Analyzing the Venezuelan crisis nowadays is difficult because we end up in political-ideological discussions. More than understanding what is happening in the country, fatally discussions revolve around the support or criticism of the president (?) Nicolas Maduro. But the issue is more profound and definitive answer does not come easy.

It is true that the Brazilian media, and the government's own Brazil, clearly advocate the immediate departure of Maduro to assume, in your place, or opponent Juan Guaidó. Apparently the question would be simple: Maduro sai, Guaidó takes power, restores order in Venezuela and everything returns to normal.

However, when we look at other examples coming, we see that is much more complicated than this. Think in Iraq when President Bush decided to invade. The plan was also great, Saddam Hussein would, a democratic government would be installed in the country and everything would be quiet. We could recover other examples like Syria or Lebanon and would have the same result: More than establishing domestic order, It created a chaos that lingers to this day. Let us not forget that the United States continues to date with troops in Iraq. For those who do not remember, the invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, that is, 15 years ago!

The problem with Venezuela is not to support or Maduro Guaidó, It is not to have a plan for afterwards. The number of countries recognizing Guaidó as president of Venezuela is growing, and this gives the impression that we are getting closer to the solution. Instead, we are approaching the beginning of a much larger and more dangerous journey.

The Venezuelan state is weakening and society is radicalized. The economic crisis in the country is great and it can not be denied, but also can not be naive to believe that the simple exchange of a president will lead to the stabilization of the economy, the pacification of society and the restructuring of the State.

By the time you see the international community is much bravado and trying to solve the exchange of presidents by threats or unilateral recognition. The problem is that it lacks the discussion on the next day. What is the plan of the International Society? the countries that have declared recognition of Guaidó?

If the Venezuelan society effectively fray t we have a civil war, what will we do? We begin bombing in Caracas? We will send UN peacekeepers to impose peace? which group will be attacked and what defended?

The world of international relations already knew a long time that the intervention in domestic issues is a dangerous endeavor, but it seems that we forget that. And we are now entering a more righteous stage, wherein we chose one side, We consider it right, and put the other side as totally wrong. It seems to have forgotten the lessons of the past (and Brazil's foreign policy also).

Noteworthy is that I am not here defending the government of Maduro, but considering the deeper issues that we see in this case. If the international community is really concerned about peace in Venezuela, It should be pressed for a more constructive schedule, considers:

• The way out of this crisis is necessary and only for calls via the new elections.
• Negotiations between the parties (Maduro government and government Guaidó) They should be mediated by other countries, able to both offer guarantees as conditions for both sides.
• Regardless of which side stay, the international community must force protection conditions for the losing side, not forcing the two sides take to end their positions.

Or we look at the case of Venezuela with the coldness and necessary exemption, or must be prepared to be responsible for the civil bloodshed potential that there should occur.

AFTER WRITING

This article was written on 12/02/2019 and highlighted the possibility of escalation in violence. Today, day 22/2/2019 at least two people were killed on the border between Brazil and Venezuela due to clashes between the security forces of President Nicolas Maduro and indigenous communities that required the entry of aid sent by Brazil. As stated, not only is it an internal crisis that would be resolved by the simple exchange of presidents, but a more complex structural point.