especially about history) wherever I find it.
So, it doesn’t. Got it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 prize winner, resided over the genocide of the Rohingya people.
Yip, when reading his post I thought this would be the most obvious example. She was given the award for protesting a government that was cracking down hard on protest. She then took power and, at the minimum, was complicit in a literal genocide. In many ways I think this award should not be granted to 'resistance' types because they have a recurring habit of becoming even worse than that what they were resisting. And it obviously should not be given to political leaders based on words instead of actions. Actually maybe this prize shouldn't even exist - it's quite a joke, especially relative to the prize for the sciences.
It really would be better as a posthumous award.
The Rohingyas were busy killing and raping non-Rohingyas. She put a stop to that.
The peace prize is often given to people still working on something, not having achieved something. In that way it is different from the science prizes.
I think that is a understandable approach (providing support), though it can lead to giving the prize to people who never achieve any of their goals. Whether that’s a worthy trade off I do not know.
Being the opposition leader there is already something extraordinary. While other opposition figures have ended up coziying up with the regime she hasn’t relented. All while important members of her party have been imprisoned or murdered.
She’s also in hiding since the last elections, likely on an embassy but undetermined.
In a dictatorship, running against the leader involves more personal risk than in a country that is already democratic. Also, democracies tend to be more peaceful than dictatorships; my understanding is that efforts to transition from dictatorship to democracy may be regarded as a contribution to peace.
She also received the Sakharov Prize not long ago; if she had to receive only one, the latter would be easier to explain.
How much had Obama done in 2009? Maybe they forgot the criticism from back then.
What exactly do you mean by "career politician?" Being a member of the opposition in a dictatorship means giving up material wealth and putting your life & liberty on the line.
People imagine political movements as something to accomplish in their lifetime. When the real movements are multi-generational and involve planting trees you'll never enjoy the shade of.
I get frustrated in the US we are always thinking in terms of the next election. Movements that effect lasting change: civil rights, national independence movements, ending slavery, heck even the current conservative regime in the US, are all multigenerational efforts with clear principles and goals that get passed down.
That reminds me a bit of former winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who got the prize in 1991, while not having done or said that much at the time of the award, other than be a political prisoner.
I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.
Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.
Aung San Suu Kyi was just another "compliant native" similar to those the British installed prior to leaving the colonies.
The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.
It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.
Calling Nehru "installed" by Mountbatten misses the crucial context of the time. Nehru was the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress, which had been the primary force behind the independence movement for decades and had overwhelming popular support. Mountbatten's appointment was more of a constitutional formality in the transfer of power, not an act of kingmaking. It's like saying the Chief Justice "installs" a newly elected president.
The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.
As for kingmaking, I suggest you read the letter exchanges between Gandhi and Motilal Nehru, available online in the Gandhi website.
They openly talk of their respective candidates being offered the "crown."
Patel won the Congress presidency in 1946 and was made to step aside by Gandhi. Nehru, if memory serves me right, won only one vote.
"House arrest" was reserved for compliant natives. Aga Khan's palace was another favoured location for the likes of Nehru and Gandhi.
Real freedom fighters, were sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans.
Why would the military keep a "compliant native" under house arrest though? Wouldn't it be better for them to get her killed?
Not if that might bring the anger of the Empire down on them in full. There's a reason even totalitarian regimes don't apply the same amount of force to all of their political enemies.
Was Sardar Patel or Maulana Azad taking their orders too?
Patel was under the thumb of Gandhi.
Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.
Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.
As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.
It's so disappointing to see many folks engaging with the troll you are. You made this account just to post this garbage. Why didn't you post with your regular account? You can't even face folks on the internet. Do you think you have what it takes to face a dictator in the real world?
Yes but this is a way for them to give it to someone who supports Trump’s worldview so that they can try to dodge the controversy and pressure being put on them to give it to Trump
She managed to convince a people of a country that has been entrenched in authoritarianism that the vote was rigged without using violence.
Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won.
Without anybody using violence to do it.
Those who think there is nothing to be done but to counter authoritarianism without another authoritarian, or violence, or just to give up and suffer it - might be inspired by this.
I'm not the NNC but that seems like a "meaningful accomplishment".
You could ask: "Sure, allright, the populace was convinced that election was a sham. But... Maduro is still in power so she still hasn't done much". Let me flip it around, perhaps: What did Gandi ever actually accomplish? Isn't it the same thing: Show that violence is not a necessary element, get the people to reframe the situation a bit?
Can we prove Gandi sped up the UK's exit? Even if we can, one of those holocaust level holy heck humanity can get extremely dark moments in history that is rarely talked about is the absolute terror that occurred during the split of the Raj into India and Pakistan.
My point is: Judging the eligibility of a person for a peace prize on the basis of 'measurable meaningful accomplishment' is not how it works and probably shouldn't be how it works. It's either a bullshit prize (kissinger got one...) or it is like making a statue of somebody: It takes a person, turns them into a principle or ideal. Even though humans are much more complex than that.
The notion of "one is capable of being in opposition in an autocratic regime and get stuff done without resorting to violence" got a peace prize, but as per the dictat of Alfred Nobel, only people can get it, so, they stuck the label "Maria Corina Machado" on it. And that wasn't a bad labelling: She really did accomplish 'meaningfully' that goal, at least, I'd gather according to most folks' definition of the word 'capable'.
> Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won. Without anybody using violence to do it.
Exactly this happened in Belarus in 2020. Government wasn't shy of using its power though, many people got long prison sentences, many people had to run, nothing changed wrt to dictatorship. I don't see anything inspiring in this story honestly.
lol. Speaking of careers, leave it to HN to get a bunch of careerists whose main priority is their own pockets to engage in some armchair debate about how people who have likely done significantly more for the world than they will ever do don't deserve a peace prize.
The amount of presumption, ignorance, and lack of reflection in your comment is astounding. It shows that you don't take life seriously and/or don't understand what risks being an opposition party in a dictatorship actually entails.
Look up the winners of 1991 and 2009.
The prize is a joke. Its almost an anti-prize at this point. Look at the company you would be with. I definitively would not want to be included in that group.
The US is about to invade Venezuela and she is cheering for it.
That's why she won the "peace" award. She wants trump to invade venezuela. If people didn't realize what a farce the nobel "peace" prize has always been. It's always been a geopolitical weapon having nothing to do with actual peace.
Maduro is a cartel drug boss. One of the worst criminal on Earth. Exiled citizens from Venezuela are counted by millions.
And still your comment is about 'US invading Venezuela' and not about the people suffering.
Maduro is a scum that has took Venezuela by brute force. Any effort to wipe him out will improve dramatically the lives of millions.
But please go on with your 'US invading countries' narrative and don't even think for a minute about the people.
If the USA cared about the Venezuelan people they'd lift the sanctions. The USA cares about toppling a regime that knows its sitting on an oil gold-mine and wont let American companies freely run away with it.
You'd think people would give up on claiming we're trying to take other countries' oil when we didn't take any of Iraq's and instead became an oil exporter ourselves.
Maduro is offering the US access to gold and oil, which the US declined, according to NYT reporting.
It is clear that you care about what US cares and not at all about Venezuelan people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
What does it tell about a politician of a country that wishes for that sort of thing on her fellow countrymen?
Yeah, yeah, we've heard this all before, literally dozens of times.
Sovereign states that have important natural resources or geopolitical position are always run by Bad Guys that we need to invade and kill. The media said so!
If you devote like, half an hour, maybe 1 hour, to hear Maduro and Cabello (who is more straight in his evilness) talking and to check the stories of exiled people from Venezuela instead of repeating any narrative then maybe you can buile an informed opinion and not empty useless comments.
Its fair. She done a crucial job uniting the different interests of the oposition of the venezuelan goverment/cartel.
Too bad they where so divided for so many years, that when they trully worked together to wind a election it was too late because now MAduro dont even care to steal the ellections in plain sigth and probably theres no more solution without violence.
I don't know much about her but it's truly sad to see how absolutely eeeeeveryyyyy media reporting about this have to report it with Trump, or in relation to his statements. Man must sucks to be her, limelight is still on Trump, truly a showman.
And to repeat my point that I do every year: Nobel peace prize is the only part of the price that is actually given out by a foreign political body (Norway, founding member of NATO and Oil nation) and not the Swedish academy.
It's famous recepients include presidents that bombed/joined war during/just after been given it and bloggers that kept blogging after surviving shootings. And Henry Kissinger
Petition to rename it to "Norwegian peace price". /signed, a Swede
What, are you not impressed by us putting retired politicians into an independent committee according to their party's political power in parliament??
Are you suggesting that the committee should consist of some kind of qualified experts instead of non-competent politicians?!
Preposterous. Typically of a Swede.
(To be fair to Nobel himself, the world was a bit different when he authored his testament, and Norway was relatively innocent still.)
> Man must sucks to be her, limelight is still on Trump, truly a showman.
She did dedicate this prize to Trump [1]:
> I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!
She is a vocal Trump supporter after all [2].
[1]: https://x.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1976642376119549990
[2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
That’s the irony of the situation. This should’ve been a clear win for Trump, using the prize to help bolster his status and direction on Venezuela. But then we got this absurd media storyline about him wanting the prize himself (probably to bury the government shut down news).
This is deeply related to Trump and is all part of manufacturing consent for the eventual invasion or coup on Venezuela.
[flagged]
Nothing says peace like sending the military to occupy your own cities.
I'm sure that the guy sending to prison and extraditing people without due process is a very deserving of a peace prize.
LOL. Do you actually believe this nonsense?
The literal words that she said? Why would we call this nonsense?
