Russia Blundering in Latin America
There’s something of a vogue in certain circles in the United States for expressing admiration for the competence and strategic acumen of Vladimir Putin, if not for his goals and methods. But I have to agree with Robert Farley that Russia’s post-Georgia strategic moves — sending warships to Venezuela, making aid offers to Bolivia, etc. — don’t make a great deal of sense. Soviet mucking around in Latin America never accomplished much of anything for the USSR, but it was at least in keeping with the broader strategic logic of the Cold War. The current situation is totally different. Russia basically got what it wanted out of the war with Georgia. But it did harm its relationship with the United States and to some extent with Europe. The smart play would have been to consolidate gains in the Caucuses by making nice with the West, and making Americans and Europeans wonder how much we really care about Georgia. Picking new fights just increases the chances that we’ll decide to help rearm the Georgians in a robust way.
Meanwhile, Putin has no real way of harming US interests in the hemisphere because the US-Venezuela tensions aren’t really about anything other than domestic political posturing. At worst, Venezuela threatens to undermine US efforts to combat Colombian drug trafficking — it’s just not that big a deal. Russia’s quest for strategic supremacy in the Caucuses, by contrast, is about real territory and pipelines. Similarly, the nature of the Russia-Ukraine-NATO has crucial implications for the viability of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It makes a ton of sense for Russia to take firm measures in its “near abroad” to try to make sure it gets its way, but by the same token they ought to be aware that the consequences of tit-for-tat mucking around cut strongly against them.
42 Responses to “Russia Blundering in Latin America”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
There’s something of a vogue in certain circles in the United States for expressing admiration for the competence and strategic acumen of Vladimir Putin, if not for his goals and methods.
It would look more honest to admit that you’ve been a part of these “certain circles” to a pretty large degree.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The solution on our end is simple: If Putin interferes in the Caucuses, we ought to retaliate against the Primaries.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Considering that Venezuela turned to buy military hardware from Russia when Venezuela got tired of the U.S. trying to block and meddle in its arms deals with Western nations, this is pretty much a sales trip.
Washington DC has been gleefully playing at stirring up possible nation-ending separatist movements in Bolivia and Venezuela, to an extent that nearly every nation in Latin America stood up last week for the basic territorial integrity of Bolivia (mainly because they don’t want the hemisphere-wide chaos which could be prompted by secessionist movements among mini-states).
Does it seem likely to you that the same countries which are currently expelling U.S. ambassadors would be difficult for Russia to sell on having an arms source out of the domain of U.S. power?
Apart from Medvedev / Putin gleefully waving in the U.S.’ direction, that’s what this seems to be about.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
One of the best unintentionally Orwellian posters I’ve ever seen was from the Soviet-Colombian cultural association in early 1980s Bogotá: “Learn Russian–a Language of Increasing Importance in the World.” Alas, it wasn’t to be. The Russians will be the new Taiwanese, embraced by this or that regime for domestic political purposes or to get some kickbacks, much as several small Central American and Caribbean countries continued to recognize Taiwan over China until recently because there was money to be made. Russia is probably far less worthwhile than Taiwan in that regard.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
1) Russian airbases in Venezuela would be outside the range of US fighters based on the US mainland and would allow Russian bombers to destroy our long train of oil tankers coming from the Middle East into the Houston-New Orleans refinery complex. US oil imports could be shut down for weeks at least.
Bombed airfields are easily repaired and fortified bunkers could protect Russian aircraft –especially if protected by Russian fighters and antiaircraft missles.
2) Plus quiet, cheap Russian submarines could hover off the coast of Venezuela and sink any oil tankers that escape the bombers. Shallow reefs around the Caribbean Island chain that stretchs from the Bahamas to Grenada force oil tankers into narrow channels — several of which are also narrow enough to be easily mined.
3) It could easily take a two or three US carrier task forces several weeks to deal with this — which could be a major diversion if something else was going on in the world.
A pretty big payoff just for stroking Chevez’s ego.
