Obsessive worry!

The West wanted to keep third world countries poor to exploit them.
And force them into IMF debt traps that would force them to sell off any advancements they made.

China's different.
They want to build up these nations to become prosperous societies so they in turn buy more cheap Chinese goods.

The West saw a zero sum game of exploitation, where China sees a win-win for themselves and the other country.

I support a multipolar world where all nations are treated more equally.
Where everyone gets a seat at the table, where sovereignty and national security interests are respected.
Where countries don't try to rule by threats, blackmail, regime change and military intervention.
Or by sanctions, or controlling the means of transferring funds or using trade as a weapon.

Sanctions are collective punishment of a population
Regime changes aren't for the benefit of the people but they can be portrayed to be with the lifting of sanctions.
They are to benefit foreign powers, otherwise why would they bother?

I'm tired of a western lead Unipolar world where one nation and empire cares only for itself.

I don't believe Maduro was involved in drug trafficking
But I can make a valid argument why he SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Venezuela food shortages cause some to hunt dogs, cats, pigeons
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/18/venezuela-food-shortages-cause-some-hunt-dogs-cats-pigeons/84547888/

You do that to other nations citizens, for WHATEVER reason, you almost deserve drugs sent to your country in response.

Absolutely no argument that the third world should emulate the first world by getting and using the most reliable and cheapest form of power, fossil fuels. Especially when they have ready access to it.

And no argument that the globalist left in the west, primarily represented by the UN have been actively trying to deprive these people of that power source.

But the third world has its own agency. You treat them like children who can't make and implement decisions for themselves. They have the right, duty and ability to start rapid development. They don't because:

* the leaders are enthralled and reliant on institutions like the UN

and/or

* they are more interested in fighting generation old tribal conflicts.

____________________________________________________________________

AC, can't help but notice that you completely avoided the evidence I provided that the collapse in the Venezuelan economy had nothing to do with the sanctions. Too complex for you?

I didn't ignore it, I just don't have a good response to it, truthfully I don't know enough.

I read that the economy crashed not from sanctions but a crash in the price of oil, I'd have to look at the timeline more carefully and find out if this fits and if there were any other factors.

It doesn't change what Trump said, that its America's oil and the Venezuelans stole it.
I'm not sure how accurate these news stories are.
(Whether important facts are omitted as often is the case)

http://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/business/oil-venezuela-trump
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-05/why-venezuelan-oil-is-not-stolen-from-the-united-states/106200804

mhaze says in reference to the Third World: "They have the right, duty and ability to start rapid development".

I doubt few would disagree.

Many African countries are taking Pakistan as example of how quickly energy usage can shift.

The African Business website states: "The solar boom in Pakistan has been astonishing for its speed and scale. But the other remarkable feature of the boom is that it has been largely unplanned. “This is a consumer revolution,” says Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember. Solar panels are available for $60 to $80 in the country, he points out. Ordinary people can simply buy a panel from a hardware shop and install it themselves with the help of a YouTube video.

“The first question that everyone asked around Pakistan was, where’s the money coming from for this? Who’s lending them the money? And the answer is no one,” Jones says. Panels have simply reached a price where they are affordable for a sizeable slice of the population, he explains".

Many in the Third World had limited access to fixed-line phone services. Mobile phones allowed billions of people to completely skip ownership of this level of technology.

The way things are going billions more may skip fossil fuel energy for newer electrical generation technology.

mhaze,

No serious argument denies agency. The question is how constrained that agency is by capital access, timelines, and infrastructure choices.

Large fossil projects are not consumer goods. They require long-term financing, sovereign guarantees, and political stability. That's precisely where multilateral lending norms and risk premiums matter, whether we like it or not.

What's interesting is that we're now seeing a parallel path emerge. Pakistan's solar uptake wasn't driven by ideology or development banks, but by price collapse and consumer choice. That's not infantilisation, it's a structural shift.

This doesn't mean solar replaces industry overnight. It does mean that parts of the world may electrify households, services, and communications without repeating the exact fossil-heavy trajectory of the West.

The mistake is assuming development has only one valid sequence. History shows it rarely does.