As an Ethiopian man, I view this new Nobel Peace Prize with profound skepticism, a feeling rooted entirely in the disastrous outcome of Abiy Ahmed's utterly undeserved award. The premature praise he received for peace-making quickly evaporated, leading instead to a catastrophic war and the fragmentation of our nation. His prize has been followed by widespread conflict, massive displacement, and an alarming return to authoritarian rule. For us, the entire Nobel Peace Prize now feels meaningless, a hollow symbol given its failure to prevent—or perhaps its role in emboldening—such terrible suffering in Ethiopia
For me, that skepticism began when Obama received the award. To his credit, he did not think he deserved it. But I have never viewed it in the same light since.
Henry Kissinger got it. He should have been tried at the Hague instead.
Barack Obama is the only two-term President in US history to be at war every day of his Presidency. The only one.
The two first wars that come to mind were not started by him though.
To his credit: he didn't start any of those wars. But yes, I agree that the Nobel prize was unfounded.
He surely started Libyan War by bombing the hell out the government forces and creating power vacuum. The war is still ravaging the country to this day
You seem to have come from another timeline, where that's reality. Wikipedia says:
> On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). The UN Security Council passed the resolution with ten votes in favour and five abstentions, with the stated intent to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity'
but I guess that's fake news...
But I'm more interested about how you can travel between timelines. Is it with a portal gun like in Rick and Morty?
Can you let Obama know Libya wasn't his fault and he bears absolutely no responsibility? He seems to be living in that alternate reality - you'd think he would be a better judge of what reality existed, but alas not everyone is as observant as you. Surely the US cannot be held responsible for any action of NATO, they have no relation with that organization at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/barack-obama...
While you're there you should also let Hilary Clinton know that she wasn't a war hawk either, and the no-fly zone just spontaneously appeared with no US involvement at all.
What are you saying exactly? Military intervention is not a war? Obama did not play a decisive role in starting it (mainly to sway away attention from the dragging Afghanistan war which he promised to end)? Or UN mandate makes it somewhat ok, considering NATO broke conditions of the UN resolution already in the first weeks of bombing (which was promptly objected by UN security Council members). Make no mistake. Obama started this war for PR reasons. Had it not been for NATO bombing Libya would still exist as a state instead of a failed entity it is now.
"ongoing Libyan Civil War".
If I'm joining an ongoing party, did I start the party?
By this logic Russia did not start Ukraine war but merely joined the internal conflict started by Ukraine in 2014.
It was hardly a civil war before NATO bombing, but rather protests which were brutally squashed by Gaddafi forces. Opposition lacked any means to wage a way before NATO started supplying them with arms too.
So in the timeline you're from, the Crimean invasion also was an internal conflict... interesting!
Also there, civilized societies should look away and just let it happen when people fighting oppression is being slaughtered. Well, that's quite similar to this timeline, because that's what's happening in Gaza and being ignored by "The West".
Well, oppression is exactly what people in Crimea and Donbass viewed Maidan events and did not want to have anything to do with this new Ukraine. Go do a research on Crimea referendum or gallups done by Pew or such and you will find out that secession was and still is the most popular option. And sure as hell people of Crimea do not want to be part of Ukraine again.
The UN mandate which NATO were given to use military force only to protect civilians was used as a figleaf to pursue a regime change operation instead.
In the context of that regime change operation they killed many civilians and left a humanitarian catastrophe in their wake. The country is beyond fucked but Hillary did get to say "we came, we saw, he died" afterwards, underscoring the lie. So mission accomplished?
For some reason the UN security council stopped approving NATO "humanitarian" operations after that and Russia started treating NATO expansion as an imperialist, existential threat.
He started a number of color revolutions though out MENA?
And let us not forget his assassination of an American citizen by drone strike for visiting the place of his fathers death, also assassinated by drone strike.
And if we want a “fun fact,” he is the only Nobel Peace winner to bomb and kill another, as commander and chief his forces bombed and killed innocents in a Doctor’s Without Borders outpost in Afghanistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike)
I think there's a very high bar of proof to "Americans are responsible for a popular revolution" when in practice there was a huge amount of effort by individuals on the ground, for example in Tahrir Square.
Obama did not make Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire.
Can we please stop propagating the flimsy conspiracies about the 2011 revolutions? They started entirely organically, but some unfortunately devolved into wider conflicts.
At worst, this conspiracy infantilizes Arab populations by removing their agency. At best, it’s false marketing for the CIA and other agencies.
[dead]
Did Obama start the Afghanistan war? or the Iraq war?
Yes, he could exit those countries hastily. But that has its own cost. Getting in wars is the easy part. Getting out of one is the hard part. Ask Putin who went into Ukraine on a 3-day limited special military operation.
Bush Jr. got us into multiple wars and unlike his father did not limit the scope of them. His father did get us into a war with Iraq but was smart enough to keep it limited in scope.
Also, under Obama, the "wars" were not real wars like the Russia/Ukraine war where both sides are losing hundreds of people every week. But they were more like peacekeeping operations that occasionally ran into skirmishes.
> like the Russia/Ukraine war where both sides are losing hundreds of people every week.
Every week? If we just look at the Russian casualties numbers, its around 1000+ casualties PER DAY.
There was a recent leak of the death toll and the most active area's had a 2/5 dead rate, 1/3 "missing" rate, and the rest was wounded.
If we only count the death + "missing" over the entire front for Russia, its 500+ PER DAY.
Ironically, the Russian->Afghanistan invasion was WAY less deadly then what we see today in Ukraine.
Your point still stands about the US evolvement in Iran/Afghanistan, but darn your numbers really way below the actual body count in the Russian "3-day limited special military operation". Those are numbers from the first year, not the daily of the third year.
> Every week? If we just look at the Russian casualties numbers, its around 1000+ casualties PER DAY.
You are likely correct. I have heard of the high casualty estimates, but wanted to keep it conservative to not have someone complain about the estimate being too high.
> more like peacekeeping operations
Peacekeeping is like the UN sending troops in to monitor a ceasefire. These were wars. 35,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Overthrowing Gaddafi. Tens of thousands of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Drone strikes killing thousands of civilians in Pakistan. US foreign policy has equated “peace” and “stability” with its own military hegemony, being almost constantly at war to further its hypocritical ideology. It’s been a cash cow for the defense lobby.
Fun fact, the 2 longest periods of peace in history are called the Pax Romana and Pax Mongolica. The Mongolians and the Romans are known for fighting wars, lots and lots of wars. The only prolonged periods of peace in history are when one country or empire gets much stronger than the rest.
Another fun fact, the lowest per capita worldwide war deaths in a specific year in world history occurred in 2019.
And finally, when the US goes isolationist, the rest of you animals start killing each other instantly. So keep it up if you want a lot more "history" to happen in your lifetime.
Both the Pax Romana and Pax Mongolica saw their share of violence - plausibly comparable to 19th century Europe, or the Han and Tang dynasties, which which were not unipolar. We just don’t have good numbers for any of these cases. The long-history basis of your argument is flimsy at best.
The US itself only began resuming mass offensives with the decline of the USSR. But a world collapsing into unipolarity should lead to less conflict according to your view, as there would be less incentive for inter-state violence. The other pole was undergoing collapse, and the US sent soldiers, and continued to do so for decades.
But strictly speaking 2019 is part of a longer term downtrend in violence between nations after World War 2. That’s a trend that preceded American hegemony - a hegemony which is frankly a shadow of its former self. The real risk today isn’t multipolarity, it’s that the US is denial of multipolarity. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel. The US just doesn’t have the money to hemorrhage out to military disasters any more. It’s a house of cards growing taller and taller. What has no limit is the foolish arrogance of our leaders. The way to stop war is rarely escalation (anathema to the defense lobby).
And we are all human beings, US and non-US alike, not animals. It’s the capacity for compassion that makes us human, not the ability to kill.
Obama was very explicitly promising to get out of the middle east wars.
Of course it's hard, but if that's true, then why is he making those promises, or worse, why is he being given a peace award based on those promises?
Are we going to pretend that a president not keeping promises from the campaign trail is somehow exceptional?
No, the awarding of a prize for promises is the exceptional part.
Do you have something showing that the committee awarded presidents based on their campaign promises?
If you ask me, Putin is welcome to end the Ukraine war at any time he wants! Getting out of a war is actually easy if you don't care what happens after that, e.g. in the case of Afghanistan accept as "sunk costs" the billions of dollars and thousands of lives that were lost during the 20 years that NATO was involved there.
Yeah two unpopular wars he did not start and spent a lot of effort figuring out how to get out of. He ended one and his vice president later ended the other.
Depends what you mean by "be at war". For example, the Russo-Ukraine war has been going since February 2014. Through both Trump presidencies.
Unlike the other Nobel prizes, the peace prize does not seem to be given as a reward for past achievements, but as an encouragement to continue current political engagement.
He won the award for his excellent ability of not being George W. Bush. In fairness, he really is quite good at this. I haven't really followed his career post-presidency, but reportedly he continues to not be George W. Bush to this day.
I mean I think you can go back well before that. At least to when Kissinger received it, while his co-laureate Le Duc Tho refused it on the basis that no peace had been achieved.
The Nobel Peace prize has been a joke ever since it was awarded to Kissinger in 1973.
The notion that the Nobel prize is of any moral value, whatsoever, is faulty.
The Nobel Foundation is an attempt to make amends for the harms done by its founders invention of explosive materials - which subsequently birthed the military-industrial complex.
Its use of its material wealth to invest in index funds derives a great deal of wealth from weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies .. In that sense, it has only been since 2017 that it has exclusively attempted to avoid profiting from investments in the Wests' military-industrial complex. However, there is a growing voice of discontent which claims that the Foundations' policy change to "avoid investing in controversial weapons systems" is a PR move, and not a real force for change.
Don't you think making amends is of value, and should be encouraged?
Awarding the "Peace Prize" to a US' President who went on to drop more bombs per minute on innocent human beings than his predecessor, is not making amends.
No, I do not think that the Nobel Foundation is making amends. I think it is functioning as a propaganda tool of the very military-industrial complex from which it derived its wealth.
Duplicity is not making amends.
