Looking at the Wikipedia for it, that number comes from a Washington Post country guide with absolutely no context or source to back it up. So I'm not confident that's correct. The Wikipedia article itself details less than 30 coups. They have one every few years sure, but it's not like every 9 months for 160 years someone was trying to overgrow the government.
Didn't something similar happen in Turkey with Erdogan a few years back? Pretty sure he was accused of being behind it himself too; don't know what the final verdict was though.
I think it's a pretty common accusation, just like when a politician is attacked, someone will invariably suggest that they staged it in order to get more support.
It was the armoured vehicles circling the Plaza Murillo - the normally tranquil central square in historic downtown La Paz – that initially set Bolivians on edge on Wednesday afternoon.
By 2.30pm, a small tank was repeatedly ramming the gates of the neoclassical building known as Palacio Quemado until troops forced their way in and, in an extraordinary scene, the coup leader – disgruntled former army chief Juan José Zuñiga – faced off against the president, Luis Arce.
It lasted just three hours, during which time Arce rallied Bolivians to “mobilise” to defend democracy, apparently defused the mutiny in a one-on-one confrontation and appointed a new military command which ordered mutinous troops back to their barracks.
Just before he was detained on Wednesday, the alleged plotter Zuñiga sowed seeds of doubt, telling journalists – without providing evidence – that Arce had ordered him to stage a sham coup in a bid to boost the president’s flagging popularity.
In Arce’s defence, Deisy Choque, a legislator for the governing Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party, warned that the coup might have been successful “had it not been for the position taken by the president, the ministers and Bolivian society as a whole in immediately repudiating these actions”.
Amid plummeting gas exports and dwindling foreign reserves, there are growing protests over rising food prices and the scarcity of fuel and US dollars, as well as deep divisions within his political party.
The original article contains 855 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Interesting reading all the comments about how you can understand those who don't want to fight.. yet, most of you support financing this war...the Democrats are sending BILLIONS of dollars, and god forbid we question where all the money is going... right?
This seems consistent, not hypocritical. If someone supports financing Ukraine, then one should want Ukraine to have enough money for recruiting. Conscription is like an inefficient and regressive tax.
And if you stop helping Ukraine and it runs out of resources, what do you think will happen?
Russia will see this and be like: "oh sorry Ukraine i'll continue when you are rich"
I dislike war as much as the next guy but I also dislike the idea of Russia taking over Ukraine. And Poland. And Moldova. And any other former USSR state
Fighting for your home made more logical sense when the consequence of losing your home meant you most likely had nowhere to go and either were stuck under brutal occupation or left to wander for a place to live with a high risk of dying before finding anything. With how much more accessible distant travel is these days, I can't imagine any piece of land worth dying for, especially when considering the typical lack of support that veterans get when the fighting is over.
I respect those with the courage to fight for defense, but I wouldn't look down upon anyone who left.
theguardian.com
Newest