4) The “vogue in certain circles in the United States for expressing admiration for the competence and strategic acumen of ” Matthew Yglesias is somewhat more ..uh.. limited.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hey, I remember that Clive Cussler novel! If I recall correctly, the dashingly handsome hero develops a clever ruse to disguise the USS Enterprise as a commercial cruise liner and sneak it into position off the coast of Venezuela. Meanwhile he and the beautiful Susan Slater lead an amphibian assault team into downtown Caracas to take out the Russian delegation and guide the fighters to their targets. I think in the end he gets the girl.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Caucasus
Caucasus
Spell it out, now: C a u c a s u s
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Caucasus. There are some typos that make you look sloppy and indifferent. And then there are some that make you look like an ignoramus. Holding forth on “the Caucuses” is in the same category as opining about “Isreal.”
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
US-Venezuela tensions aren’t really about anything other than domestic political posturing.
Oil? Who said anything about oil? You cookin’ something, bitch?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
expressing admiration for the competence and strategic acumen of Vladimir Putin,
Sometimes, it’s easy to forget that, just because people aren’t American doesn’t mean they’re not stupid.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Re CAP Cleaning Staff’s “Hey, I remember that Clive Cussler novel!”
———–
Actually, it was made into a movie. Starring Ronnie Reagan.
One of his best performances. Well, except for “Bedtime for Bozo”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Dunno…What if the Russians install a missile defense installation in Cuba….90 miles from the US coast, the interceptors are nuclear tipped…but these are “defensive” nukes….
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Putin knows the real deal regarding the “so-called” Jewish Supremacists plan to control the world.
Unfortunately, Western journalists continue to show where their heads are.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
It’s all about “spheres of influence”, Matt. Russia didn’t “get what they wanted” by their move into Georgia — they just took the opportunity to send a message to NATO and the US (but I doubt if anyone in the US Administration understood the message).
And they’ve only got a SMALL PART of what they want. What they really want is buffer countries where they don’t have worry about NATO and European Union encroachment. They’re pissed about the US, NATO and European Union mucking around in the Baltic states, Poland and the Ukraine. Russia, in turn, by mucking around in Latin America, is hoping to send a follow-up message to the US. But I suspect that the policy-makers in the Kremlin are just as clueless about what motivates the Bush Administration as the Bush Administration is clueless about what motivates the Kremlin. I doubt if Bush Administration ever was aware of the historic Russian buffer-state anxiety (After all, Condi is really no expert on Russia). And I doubt if the Bush Administration has much buffer-state anxiety in South America. If the Russians were to put some ships in the Straits of Hormuz, then the Bushies would get buffer-state anxiety…
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Isn’t the whole purpose of this venture by Russia to remind the US that both nations have their “near foreign” that they don’t like the other meddling in?
Reading more into it than that seems a stretch to me.
Regards, C
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This isn’t about a new cold war. It’s about oil. Putin controls Asian gas, controls distribution of gas to Europe and is cozying up to Iran.
Being a unilateral asshole and invading other countries doesn’t just make you unpopular around the world. It ties up your military and financial resoures, and renders you a view from the sidelines as the Chinese and Russians round up the oil-producing countries alientated by said asshole.
Arm Georgia? With whose money? What are you going to pay the military industrial complex with? Or, I should ask, how are you going to get Beijing to pony up?
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Latin America gets fed up with 30 years’ lecturing by the Masters in the United States telling them how to run their countries.
Lula Da Silva, President of Brazil:
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Beowulf,
It isn’t just about spheres of influence, and geopolitical concerns. Both Putin and Chavez have some ideological kinship, if not in terms of what they are for, then at least in terms of what they are against. Both the Russian and Venezuelan government share a generalized “Third World nationalist” worldview (Russia is not a Third World country, but there isn’t a better term for what I mean). They also have an ideological hostility to liberalism in both the political and economic spheres, and an opposition to Western capitalism. They both appear to believe that only authoritarian charismatic leadership can solve the problems of second and third world countries today, and are viscerally hostile to Western intervention. Chavez probably feels ideologically more kinship with the Belarus government but it’s worth remembering that the Belarusians have close ties with Russia.
I’m saying this as someone who is a very strong partisan of both Putin and Chavez by the way. It would be a mistake to see this as just posturing by both countries to piss off the US- there is a much more fundamental ideological re-alignment involved.
