Month: June 2019
The Americans get desperate
I did this interview for Turkey’s TRT World yesterday, on Trump and Iran:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Silly and sad
Jared Kushner’s much-hyped Peace to Prosperity economic proposal for Palestine, published over the weekend by the White House, is like a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. It can serve little purpose without two others: a Palestinian state with the sovereign authority required to implement the plan and an Israeli state ready to cooperate with its Palestinian neighbors in that process.
Both are absent from Kushner’s $50-billion proposition. He manages to discuss empowering Palestinians and Palestinian governance without mentioning Israeli checkpoints and other security controls, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli settlements and territorial control in the West Bank as well as Israel’s continuing embargo of Gaza. Kushner wishes away all the driving forces of the conflict in order to wave a shiny future that has no practical means of implementation. This is the real estate prospectus version of international politics: show them what it might look like and investors will flock.
Only they won’t, because Arabs and Jews are not dumb. Both know this is silly. No money will flow until the other two legs of the stool are put in place. Palestine needs a secure, unified, and democratic political future before it will get the public and private investment and enhanced trade of the sort Kushner imagines. I’ve been to Rawabi, the truly magnificent Palestinian showcase town built with Qatari funding. It will remain a showcase, not a prototype, so long as the Palestinian state remains weak and Israeli cooperation weaker.
Many peace negotiators try Kushner’s gimmick: a fat economic proposal to sweeten the bitter political and security pills that have to be swallowed. As a State Department official in 1995, I wrote the one-page, three-year, $3 billion proposal that Dick Holbrooke carried into Sarajevo to sweeten the pot. Admittedly it wasn’t as glossy as Kushner’s. It got precious little attention, because it didn’t address the issues that caused Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 3.5-year war. I hasten to add that it is about how much we spent, but to little avail, because the underlying causes of the conflict were not resolved in the Dayton peace agreement.
Erratic though he is, Trump is a one-trick pony. He maximizes pressure, flashes an attractive but entirely imaginary future, and then either caves himself or moves on to his next self-generated crisis. Cases in point: North Korea, Venezuela, Israel/Palestine, and now Iran. The Palestinians are not going to buy a one-legged stool. Imagining they will is silly. But it is also sad. It reduces America to the international equivalent of a real estate huckster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: June 24-28
Closing the Gender Gap in Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament | June 24,
Nearly twenty years after the UN Security Council called for the increased participation of women in peace and security decision-making, how much progress has been made in the arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament field? After surveying four decades of multilateral meetings and conducting interviews with diplomats, a new United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research report, Still Behind the Curve, finds that women remain underrepresented in key forums and sheds light on the obstacles hindering their full and equal participation.
Join us for a presentation of this new report and an interactive discussion on how to close the gender gap.
Speakers:
- Renata Dwan, Director of the United Nations for Disarmament Research (which published the report Still Behind the Curve)
- Laura Holgate, Vice President for Materials Risk Management at NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative). She led the design and launch of Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy.
- James Acton, Carnegie Endowment of International Peace – Jessica T. Mathews Chair and Co-Director of the Nuclear Policy Program
Bringing Americans Home, How is U.S. Hostage Policy Working? | June 24th, 2019 | 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM | New America | 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Having a son or daughter, husband or mother taken hostage or detained in a foreign land is one of the most frightening experiences imaginable. On the fourth anniversary of the implementation of reforms to U.S. hostage policy, The James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in partnership with New America
To discuss the report and efforts to bring Americans held abroad home, New America welcomes Diane Foley, President and Founder of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation; Cynthia Loertscher, the report’s author and primary researcher; Luke Hartig, a New America Fellow and former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council; and Rob Saale, former Director of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell and founder and CEO of Star Consulting and Investigations LLC.
Lunch will be provided.
