Arrival in Venezuela late last month of 100 or so Russian military personnel elicited tough talk from the administration of US president Donald Trump. “Russia’s got to leave Venezuela,” declared Sec. of State Mike Pompeo. National Security Advisor John R. Bolton called the development “a direct threat to international peace and security in the region.” Both officials are sound in their assessment and appropriate in their pointedness. Landing troops in economically ruined and politically riven Venezuela represents a serious provocation by the Russian government. It warrants serious response by global leaders.
Obviously, tough talk won’t be enough. What, though, comes next? Inaction would signal weakness, which would nudge Russian President Vladimir Putin toward further adventurism, as it did in Syria and Ukraine. US officials haven’t ruled out a military response. They’re correct not to do so. But the less said now about military action, the better.
Options and strategy
The US has a range of possible ways to respond to Russia’s move into Venezuela without resort to armed conflict. It should swiftly select the best options and develop a strategy. The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, should recognize that its interests will be affected. The conflict ensnares three of the world’s most important producers of oil and gas, one now drastically underperforming its potential.
Experts will have to fashion and implement strategy. But several imperatives seem evident.
Foremost among them is that the US must lead. Since the debacle precipitated by the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, the US has shied from leadership and moved toward isolationism. The shift correctly acknowledges that the US could not remain the global hegemon forever and shouldn’t want to. But neither can it push back to arm’s length—or shouting distance—from global affairs. The powerful must lead. The powerful cannot escape responsibility for the weak. Yes, the Western Hemisphere has other countries able to lead in their own ways. When Putin sent troops to weak Venezuela, however, he didn’t worry about reactions in Ottawa, Brasilia, or Mexico City.
The US also must act firmly. It can do so by strengthening sanctions against Russia and by making clear that the reason is Moscow’s test jab in Venezuela. Conditions for the easing of sanctions must be not only the withdrawal of Russian military personnel from Venezuela but also that of the 20,000-25,000 Cuban military and intelligence agents now enforcing President Nicolas Maduro’s grip on power. The US should impose this incremental clampdown in consultation with and with help from allies in the Americas and Europe.
At the same time, the US should acknowledge that Russia has a base economic interest in Venezuela: a huge debt Caracas can’t repay. Somehow, that interest might be aligned with another imperative: that strategy for Venezuela include not only expelling the Russian military threat but also planning for the reconstruction of a Venezuela without Maduro and his authoritarian socialism.
More than 5 million Venezuelans have fled the cruel deprivations of their beautiful and once-vibrant country. The economy has collapsed. The oil industry on which it depends is derelict. Venezuela cannot repair the damage alone. No country that has suffered so much can be expected to do so. Venezuela will need unprecedented help. In accordance with the responsibility of the powerful for the weak, the US must lead this program, too. A deft balancing of pressure and promise might draw Russia into the effort. A reconstructed Venezuela is Moscow’s best hope for monetization of its Bolivarian paper.
A Russian vassal?
Or does Putin really believe he can create a vassal South American state in league with an island of political repression off Florida he no longer can afford to support?