www.militaar.net

Manurhin kirjutas: ↑05 Dets, 2023 1:09Aga rünnak NATO pihta Lõuna-Ameerikas oleks igas mõttes üks paras pirukas küll . Samas Putleri jaoks oleks see suurepärane võimalus NATO reaktsiooni vaadata, sealjuures ise millegagi riskimata, kui asi mõne kohaliku banaanidiktaatori kätega läbi viia.

Manurhin kirjutas: ↑05 Dets, 2023 2:30 Euroopa Kosmoseagentuuri rakettide stardiplats on samuti seal (Kourou), mh. ka mõlemad ESTCUBE-d lennutati üles just sealt. Viimaks ongi mingi suurem ja kurikavalam plaan selle piirkonnaga küpsemas? Algul Guyana (üks maailma hõredaimalt asustatud riike), siis Suriname ja edasi juba teeme ESA stardivõimetuks ja vaatame ühtlasi, mida NATO ette võtab. Kehvemal juhul on pärast hea irvitada, et NATO ei saa mingite kohalike geriljadega hakkama .

I'm a Guyanese who lives in the Essequibo (AMA) and I want to preemptively clear up some misconceptions I often see in Guyana/Venezuela discussions online.

First off, nobody In Essequibo wants to be Venezuelan. There is no venezuelan/Hispanic culture in Guyana. We feel connected to the rest of Guyana having heavy social/family/cultural links throughout the country.

Second, Venezuela has never administered the territory it claims. The Spanish drew some lines to say it was theirs a few centuries ago, but they never had any official presence in the area. No settlements. No long term commercial endeavours. No boots on the ground. No governance.

Nothing.

In fact, after initial friendly contact, the local indigenous population soon developed a specific antagonism towards the Spanish (whom they considered cruel and treacherous) and thus made a Faustian bargain to trade with the Dutch and later the British which is how the British became the Europeans to end up in charge and that's why we have an Anglo-Caribbean culture. There are complaints from Spanish officials from the mid 1600s about how they cannot go to Essequibo because the local people had allied with the Dutch. There was a Dutch governor of Essequibo from 1616, though most of the land remained under Indigenous control.

3rd, Venezuela's claim is in no way anti-colonial. It is not the Bolivarian revolution against the British Empire. It might have been once, but no British remain in Guyana and any misconduct by the British is not the concern of the current Guyanese people. The population of Essequibo now is mostly split three ways between descendants of indentured Indians (abt 40%), descendants of enslaved Africans (abt 20%) and the indigenous people (20%) With racial admixtures of those three for the rest.

We are a self governing people who are free of our colonizers.

Venezuela's claim is inherited from a colonizer (Spain).

The indigenous people who probably hold the most legitimate claim to Essequibo are represented in our parliament and have roles as ministers in government (And I mean real governing roles. Not just symbolic ones). Indigenous people also have significant roles in the political opposition. There are also independent structures for indigenous voices to govern themselves and influence the central government. Much indigenous land is titled to them legally, though the influence of corrupt loggers and miners often violates that is in much of South America. In any case, it should be clear that Essequibo is thoroughly decolonized as far as the legal structures go.

We've lived under colonialism and we hated it. We've lived under dictatorship and we hated it. An occupation by Venezuela would be a colonial dictatorship.

Ta on väljendanud oma solidaarsust ja sõprust Guajaanaga ning valmisolekut teha koostööd vastastikust huvi pakkuvates küsimustes, nagu kaubandus, areng ja julgeolek.

Lula on pidanud arutelusid oma Guajaana kolleegi president Irfaan Aliga muu hulgas piirivaidluste ja sõjalise koostöö teemadel. Nad on kokku leppinud tugevdama oma kahepoolseid suhteid ja koordineerima oma tegevust, pidades silmas Venezuela kasvavat agressiooni ja ohtu.

Lula on kritiseerinud ka Venezuela kavandatavat referendumit Essequibo piirkonna tuleviku üle, mida ta peab 1899. aasta vahekohtu otsuse ja 1966. aasta Genfi kokkuleppe rikkumiseks ning provokatsiooniks, mis võib regiooni destabiliseerida ja vallandada sõja. Ta on kutsunud Venezuelat üles austama Rahvusvahelise Kohtu (ICJ) jurisdiktsiooni ja otsust, mis praegu arutab Guyana algatatud kohtuasja, et kinnitada oma suveräänsust ja territoriaalset terviklikkust vaidlusaluse piirkonna üle.

Lula seisukoht erineb tema eelkäija Jair Bolsonaro omast, kes võttis Venezuela ja tema liitlaste vastu konfrontatiivsema ja ideoloogilisema hoiaku.

Bolsonaro ühines USA ja teiste riikidega, kes tunnustavad Juan Guaidót Venezuela legitiimse presidendina, ning mõistis hukka Nicolás Maduro kui diktaatori ning ohuna piirkonna stabiilsusele ja demokraatiale. Bolsonaro väljendas ka toetust Guajaana suveräänsusele ja territoriaalsele terviklikkusele ning kritiseeris Venezuela väiteid ja tegevust kui agressiivset ja ebaseaduslikku.

Lula seevastu on pooldanud tasakaalukamat ja pragmaatilisemat lähenemist, mis põhineb dialoogil ja diplomaatial.