Will Russia Do Anything For Cuba?

I had not thought all that much about what Russia would do if the U.S. attacked Venezuela and/or Cuba. I have countless posts about how Russian and Iranian influence was far lower than alarmists wished to portray. That said, the Russia-Cuba relationship is very old and deep, so I might have expected more than zero. But with Venezuela, it was zero.

And for Cuba it has been pretty much zero up to this point. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement about Cuba and it is pretty vague:

"There has been a deliberate effort to ratchet up the atmosphere of confrontation," the ministry said in a statement on its website.

"Against this backdrop, Russia reaffirms its unwavering solidarity with the Cuban Government and its brotherly people. We firmly condemn attempts to grossly interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, intimidate it and engage illegal unilateral restrictive measures," it said.

It noted that Cuba today faces unprecedented challenges created by the long-standing trade, economic and financial embargoes imposed by the United States. "For our part, we are providing and will continue to provide Cuba with the necessary support, including material assistance," it said.

The main material assistance is needs now is oil and a commitment to defending Cuba militarily. The latter has not happened and I can't imagine it happening for a variety of reasons. Oil is more doable but hasn't happened yet. There appears to be a Russian oil tanker on its way but we'll have to see what happens. The rubber hits the road when the U.S. and Russia face off directly.

Cuba just doesn't have allies willing to deal with the U.S. A big part of it is that the revolution is long dead. It's very similar to Venezuela in that ideals were once real and now are just pantomime. It's all just clinging to power at this point. Cuba was once widely admired in Latin America but that's a long time ago. Miguel Díaz-Canel is an uninteresting bureaucrat who does not generate even a modicum of admiration anywhere. Who would want to risk U.S. retaliation for that?

Read more...

The Basics of U.S. and Russia in Venezuela

The Wall Street Journal takes a look at how Russia outmaneuvers the United States in Venezuela.

Here are the basics:

U.S.: Withdraw your support from Maduro.
Russia: No.

U.S.: Well, we're pretty sure Russia won't do much.
Russia: We're going to encourage everyone to evade U.S. sanctions.

U.S.: You'd better not evade sanctions.
Russia: Whatever.

U.S.: Maduro will fall soon.
Russia: We're going to prop him up so he won't.

U.S.: We have lots of options.
Russia: Whatever.

Read more...

Trump, Putin, and Venezuela

I tend to disagree with the Washington Post Editorial Board about Venezuela, as it is too hawkish for my taste. However, I do agree with their assessment yesterday:

With Moscow behind him, Mr. Maduro will likely seek to stage new, rigged elections for the National Assembly, using as cover former opposition legislators the regime has bought with reported payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The regime of Vladimir Putin will be rewarded with a new client state in the Western hemisphere, along with nearly exclusive access to some of the world’s largest oil reserves. 

This would be a stinging defeat for President Trump, who has made the restoration of democracy in Venezuela one of his signature goals. How to prevent such a defeat? Military action, which Mr. Trump has sometimes hinted at, is not a realistic option. But Mr. Trump could impose a cost on Russia for its meddling, such as by increasing sanctions on the state oil company Rosneft for its Venezuelan oil trafficking. The coming months may tell whether Mr. Trump values regime change in Venezuela more than his affinity for Mr. Putin.

Well, mostly agree. I don't think it's accurate to say democratization is a "signature goal" for Trump. 

But this highlights an important point about U.S. foreign policy options. If invasion has truly been eliminated, what else is there besides more sanctions? The answer is pressure on Russia, and Trump's consistent pattern of accepting Putin's view of international affairs offers little optimism.

If you recall from back in May 2019:

“I had a very good talk with President Putin — probably over an hour,” Trump began. “And we talked about many things. Venezuela was one of the topics. And he is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela. And I feel the same way. We want to get some humanitarian aid."

Putin lied to him and he repeated the obvious lie uncritically. Since then, Russia has rapidly deepened its relationship with Venezuela. It is, as TeleSur puts it, two allies against U.S. regional hegemony.