South America, by the way, is quite possibly the continent that will be able to tolerate the coming ecological and economic disasters better than any other- it has ample natural resources, can produce its own energy, food, and most raw materials, and has a relatively low and rapidly stabilizing population density. Putin is smart enough to realize that it makes sense to establish a foothold and sphere of influence there while the United States is tied down in the Middle East.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Matthew: To understand the Russian move to link up with the Latin American countries it would be wise to read War and Peace. That provides a wonderful insight into the Russian mind. Remember, the Russian people believe its army has never lost a war through its own fault. Russia is sending its ships here for no other reason than to please its people.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mr Williams has promulgated his points made in comment #5 before.
Though I (and others) concur with his fourth point, the first three indicate he really has no idea what he’s talking about. OK, on an extremely supericial level, he makes some techinically correct assessments, some incorrect ones* but totally misses the big picture.
*for starters a little place called Roosevelt Roads**
**”but it’s closed!” -> Subic’s been closed for almost two decades, but still has the operational capacity to handle ad hoc missions, a ’surge’ if you will. The latest plan is to convert Rosy to an airport, which normally have ANG units anyway.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
South America, by the way, is quite possibly the continent that will be able to tolerate the coming ecological and economic disasters
It depends on how big of a shift in rainfall patterns over the Amazon basin that would emerge. If it becomes the Sahara (or even just the Great Plains of North America), the results would be apocalyptic
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
1963 called. It wants it’s Cold War paranoia back.
Two TU-160’s, a missile cruiser and 3 escorts.
BFD.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I’ve been busy and only now saw this thread.
El Cid, you seem like a nice enough commenter, but where the heck do you get the idea that there’s a nation-splitting, separatist movement in Venezuela?
No such thing, pal.
As to Bolivia, I’m not sure to what extent the U.S. is or isn’t backing the Eastern Provinces, but you misrepresent the claims of the Eastern Provines of Bolivia / recent summit meeting of UNASUR in Chile.
The Eastern Provinces of Bolivia clearly have a different ethnic make-up, economic structure and culture from the Western Highlands of Bolivia. This is not new.
The problem is that Evo Morales’ support is mostly from the Western Highlands, which means indian support. Which is perfectly fine, but that’s creating big problems with the less populated, but wealthier Eastern provinces.
IMO, Bolivia needs to become a very federalized (think Switzerland) country. I’m not sure Evo Morales can accept that, because his political base is very radical and has its eye on the resource base (particularly, though not exclusively national gas) from the Eastern provinces.
What is clear is that both Evo Morales and the Eastern prefects amply won the recall plebliscites which were held recently (Evo did not get much support in the Eastern Provinces, but he got very large support in the Western Highlands).
So the die is cast – either Bolivia federalizes or it will probably have a civil war. Obviously the other South Am countries are not thrilled with this possibility, so they’re doing what they can to forestall it (though of course, you have some South Am countries like Venezuela – Ecuador, surprisingly, has been pretty quiet about this, which may be because of the ongoing rivalry between Guayaquil and Quito – which are using this for their own goals).
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
But nothing of what it wanted out of Poland or the Ukraine. Playing nice with the West has gotten Russia nowhere except an increased NATO provocation on its borders, so a strategic relationship with left governments in Latin America seems like a natural bargaining chip. Playing nice is a two way street, you know.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
JRVJ,
There is most certainly a nation-splitting, secessionist movement in Venezuela. It may not have much of a chance of success, but the ruling elites of the oil-rice Zulia state, under their odious governor Rosales, have made noises about seceding.
As for Bolivia, I’m not sure why Bolivia should give in to the secessionist oligarchs any more than Abraham Licoln should have given in to the Confederates. In both cases you have one party seceding- with no cultural or historical warrant whatsoever- solely to preserve an exploitative and evil socio-economic structure.
Santa Cruz secessionism will destroy any hope for socialism in Bolivia just as the Confederacy would have crushed any hopes for abolitionism in the US. Evo Morales should treat the Cruceñistas exactly as Lincoln treated the Confederates.