Participants:
- Diane Foley, President and Founder, James W. Foley Legacy Foundation
- Cynthia Loertscher, Author and Primary Researcher, Bringing Americans Home
- Luke Hartig, Fellow, New America International Security Program, Former Senior Director for Counterterrorism, National Security Council
- Rob Saale, Former Director, Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, Founder and CEO of Star Consulting and Investigations LLC
Moderator:
Peter Bergen, Vice President, New America
ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019, The Pursuit of Peace Amidst Changing Regional Dynamics | June 24, 2019 | 11:00 AM – 5:00 PM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join us for our annual ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019. A timely discussion with current and former government officials, scholars, experts, and opinion leaders from the United States and Korea who will participate in a series of panel discussions to address the state of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the prospects for the peace building process on the Korean Peninsula, and the changing regional dynamics in East Asia and beyond.
This event will be co-hosted with the Korea Foundation, a leading organization of Korea’s international exchange and public policy initiative.
You are also invited to join us after the ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019 for a special
Speakers:
- Victor Cha, Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Mark Lippert, Senior Advisor (Non-resident), Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Sue Mi Terry, Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Progress at Risk? First Annual Conference on Security, Migration, and the Rule of Law in the Northern Triangle of Central America | June 25, 2019 | 8:30 PM – 4:30 PM | 6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center | Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20004 | Register Here
Record numbers of Central Americans have fled the countries of the Northern Triangle during the first half of 2019, giving rise to abundant questions about how to address the drivers of migration. Central to addressing the challenge of migration is the ability of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, together with the United States, to effectively reduce violence and homicides; fight corruption and strengthen the rule of law; reform the police; and reintegrate returning or deported migrants.
Please join the Latin American Program and the Seattle International Foundation for a conference on Central American Security and Migration, featuring researchers from throughout the region who will present new findings on the complex issues driving migration and insecurity and discuss options for addressing these challenges.
Panel 1: Understanding Violence and Homicides in Central America
- Mario Herrera, Estado de la Región, Lead Author: “Homicides in Central America: Toward a Better Understanding of the Trends, Causes, and Territorial Dynamics”
- Laura Chioda, Senior Economist, The Chief Economist Office of the Latin American and Caribbean Region, World Bank
- Erik Alda, Creative Associates
- Eric L. Olson (Moderator), Director of Policy, Seattle International Foundation, Consultant, Latin American Program, Wilson Center
Panel 2: Promoting the Rule of Law and Fighting Corruption
- Gabriela Castellanos, Director, National Anti-corruption Commission of Honduras
- Alvaro Montenegro, Guatemalan Journalist, Columnist, and Coordinator of the Alliance for Reforms of the Justice and Electoral Systems
- Arturo Aguilar (Moderator), Executive Director, Seattle International Foundation
Panel 3: Police Professionalization: Honduras’ Special Commission to Purge and Reform the Police
- David Dye, Lead Author of “Police Reform in Honduras: The Role of the Special Purge and Transformation Commission”
- Omar Rivera, Member, Special Commission for the Purging and Reform of the National Police, Honduras
Panel 4: Temporary Protected Status – What If They Return?
- Mauricio Diaz, General Coordinator, FOSDEH
- Maria Elena Rivera, Program Coordinator, Program on Public Policy Studies, FUNDAUNGO
- Julia Gelatt, Senior Policy Analyst, US Immigration Program, Migration Policy Institute
- Eric L. Olson (Moderator), Director of Policy, Seattle International Foundation, Consultant, Latin American Program, Wilson Center
What Does New Opinion Survey Data from Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan Tell Us? | June 26, 2019 | 10:00 AM | The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
The Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and the Arab Barometer invite you to join us for a panel discussion to mark the release of new public opinion survey data on the state of the economy, institutional trust, migration, government performance, media consumption, corruption, and foreign relations in Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan. The survey data was collected by the Arab Barometer, a nonpartisan research network that provides insight into the social, political, and economic attitudes and values of ordinary citizens across the Arab world.
A presentation of the survey data will be followed by a moderated panel discussion to discuss the implications for US policy and the region.