It means Putin is now indispensable to the Maduro government. At a minimum, perhaps the international community could convince Russia to allow free and fair elections.

Read more...

Russia Goes All In On Maduro

I recently talked to Jason Marczak about China's role in Venezuela, which along with Russia is Nicolás Maduro's lifeline. What we're seeing, though, is that ideology and rivalry is showing the clear differences between the two countries' approaches. China is the pragmatic one, looking for return on investment, not wanting to throw good money after bad. Rivalry with the U.S. doesn't make that worth it.

Russia, on the other hand, is literally showering the government with euro and dollar bills, sent by planeload, to keep Maduro afloat. This is money the Russians will never get back, and they know that. But they're all in. This is all about Russia's position vis-a-vis the United States. Russia wants to project into the western hemisphere as tit for tat, and does not want to look weak (either at home or abroad) by losing or giving up on Venezuela.

It's not a particularly risky diplomatic move for Vladimir Putin. The U.S. is not going to retaliate, and certainly as long as Donald Trump is in office, Putin knows there will be no real repercussions. The problem Putin faces is financial, because this there are diminishing returns. As time goes on, the benefits flatten out and eventually become negative, in part thanks to Russia itself.

Think of it as something like this:

As long as the military backs the regime, this can go on a long time. As in Afghanistan, the Russians will likely feel compelled to keep going given sunk costs. Would Putin just decide one day to walk away? Maybe, but it seems unlikely.

Read more...

The Russians Hire Rafael Correa

I hadn't realized the Russians gave Rafael Correa his own talk show,"Conversando con Correa." He just interviewed Nicolás Maduro. His last interview was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Correa notes that hey, maybe there were some "errors" but Venezuela is a victim. He asks Maduro what went wrong, and his first response is the "physical loss" of the eternal commander. The rest is the fault of the United States, complete with Hitler reference. The show is punctuated by visuals to emphasize that fact. Thanks Obama!

This is a nice soft power platform for the Russians precisely at a time when the United States is basically ceding its position in the region. I have no idea how many people actually see it, but RT has serious reach in Latin America.

Read more...

Russian Threats in Latin America

A lengthy white paper written for the Joint Chiefs of Staff  (text shared by Politico here) addresses the failure of the U.S. to counter Russian foreign policy globally. The Latin America part was written by Evan Ellis, who has written a lot on China and who typically I find on the hawkish side (though not alarmist). However, I agree largely with his take on Russia, which is that its influence is restricted and unlikely to grow much. It doesn't hand out cash like China, and outside a few countries there is little interest in engagement. The thrust of the assessment is that China has a far greater presence in Latin America than Russia does. Further, Russia is concentrated in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Its reach is therefore quite limited, though it gets a bit of a propaganda boost from outlets like RT.

In contrast to China, which uses access to its markets and the possibility of loans and investment as tools of soft power, Russian ability to exert influence through economic resources, either by providing aid or denying commercial transactions, is minimal. Even among its friends, Russia’s ability to exert influence in the region is limited.

Like so many much-touted threats extra-hemispheric threats, we should keep an eye on Russia's activities but they are threatening U.S. security.

Read more...

Dealing With Russia in Venezuela

An analyst at a conservative think tank argues that Vladimir Putin is using the same strategy in Venezuela as he did in Syria, propping up a regime for his and Russia's benefit. Fair enough, but what to do?

The U.S. must therefore keep close watch of Putin’s hand in Caracas and push back against a Russian attempt to turn Maduro’s desperation into Russia’s advantage. To this end, the Trump administration should continue to vigorously enforce its already robust sanctions campaign and make clear, both through private and public channels, that it stands steadfast in support of the elected president, Juan Guaido, and true democracy in Venezuela.