By the way, I hate to tell you, but the Cruceñista cause is doomed by demography. The western highlands have a higher birth rate than the eastern lowlands, especially now that Evo’s government has been discouraging abortion and birth control among the highland Indians. Sooner or later, demographic force will overcome even the cleverest machination of the Santa Cruz oligarchs.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Hector,
You seem to have some lovely opinions and biases which you want to pass as facts.
Zulia has historically been separate from the rest of Venezuela – this has nothing to do with Chavez, and everything to do with Venezuela. That being the case, Zulians have historically felt like different animals from the rest of Venezuela. But a realistic secessionist movement?
A strawman, plain and simple.
As to Bolivia, you are right that demographically Western Bolivia trumps Eastern Bolivia (if you read my post, you’ll see I mention that the Eastern Provinces are less populated than the Western ones).
That still doesn’t change the fact that Bolivia is a cleft country. In the end, I suspect some sort of compromise will be reached, Evo will push through his Constitution and socialism in the West, but the East will remain autonomous and capitalist (though the East will probably end up giving up a good chunk of natural gas revenues for this compromise to work).
Regretably, that will prevent the bloodbath you seem to be relishing. I do find it interesting that hard left types are thrilled at bloodbaths when they think they’re right.
(If this thread is still going tomorrow, I’ll post an appropriate Robert Conquest quote).
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Most of so-called interests and strategic interests are glorified hobbies of elites. There are exceptions, however, and among those, the relative power of price hawks and doves in OPEC. Russia would probably prefer hawks to be ascendant.
Internally, Putin brought oil producers to heel, and his priority seems to be (a) preventing over-capacity, (b) maximizing tax collection from oil producers. He managed to sell the idea to Kazakh leadership, and Turkmenistan seem to be a very obedient ally. The only prize we got in the region is Azerbaijan and the pipeline, but now Azerbaijan seems to be quite intimidated, Advantage, Putin.
Externally, Putin wants cordial relationship with the most radical price hawks in OPEC, which means Iran and Venezuela. There is quite a bit of intimidation and counter-intimidation involved. Bush tried, twice, to get rid of Chavez. Arms deal that make Chavez bolder are in Putin’s interest. If the influence will extend to other hydrocarbon producers, Bolivia and Equador, this is a bonus.
Our strategic nightmare is Iran in a position to intimidate Saudis into compliance with OPEC quotas (they often cheat on those quotas). Conversely, Putin’s nightmare is Iran being thoroughly intimidated by USA, and Iraq effectively breaking ranks with OPEC.
Iran is not an easy card to play for Putin, but so far, we blundred more than he did. Mark my words, pretty soon Iran will convince Iraq to refrain from expanding oil production,
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Nice picture of that Kivov class battle cruiser.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Kirov, rather. Heh!
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 am
There’s one goddamn thing I am CERTAIN about – and that is that Putin knows one HELL of a lot more about these things than one Matt “Numbnuts” Yglesias four years out of college with a fuckin’ degree in philosophy.
Giving advice to Putin, Matt? It is to laugh.
Piotr is generally right except for that part about Iran convincing Iraq not to overproduce and to adhere to OPEC price guidelines. That actually was the neocon plan, if you’ve read Greg Palast’s columns on the subject. But the oil companies forced Bush to shut that down.
Iraq is in fact committed under agreements with the US to adhere to OPEC price guidelines. So Putin and Iran don’t have to do anything about that. The oil companies already did that.
Of course, once the US is kicked out, maybe the Iraqi government would think of overproducing just to steal some billions of oil dollars – and Iran wouldn’t like that. So Piotr is probably correct in the end.
And Putin doesn’t have to worry about Iran being intimidated by the US – not so long as oil is worth what it is. What Putin is worried about is a US attack on Iran.
And one thing Putin learned when the Russians seized the Israeli facilities in Georgia was that the Israelis wanted to use two Georgian air bases to outflank the US control over airspace in Iraq and thus enable them to attack Iran without long flight times and refueling needs.