OK. I was looking narrowly at "The Nobel Foundation is an attempt to make amends for the harms done by its founders invention of explosive materials", but that was not in fact the issue.
Any well-intended organisation can have its purpose subverted, easily enough.
All it takes is for its capital investments to be handled by a third party.
There's a long tradition of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to weirdly undeserving people, capped off by Henry Kissinger.
Giving it to a crazy genocidal Communist like Lê Đức Thọ was worse.
I got downvoted so perhaps I should teach some history:
The North Vietnamese Communists were not freedom fighters. They were a criminal gang (with widespread but nowhere near total support from the population) who conquered North Vietnam and in the process killed many, raped many, tortured many, displaced many, made agriculture suffer, caused starvation, etc.
The conquest of South Vietnam also destroyed agriculture there, leading to mass starvation that killed at least 100,000 people.
He was a lot worse than Kissinger. There was a reason why the US fought against those bastards.
There's a "curse" in Nobel peace prize for sure. Not long after Obama got it, he got US dragged in to Libya and Syria. Merely 2 years after EU got it, Crimea was annexed during Ukraine trying to get closer to EU (and EU really did nothing about this).
Not to the fault of the people per se, but I see too much "awarded for effort, then oops turns out the complete opposite happened" with the peace prize.
Norwegians are known for their oil and salmon. not knowledge, but being spoiled. so maybe the committee are just painfully incompetent to the level we should now bet that Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years
> we should now bet that Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years
That much is obvious, given that:
- There are ongoing sanctions against the country by USA
- USA has a portion of its fleet just off Venezuale's shore, killing people in boats
- USA has an active $50 million reward for information leading to arrest of Venezuela's current president
- Current president's main rival is being internationally propped-up in the midst of all of the above, most recently by having the Nobel peace prize awarded to her
- That main rival has publicly supported US imperialism, promises privatization of Venezuela's energy resources, has called for US regime change in Venezuela, and is strongly Zionist and supporting a genocide
So, yes, Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years.
It's probably best to see the prize more as encouragement rather than endorsement of everything the person has ever done. Abiy Ahmed won the award "for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea". His actions in the last few years notwithstanding, he did do that. And insofar I can follow Ethiopian politics, his other actions from the early years were also generally in the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. At least in theory, celebrating and rewarding this kind of thing is good? I don't see how it would embolden him, or anyone else?
I apologise in advance for making light of the situation in your country, but did you find the peace awards more meaningless than Hinton's award for PHYSICS?!!
I won't deny some of the recipients are questionable, but I don't see how someone receiving the award or not would help prevent - or embolden - suffering in a country? I'm not familiar with what happened in Ethiopia, so apologies if this is obvious.
Looks like this would prompt Maduro to kill her, and gave US a reason to invade Venezula.
The US attacking Venezuela before 2026 is now at 31% on metaculus.
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/39336/us-attacks-venezue...
Bit late for that, they've already murdered some random Venezuelans at sea.
I don't think that met either of the criteria:
> This question will resolve as Yes if, before January 1, 2026, the United States carries out a military attack against Venezuela's territory or military forces.
Or someone else on his behalf - even his enemies.
Alright, we are into conspiracy theory territory now. But let me just say that these awards make me a bit nervous.
Notice what they said: This year's peace prize is being given to someone for transitioning a country from dictatorship to democracy. They sure as hell aren't going to give it to someone doing the opposite!
They certainly wouldnt have given it to Hugo Chavez in 2002 when he overcame the American backed anti democratic coup to overthrow him.
Dissidents in countries which are enemies of the west? With enormous oil reserves? With an American fleet poised offshore ready for regime change? Definitely. Who are zionists to boot? Even better.
Dissidents in brutal, dictatorial countries (e.g. Saudi) which are allies? Hell no. Never. The nobel prize is a tool of statecraft and that would be a self defeating use of its PR potential to advance western foreign policy goals.
Not for transitioning, for "struggle to achieve transition".
To be honest, both are struggling to achieve the transition, for better or worse.
To be honest, only Donald Trump takes seriously the Nobel Peace price. He cares because Obama got one, no one else cares because Obama got one.
Actually its not limited to Obama, its whole history is ridden with scandals, definitely a far cry from the Nobel prizes in natural sciences.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Mango Man's going to be overjoyed at having another justification for going to war with Maduro.
Here come the sanctions
Venezuela is already heavily sanctioned and on the cusp of military invasion by USA. Machado is a core part of this campaign. She won't be sanctioned, she will be installed.
I guess giving it to Juan Guaido would have been too obvious.
~10 hours or so before the announcement bets on her skyrocketed on Polymarket
https://x.com/polymarket/status/1976434242386317640
Someone without any history whatsoever put 70k on her 5 hours before the announcement
https://x.com/polywhalewatch/status/1976499384373121488
Trump was never above 5-10% and out of nowhere she was the winner (see the 1 day market view) https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2025?t...
This isn't illegal but feels like it should be illegal. You don't see corporate officers trade their stocks right before a big announcement, because there are laws on it.
Other than the fact that polymarket is legally not a stock market, what really is the difference between insider trading on a stock market vs insider trading on polymarket? Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
The argument goes, the purpose of prediction markets is not to be fair, it's to provide information. Allowing insider trading benefits that purpose. And I think that's fair - this is not a place to invest your retirement savings, it's essentially gambling.
I kind of feel like abusing the information asymmetry when doing insider trading in a betting market should be illegal regardless if the purpose is to provide information or not, or if it's considered gambling or not. Just like doing so with stocks is illegal today.
The purpose of banning insider trading in markets is not "fairness". The purpose is to encourage participation. We want to promote investment in the stock market by the general public who don't have insider information, because that stimulates the economy by providing capital for productive businesses.
Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses. The only purpose of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions. Insider information makes the predictions more accurate. Unlike the stock market, we don't need to encourage public participation in prediction markets. In fact we might want to discourage it because it's essentially gambling. Therefore, we should definitely not outlaw insider trading in prediction markets.
Participation by the general public is an important part of prediction markets! That's the entire point of the wisdom of the crowd. Before an insider tilts the market in one direction, in the absence of much insider information, prediction market advocates point out that the prediction market will still capture information value that you can't glean from just one source.
If you discourage public participation in prediction markets "oh I will just lose my money to an insider a few hours or days before the final result, so why bother", then the end result is that nobody participates until an insider makes a big bet. Then the market is worthless until the insiders jump in. Is that really what prediction market advocates want?
The other point is that:
> Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses
Is not true. There's more than just capital in terms of cash. There's human capital (employees), brand value... and importantly, information. Which is what prediction markets intend to do in the future: become an information value source for productive businesses.
Money isn't the only unit of value.
Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
Emperically, we have plenty of participation by the public in prediction markets without a prohibition on insider trading. We don't need to encourage any more.
> Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information). Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
> Emperically, we have plenty of participation by the public in prediction markets without a prohibition on insider trading.
That's not true. As mentioned in this thread, the UK has laws in general against this (for betting). The USA also already has laws against specifically insider financial disclosures (Regulation FD) for corporations, that also applies to betting on prediction markets (Dirks vs SEC ruling in the general case). I'm not sure if Regulation FD applies to Nobel prizes, though, as that's not regulated by the SEC, and I'm not sure if the USA has general laws on illegal betting. But therefore, I do not think you can claim that "there is no prohibition on insider trading", as that's already clearly mostly illegal and thus already priced in for the public participation in prediction markets.
> It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information).
Again, the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources, so the status quo is already what I propose; you don't see insiders trade on predictions like "would OpenAI release GPT-5 in 2025" as that's against the law.
> Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
This is also not true. Bayes Theorem! The information does not need to be fully accurate, just more accurate, enough to update from P(A) to P(A|B) given P(B), where P(B) is the prediction market's price on a certain prediction! That means an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates, if you can derive information from it.
> an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates
I didn't say an inaccurate prediction market is completely worthless. But it is self-evident that an accurate prediction market is a lot more valuable than an inaccurate one.
> the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources
Not only are most markets not related to corporations including the most important ones, I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading. Everyone on Polymarket knows it's the wild west, and yet people still trade plenty.
> I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading.
Yeah, you're just describing humans behaving irrationally then. That's clearly not rational behavior (which to be fair, is totally expected for humans), which means that even if it's descriptive of the current markets now, that's not actually ideal.
Why? This net saves people money, because it makes markets reflect reality faster.
Other than a vague sense of "fairness", can you articulate why insider trading should be illegal?
It being unfair might dissuade people from using it, that would kinda compromise the goal of helping markets reflect reality
But no one is actually hurt by it.
(I'm not saying you're wrong, btw. People aren't always rational.)
Smart people are financially hurt by it.
Isn't that the entire point of the prediction market model? You derive the wisdom of the crowd by enabling smarter people who make better educated guesses as predictions (from the same access to information as others) to win out over time. They are incentivized to do this financially, by winning bets.
If markets just becomes "first person to cheat takes all", then there's no incentive to NOT cheat. So you drive away the people who power the prediction market in the absence of information. Over time, this means that the prediction market is just random noise until a leaker publishes news. At that point, you might as well as just skip the middleman and just make a website "LeakNews" where you can directly offer bounties that goes towards a reward paid out to a leaker for news you are interested in.
why? The purpose of the prediction market is not to be fair to market participants, it's to aggregate information regarding an event. There is a public benefit to allowing participants to bet on insider information. It could be even argued there is nothing unfair about it if everyone is free to do it/can anticipate others might have insider info. If we actually limited the market to participants who have insider information(not feasible because we can't verify), that'd be a great public utility. this is the next best thing for all those who don't participate in it. These are specialized markets and we shouldn't rush to 'protect' people who bet on very technical events happening.
> Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
I don't care either way but for the sake of argument:
Stock market is something you can't avoid (ignoring hermits), so an insider trade can ruin your pension fund or other financial wellbeing with you having no way to opt out of the risk, so the government protects you. (This is good!)
