Trump has a Russia problem in Venezuela .. By Ishaan Tharoor

A couple of months ago, leading officials in the Trump administration confidently spoke of the imminent collapse of the Venezuelan regime. Now, they’re girding themselves for a more uncertain and prolonged contest.

President Nicolás Maduro, a pariah in the eyes of much of the Western hemisphere, looks no closer to exiting the presidential palace in Caracas. The country’s influential military is mostly still in his camp and his grip on power remains intact, no matter the catastrophic economic crisis hollowing out his country and fueling an unprecedented hemispheric refugee crisis. While more than 50 nations may recognize opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president, Maduro is counting on the continued support of friendlier governments, including China, Turkey and, especially, Russia.

So far, the Kremlin hasn’t disappointed him. It’s attempting to offset the burden of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company by helping the Maduro regime refine its heavy crude. Russia is also increasing wheat sales and continuing its deliveries of sorely needed medical supplies. This week, a senior Russian diplomat in Caracas told my colleagues, a delegation of Venezuelan officials is expected in Moscow to discuss Russian investments in Venezuela’s mining, agricultural and transport sectors.

But it is what happened toward the end of March that sent heads spinning in Washington. Two planeloads of roughly 100 Russian military personnel landed in Venezuela. The stated reason for their arrival was to help service Venezuela’s Russian-purchased S-300 air defense systems, which may have been damaged amid the country’s increasingly frequent blackouts. The news followed earlier reports of Russian mercenaries or private military contractors already operating as security for the embattled regime.

Maduro’s opponents were outraged. “If their idea is to keep Maduro in power for longer that means more people starving and fleeing the country, more human tragedy in Venezuela,” Brazilian foreign minister Ernesto Araujo told reporters, referring to the Kremlin’s deployments. “Anything that contributes to the continuation of the suffering of the Venezuelan people should be removed.”

John Bolton, the White House national security adviser, said on Friday that the “introduction of Russian military personnel and equipment into Venezuela” was a “provocative” act and a “direct threat to international peace and security in the region.”

But Russian officials batted away the criticism, arguing that their actions were consistent with Moscow’s existing military and technical arrangements with Caracas. “We don’t think that third parties should worry about our bilateral relations with other countries. We don’t interfere in Venezuela’s domestic affairs and expect third countries to do the same,” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, in a pointed rebuke of Washington. “As for the United States, it is present in many parts of the world but no one tells Washington where it should be and where it shouldn’t.”

As both Russia and China continue to bolster Maduro, his American adversaries are invoking ominous metaphors. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, known for its right-wing views, declared that Russian President Vladimir Putin had pulled “a Syria in Venezuela” — a reference to the Kremlin’s 2015 intervention into the Syrian civil war, which turned the tide of battle decisively in favor of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Now, much farther away from Russia’s borders, Moscow is exercising a similar streak of geopolitical opportunism.

“The arrival of Russian military personnel this month appeared to signal Moscow’s willingness to ramp up its backing of Maduro, as well as ready his war machine at a time when the Trump administration has not ruled out a military intervention,” my colleagues reported in a lengthy articlethat detailed how countries like Russia and China are helping ease some of the “immediate pressures” on Maduro.

“It’s an ideological chess game. Russia does not need Venezuelan oil,” Russ Dallen, a Florida-based managing partner at the brokerage Caracas Capital Markets, told my colleagues. “Venezuela is far from their supply lines. It was more an opportunity to stick their finger on Uncle Sam’s eye in the U.S.’s backyard.”

Money plays a considerable role in Russia’s involvement as well. The Venezuelan regime owes the Russian Finance Ministry some $3.1 billionfor arms and agricultural products acquired on credit; it owes Russian oil company Rosneft more than $2 billion in loans. A political scenario in Caracas run by a potential U.S.-backed anti-Maduro government may complicate Russian  investments.

But most commentators believe that the financial hit matters less to the Kremlin than its international credibility. Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s chief military strategist, said at a conference earlier this year that American actions in Venezuela were part of a broader project of hegemony that required the “liquidation of governments of inconvenient countries, the undermining of sovereignty.” Here was another instance, he seemed to suggest, where Moscow could defend its vision of the international system.

But doing so may be a challenge. “There is an understanding that [Venezuela] is a rather serious test for Russia’s ability to act in defense of its interests globally,” Dmitri Trenin, head of the independent Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, told my colleagues.

“There will be political, moral support,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian foreign policy analyst close to the Kremlin, to The Washington Post. “But Russia can’t send an armed contingent over there. It’s just not realistic.”

