Depends on how you define "war", but the initial invasion of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and Israel's strikes on Iran this year may count - both were closely aligned to rising domestic pressure on the leaders at the time.
For the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that may have had more to do with Ukraine’s budget and economy of the time: Ukraine had a massive trade deficit with Russia in the 2000’s and early 2010’s, and the government was running a huge deficit.
Faced with cuts to state pensions, Ukraine started using gas from the pipeline which connects Russia to Western Europe, without paying for it. That understandably annoyed Russia (that’s not a justification for war!), who couldn’t turn off gas to Ukraine without also turning it off for their main customers in Western Europe.
These events seemed to have kicked off the norstream pipeline (legal) and invasion of Crimea (illegal).
The pipeline thing may have annoyed Russia, but it was the Maidan revolution which resulted in the invasion of Crimea. Russia simply doesn't like having neighbours that aren't its puppets. When Ukrainians got rid of Yanukovych, Ukraine stopped being a Russian puppet, which annoyed Putin very much.
Russia has a long, long history of being mean to its neighbours that choose to pursue independent policy. As an example, Finland and Baltic states have been subject to countless of intentional airspace violations since the collapse of the Soviet Union, even before the Ukrainian war.
My belief was that many analysts at the time considered that the justification rather than the cause, as alluded to by the Ukraine counter claims in the guardian article.
Similarly, Trump isn't saying he wants to invade Venezuela to distract from domestic issues, but it's all about the "drug boats".
> the initial invasion of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and Israel's strikes on Iran this year may count - both were closely aligned to rising domestic pressure on the leaders at the time
I don't know enough about what prefaced Putin's moves into Crimea and Ukraine larger. I'd describe Israel's recent wars as being closer to a WWI-esque powderkeg strike inasmuch as without the October 7 attack, none of this would have happened (when and how it did).
What's unique, here, is that it's practically entirely domestic elements which are driving Trump into Venezuela. I can think of historical examples. But they're all from the 19th century or classical history.
It is a far stretch to call annexation/reunification (pick whichever you like) an invasion. There was no fighting and it went almost with no violence. There was a swift independence referendum followed by a decree to join Russian Federation. Majority of Crimean population voted in favor, as later confirmed by independent gallups. Anyone thinks that Crimeans want to rejoin Ukraine is delusional.
> stretch to call annexation/reunification (pick whichever you like) an invasion. There was no fighting
Invasion is occupation. Fighting isn't a pre-requisite. Entire colonies were gained in the age of empire through gunboat diplomacy [1]. We even extend the metaphor to invasive species.
> Majority of Crimean population voted in favor
Correct.
> Anyone thinks that Crimeans want to rejoin Ukraine is delusional
With present tense, unknown.
More generally, Xinjiang would vote for independence from China, J&K from India and Siberia from Russia [1]. Local self-determination isn't a maximalist proxy advocated for by anyone but anarchists.
Why stop with these examples though? By the same rhetoric, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Finnish Lapland, Venice, Eastern Germany, Quebec, Hawaii and Texas are all occupied either by force or gunboat diplomacy.
> Was it a distraction for UK or Argentinian leadership?
"In the period leading up to the war—and, in particular following the transfer of power between the military dictators General Jorge Rafael Videla and General Roberto Eduardo Viola late in March 1981—Argentina had been in the midst of devastating economic stagnation and large-scale civil unrest against the National Reorganisation Process, the military junta that had been governing the country since 1976.
In December 1981 there was a further change in the Argentine military regime, bringing to office a new junta headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri (acting president), Air Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo and Admiral Jorge Anaya. Anaya was the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long-standing claim over the islands, expecting that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily."
Do you mean Maduro threatening to invade Guyana? I think that's just saber rattling neither the US nor his southern cone neighbors, even the socialists, would allow it.
He hasn't released them yet though, has he? And I don't think it's likely they ever will be. Also it's already been mentioned that 1000 FBI agents are scrubbing them of anything incriminating, so even if they are, they'll likely be almost uselessly redacted.
Do we have another war in post-WWII history where a credible theory for its genesis is a leader trying to distract from a scandal?
Closest I can come to is the Falklands War.
Depends on how you define "war", but the initial invasion of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and Israel's strikes on Iran this year may count - both were closely aligned to rising domestic pressure on the leaders at the time.
For the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that may have had more to do with Ukraine’s budget and economy of the time: Ukraine had a massive trade deficit with Russia in the 2000’s and early 2010’s, and the government was running a huge deficit.
Faced with cuts to state pensions, Ukraine started using gas from the pipeline which connects Russia to Western Europe, without paying for it. That understandably annoyed Russia (that’s not a justification for war!), who couldn’t turn off gas to Ukraine without also turning it off for their main customers in Western Europe.