Polymarket is more like a bet between friends. You don't have to play but if you do understand it's unregulated and someone can cheat.
In the UK some MPs and police officers put bets on the date of the next general election on the basis of inside information. Apparently you can be prosecuted for cheating in a bet:
"The investigation, initiated in June 2024, focused on individuals suspected of using confidential information - specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date - to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets. Such actions constitute an offence of cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, a criminal offence."
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/gambling-...
If the goal is accurate predictions, then the market works much better with insider trading like this.
The purpose of the stock market is to play matchmaker between companies and capital. Insider trading erodes trust of unaffiliated capital owners and thus hurts the purpose.
A prediction market, on the other hand, aims to provide the best possible probabilities on events (arguably), and "insider trading" helps that purpose.
It's to the benefit of the market to have such rules, so it's likely a matter of time, assuming growth continues.
Just the opposite. It's to the 'benefit of the market' to let insiders trade. That is, if you think that the point of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions (and the point of a financial market is to get accurate prices).
However, I agree that they might get rules against this. But not to benefit the market, just because people think this would be proper. Social desirability bias is strong.
In the long run, if participants feel they can't ever win because there's always an insider taking advantage, then participants might leave and that's to the detriment of the market. So it might be in the interest of the market to make sure everyone has a fair enough chance. Finding the right balance here is somewhat of an art.
This is similar to the way all football teams benefit from fair referees and even matches, even if sometimes it means they lose.
Also: the point of an exchange is to make money. Different types of exchanges have different fee structures, but generally their profit is a function of volume, so there primary objective is to attract volume. Since every trade / bet requires two participants, they need to balance the needs of both participants to make it work. Price discovery is a positive side effect of efficient and fair markets, which is why as a society we like them and encourage them, but it isn't what they are trying to achieve except inasmuch as it encourages participation.
> In the long run, if participants feel they can't ever win because there's always an insider taking advantage, then participants might leave and that's to the detriment of the market.
In the US, there's no general rule that protects you against trading against someone with insider information. Mostly what's forbidden is an employee X of company Y trading on her own account; but if X acts on behalf of Y, they can go crazy.
For you on the other side of the trade, it doesn't really matter whether you sell your Standard Oil stock to someone officially acting on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway who knows that next week Warren Buffett will announce that they are going to buy Standard Oil, or whether you are selling your stock to someone who has the same information, but is not officially authorised by Berkshire Hathaway.
Yet, people still trade in the stock market just fine.
I would suggest as a retail investor you shouldn't buy individual stocks anyway: just buy an index fund.
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and people still traded them.
In any case, your arguments suggest that exchanges should be able to decide whether they want to allow insider trading, and companies should be allowed to decide which exchange they want to list at (so they can indirectly decide whether to allow insider trading). No need for a blanket one-size-fits-none rule.
> You don't see corporate officers trade their stocks right before a big announcement, because there are laws on it.
Depends on jurisdiction.
> This isn't illegal but feels like it should be illegal.
Why?
Is someone forcing you to place bets at gunpoint?
If you actually want to know 'why' people think so, have a look at all the discussions around insider trading in financial markets. No one is forcing you to buy stocks at gunpoint, either.
(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)
It's easier to justify stock markets banning insider information because there are ignorant participants through their investment funds who we would like to protect. Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events? Even if we ban on this one too, should we in general be able to create a market that explicitly allows insider information for some arbitrary thing, insideinformationverywelcomemarket, where everyone is aware it's the main point of the market or shall we just protect these people from themselves?
Yes, as I said there are good arguments for allowing insider trading at least in some circumstances (and some arguments against).
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and the market worked just fine.
My point in my earlier comment was that your question about 'why?' seemed a bit weird. You can look up the 'why?' relatively easily, even if you don't find it convincing.
> Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events?
Because some information affects the stock market. So Regulation FD already applies, for financial news.
> Even if we ban on this one too
The UK already banned this, see other comment above in this thread.
> insideinformationverywelcomemarket
You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". Or, basically a crowdfunded TMZ. TMZ will pay thousands of dollars for non-financial info on celebs and then publish that news. That that point, you're just describing a slightly classier crowdfunded TMZ.
It would be interesting to see if someone can develop insider trading tracking algorithms to uncover highly probable useful information out of prediction markets before major public announcements. It would be unfair to people involved in markets, but highly beneficial to everyone else, at least so long as prediction markets remain relatively niche.
Are you suggesting that an unregulated gambling system primarily advocated for by gamblers in an ecosystem rife with degenerate gambling and outright fraud that advertises itself with an entirely theoretical and vibes based theory of "better information" that is primarily filled with people desperate to make gambling a "good thing" and provides ample opportunity for the incestuous and deeply connected crypto community to fleece people who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be delicious targets...
You think maybe that might not be on the straight and narrow?
Maybe we should get people to bet on it! Gamblers routinely show that they have a strong understanding of the world, right? What? No I don't have a problem. Hey do you have a few dollars I can borrow?
I wonder if she would rather not have won it? Being the focus of frustration of someone with enormous capacity to thwart your efforts or even destroy your country can't be a pleasant position to be in. For her sake I hope he quickly finds something else to be pissed off about.
This is absolutely huge, the biggest one. Congrats to Maria. It's really a big one.
Things in the US seem to keep sliding toward further power centralization. Regardless of politics, that is bad policy of the highest order (bit).
Great opportunity for someone to create some effective opposition.
There is a medal in it!
Ironically, someone who badly wants a medal is actually in the perfect position to turn around the brain/competency drain, “bring back science”, boost US competition with China’s green tech wave, help Ukraine win (instead of the endless: “not lose for now”), fire the all the senate confirmed bozos…
If he did, a Nobel prize would be unconventional under the circumstances. But well worth it nevertheless.
No Rushmore. There isn’t enough room left on that mountain for that size of an ego. But maybe a genuine gold working toilet installation for Rushmore tourists.
———
Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment, reaffirming key points of the existing constitution with a highlighter for supreme justices with poor eyesight, might be one promising approach.
> “No person shall” [something, something] “hold any office” [something, something], “who, having” [something, something] “engaged in insurrection”, [something, something] “or given aid” [or incited, or encouraged insurrection, or threatened a vice president for not implementing an insurrection, or delayed relief for law enforcement engaged in stopping an insurrection] “or comfort” [or praise or approval or promises of pardons] “to the enemies thereof.”
> […All the powers of the purse given to the representative branch, with no provision for presidential “creative” reinterpretation…]
> [Etc., etc.]
If anyone wants to give a shout out to anyone building effective resistance to the avalanche of presidential power, essentially being voluntarily abdicated by the other two branches, I would be interested to hear of them.
(Traditionally that has been a very high consensus bipartisan issue. Not everyone, but most everyone.)
> Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Interesting point! Bit of a tangent, bit Brazil is in the process of holding Bolsonaro to account for power grabs that have a lot of similarities with what's happening in the US.
Too early to call their long term efficacy, but definitely one to watch.
Is Lula ever going to finish his prison sentence? No, shocking...
Jailing political opposition isn't the mark of a stable democracy. You covering up for it doesn't help.
I don't pretend to be an expert in Brazil's politics, but to my knowledge, Bolsonaro is in jail for money laundering and abuse of office for financial gain - is there genuine doubt about him being guilty? If not, it doesn't seem like a fair claim to suggest he's a political prisoner?
I think the point I was trying to make was, a few years ago, it looked like Brazil might all out stop being a democracy. It now seems more likely that democracy will continue, and the process of that de-escalation is an important one to watch.
>I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Trump, and the regime associated with him, are an exploitation of preexisting degradation of limited, democratic and responsible governance in the United States. The restoration of"good government" is the obvious counter to his rising dictatorship, but that would result in other existing power blocs (themselves also abusive, if not so gratuitously as Trump) loosing their own ability to exploit the system after he exits the stage. Faced with a choice between "stop Trump and end our own abuses as a consequence" or "let him run rampant and hope the US survives so that we can exploit it later" established American institutions have overwhelmingly gone with the second option.
The Democrats don't appear to be falling down the same hole.
They are not rallying for or under an Anti-Trump, but looking for a credible remedy for Trump.
Unfortunately, that is a much harder challenge, given how centralized their opponent party's representative power has become. Centralized power is so dangerous, because it is so effective.
And the Supreme Court's participation in that centralization adds a formidable head wind to any reform.
I just don't see the Democrat being able to take the same road. Even if they wanted to.
I think the future for now is balanced between Trump successfully tilting the next elections enough to continue to sideline Democrats, or attempting to do so and triggering a sea change/backlash that gives Democrats some significant power to attempt reforms with.
You don't live in this universe do you?
If you have a point, why not make it? This is a site where discussion is welcome, but dissing is discouraged.
For the record: Hamas leader Dr Basem Naim has publicly acknowledged Trump's part in bringing terrorists to the table, saying: ”Without the personal interference of President Trump in this case, I don't think that it would happen to reach this end, the end of the war.”
That's interesting. I think the last Venezuelan election showed there are limits to what you can accomplish with peace.
Of course there are limits to everything, but conversely look at what people like Gandhi achieved
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with these sorts of casual throwabouts of extremely complex and unique geopolitical situations though. Gandhi existed in a particular moment and context - take the same man and put him up against a different regime, and you would not get the same outcome.
It's like how people talk up peaceful protest by referencing Martin Luther King. He was a major centralizing figure for civil rights, but he did not exist in a vacuum of context either.
Precisely. Liberation movements have various tools at their disposal. But using the same tool in a different context does not guarantee a similar outcome.
On Gandhi in particular, many do not realize that there were parallel movements inside India that did resort to violence. So the context is not as simple as it may seem.
It helped that WW-II broke the British. Non Violence needs an audience and a population that i) can feel shame ii) holds some power to do something about it.