For all its tough rhetoric — including its invocation of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine — the Trump administration is also wary of provoking a greater conflagration. “While there have been ritual reminders that ‘all options are on the table,’ there is no indication that any military intervention — which has a long and unhappy history in Latin America — is being seriously contemplated,” noted David Sanger of the New York Times.

Even Bolton, a notorious hawk, is now curbing his enthusiasm. “I can tell you there’s a lot going on beneath the surface. The opposition is in constant contact with large numbers of admirals and other supporters within the Maduro administration,” he told Reuters last week, suggesting that Maduro’s hold on power wasn’t as strong as it seemed. But victory wasn’t on the horizon yet.

“It’s a struggle against an authoritarian government and it’s obviously going to take some time,” he added.

• My colleagues also detailed the somewhat different game played by China in Venezuela:

“China — another Maduro benefactor — has offered more-subdued support. Last week, Beijing barred Guaidó’s representative from a scheduled meeting in China of the Inter-American Development Bank, prompting the multilateral lender to cancel the event. Last month, China joined Russia to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution, drafted by the United States, calling for a new presidential election in Venezuela.

“Yet Chinese officials — eager to defend their investment in Venezuela — have for years played both sides of the fence by holding regular meetings with Maduro’s opposition. In February, Chinese diplomats held talks with senior opposition officials in Washington, according to two people familiar with the meetings. The opposition’s pitch: Your investments will be safe if Maduro falls.

“On Friday, Maduro’s government announced a Chinese gift of 65 tons of medical supplies. The announcement came on the same day that the Red Cross said it would begin distribution next month of large-scale aid for 650,000 Venezuelans facing the worst conditions.

“’This aerial bridge that we are building with China represents an important investment in our people,’ Maduro’s industries minister, Tareck El Aissami, told reporters in Caracas.”

• It’s finally happened. After weeks of street protests, the office of Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced in a statement that he will resign by the end of the month. The decision caps an end to his two-decade reign. My colleague Sudarsan Raghavan has more:

“The president, the statement said, would resign before April 28 and take measures ‘to ensure state institutions continue to function during the transition period.’

“If Bouteflika carries out his promise, he would become the fifth Arab leader to be pushed out of office by populist pressure since the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, following the path of autocrats in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen.

“He is Algeria’s longest-serving head of state, and his ouster would represent a stunning victory for tens of thousands of Algerians who have poured into the avenues and boulevards of the former French colony since February to demand change. The outpouring of anger was triggered by Bouteflika’s decision to seek a fifth term in office.

“Under pressure, he dropped his bid for a fifth term and postponed elections scheduled for this month. But large street protests continued as many Algerians saw his move as an attempt to extend his fourth term, and they demanded his immediate resignation.

“The announcement Monday came a week after Algeria’s powerful army chief, Gen. Ahmed Gaid Salah, publicly urged that Bouteflika be declared unfit for office and called for his removal. Salah is considered one of the most influential power brokers in the country. In deciding to part ways with Bouteflika, Salah was the latest in a wave of allies who have abandoned him.”

• The political winds have also changed in Turkey. Here’s my colleague Kareem Fahim:

“Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faced the prospect Monday of a stinging electoral defeat in Istanbul, the city whose politics he dominated for a quarter of a century, with poll results showing what appeared to be an opposition victory in the race for the city’s mayor. Members of Erdogan’s ruling party vowed to challenge the outcome.

“Victories by candidates from Turkey’s main opposition party in several of the country’s largest cities, including Ankara, the capital, were a significant symbolic defeat for Erdogan — denting his aura of invincibility and providing a surge of confidence to an opposition party that Erdogan for decades has easily outflanked. 

“The local elections Sunday across Turkey were widely seen as a referendum on Erdogan’s policies and produced mixed results. His ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, led all other parties in the poll and, along with a coalition partner, captured a majority of the vote.  

“But the loss of Istanbul, if confirmed, would be an especially harsh blow to the president. Erdogan rose to national prominence as the city’s mayor from 1994 to 1998. The city has served since then as a source of wealth and prestige for his party and a showcase — with its sprinting construction, megaprojects and multiplying mosques — for his broader ideological vision.”

• Facebook deleted hundreds of pages and accounts days before the start of India’s national elections, saying they were part of a coordinated effort to mislead its users, reports my colleague Joanna Slater:

“The most popular page removed — the India Eye — had more than 2.5 million followers and provided a steady stream of content favoring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

“Facebook also removed 687 pages and accounts linked to individuals associated with India’s main opposition Congress Party.

“About 900 million Indians are eligible to vote in the upcoming elections, which will unfold in phases starting April 11 and concluding May 19. 

