President Donald Trump has, in the aftermath of the swoop on Caracas, also issued threats towards Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, and Greenland. Though in Saks's assessment, the U.S. lacks a clear strategy for the future, he said in an interview with "Välisilm."

How should arguments the U.S. puts forward to justify its actions be assessed? America's drug problems could probably have been addressed in other ways, while there are many other illegitimate dictators in the world. Forcibly removing those in this manner too would be a rather exceptional step.

There have nevertheless been quite a few such examples around the world. But it is not a very good precedent. It is especially bad if it inspires copycat cases, and at some point someone will have to say "stop, end this practice," and return to rules-based relations.

Unfortunately, there is another side to this coin that must also be taken into account. The fact that Venezuela is a failed state is an internal matter. It should not be corrected from the outside. That is no one else's business. It is the business of the Venezuelan people, yet this was a very aggressive and at times ideologically driven action that, from the U.S. perspective, was indeed very seriously connected to the drug trafficking issue. Despite years of efforts by the U.S., this activity has by no means come to an end.

Setting aside Russia, China, and Venezuela for the moment, as these were not actually the primary motivations which forced Trump to take these steps. Another motivation, it has been claimed, is oil, but that too is secondary. It is not the core issue. The ultimate reason is the U.S. wants to assert itself, and must acknowledge that the world has accepted U.S. demands, at least partly.

In the aftermath of this operation, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Colombia's current situation will not last much longer either, and that Mexico must get its act together; the Cuban regime will collapse on its own; he is ready to protect protesters in Iran, plus that the U.S. needs Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, in order to defend its national security. Are further actions by the U.S. to be expected anywhere, and will NATO collapse over Greenland?

In my view, there is only one overarching strategy here. The Monroe Doctrine is constantly being invoked, while the U.S. is currently implementing, at least rhetorically and via some actions, this new national security strategy which they recently published. Based on President Trump's behavior thus far, the impression is that he does not have a clear plan — Venezuela first, Colombia second, Cuba third — but rather that they are moving forward, depending on how the initial issue gets resolved. In that respect, there are always decision points, with multiple branching options. That moment has arrived when President Trump must decide whether the objectives in Venezuela have been achieved or, on the contrary, whether a new move is required. He can also decide to leave Venezuela alone, and choose a new target.

But I do not think they have a clear strategy. Taken as a whole, this is an example of how they approach the problems they believe must be solved when enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

As for Greenland, that is very difficult to gauge, as at present this is clearly a phase of applying pressure, not necessarily only on Denmark alone, but on Europe as a whole. The question is whether cooperation between Denmark and the U.S. has in fact been viable so far and whether there are nuances in the air which are very difficult to comment on. U.S. rhetoric suggests that Denmark has failed to pay attention to certain issues, primarily the presence of China and Russia in Greenland, which the U.S. claims has been constantly rising.

If we look at what has happened from another angle, we could also say that our ally the U.S. carried out a stunning military operation, demonstrated its power, a power which Russian [air defense] weapons and the alliance with Venezuela had no answer. The drug trade, Russia, and China suffered a clear setback in the Western Hemisphere, while oil prices may begin to fall. Could none of this be good news?

In the short term, nothing very significant will change. Over the longer term, however, much hinges on what the international community intends to do. I understand that nothing drastic occurred at the UN Security Council on Monday, meaning a rather formal response from China and Russia. For me, the most interesting aspect in this story is that since Venezuela has been, as Trump said, in the U.S. hemisphere, can China and Russia begin to cooperate in a tangible way on the Venezuela issue to constrain the U.S.?

It is not entirely clear what will happen with Venezuela next. The Maduro clan remains in power, and the U.S. is talking more about stability, taking its own interests into account, and the oil business, than about restoring democracy, holding elections, or involving the opposition. Is there any kind of plan visible on the part of the U.S.?

From a military standpoint, the operation was well executed, and the U.S. president has now, with an ill-concealed pride, explained that it had been planned for over four months. A great deal of information has also been made public about it. In that respect, we can see that the plan worked out. Everything else is highly questionable, though, and may turn out to have been naïve and detached from reality, yet it could also succeed still. I think that when the U.S. president says that they are in control of what is happening in Venezuela, well that is not entirely the case at present. Trump has, however, made a highly rational decision, has not rushed into launching a full-scale war, and the president has so far emphasized that there will be no war with Venezuela.

Peace talks on Ukraine are also being actively conducted against this backdrop of the Venezuela conflict. Are there any signs that these talks could develop into something that would genuinely bring peace closer?

Certainly not within the next few weeks, but I think that if these events in Venezuela do not affect Russia and its president, then they may start to influence where Russia can escalate the war and demonstrate that it is responding to the U.S. In actual fact, the only place to do so at present is Ukraine. I would now expect some air strikes or similar acts of the kind Russia has carried out before. If they have been on the losing side at the strategic level, they have compensated for this with major air strikes plus other minor escalations in Ukraine. Their problem, however, is that they cannot escalate much further in Ukraine, which is why Russia needs peace negotiations. This is in fact a very important part of their doctrine of warfare — to avoid losing control over what is happening in the conduct of a war. So they need a military strategic line and must be stronger in that respect, and on the other hand, they also need diplomacy, which can be used to de-escalate when necessary.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!