These events seemed to have kicked off the norstream pipeline (legal) and invasion of Crimea (illegal).
Here is a contemporary article less than a year before the Crimean invasion: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/russia-ukraine...
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact#Effects
The pipeline thing may have annoyed Russia, but it was the Maidan revolution which resulted in the invasion of Crimea. Russia simply doesn't like having neighbours that aren't its puppets. When Ukrainians got rid of Yanukovych, Ukraine stopped being a Russian puppet, which annoyed Putin very much.
Russia has a long, long history of being mean to its neighbours that choose to pursue independent policy. As an example, Finland and Baltic states have been subject to countless of intentional airspace violations since the collapse of the Soviet Union, even before the Ukrainian war.
My belief was that many analysts at the time considered that the justification rather than the cause, as alluded to by the Ukraine counter claims in the guardian article.
Similarly, Trump isn't saying he wants to invade Venezuela to distract from domestic issues, but it's all about the "drug boats".
> the initial invasion of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and Israel's strikes on Iran this year may count - both were closely aligned to rising domestic pressure on the leaders at the time
I don't know enough about what prefaced Putin's moves into Crimea and Ukraine larger. I'd describe Israel's recent wars as being closer to a WWI-esque powderkeg strike inasmuch as without the October 7 attack, none of this would have happened (when and how it did).
What's unique, here, is that it's practically entirely domestic elements which are driving Trump into Venezuela. I can think of historical examples. But they're all from the 19th century or classical history.
It is a far stretch to call annexation/reunification (pick whichever you like) an invasion. There was no fighting and it went almost with no violence. There was a swift independence referendum followed by a decree to join Russian Federation. Majority of Crimean population voted in favor, as later confirmed by independent gallups. Anyone thinks that Crimeans want to rejoin Ukraine is delusional.
> stretch to call annexation/reunification (pick whichever you like) an invasion. There was no fighting
Invasion is occupation. Fighting isn't a pre-requisite. Entire colonies were gained in the age of empire through gunboat diplomacy [1]. We even extend the metaphor to invasive species.
> Majority of Crimean population voted in favor
Correct.
> Anyone thinks that Crimeans want to rejoin Ukraine is delusional
With present tense, unknown.
More generally, Xinjiang would vote for independence from China, J&K from India and Siberia from Russia [1]. Local self-determination isn't a maximalist proxy advocated for by anyone but anarchists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy#Notable_exam...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic
Why stop with these examples though? By the same rhetoric, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Finnish Lapland, Venice, Eastern Germany, Quebec, Hawaii and Texas are all occupied either by force or gunboat diplomacy.
> Why stop with these examples though?
Because it’s a long list and I was being polite.
Is it to distract from a scandal or is it an escalation of a long pursued strategy to gain control of Venezuelan oil?
Feels like the latter. Remember during his first term Trump had John Bolton try various coup schemes.
https://archive.ph/C7lrm
Also Trump on the same subject: https://x.com/Acyn/status/1667682589333659648
If you don’t mind could you briefly summarise your view on the Falklands War? Was it a distraction for UK or Argentinian leadership?
> Was it a distraction for UK or Argentinian leadership?
"In the period leading up to the war—and, in particular following the transfer of power between the military dictators General Jorge Rafael Videla and General Roberto Eduardo Viola late in March 1981—Argentina had been in the midst of devastating economic stagnation and large-scale civil unrest against the National Reorganisation Process, the military junta that had been governing the country since 1976.
In December 1981 there was a further change in the Argentine military regime, bringing to office a new junta headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri (acting president), Air Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo and Admiral Jorge Anaya. Anaya was the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long-standing claim over the islands, expecting that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Prelude
Thanks! I probably should have read the damn wiki haha.
Probably every war ... It worked so well we dont know what the scandal was.
Do you mean Maduro threatening to invade Guyana? I think that's just saber rattling neither the US nor his southern cone neighbors, even the socialists, would allow it.
He means the opposite, Trump threatening Venezuela because he needs a distraction from his presence in the Epstein files.
Well, there were military strikes in to the balkans shortly after the Lewinsky affair became a topic of discussion. Is that enough precedent?
Do you legit believe he'd release them if there's anything even remotely controversial?
He hasn't released them yet though, has he? And I don't think it's likely they ever will be. Also it's already been mentioned that 1000 FBI agents are scrubbing them of anything incriminating, so even if they are, they'll likely be almost uselessly redacted.
So then it isn't much of a distraction
> then it isn't much of a distraction
People were talking about it. Now we’re talking about Venezuela, too. That’s how distractions work.
People talking is not going to achieve anything. It's like spreading awareness about climate change...