“In the run-up to the polls, there has been increasing concern about the spread of false information through social media. India has about 300 million Facebook users — the highest number in the world — and the country is the largest market for Facebook’s WhatsApp messaging service.”

This, again.

British lawmakers, who have earned a global reputation for voting “no” on everything Brexit, failed again on Monday to muster a majority for any of four possible ways forward. They rejected two proposals for a soft Brexit. They also declined to back a second referendum or cancel Brexit.

The process of staging “indicative votes” was supposed to give the House of Commons control. Instead, Parliament tried to seize the steering wheel from Prime Minister Theresa May — and drove the car into the ditch.

The closest margin was for a compromise Brexit involving a new customs union with the European Union, which failed by three votes. The proposal to require a public vote before any Brexit deal could be ratified lost by 12. Meanwhile, a proposal for a Norway-like relationship stumbled by 21. The fourth motion, seeking to effectively cancel Brexit, failed by more than a 100  ballots.

The British political class is facing stark choices, as the clock ticks. If Parliament now does not back May’s deal, it means that Britain will need to either seek a long delay for Brexit or crash out with no deal at all. Britain has eight days — until European leaders meet at an emergency summit in Brussels — to decide how it wants to proceed.

The continued sense of drift down a river toward a waterfall, heard looming in the distance, comes amid signs that May has lost control of Brexit, her party and her government. The Conservative Party is in open revolt. May’s cabinet, meanwhile, is now staffed by coup plotters and direct competitors. Hard-line Brexiteers and those ministers pushing for a softer Brexter are both threatening to resign if they don’t get their way.

And yet, May still could get her deal passed. Her supporters say it is likely that the prime minister will try a fourth time to get it through the House of Commons.

As the day of voting came to a close, the mood in Parliament was grim.

“In what do I take comfort?” asked House Speaker John Bercow on Monday, after noting that none of the Brexit alternatives tried so far has gotten a majority. He mentioned that Roger Federer won the Miami Open and the Arsenal soccer club triumphed at its last game. “So I just have to content myself with that tonight.” — William Booth and Karla Adam

The big question

Last weekend’s elections in Slovakia proved historic when political outsider Zuzana Caputova became the first woman elected president of the country. Caputova beat out Maros Sefcovic, a veteran diplomat backed by the ruling party, Smer, in a decisive victory. Within a day of her election, Caputova was being hailed as a liberal savior in a country that has been roiled by government corruption scandals, the death of a journalist investigating those scandals and the same rising nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiments taking hold in other parts of Europe. But Slovakia’s presidential powers are limited, and its current prime minister is a member of Smer, so we asked WorldViews writer Emily Tamkin, how significant is Caputova’s win?  

“Zuzana Caputova’s victory is quite significant not because she’s the country’s first female president — though that she’s a woman and head of state is certainly notable — but because she showed that populists are not the only politicians who can effectively speak truth to power.

“Caputova is a liberal and pro-European Union, and she spoke in Slovakia’s main minority group’s languages (in addition to Slovak) in her acceptance speech. But she’s also said that she wants to use the presidency to bring greater transparency to Slovakia, and gained celebrity in her own country for fighting a toxic waste dump that was poisoning her home town. (She’s sometimes dubbed ‘Slovakia’s Erin Brockovich.’) She was a political outsider and upstart seen as being on the side of the people — and not by pitting people against one another.

“It’s important to remember the context in which this election happened. Throughout 2017, the government of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico largely dismissed anti-corruption protests. Then, early in 2018,Jan Kuciak, a young investigative journalist, and his fiancee were murdered. Mass protests ensued. Fico initially said they were a product of George Soros, which was a kind of attempt to pull from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s playbook — deflect from your own internal issues by saying that the enemy of your state is a Hungarian-born billionaire philanthropist. Fico ended up resigning, but his party, Smer, backed Caputova’s opponent in these elections. Yet she beat him. In her first act after being elected, Caputova went to light a candle at an unofficial memorial for Kuciak.

“Yes, it’s also important to remember that the powers of the presidency are far less than those of the prime minister in Slovakia, and that, even if they weren’t, one person can only change so much of any system. But for now, Caputova’s victory is a reminder that, if people are frustrated with the establishment, there’s no rule that says only populists or nationalists or conspiracy theorists can take them on.”

In the New York Times, a Russian journalist writes that the breathless coverage leading up to the Mueller report findings showed Russians the United States was ignorant about about their country. Meanwhile, a piece in The Post calls for the Trump administration to take further action six months after the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, one in Foreign Policy examines the roots of Islamophobia in the Balkans and, in Bloomberg, an op-ed assesses the two candidates in Ukraine’s runoff elections.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *