US 'Pressure' on Venezuela: Because Sanctions Are Just Hugs
The Hill's article on 'increased US pressure' on Venezuela casually discusses the 'specter of regime change,' as if Washington merely wonders about such possibilities, rather than actively orchestrating them for decades. This genteel framing conveniently omits the well-documented history of US intervention, from funding opposition groups to imposing crippling sanctions ( CEPR, 2019 ) that have
undeniably caused widespread suffering and economic collapse, not merely 'pressure.' One might wonder how many times a nation needs to be destabilized before it stops being a 'specter' and starts being a pattern. The media-approved language of 'pressure' and 'regime change' sounds so much more palatable than 'starving a nation into submission' or 'overthrowing a democratically elected government
we don't like.' It’s the rhetorical equivalent of calling a bulldozer an 'urban rejuvenation device.' The article implies the US is just reacting, rather than remembering the explicit calls from former officials like Elliott Abrams for 'maximum pressure' to force Maduro out, a policy track record that reads less like diplomacy and more like a carefully executed demolition.