Panelists:
- Dr Mark Tessler, Samuel J. Eldersveld Collegiate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan
- Dr Kathrin Thomas, Research Associate, Arab Barometer
- Dr Abbas Kadhim, Director of the Iraqi Initiative, Atlantic Council
- Mr Faysal Itani, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
- Ms Vivian Salama, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal
Fifth Annual Central and Eastern European Energy Security Conference | June 26,
For the fifth rendition of the CEE conference, esteemed
Join us on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 from 12:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Atlantic Council headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, West Tower Elevators, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005) for what is certain to be a rich and interesting conversation. This event is on-the-record and open to the media. Lunch will be served.
Speakers:
- Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, Deputy Director-General (Energy), European Commission
- Mr András Bácsi-Nagy, Head of International Public Affairs, MOL Group
- H.E. Václav Bartuška, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
- Dr Artur Bobovnický, Director, Innovations and International Cooperation, Slovak Innovation and Energy Agency
- Dr Barbara Dorić, Managing Director, LNG Croatia
- Mr Amos Hochstein, Senior Vice President, Marketing, Tellurian Inc.
- Mr Patrik Križanský, Managing Partner, Danubia NanoTech
- Ms Emily Meredith, Deputy Bureau Chief, Energy Intelligence
- Amb. Richard Morningstar, Founding Chairman, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
- H.E. Pál Ságvári, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary
- H.E. Juraj Siváček, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic
- Amb. András Simonyi, Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
- Mr Christopher Smith, Senior Vice President for Policy, Government, and Public Affairs, Cheniere Energy, Inc.
Maritime Irregular Warfare: Preparing to Meet Hybrid Maritime Threats | June 26,
Maritime irregular warfare represents an enduring and mounting challenge for the United States. Examples of related actions abound: Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea; possible Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping; China’s illegal fishing, dangerous maneuvers and alleged use of lasers, and other violations of international law in and beyond the South China Sea; North Korea’s illicit smuggling on the high seas; and maritime terrorism, piracy, and transnational trafficking.
To sharpen our understanding of these threats and initiate a discussion on what might be done, Hudson Institute will host the authors of two new books that address historical and current challenges of maritime irregular warfare. Their remarks will be followed by an expert panel on the implications for the Navy and U.S. national security, especially given the rise of what might be called an era of resurgent political warfare and hybrid threats. Hudson Institute Chair for Asia-Pacific Security and Senior Fellow Dr Patrick M. Cronin will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
- Benjamin Armstrong, Author, Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy
- Patrick Cronin, Asia-Pacific Security Chair, Hudson Institute
- Dr Peter Haynes, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; former Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J5), U.S. Special Operations Command
- Dr Martin N. Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies and author, Small Boats, Weak States, Dirty Money: Piracy and Maritime Terrorism in the Modern World; Former Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Linda Robinson, Senior International/Defense Researcher, RAND Corporation
- Joshua Tallis, Author, The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers and Maritime Insecurity
A Different Kind of Prison: Mass Surveillance in Xinjiang and Its Global Implications | June 27,
The Human Rights Initiative at CSIS invites you to a public event on the mass detention and surveillance of Muslims in Xinjiang, China and the risks such technologies may pose as they are implemented in other areas of China and globally.
Over one million Uyghurs and Muslims from other ethnic minority groups have been detained by the Chinese government and sent to “re-education” internment camps. Sources indicate that detainees are psychologically and physically abused. Uyghurs outside the camps in Xinjiang are also not free, as they are kept under constant surveillance, often using advanced technology. The Chinese government is increasingly testing this technology in Xinjiang and exporting it nationally and globally, with concerning implications for democracy and human rights.
This event will focus on how this surveillance technology is being used and disseminated across the globe, which poses a risk of great harm to human rights and democracy, particularly if deployed without adequate safeguards.
Featuring keynote remarks and a moderated discussion with:
Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Member, House Armed Services Committee
Followed by a panel discussion among:
- Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch
- Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst, East Asia at Freedom House
Additional Panelists to be Announced
Moderator:
- Amy Lehr, Director of Human Rights Initiative, CSIS
NATO at 70: Refocusing for Change? | June 27,
Please join the Atlantic Council and NATO Defense College Foundation, in cooperation with the NATO Defense College and National Defense University, for a public panel discussion on “NATO at 70: Refocusing for Change?” on Thursday, June 27, 2019 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. at the Atlantic Council’s headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005.)