Gandhi's protests were causing turmoil and dissent within the UK. Not to forget the fact that the massive Indian population had gone into civil disobedience as well, making it costlier to rule India. Anymore issues, including any harm to Gandhi would have caused massive problems for the British, both in India and at their own homeland. They had to spend to keep everybody safe and the situation normal. That wouldn't have been the outcome of a violent revolution. Summarizing, Gandhi's peaceful protest cannot be described in simple terms. There are a lot of nuances.
Gandhi's protests are a very valuable source of info on both violent and nonviolent protests. It's easy to talk about an armed or violent revolution. But it's not a decision to be taken very lightly. Apparently, both the sides of the American civil war went into it expecting it to somehow end in a few days! You know the carnage that followed. I have no clue why they held that belief. But it supports the fact that people almost always underestimate the cost of a war.
Non-violent protests are more effective at garnering support and mobilizing a huge movement. The human costs are also arguably lesser. I dont know if it's practical all the time. But it should be given a big chance if an opportunity exists.
Nothing you say contradicts my comment.
Non violent resistance can be and has been crushed many times in history.
To win one needs to wield some kind of power or leverage. Non violence does not work if your adversary cannot be shamed by a moral high ground. It will achieve zilch in that case.
Maybe up to 2 million people died in the process, mostly in the partitioning of India and Pakistan, so it was not all peaceful.
There were many millions of violent Indians who helped him achieve that.
I mean, Poland managed to get rid of communist rule through a peaceful process(which doesn't mean people weren't arrested, tortured, intimidated and beaten). There was a desire for free and democratic elections and it happened.
Living in the information age was supposed to mean we'll be better informed. Reading the opinions in this thread just shatters any hope for humanity.
The funny thing is, both sides can read your comment and assume you’re talking about the other side having the "wrong" opinion. It’s the kind of platitude that doesn’t really add anything, it just signals that you see yourself as being above "the wrong side", whichever side that happens to be.
I projected my distaste for rampant partisanship into the comment. So far I've only seen one comment which is informative and on topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45537006
I'm not sure who is down-voting this comment. Seems pretty accurate to me.
> you see yourself as being above "the wrong side", whichever side that happens to be
The actually sad thing is, it's pretty damn obvious.
Why do people have this weird idea that humans reliably pick the correct answer, even given infinite information?
Humans are incapable of being rational, it's not how our brains function. We can, with great effort, emulate what we think rational thought would be like.
Human brains regularly lie to themselves because it is cheaper or easier than actually processing input.
You know that fun retort: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?", and how it's always trotted out as this supposed retort to someone suggesting you ignore obvious info, but our eyes are lying to us constantly. There are tons of ways your eyes cheat, or lie, or outright ignore reality in favor of some internal model. This isn't even limited to optical illusions!
And the same is true of all sensory input we have. There are auditory illusions and ways your ears lie to you. There are things like phantom limbs that demonstrate your brain will ignore explicit and clear reality for no reason.
Humans are emotional creatures, like all biological creatures. Humans make choices emotionally
Do you think the most emotionally charged information will always be truthful?
The outcome we are experiencing was obvious, but people ignored it because that sort of implies that information needs to be filtered or curated and that makes people nervous.
I did not recognize her name, but after doing some research, I am impressed by her work, and do not have an issue with her getting the prize.
However, her accomplishments were also clear last summer, and I feel it would have been far more appropriate to give her the prize last year. Instead, it went to an organization that has been around for 70 years. While they have done great work, there was nothing they did specifically in 2024 that stood out, at least that I could find. So, clearly, Machado was not an obvious choice, at least last year.
Also want to add that I don't think Trump should have gotten it, simply because it is far too early to tell if the current "middle east peace plan" will actually turn out to be more than just fanfare.
A better statement would have been to have no peace prize this year.
The final nominations are received in January...
Did not realize this, you are correct. I thought nominations were accepted until late in the year since so many people were "nominating" Trump, even before the middle east thing.
But I am confused, Obama got his prize in 2009, which would mean he did not receive it for anything he did as president, and before that he was only domestically focused, afaik.
edit - I also see from other comments that people were placing bets on trump for the prize, which would not make sense if he had to be nominated by 1/31
The "middle east peace plan" is based on threats by Trump, so even if it works that's not Nobel Peace Price worthy
Oh, my dear corrupt Nobel prize. I love oil too.
Trump will never win, nobody who floods the zone with a low signal/noise ratio will ever win this prize or any of the 'elite' prizes.
The low signal/noise ratio people are at best perceived as 'communicators' more often jesters.
If anything the anomaly of the social media era is that people who put themselves out there as low signal/noise ratio character are even taken seriously at all.
Prizes like that are given to people who are perceived to be special, the more you talk and yap the more you give people an opportunity to realize how NOT special you are and how NOT special your character is.
Peter Grant did it best with his clients Led Zeppelin back in the days, keeping them in the dark before and after the 3.5 hour shows.
It made my day a 100x better that they didn't cave and give it to Trump. Him sewing division at home is grounds for impeachment I'd hope but congress doesn't function anymore so.
Before authoritarian rule, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest nations in the global South (if not one of the wealthiest period in the 50-60s). Then Chávez came along and stacked the courts with lackeys, intimidated critical media outlets and harassed journalists, diverted state spending for political patronage, demanded loyalty oaths from underlings, injected "Bolivarian" ideology into schools and sports, took control of private industry...
I'd tell you what he did to elections but we'll all find out soon enough.
White House knocks Nobel Committee for snubbing Trump, but Peace Prize winner praises him: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/10/trump-nobel-peace-prize-mach...
Do you also think that strippers are into their customers?
Yes! Don't they always say you are the smartest, wittiest, nicest person they encountered?
“Norway braces for Trump’s reaction if he does not win Nobel peace prize”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/09/norway-braces-...
Would have preferred it going to aid workers in Gaza or something like that but an NED-funded dissident politician will do as long as it's not Donald Trump.
Greta or aid workers in Gaza would have been great choices
lol Greta would be a great choice. It would piss off so many people and satisfy the real goal of the peace prize: to stir up controversy.
If only it was that simple. The real goal seems to be laundering the reputation of (bad) troublemakers and warmongers.
[dead]
I don't think you understand what the Nobel prizes are actually about
It’s all just propaganda to push forward US foreign policy objectives?
I sincerely pray that Maria Corina achieves her goals. Incredible bravery. I'm pretty sure she remains in hiding in Venezuela to this day
My "acid test" for whether or not someone on the left actually cares about freedom, democracy, etc is whether or not they support the Maduro government
There's a shocking amount of people who do!
Rigged
Care to elaborate?
She’s been in hiding since the last elections that Maduro blatantly stole. I lost hope myself about Venezuela but I wish the regime ends soon for those still there enduring it.
I understand your frustration. But you may want to avoid a foreign interference/invasion more than a bad regime. The former is arguably worse than the latter, though there are exceptions.
It’s been over 25 years since these thugs took power. I don’t care if one country or a coalition of countries gets rid of them. I would actually welcome foreign intervention at this point.
Imagine looking at Iraq and saying, "yeah, that's what I want for my country."
There are many ways to intervene and pressure other than a full blown invasion.
[dead]
No it isn't at all. Venezuela and South America need Foreign forces to stop the Venezuela cartel.
Like Afghanistan? Or Germany after WWII? You talk of these 'Foreign forces' as some sort of benevolent power liberating people from tyranny for charity. Wait till they stay back to extract payment for their 'efforts'. We have watched decade and decades of this moral grandstanding destroy weaker nations. And need I remind you how much these 'foreign forces' are responsible for creating the hellish conditions in South America though their interference in the first place? It's just replacement of one tyrant with another. Another that brings in weapons and troops from outside the country.
I fully understand what you mean.
But just so you picture it: things are so dire there after 25 years that people would even cheer at any country intervening.
So let’s pause for a moment and think: what is the best alternative? Keep enduring the regime like the Cubans have been doing for double the time we have? That’s also a depressing outlook.
> That’s also a depressing outlook.
Of course it is. I'm not denying or downplaying how bad it is. These situations are scary as hell. They're not supposed to happen. And it must change. Venezuela deserves peace. But now imagine the alternative you're thinking of.
To start with, who was responsible for the political turmoil in South America for much of its history? Imagine another invasion. Do you expect them to withdraw as soon as the current Venezuelan regime has fallen? The regime that's virtue signalling now has a history of proudly brandishing their xenophobia and racism. What do you think life will be like under a remote controlled rule by them? There are plenty of examples around the world for how that will end. Is that the change you wish for?
> what is the best alternative?
The best alternative is for the native population to bring about change without foreign interference. But honestly, I have no clue if that's practical at all. I don't know any other solutions either. The people must decide for themselves as to how to resolve this. All I'm saying is that you must be careful about the intentions of anyone who steps in offering help. I sincerely wish that the Venezuelans win peace. Good Luck!
Thanks mate, that’s what the people have been trying for many years but it’s an uphill battle when they have the all the repressive means and the population does not.
What you say is absoultely false. Venezuela regime was something that was born absolutely without any Foreign interference.
I feel like "bad regime" is blatantly downplaying the seriousness of it.
I'm not very familiar with the situation in Venezuela. But the 'bad regime' is just a generic phrase that was not intended to convey the seriousness in any sense. However, what I can claim is that you totally ignored the seriousness of a foreign interference and invasion. Yes - a dictatorship is not a good situation at all anywhere in the world. But what good is it for a nation if one horrible regime is to be replaced by another? Do you know how many atrocities western militaries have inflicted in countries that they invaded in the name of liberating them? Many of them compete with the local tyrants on how cruel they can get. You wont learn much about it because the western media doesn't seem to care. Ask the people of countries that suffered western military invasion instead. I'm not sure you realize how much people outside the west resent the 'services rendered' in their countries. It's a long running trope around the world that if there is a serious conflict in any part of the world, it's sure to have the hand of one of two western powers in it. Yet, the western population pat themselves in the back for the virtues of freedom and equality. There are even those who are still proud of their colonial past, believing that they enriched their colonies somehow. Meanwhile, don't forget the depth of xenophobia and racism of the current regime that's virtue signalling with the intent to invade Venezuela.
