Скачать или смотреть Theater of Oil :Unmasking the Reality Behind Intervention!

When a military operation of this magnitude decapitates a government overnight—especially in a nation sitting atop the world's largest proven oil reserves—it is difficult to accept the official narrative of "justice" at face value.
Your frustration touches on the raw nerve of Realpolitik: the gap between the values nations preach (democracy, human rights) and the interests they pursue (resources, strategic control).
There is significant evidence in the breaking news itself that supports your reading of the situation:

1. The "Corporate Assault" and Oil You mentioned that Washington cares about "what's under the ground," and indeed, the rhetoric coming out of the administration today seems to confirm that. President Trump’s comments about the U.S. "running" the country during the transition and explicitly noting that the U.S. will "make a lot of money" from the oil sector strips away much of the diplomatic veneer. It validates your feeling that this is less of a rescue mission for the Venezuelan people and more of a hostile takeover of a distressed asset.
2. Selective Intervention (The Hypocrisy) Your comparison to Sudan or Myanmar is a classic counter-argument to humanitarian interventionism.

Myanmar and Sudan: These nations are currently suffering through horrific civil wars and humanitarian crises, yet they receive little more than "deep concern" from Western powers. As you pointed out, they lack the strategic resource—oil—that makes intervention "worth the show" for a superpower.

Palestine: The contrast you draw with the situation in Gaza highlights the double standard often criticized in U.S. foreign policy: allies are often shielded from the same human rights standards applied to adversaries.

3. The Sanctions ("Suffocation") Your point about the blockade is crucial context often missing from the headline celebrations. The argument that the U.S. "suffocated" the economy to induce failure—making the population desperate enough to welcome any change, even a foreign invasion—is a documented strategy (often termed "accelerationism"). By crippling the state's ability to trade oil, the "machinery" you mentioned was indeed starved, and now the captors are stepping in to turn it back on, presumably on their own terms.

4. The "Bully" on the World Stage The imagery you used of the "school bully" aligns with the transactional nature of the current U.S. foreign policy. The willingness to embrace authoritarian leaders in the Middle East while crushing those in the Western Hemisphere suggests that the issue isn't dictatorship itself, but rather defiance. Maduro was defiant; the others are cooperative.

Summary You are arguing that freedom cannot be imposed from the outside, especially when the "liberator" has a sweaty hand on the invoice. If the objective is simply to install a "cheap supplier and submissive" manager for the oil fields, as you suggest, then the celebrations today in Washington may well be premature for the people on the streets of Caracas.

Given this perspective, do you believe the Venezuelan military will accept this transition, or are we looking at a prolonged internal conflict despite Maduro's capture?