Striking a deal with Russia on spheres of influence

Striking a deal with Russia on spheres of influence

President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Trump administration officials and their hawkish domestic allies sound increasingly strident alarm bells about foreign meddling in Venezuelas internal political turmoil. They contend that Russia, China, Cuba, and Hezbollah are especially active in supporting leftist president Nicolas Maduros beleaguered government. Indeed, some U.S. analysts insist thatwithout outside backing, especially by Russia and Cuba, pro-democracy opposition forces likely would have forced him to relinquish power already. When anti-government demonstrations erupted in Caracas on April 30, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that Maduro had been ready to board a plane to fly to exile in Havana but changed his mindat Russias urging.
U.S. leaders appear to exaggerate the extent of Moscows meddling. Given Maduros uncompromising behavior throughout the most recent demonstrations, the notion that he was ready to flee the country absent Russian intervention seems far-fetched. The loyalty of Venezuelas militaryhas not yet wavered, and he continues to draw support from left-wing citizens militias. Those factors have beenmore relevantto his continued grip on power than Russian (or any other foreign) support.
Nevertheless, Russia definitely has meddled in Venezuelas political turbulence. Moscow is a major financial prop for Maduros government, and the Kremlin has provided tangible military backing as well. In December 2018, Russia deployed twonuclear-capable bombersto Venezuela, and in March 2019, it sent some 200 military personnel to help Caracasrefurbish its air defense system. Several hundredRussian mercenariesalso appear to be operating in the country to assist Maduros security forces deal with regime opponents. Maduros foreign minister fanned the flames of Washingtons worry and anger by stating that Russias military involvement in his countrymight even increase.

The United States has insisted on maintaining a sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere since the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s. Russias policy in Venezuela represents a direct challenge to that doctrine, and U.S. leaders should make it clear that a continuation of such behavior will have amarkedly negative effecton bilateral relations. Cuba has been a foreign political and military client in the hemisphere for decades, precisely the situation the Monroe Doctrine aimed to prevent. The United States has no right or justification to dictate Venezuelas internal governance, but it would be unwise to tolerate the establishment of a second hostile foreign client state.
The Trump administration should insist that Russia respect the Monroe Doctrine and confine its Venezuelan ties to normal diplomatic and economic relations. At the same time, it is essential for U.S. officials to acknowledge that the United States and its NATO allies have shown contempt for Russias sphere of influenceand even its core security zonein Eastern Europe.
Washingtons roster of provocations islong and damaging. With strong U.S. encouragement, NATOs membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bushs administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obamas administrationinterfered blatantlyin Ukraines internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukrainea de facto military ally, training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
Moscows meddling in Venezuela likely is at least partially designed to be payback for Washingtons intrusive, provocative policies in Eastern Europe. The ingredients, therefore, exist for a sensible agreement embodying needed restraint on both sides. U.S. leaders should inform the Russian government that they are willing to end their quest to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and to cease all military connections with Kiev and Tbilisiincluding weapons sales and joint exercises. Washington also should offer to end its rotational deployment of troops, planes, and warships in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. In other words, Washington would be willing to respect a Russian sphere of influence in that region.

As a tradeoff, the Trump administration should insist that Moscow greatly dilute its involvement in Venezuela and Cuba; and the administration should suggest that it end a growing flirtation with Nicaraguas leftist government. That retrenchment especially would require Russia to reverse its growing military presence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
Such an offer requires greater realism on the part of U.S. policymakers and political leaders. Spheres of influence have always played a major role in international affairs, and despite assertions by prominent members of the American foreign policy community, they still do. All great powers seek to enforce their writ in their immediate neighborhood, and the avoidance of needless conflict requires a decent respect for that reality. Recent U.S. administrations haveviolated that important principle, and their behavior is producing retaliation and a spike in international tensions. The Trump administration can reverse that trend by insisting on Russias respect for the Monroe Doctrine while spurning the advice of hawks who think the United States can and shouldassert dominancein Ukraine and other portions of Eastern Europe. U.S. leaders would be wise to propose such a deal sooner rather later.

Read the original text here.
See also:
Leave a comment
  • Latest
  • Read
  • Commented
Calendar Content
«     2021    »