The 70th anniversary of the Washington Treaty, the founding document of NATO, represents more than just a historical moment to commemorate NATO’s past, but also an opportunity to address the challenges facing the Alliance today and its mission going forward.
At this critical juncture, the Alliance faces an era of renewed great power competition, with the European security environment increasingly contested by both traditional and nontraditional actors. Challenges such as Russia’s aggression towards
To inform and contribute to the discussion surrounding these issues, this high-level seminar will convene experts from both sides of the Atlantic. The seminar will feature
Speakers to be announced.
The Impact Of Militias On Governance And Geopolitics In The Middle East And North Africa | June 28,
Militia groups have become an increasing feature of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Often sponsored by rival outside powers, they have
On June 28, the Brookings Institution will host a panel conversation on the impact of militias in MENA and ways to address the paramilitary groups with Brookings Senior Fellows Shadi Hamid and Vanda Felbab-Brown; Richard E. Behrman Professor of Child Health and Society at Stanford University Paul Wise; Brookings John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy Jeffrey Feltman; and Senior Fellow Suzanne Maloney, who will moderate the event.
After the introductory comments, panelists will take questions from the audience.
Speakers:
- Shadi Hamid, Brookings Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
- Vanda Felbab-Brown, Brookings Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
- Paul Wise, Richard E. Behrman Professor of Child Health and Society at Stanford University Paul Wise
- Jeffrey Feltman, Brookings John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy
- Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The time is ripe
When adversaries square off, as the US and Iran have done in recent weeks, they sometimes reach a point at which they think escalating to violence can get them no more than what they hope to get at the negotiating table. If both reach that point within the same time frame, talking becomes a serious alternative to escalating. That is the “ripe” moment at which it is worth considering whether there is a “way out” that will do better for both than resorting to violence.
President Trump has reached his ripe moment. He is saying he is ready to meet with Iran to discuss one subject: nuclear weapons. He has dropped Secretary of State Pompeo’s 12 preconditions, he has forgotten about Iran’s missiles as well as its involvement in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and Iraq, and he called off military retaliation against Iran for its shoot-down of an American drone. He even tried to given Tehran an “out” by suggesting the downing of the drone was not properly authorized. The man is begging for negotiations with Iran.
The Iranians are hesitating, for several reasons. They want the US back in the nuclear deal and the associated relief from sanctions before talking to Washington. Tehran knows that Trump is erratic and doesn’t want to be the next victim of his decisionmaking. The Iranians may also believe that they can continue to “bleed” the Americans with little risk of retaliation, because they know neither the US public nor the Congress is prepared to sustain a new war in the Middle East. There will also be some in Tehran, especially the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, that want to continue expanding the nuclear program, with a view to eviscerating the nuclear agreement even if Iran doesn’t formally withdraw from it.
My sense though is that the time is ripe for at least clandestine talks between Iran and the US, likely focused initially not on the nuclear deal but rather on release of prisoners. That accomplished, with more or less simultaneous but unilateral releases, the adversaries could proceed on to other matters, including some relief from sanctions while talks continue. That will be a requirement for the Iranians. The Europeans would certainly appreciate loosening of sanctions, as would the Chinese, Turks, Iraqis and many others. Getting them to support Washington in any future nuclear negotiation should be a high priority for Trump. They won’t do it while the sanctions continue to make their trade and investment impossible.
The Iranians will fear that any negotiation will have to tighten the nuclear agreement, or extend it. But they have surely seen how incapable of negotiating any serious agreement the Trump administration is. The renegotiation of the South Korea free trade pact generated little. The NAFTA negotiation produced a modest update. The North Korea negotiations have produced nothing. President Obama had as one of his chief negotiators a Nobel-prize winning physicist who was then Secretary of Energy. Trump’s Secretary of Energy wouldn’t know a nuclear reactor from a coal-burning plant.