So now Russia is once again – correctly – stalling on any further Iran sanctions. Meanwhile, while Israel may still have plans to attack Iran via Georgia, you – and they – can be sure that Russia is closely monitoring Georgia’s air fields, and if anything takes off from there and crosses the Georgia border going south, there will be an immediate encrypted phone call to Tehran. In fact, if the Israelis even fuel one of their planes there from now on, there will be a call to Tehran.
And you can be absolutely sure that the next batch of the most modern air defense radars and anti-aircraft missile systems available will be sold directly to Tehran.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Thanks, RSH. Georgians claimed that they KNOW from UNENCRIPTED Russian communications that Russians moved some forces to S. Ossetia before Georgians attacked. If remotely true, this gives a picture of a macho culture on both sides of Caucasus in which encryption is for sisses, Georgians know very well what Russians are doing, and Russians know even better what Georgians are doing.
This would suggest that would Israel make a plan to use Georgian facilities in any way, Russians would know it pretty much at the same time as Georgians.
At this point we enter zones of Smulyan paradoxes and Occam’ raisor. It is hard to fly from Israel to Georgia without going over Turkey, but if you fly over Turkey, why not fly THROUGH Turkey to Iran? Except Turkey would not like to be blantant, Iran can retaliate by supporting PPK. Still, one can fly over Greece and Bulgaria, or pretend that this was so.
However, Georgia has no border with Iran, so the flight would have to continue over Armenia or Azerbaijan. Armenia is well armed and has special relationship with Iran and Russia, this is how they survive in the face of hostility from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is an ultimate of an ambigous country. Russia fumes over the Ceyhan pipeline, Iran views the government as a bunch of infidels who should be replaced — the population is Shia, and most of Azeris live in Iran, the government is dictatorial and not particularly popular. On top of it, due to the conflict with Armenia, there is a part of Azerbjaijan that can be accessed ONLY through Iran. Finally, Russia maintains a huge radar facility in Azerbaijan.
Of course, Azerbaijan enjoys pipeline connection to Ceyhan and huge investments and revenues, but its only connection to the West is through Georgia, and this is a slender thread. It makes me think that demonstrating that fact was ALL this fuss was about from Russian point of view, apart from good TV for the masses.
The weirdest issue of them all in the region is Iran’s nuclear program. The thing about it is that Iran ABSOLUTELY does not need it. Its deterrence capability are based on huge territory, numerous mountain ranges, good morale in quite numerous armed forces and the ability to cause mischief in (a) Strain of Hormuz, (b) Iraq, (c) smaller places that are almost superfluous, like Lebanon or central Afghanistan. Why do they do it, and what is it exactly that they are doing? I think that the relationship of the nuclear issue to the conflict between the West (USA, Israel, UK?) and Iran is the same as the relationship between a car and its “body”. The “body” gives color and shape, but the car functions more or less the same when we replace it completely.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Ok, our quotes (turns out there were two) from Robert Conquest’s Reflections on a Ravaged Century for Hector:
(Pages 6 and 7): “There are men who are revolutionaries by temperament, to whom in fact bloodshed is natural. Pushkin had understood the dangers: ‘Those in our midst who plan impossible revolutions are either young men who do not know our people, or cruel – hearted men who place a low value on their own necks, and an even lower value on the necks of others”. There were those who came to it entrapped by the Idea, and prepared to destroy “enemies of the people”. Een intellectuals who are not strictly speaking revolutionaries, but who claim to speak in the interest of “humanity” as a whole, have taken sinister stands. For example, Bertrand Russell is quoted as accepting ‘that if it could be shown that humanity could live happily ever after if the Jews were exterminated, there could be no good reason not to proceed with their extermination’”
(Pages 10 and 11): “For a useful, almost classical demonstration of the revolutionary mind-warp, the motivation behind acceptance of a totalitarian Idea, we turn to an interview given by Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm on “The Late Show”, 24 October 1994.
When Michael Ignatieff asked him to justify his long membership of the Communist Party, he replied: ‘You didn’t have the option. You see, either there was going to be a future or there wasn’t going to be a future and this was the only thing that offered an acceptabe future’
Ignatieff then asked: ‘In 1934, millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at the time? To your commitment? To being a Communist?’.