> I'm not very familiar with the situation in Venezuela.
You should have stopped there.
> Do you know how many atrocities western militaries have inflicted in countries that they invaded in the name of liberating them?
Tell that to the Ukrainians who I'm sure would love USAF air support and for the 101st to come help out. I'm certain that no matter what the US does, you will complain about it. We could walk top the water and bring democracy and prosperity to Venezuela using the power of love you would still find a reason to complain.
One thing you will never do is actually think of the people on the ground (unless they agree with your specific political ideology). The rest of the world is getting tired of your obnoxious ideological rhetoric. We know you are only complaining because you don't want yet another far left failure out of power.
> You should have stopped there.
I'm in no mood to consider any sort of gatekeeping.
Like I said, much of the world is enjoying a lot of 'democracy and prosperity' that you delivered! If you choose a random conflict or crisis anywhere in the world and study its history, you will find your grimy fingerprints all over it, in 8 out of 10 cases. You still feel entitled to speak for the rest of the world as if everything revolves around you, despite being clueless about what they feel about your presence or involvement. And it comes with the customary "when did you ever thank us for what we did" style condescension that has become a persistent joke about you these days. This is exactly the type of hubris that landed you in the current crisis. If you want to see obnoxious ideological rhetoric, read your own statement imagining it's from a foreigner talking about your country. You'll see it if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
In other news, the US appears to be preparing for war with Venezuela, an invasion is imminent. I wonder if that source of thing affects the committee?
Definitely. Machado fits the profile of a "smol bean opposition" and is involved in a situation that USA government has great interest in (and she has great relationships with those on Capitol Hill). While Trump personally wants the award, the USG would have no qualms also lobbying for Machado as part of their "maximum pressure" campaign against Venezuelan sovereignty.
Now, go out and fight for what you believe in.
She definitely trumped this one.
Why on earth did she dedicate it to Trump?
She's a vocal Trump supporter [1].
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
She's a vocal Trump supporter [1]. Last time Trump was president his administration did attempt to coup Venezuela [2]:
> Tapper returned to Bolton’s remark about having helped plan coups.
> Bolton said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”
> Tapper asked: “Successful coups?”
> Bolton said: “Well, I wrote about Venezuela in in the book and it turned out not to be successful.
> Before Bolton joined the Trump administration, it was widely reported that Trump wanted to use the US military to oust Maduro. In August 2017, Trump told reporters: “We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour.”
> “We want as our principal objective the peaceful transfer of power but I will say again, as [Trump] has said from the outset, and Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, all options are on the table.”
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-senior-us-official-j...
>The Nobel Peace Prize 2025 was awarded to Maria Corina Machado "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy"
>I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause - Maria Corina Machado
Seems to me democracy isn't her real priority or why flatter someone who tries to transition from democracy to dictatorship?
Trump is going to be upset.
She supports Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Genocide of the Palestinians
There is a lot of conflict in the world. Causes that seem more urgent and important than yet another supposed authoritarian regime in Latin America.
To my understanding the biggest problem in Venezuela (and it’s a big problem) is the terrible living conditions. I don’t know how much the supposed regime is to blame for that and if a supposed good government would have done a better job. Maybe a good goverment would have still managed a country with poor living conditions for the majority. But we wouldn’t hear about it in the news because The West has labelled it as a good government. (How selective is the reporting on countries with bad living conditions?)
I read the bio. I don’t know enough about Venezuela to judge whether she is a pro-democracy fighter or just another politician who wants power for herself. Certainly you can label any candidate pro-democracy if they oppose your most disfavorite regime.
So I’m not going to spend two hours researching what the Venezuela situation is about and whether this is a good award or if it’s just trying to stick a thumb in the eye of a regime that The West doesn’t like. Just so I can argue through six replies with five different people about (either) how downtrodden the Venezuelans are or how manufactured the outrage against the government is. (But you can guess which side I am most likely to fall on.)
Wake me up in two weeks when there’s a topic on democracy itself. And then the tone has shifted from Democracy Uber Alles to actually, did you know that Plato the most smartest man in the world was skeptical about democracy, actually I think a pseudo-democracy where only smart people get to decide would be great, actually.
https://x.com/leadingreport/status/1976662248887402924?s=46
Uh oh! Time to flip the switch! Mega-LMAO.
She just dedicated her award to Trump, lmao.
[flagged]
It was a MAGA talking point from the start, meant for MAGA ppl... The chance he got it was 0%, because:
1- The Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of 5 Norwegians. Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help, it's probably even counterproductive. Random endorsements on Twitter don't matter either..
2- The committee values international cooperation, not trade wars, isolationism, or cozying up to dictators.
3- They prize the defense of democracy, not attacks on it.
4- The cherry on the cake: Machado got the prize while he's been threatening war with Venezuela itself. It almost feels like a big f*ck off
Your last comment isn't very consistent. For one thing the US recognizes Edmundo Gonzalez as the rightful president[1]. Machado helped him during the campaign last year. For another, Machado opposes Maduro's regime and she actually dedicated her prize to Trump.[2]
[1]: https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-call-with-the-rightfu...
[2]: https://x.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1976642376119549990
> she actually dedicated her prize to Trump
Indeed. Juan Guaidó is yesterdays man.
According to the New York Times...
" She has expressed support for the use of force to depose the Maduro regime; one of her advisors told the New York Times that she has coordinated with the Trump administration and that she has a plan for the first hundred hours after his deposition"
Not sure what democratic mandate she has to be in charge post a foreign led military coup - though she is a graduate of the Yale World Fellows programme.
So rather than a big FU it would appear to be more likely to be an attempt to raise her profile to legitimise a US led coup.
Norwegians don't care about legitimizing US coups, and the current US administration is incapable of working with /anyone/ let anyone influencing Norway.
That's certainly ironic and I think the implications are concerning but don't you think Maduro is the one leading a coup? There is solid statistical evidence Gonzalez won the election.
Yes, she dedicated her prize to Trump, and that's easy to understand. It's a way to flatter his ego so that:
1- He doesn't turn against her or try to undermine her (he certainly would otherwise)
2- He publicly supports her cause.
3- His attention stays on Venezuela .. I really doubt she wants a full-scale US intervention.
> Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help,
Please. At least get the facts right.
It was not just Russia and Israel. It was also Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Rwanda.
Also, the current military dictator of Pakistan, and maybe it was done as a state sponsorship, not just a personal one.
it's not often Gabon shows up to the party. Lol
[flagged]
Just yesterday the orange one called for the arrest of two state governors.
On charges of... uhhh... hm...
Because... uhhmm.. he doesn't like them?
[dead]
Machado is manufacturing consent for Trump's planned invasion, so point 4 is a bit weaker than you might like. Imagine looKing at Iraq and saying "yeah, that's what I want for my country".
I also know someone who expects a peace prize after creating a department of war.
David Frum talked at length about self-abasement in MAGA public culture in his recent podcast for the Atlantic[1].
> I think it also becomes a real test of in-group loyalty to see who can outcompete in slavishness the other members of the circle, who are also competing to be slavish. That’s why you get these strange [phenomena] like Donald Trump’s physicians claiming that he’s the most physically vigorous president ever.
> Now, even when Donald Trump was younger, he was a big man, but he was never a great athlete. And now, as he approaches his 80th birthday, he’s obviously not physically fit.
> The fact is, you’re not just willing to tell a lie, but tell a lie that abases you, that makes you look foolish, that makes you look like you don’t care about yourself at all, that you only defer to the leader. That’s the real sign of loyalty. It’s flattery that is not meant to be believed but functions as a kind of system of in-group recognition.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to Chairman Mao (supposedly) swimming across the Yangtze River in his 70s at a pace faster than an Olympic champion of today.
There’s no meaning to any of it. It’s just propaganda and self-abasement for the purpose of loyalty competition to the leader. In fact, the more ludicrous, the better, because it means you’re willing to fully destroy any personal credibility you may have as a sacrifice to show loyalty.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/10/the-dav...
Whoa now. He does not create. He rebrands.
I predict no more US oil for Norway ...
Norway is a net exporter of petroleum.
Here is a related tangent:
>Norway walks back US Navy fuel supply boycott
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/security/naval/naval-ships/nor...
good one :) I read the irony ;)
Not all will ...
And we might just take Greenland from them in retribution!
(oh wait, that's Denmark, but never mind, a certain president probably wouldn't know the difference; if some Fox News commentator said that Greenland belongs to Norway, he'd believe it).
Expect a ketchupnado in the White House...
I think that whole discussion was aimed at people who know nothing about the Nobel Peace Prize ... but many of those would be his fans.
>The White House has denounced the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel peace prize to someone other than Donald Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-nobel-...
Check her Twitter. She supports Trump.
See I truly respect President Boric from Chile, it’s one of the few progressive leaders from the region that has been outspoken about the Maduro regime and calling it what it is: a dictatorship. Unlike other leaders of the region who could be doing way more.
It’s pretty understandable for Mrs. Corina to take whatever support she gets internationally.
Including from a certain genocidal regime in the middle east which she supports:
https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036
Providing her with this award while Trump's naval battle groups stand ready to attack Venezuela isnt helping arrest the collapse of the west's moral authority.
Probably not, but it also sheds some light on left leaning democracies that are too soft with the Maduro regime just because they share some ideology.
That’s like saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy supports Trump. Foreign politicians operate outside of U.S. domestic politics - they don’t get to choose other countries’ leaders. Their job is to use diplomacy to navigate international politics in whatever shape those politics happen to be in.
Exactly. People talk as if she’s voting for the guy.
It's because he is the current president of the US and US support it's key for the liberation of Venezuela, she also supported Biden and Kamala Harris, have Kamala Harris won she would have "supported" her. And it's not like she supports Trump, she is not on favor of his policies but she knows his support it's necessary.
She said her favorite politician was Thatcher, so seems like a right-wing liberal.
She supports the sanctions against Venezuela. I wonder what her views are on US-backed military regime-change and blowing-up random Venezuelan boats.
She has explicitly stated she is in favor of those acts of violence against her country.
Yeah, I'm wondering if the Nobel Peace prize has anything to do with peace for people, or for her neoliberalism stance of protection of the free market that would usher peace for the business interests of oil companies [0].
I must confess I am no Venezuelan political expert, and it always gives me pause whether the economic siege that has been laid against Venezuela with the sanctions is about democracy, or about access to unrestricted markets (a la United Fruit Company — now Chiquita — and Standard Fruit Company — now Dole plc).
[0]: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKU-8MCO10P/
The problem in South America is that both versions are true. The outside exploitation pressures are extremely strong, so any vaguely socialist government succumbs to the temptation to squash the outside agitators .. and any local opposition who actually have a valid point or real anti-corruption objections. Running a moderate social democrat centrist country in that situation is not stable, instead you get pendulum swings from left to right and back again, with significant human cost along the way.
(exception maybe Costa Rica?)
To be clear, Venezuela is long past the "popular socialism" phase and decayed into the "strongman holding on" phase.
There is also a substantial amount of mostly unexploited rare earth elements like Coltan.
She has to support anybody who doesn't side with Maduro. If Trump starts "admiring" or "falling in love with" or something new, she would backtrack.
Let's see what Trump has to say about her...
I'm guessing he will take credit for her getting the prize.
Not blanket support, only in relation to Venezuela. Which isn't hard. Even for the orangutan...
Fuck. I should have qualified the above with "Not necessarily blanket support".
A little further research and she sounds like Mrs orangutan.
Yep, but why do we care what the socialist dictator Maduro thinks?
I don't think they are talking about Maduro, but a big blond haired baby who likes burger and fascism.
This is a tangent, but this type of You-Know-Who speech is so irritating. If you want to say Trump just say it, don't dance around it like he's some kind of god who'll punish you if you say his name in vain.
Because "just say it" doesn't work on many sites. I don't know about this site but anecdotally, I've seen that when I use certain words / phrases / names on YouTube or Reddit subreddits, those comments are either not shown at all (not shown even to me) or shadow-banned (not shown to others).
Another reason I don't just say it sometimes is to avoid trolling by fans of whatever or whoever I criticized.
I guess we can test the theory now.
Fuck Donald J. Trump, worst President of the Untied States in history.
Objection, Andrew Johnson is the worst US president in history.
people are getting in very real world trouble for saying negative things about certain people or their friends.
i’m not sure if you’ve seen how many people have lost their jobs for saying truths about kurk or how many people are losing jobs, scholarships, visas, education etc for saying things about a certain regime, but it’s happening, for real. they’re actively pushing to force people to turn over their social media accounts for review.
we can’t blame this poster for vagueposting here. i often pushback against vagueposting but in today’s climate we cant blame people for taking their personal safety seriously when it comes to vocalizing their criticisms.
Sadly, everyone knows what you mean and vagueposting is no protection.
I'm reminded of the (apocryphal?) Russian protestor arrested for holding a blank piece of paper.
I don't know about Russia but there seem to be loads of cases of people being arrested (or detained or harrassed by police) for holding up a blank piece of paper, including one case in Cornwall: https://netpol.org/2023/02/10/cornish-protester-assaulted-an...
In Singapore someone was charged for holding up a piece of cardboard with a smiley face drawn on it: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/11/26/public-order-in-si...
That was a Soviet-era joke, then it actually happened several times under Putin.
People lost their jobs for cheering about someone being killed AND for justifying political violence. Full stop...
That you think anything else is copium of Russian quality. That you think that criticizing Trump would get you fired is absurd. You seriously need to work on yourself. You aren't getting push back for "telling the truth" (which is just repeating questionable things from journalists). You are getting push back for being a terrible human being. So terrible in fact that people are leaving the Dems just because they don't want to be associated with them, not for any policy or something the Reps did.
PS None of this would have hurt the Democratic Party if it wasn't for how you reacted to his death. It was truly the worst thing I have seen in US politics in my lifetime.
I seriously doubt saying "big blond haired baby who likes burger and fascism" instead of "Trump" would have made a difference for these people.
That is nonsense. Even if the Gaza deal was worthy a Nobel Peace Prize, nobody, including Trump, would expect to be honored two days after the deal.
You assume that we're dealing with a rational person who has all their senses intact.
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
You're not dealing with anyone. There's a chap in the white house you don't like, and you want to have a pre-emptive go at him. Either he doesn't say anything, in which case you forget you said this. Or he is upset, in which case you feel justified in this. Or he's happy for the winner, in which case you feel like if he mentions it at all he must be upset.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
I like how in turn you're having a preemptive go at this person.
Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.
> Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
> I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
[dead]
Huh. Obama was given in advance – anticipatory. Maybe as a moral loan and it is up for debates whether it was ever repaid.
Very debatable. His deal with Iran kept the peace though - trump ripping it up led to war.
Ironically, trump may win the peace prize next year for ending a war he created. If indeed, against the odds, he has ended this war.
Trump might win it anyway. If he stares at Norway long enough and his minions find a way to harass the country (which is the MO these days), I have a feeling Norway will find a way to give him one (or two if he fancies), just like they found ways to not give it to many deserving people throughout its history, just because nations with convincing physical likeness would not have appreciated that.
>For ending a war he created.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
> What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Hamas broke the ceasefire on Oct 7 and killed 1000+ Israelis. Israel is justified in breaking every ceasefire with Hamas until the end of time. You should not negotiate in good faith with terrorists. There should be peace with the Palestinians, but not with Hamas.
Hasbara bullet points with no effort. Logically falls apart upon the most basic of inspections. For example, if a one day attack justifies a disproportionate slaughter for 2 years, then what is a merely PROPORTIONATE response to 2 years of slaughter? What is a merely proportionate response to 85% of all buildings destroyed and all infrastruction being turned to rubble?
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
[1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-influencers-netanya...
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/isr...
[3] https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-spent-m...
[4] https://www.jta.org/2025/09/30/united-states/israels-secret-...
What war did Trump create?
Even if the Gaza deal stick, I don't see how one could receive a nobel prize while deploying army and starting a war in their own country in cities/states/counties led by their political opponents.
Deploying military police or the military proper in cities is a common practice in other liberal nations, the USA is the exception.
You can't speak of a liberal nation if it is run by a facist government.
And Trump's regime is openly facist. No other kind of regime would call terrorists those who present themselves as antifacists.
Starting a war? Let’s not get too wild with the hyperbole please.
I think he wants Noble prize for stopping 700 wars.
Well, he did claim to have solved the war between Albania and Azerbaijan - that alone is worthy of a prize.
You have to admit there is almost no fighting between them now.
He will start his own prize now and award it for himself every year.
Nonsense, is it?
https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/1976601157041856756
[flagged]
The deal won't even last, we all know Israel can't stop killing until they get all the lands they want, and Trump knows it too: https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1976374346538156429
You mean, nobody except Trump.
They should really have given him one before the deal. I mean, Obama got one just for showing up.
(To be clear, I don't think Trump should get one; and Obama's win was really weird. But, hey, if Kissinger can get one..)
The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.
[flagged]
Maybe they didn’t want to make the same mistake:
Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
When you fuck up world peace so badly your successor gets the prize for doing nothing...
Not even "for doing nothing", more like "before doing anything". He wasn't even 10 months into his presidency.
If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency.
I'm in a circle of people who lean pretty damn far left and even at the time, the only reactions I heard were "huh, what?"
> If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency.
Sure, but if you want your prize to have an impact, you sometimes have to hand it out to hopefuls?
I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
1- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 2- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously).
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
Yeah. I'm just okay special casing "against" heads of state.
That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
Maybe. But then why restrict it to only living people?
Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land).
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Obama was not doing nothing, he actively killed people by drones more than anyone before him. Nobel endorsed killer.
Even more than FDR!?!
Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined.
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
> nobody, including Trump, would expect to be honored
oh, he absolutely 100% would
I hope they’ve managed to convey this to the whitehouse.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
Peace in the Middle East - er, Gaza - by supporting a military occupation.
I'm not sure this is what Al Nobel has in mind.
> Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Just going to drop this here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYFVEka3fA&pp=ygUYc2FyY2FzbWl...
> I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
[dead]
The same big baby that is allied with Machado in destroying Venezuela's sovereignty?
Can't the baby get one for economics?
That's not actually a Nobel Prize.
I'm so happy as a Finn that we signed big icebreaker deal with Trump just before this.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-finlands-stubb-expect...
This was initially worked up under Biden:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact
This does look like the second best option, given his current agenda, though.
Well instead of him directly, his deep state apparatus got it, so there is that.
Stop injecting that fool into every conversation, the world doesn’t revolve around him. Discuss the recipient and her accomplishments.
Poor Trump /s
[flagged]
100% true, although the opinion is unpopular in this forum. In the end, this is rewarding some very bad people just because they oppose somebody (supposedly) even worse. But that doesn't have anything to do with "peace". This award lost its meaning a long time ago, maybe Netanyahu will be the winner next year.
Yeah it's the same a criminal dictator than the person risking her life to overthrown him peacefully. Maria Corina is trying to get all the support possible, and in Spain that support clearly comes from the right, not the left. Maybe because the two main left parties have well known ties with the regime.
she it's the same populist but from the other side of the coin.
She is also a fervent supporter of Israel, and has said, "Israel's fight is Venezuela's fight."
[flagged]
Release the files.
[flagged]
[dead]
Between Kissinger, Obama, the Myanmarese CIA asset, etc., it's basically the Nobel Crimes Against Humanity prize at this point. I'm surprised they didn't give it to the Orange Thing.
[flagged]
Nobel Peace of Shit.
There has been some speculation that if Trump didn't win this one, he'll lose all motivation in making peace, at least in the near future. Like for example Gaza.
The man has the shortest attention span in history, and needs constant dopamine hits to continue on something.
But as I said in another thread, María Corina Machado is more than worthy - and well deserved. It is just such a shame that Trump will likely throw the biggest tantrum, and destroy stuff, for no other reason that he didn't get the big shiny thing he wanted.
Do you think he would be motivated to continue, had he been awarded the medal? His wishes would have been satisfied after all.
> There has been some speculation that if Trump didn't win this one, he'll lose all motivation in making peace, at least in the near future. Like for example Gaza.
Were this the reason for him to receive it, he would deserve it even less, and erase every shred of dignity this award ever had.
I think Trump would totally deserve it... if the peace turns out to be a lasting one.
Big if, there have been many agreements between Israel and Palestine!
Probably need to wait at least 2 years, preferably like 8-10 but by then he might already be dead (natural causes).
sage
lol!! Most people from rest of the world, minus west, knows what Nobel prize is all about. It is just a political tool for usa and west. Clearly, it about Venezuela oil and gold. Pathetic to see their hypocrisy and double standards.
CIA congratulating itself
Instead of Trump, they decided to award a democratic party asset that's relevant to current agenda. Just to piss him off apparently.
What a joke.
Performative
Everyone knows who the real winner is.
This is very sad.
Is the US going to invade Oslo in retribution?
Peace Deals Under Current Admin (2025–Present)
Date: June 2025 Deal: Rwanda-DRC Peace Agreement Parties: Rwanda, DRC Desc: Preliminary White House deal + Qatar ceasefire; ends proxy wars over resources. RW troop pullout, DRC disarmament, investment. US Role: Trump-brokered; signed late June, impl. July. Fragile per critics.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Cambodia-Thailand Ceasefire Parties: Cambodia, Thailand Desc: Truce halting border skirmishes (40+ killed, 300k displaced); med. by Malaysia w/ US-China input. Tackles old border disputes. US Role: Trump supported via leader calls; started July 28, but accusations of violations linger.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Egypt-Ethiopia Peace Accord Parties: Egypt, Ethiopia Desc: De-escalates Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam tensions; water-sharing & security coop to avoid Nile conflict. US Role: US shuttle diplomacy; fits African stability efforts.
Date: July 2025 Deal: India-Pakistan Truce Parties: India, Pakistan Desc: Renews/expands Line of Control ceasefire; cuts firing, opens econ corridors. US Role: Personal Trump calls; credited w/ averting nuclear risks.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Israel-Iran Rapprochement Parties: Israel, Iran Desc: Econ normalization & de-escalation; security guarantees, less proxy fights in Syria/Yemen. US Role: Brokered post-Iran nuclear pressure; called a "major stride" for stability.
Date: August 8, 2025 Deal: Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Declaration Parties: Armenia, Azerbaijan Desc: Ends 35+ yr Nagorno-Karabakh war; White House-signed. Creates "Trump Route" (TRIPP) corridor for trade/energy, cuts Russian sway. US Role: Trump hosted & negotiated; boosts Caucasus transit/resources.
Date: October 8, 2025 Deal: Israel-Hamas Gaza Ceasefire (Phase 1 of 20/21-Point Plan) Parties: Israel, Hamas (med. Egypt/Qatar/US) Desc: Ends 2-yr war: ~100 hostages freed by Oct 13, prisoner swaps, troop pullback to pre-2023 lines, 72-hr truce. Long-term: Hamas disarm, Gaza rebuild under intl board (Trump chairs). US Role: Trump's big win; Kushner/Witkoff finalized in Egypt. Hailed as "everlasting peace."
I feel I speak for a lot of us when I say that Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton should have won it.
Just to see what happens.
Is the Nobel Peace Prize given to people who accomplished a lot as individuals (like Maria Corina Machado) or people who accomplished a lot at scale without doing much beyond a few phone calls and document-signings, like Trump?
Because a few phone calls and document-signings can bring about many orders of magnitude more "peace units" in the world, if backed by the world's largest economy and the world's most effective military at projecting power.
The Nobel peace prize cannot be given to someone who rebrands the ministry of defence to the ministry of war and proclaims on a stage that he hates his enemies. These things are mutually exclusive.
Not only that. He has threatened to militarily invade countries like Canada and Greenland just because he wants what they have. He also asked his supporters to punch his critics in the face and offered to pay their legal fees.
I mean, he's sending troops to domestic democrat cities because he watched a fox news segment that showed footage from 2020. .....
I will admit I've had some fun pointing the Fox News crowd to live Oregon traffic cams.
And arguably it should not be given to someone who requests/asks/begs for it constantly and openly. It would brign about all sorts of bad incentives in something that should be a reward for good intentions and efforts.
That, too, and heaps of reasons more.
Go on ..? On the face of it, a prize for holding back from being an asshole seems like a good thing, and perhaps a more worthwhile incentive than a prize for saints who would have been extremely virtuous anyway.
Incentivizing foreign interventions in conflicts "just" to earn a prize and risking to aggravate a situation/conflict/war does not sound good at all to me.
It's not about rewarding saints, it's about rewarding people who do genuine efforts to bring peace in this world.
You wouldn't want to incentivize a reckless vigilante just because some of the times it might lead to a desired outcome, disregarding all the times they'd get it wrong and would cause injustices (leading to more chaos, and not peace) just in their selfish pursuit of accolades and prizes.
Trump is openly mentioning that what he's doing right now is worth a prize, can't get closer to doing it "for the prize". He exaggerates all his accomplishment (no he did not end 7, 8, 9, etc. wars... barely even one).
All of this is done/said for one purpose, and it's not actually peace. It's one thing you can't reproach to him, he is pretty transparent in his intent when you give him a microphone. Do you think he will lose sleep over the peace in the middle east failing (once again)... or do you think he will care more about not getting the prize he literally mentions every time he's questioned about a war?
But then how will the world learn of his peaceful ways by force?
Or to somebody who makes dynamite
Which is why Nobel himself was never awarded the Peace Prize, rendering your entire comment useless?
Do you really think this was clever take?
It’s about words then not outcomes? What if calling it “war” made it less violent?
Why? Do they have rules against that?
There doesn't need to be. Basic dignity and logical thinking tell you that an award for honest efforts to facilitate peace awarded to MLK and Mother Teresa cannot be awarded to someone like Donald Trump. And you see that obviously the Nobel committee shares this opinion, which is why he luckily did not receive it.
Have you checked some of the winners? Arafat is there and so are Kissinger - the napalm sticks on kids guy and Obama - the guy that shot hospitals and weddings in Afghanistan. Trump will fit right in.
To be fair, when Obama got the prize, he hadn't done any of that, yet, because he got it right away before he did anything.
If I remember correctly, even the man himself later admitted to being thoroughly confused as to why he would get it.
[dead]
Isolated, I think his efforts in the middle east, particular around normalising Israel's relations with its neighbours (though I believe he did fuck up handling Iran because of his personal bias) could have let to a peace prize in a few years time (maybe a shared one) and certainly be more deserved than Obama's, however I agree with others that all his other actions, including threatening to invade allies, should disqualify him.
You know, funilly enough, if trump's peace plan for the gaza war actually holds, then that idiot has somehow probably done more for peace than most nobel peace prize winners.
Eh, I'm not holding out much hope, Israel was doing more bombing runs a couple hours ago according to the news.
Do you have a source? Israel says the ceasefire started this morning, and they've already been withdrawing troops.
Reading through it, it looks like they were just using all of their 24 hours until ceasefire. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gaza-city-residents-set-...
Ceasefire went into effect ~5AM Eastern, they were still bombing when I went to bed.
Purely political topics such as this should be automatically banned by policy on HN.
The guidelines state:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
How is it a political topic here? Perhaps in Venezuela it is, but here?
No, some comments are good. But make sure to flag the offending ones.
What a boring fucking site that would be. Just man up and admit you don't like these specific politics.
Why?
More than 90% of the comments are partisan attacks on Trump. I'm happy for her win, but the topic doesn't stimulate a high quality discussion.
I'm not seeing that. I am seeing an overwhelming number of comments about Venezuela and the legitimacy of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years.
even if it did - the submission is purely about politics and should be discussed at r/worldnews for example.
>More than 90% of the comments are partisan attacks on Trump.
Why would you tell such an easily refutable lie?
1) There are now 121 matches for the string "Trump" on this page, which has nothing to do with him. The sentiment is overwhelmingly partisan.
2)Obviously the content of the page has changed in the hours since I posted. Even more Trump comments were added.
1) 121 mentions of trump in 600+ comments does not mean more than 90% of the comments are trump. You know this of course, you are just lying. Why else would you mention a count of trump mentions as if your original assertion wasn't a percentage?
2) 90%+ of the comments here were never about trump. Not when you posted and not when I posted. You are lying. Even with the "even more trump comments" it is still nowhere near 90%. The sentiment is not "overwhelmingly partisan." Again, you know this, you are just lying.
3) Asserting that trump has nothing to do with the topic at hand is completely absurd, egregiously dishonest and ridiculous. You know exactly why people are bringing him up. Even Machado mentioned him when accepting the prize. The assertion is even more dishonest than you saying more than 90% of the comments here mention trump (an objectively false and easily refutable lie)
Who said there are no good news? For the people that never lived in a dictatorship here are a few reasons people were killed in one: • grafitty agains the regime • making anti refime jokes • beeing a top official and saying you don't think the direction we are going is good
Beeing thrown in prison for years reasons: • owning a walkie talkie. Can be used to organize a revolution they said • listening to foreign radio stations