Tehran should also understand that there are only a very few serious US objections the the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). First is that it didn’t cover missiles or Iran’s regional interventions. Those issues are going to require a long conversation, and President Trump has dropped them from the agenda, at least for now. Even if started tomorrow, talks on missile and regional issues are unlikely to be completed before the next US election, when Tehran certainly hopes to see elected a more reliable, even if no more friendly, president.
Second is that the JCPOA “sunset,” or ended, at various times in the next decade or more. That too is a conversation that could drag on, but there may be some relatively easy pickings in that department. Iran has good reason to make it clear to Israel and Europe, its two most concerned neighbors, that nuclear weapons are not its objective, even in the long term. Israel has first strike capabilities that make a nuclear Iran a dangerous place to live. Europe is an important trade and investment partner with potential to enormously ease Iran’s desperate economic situation.
All that Trump really needs from Iran in the short term is to rename and extend the JCPOA so that he can claim proprietary rights. The technical aspects are likely to remain unrevised. As Evelyn Farkas suggests, the Trump/Iran Nuclear Adjustment (TINA) need be no more than a JCPOA 2.0. US sanctions might stay in place during talks, but their application to third countries would have to be at least suspended. The Iranians are serious people and will understandably hesitate to be sucked in to an agreement with a notoriously unreliable negotiating partner. But when the moment is ripe and the way out is better than war, it is a mistake to pass up the opportunity.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump gets it right
President Trump got it right last night for once: he called off a disproportionate retaliatory attack on Iran. It would not, he said, have been proportionate, because it would have killed perhaps 150 Iranians in response to the Iranian downing of an unmanned drone, albeit a big and expensive on. The Iranians have claimed that a manned aircraft accompanied the drone but that they chose not to shoot it down. That public claim likely made it harder for the Americans to proceed, as the implied threat is clear: next time they won’t hesitate.
There is still a possibility of US retaliation. We may never know what Trump does, since retaliation might be covert. In addition, Washington can certainly down Iranian drones, which won’t be as big as the $180 million dollar behemoth Tehran targeted. But keeping things proportionate and giving the Iranians no excuse for further escalation is important. The Americans need to convince the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese that Iran is a threat to world oil supplies, not that the US is at fault for escalating a dangerous conflict unwisely.
The best opportunity to do that is this weekend’s G20 meeting in Osaka. The opportunity is mutual. The Europeans, Russians, and Chinese will also have an opportunity there to convince President Trump that if he wants Iran back at the negotiating table he’ll need to provide some relief from sanctions, at the very least. Tehran says it won’t talk with the Americans until they are back in the nuclear deal, but that is asking too much. They’ll need to settle for a gesture of some sort. After all, talking to the Americans doesn’t necessarily mean giving them anything substantial.
President Trump is capable of sudden 180 degree turns. Erratic comes naturally to him. He did it with Kim Jong-un. He can do it with President Rouhani. He’ll have to if he wants to get anything out of the Iranians, who are a lot more stalwart than he is. He is still bad-mouthing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but that is mainly because it was an Obama achievement. He could rename it and add a few bells and whistles. Then go out and sell it as brand new, the way he did the North American Free Trade Agreement.
We are still a long way from that. But last night Trump got it right. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. I’m glad this was the moment. Now is the time to climb down the escalatory ladder, not up.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s Venezuela Gamble
On June 20 the Atlantic Council hosted an event on “Russian Influence in Venezuela: What Should the United States Do?” with an introductory speech by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) followed by a panel discussion. The panel featured Ambassador John Herbst, Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow at the Harvard University Belfer Center and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Francisco Monaldi, Director of the Latin America Initiative and fellow on Latin American Energy Policy, Evelyn N. Farkas, Resident Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Mark D. Simakovsky, Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, and Konstantin Eggert, a columnist for Deutsche Welle and former vice-president for public and government affairs for ExxonMobil Russia Inc. Jason Marczak, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, moderated.