Hobsbawm answered: ‘This is the sort o academic question to which an answer is simply not possible. Erm… I don’t actually know that it has any bearing on the history that I have written. If I were to give you a retrospective answer which is not the answer of a historian, I would have said ‘Probably not’
Ignatieff asked: ‘Why?’
Hobsbawm explained: ‘Because in the period in which, as you might say, mass murder and mass murdering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would have still have been worth backing. Now the point is, looking back as an historian, I would say that the sacrifices made by the Russian people were probably only marginally worthwhile. The sacrifices were enormous, they were excessive by almost any standard and excessively great. But I’m looking back at it now, and I’m saying that because it turns out that the Soviet Union was not the beginning of the world revolution. Had it been, I’m not so sure’.
Ignatieff then said: ‘What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?’
Hobsbawm immediately said: ‘Yes.’”.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
JRVJ,
I don’t deny having strong opinions, and I’m not ashamed of them. I have a strong belief that oligarchic elites must not be allowed to declare independence or autonomy solely in order to perpetrate exploitative socioeconomic structures. That goes for Jefferson Davis, for Manuel Rosales, and for Ruben Costas. The Santa Cruz oligarchs cannot be allowed to hold back social justice in the entire nation on the grounds of ‘autonomy’, any more than the Jim Crow south had the right to their “states’ rights.”
Zulia is indeed crawling with secessionists, although they generally try to downplay their rhetoric in order to stay within the law, it’s clear what they mean by “autonomy” and “freedom”, and it’s clear who their puppetmasters are.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3423
I don’t _want_ a bloodbath, and I would ideally prefer that Morales can manage to re-integrate the East into the Bolivian nation without any bloodshed (although I do think that the ringleaders of the recent unrest, in which 30 innocent people were killed, should be executed for treason and genocide.) I do believe though that if it comes down to a choice between peace and justice, Morales should choose the side of justice, and he should not let the natural resources of Bolivia be monopolized by a bunch of oligarchs.
All your lengthy quote from Ignatieff (who the hell is Ignatieff) show is that you are not very familiar at first-hand with Hobsbawm’s voluminous writings. Read some of his essays (he is, after all, one of our most eminnet historians) and then see if you can discern what he actually thought about Stalin, Stalinism, and political atrocity in general.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Re: Santa Cruz, the problem is that you have decided that the Eastern elites (and you seem to narrow it down to Santa Cruz, Bolivia, which is incorrect) are the ones who voted in favor of Autonomy (false – clear majority votes in each province cannot be atributed to elites) or in favor of the Eastern Governors (clear majority votes in each provinces).
Once you define the problem that way, it becomes easy to frame it into your existing point of view. But that does not make it any less false. Furthermore, it’s clear to anyone who has any understanding of Bolivia that it is a cleft country, with very different polities in the East and West.
Hopefully Morales will be willing to accept a compromise that helps him do his thing in the West while respecting the East.
(BTW – in regards the recent deaths in Bolivia, I doubt very seriously that it was one-sided like you seem to claim. There’s two entrenched positions and when that happens, innocents suffer. But come on, Evo supporters are no angels, and have undertaken civil disturbances in the East. And let’s not even talk about what happened in the Western highlands of Cochabamba when Evo’s Constitutional Assembly tried to ram its Constitution through. But of course, that’s inconvenient).
As to Venezuela, Zulia is nowhere near autonomy, and I don’t think it’ll ever be. It’s ridiculously funny that Zulians are the oligarchs of Venezuela (as you seem to imply), when that’s usually what’s atributed to Caraqueños. But whatever.
BTW – I’ve read Hobswam, and he doesn’t hold a candle to Conquest.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Rockwell Automation, Inc. this morning announced it has reached an agreement to acquire substantially all of the assets and business of Xi’An Hengsheng Science
January 11th, 2009 at 2:26 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am
GPNMgt qjbekeodlgfs, [url=http://hwgnrkwytqkc.com/]hwgnrkwytqkc[/url], [link=http://ulhjzfcrnbwo.com/]ulhjzfcrnbwo[/link], http://zkvfnmauwtfh.com/