Senator Scott painted a picture of the situation in Venezuela, describing the hunger and poverty that has driven thousands to flee into neighboring countries. Scott said Maduro’s regime is intentionally starving parts of the population, calling it a genocide. Russia is propping up Maduro and Scott believes the house of cards will fall if Russia pulls its support. Russia has sent nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela and reports of mercenaries from Russia’s “Wagner Group” are abundant. Scott called Russia’s support for Venezuela “the most aggressive Russian threat since the Cuban Missile crisis,” saying the US needs to act now to prevent a Syria in our hemisphere.
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky explained that Russia’s behavior can be explained by four principles.
- Russia’s goal is to marginalize, minimize and eradicate US power abroad.
- Putin’s statement at the 2007 Munich Security Conference that Russia doesn’t support the institutions and values that promote peace.
- The desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union or Russia’s sphere of influence and make Russia a visible global actor once more.
- The importance for Russia to find and align itself with like-minded actors, in part due to its economic troubles.
Taking these principles into account Dobriansky says Russia’s investment in Venezuela ($17 billion since 2005) is important, but its behavior is driven by the political investment: Chavez and now Maduro’s alignment with Russia and Putin. Monaldi agrees but adds that economically the collapse of Venezuelan oil production is good for Russia. Herbst added that Russia doesn’t want dictators to fall to protesters in the street, partially out of fear that such a situation could arise in Russia.
Farkas concurred. Putin needs the kleptocracy in Russia to keep himself afloat. She compares Venezuela to Syria: Russia is playing a high stakes political game at low cost, but avoids direct conflict with the US. The only way Russia would step away from Venezuela is if the US “gave them” the Ukraine. Herbst says such a notion is pure fantasy and commends American patience since Russia is bound to lose in both places in the long-term. However, Farkas warns the longer the stalemate drags on the more refugees flee Venezuela and destabilize neighboring countries, potentially forcing the US to act.
Eggert agreed but says there are limits to what Putin can do. Five years of falling take-home pay have angered the population and the expense of Crimea is vastly unpopular. Putin cannot pull of an economic miracle again to appease the Russian population. Syria is cheaper and logistically easier for Russia to deal with than Crimea. An agreement for Maduro to leave Venezuela the regime will be good for Russia down the line. Maduro knows that Russia is the only country that can exfiltrate him out of Venezuela if necessary. Dobriansky adds that while Russia wants to prevent regime change it cares more about its political investment in Venezuela and not who is in charge, which could mean the Kremlin pulling support for Maduro’s regime if it is no longer politically feasible.
Simakovsky analyzed the economics of the situation. Sanctions seem to have worked and Russia hasn’t made any significant investments in terms of arms deals or loan guarantees as a result. Russia realizes its limits but also realizes US limits and the stalemate at hand. Simakovsky warns that Washington has to be careful with its sanctions so as not to alienate allies in Venezuela and push them towards Russia.
Eggert and Farkas agreed everything in Russia’s foreign policy since 2014 leads back to Ukraine. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was the first forcible border change in Europe since WWII and represented an attempt by Russia to regain its place as a status-quo power. All panelists brought up the Wagner group as an important foreign policy tool for Russia, but Eggert mentioned how things can go wrong. This was the case in Syria when an estimated 200 Wagner mercenaries were killed attacking a coalition base. Incidents like these worry Farkas, who says they pose a greater risk of escalating into unwanted conflict than strategic nuclear bombers deployed to Venezuela. Eggert concurred. Russian posturing isn’t of concern, but a situation in which Russia feels forced to show strength in order to save face poses a real threat.
Asked what a redline in Venezuela would be for the US, Simakovksy referred to the Monroe Doctrine. If Russia pursues a Ukraine-like scenario in Venezuela the US would have to pushback. Washington wasn’t successful in preventing Russia from invading Georgia in 2008 or annexing Crimea in 2014 but it has to be clear on Venezuela. Dobriansky said the best way to keep pressure on Russia is through sanctions on Rosneft in particular, as well as calling Russia out directly for keeping Maduro in power.
The full video of the event is available on the Atlantic Council’s Youtube channel here.
RSS - Posts