Hmm. The sanctions have actually worked to Russia's benefit because they required Nicolás Maduro to turn more fully to Putin, including paying debt in rubles. Therefore it makes no sense to deepen that relationship. Sanctions are not "pushing back against" Russia; they are "pushing Maduro toward" Russia.

Instead, the U.S. should throw its support behind negotiations, as difficult and uncertain as those are. Putin does not want any political change in Venezuela because he knows the opposition does not like Russia's presence. Negotiated political change is bad for Russia's interests, and therefore should be the U.S. strategy if going against Russia's interests is the goal.

Read more...

The Russian Conundrum in Venezuela

A Russian political analyst writes about why Russia sent troops to Venezuela. What echoes throughout is the notion of equality.

By taking a stand in the United States’ backyard, Moscow also hopes to make itself a more valuable partner for Washington on other issues, particularly those in Russia’s backyard. While structuring a “big deal” with Trump that would require haggling on Venezuela, the Middle East and Ukraine is probably not feasible, simply re-engaging with Washington on equal footing is in itself important.

Venezuela per se is unimportant. Vladimir Putin has no interest in either Chavismo or the Venezuelan people. What this particular article also reminds me, however, is that Russia's interest is not simply antagonistic. It is the use of power to force the United States to recognize Russia's diplomatic equality. Or, as the short Dr. Seuss movie I've seen a million times because I have three children tell us, "We are here, we are here, we are here."

While Russia is under no obligation to defend Venezuela (although state-owned Rosneft has about $9 billion invested there), the country is important to the Kremlin’s narrative of Russia’s return to the global stage as a great power that shapes a new multi-polar world order and has the capability to check destabilizing American unilateralism.

Trump himself said, "Russia has to get out," and then followed up with his oft-repeated "all options are on the table" line that seems mostly to mean inaction. Putin clearly seems to think Trump is bluffing, particularly because Trump has been threatening Venezuela nonstop.

A short while ago I wrote this about China and Russia:

The two countries constitute Maduro's lifeline and we just don't know at what point they are willing to cute him loose. Neither wants to appear to concede to the United States or to lose their investments. I assume the latter can be worked out but the former is tough.

Tough indeed. It seems that Russia is digging in, which means the reputational costs of leaving are increasing exponentially. The two sides are barking at each other, and we can only hope they stay leashed.

Read more...

Russia Expands its Reach in South America

Just a few days ago, President Trump hammered Colombia President Iván Duque:

"I'll tell you something: Colombia, you have your new president of Colombia, really good guy. I've met him, we had him at the White House. He said how he was going to stop drugs. More drugs are coming out of Colombia right now than before he was president — so he has done nothing for us," Trump told reporters in Florida.

This is the same language he used to verbally abuse Mexico and Central America:

“Mexico is doing NOTHING to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants to our Country,” he tweeted. “They are all talk and no action. Likewise, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have taken our money for years, and do Nothing.”

It shouldn't surprise us too much, then, that shortly thereafter Russia saw its opportunity to flex its rhetorical muscle.

The Federation Council, the Russian equivalent of a senate, wrote a letter to Colombian Congress in which it accused the country’s government and other allies of the United States of trying to “provoke a civil war” and a possible “military intervention in this state” whose disputed President, Nicolas Maduro, is an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A lot is happening at once here, and all of it emphasizes U.S. weakness.

First, Russia is expanding its influence in South America without being countered. Mike Pompeo tweets just don't count.

Second, U.S. domestic interests aren't just influencing foreign policy, they are obliterating it. Intermestic policy is the norm, especially with drugs, but in the past it has not actively undercut allies. Trump's tweets are talking to his core U.S. base. Vladimir Putin saw the insults as an opening to assert Russia's interests.

Third, it is a reminder to Latin America that the Trump administration demands quick and easy solutions to long-standing and complex problems and does not recognize slow and steady progress. This further reduces U.S. influence.

Fourth, it comes on the heels of constant Trump administration threats toward Venezuela that are not followed through. I am in fact glad that the administration is not using force, but it should never have issued threats to begin with. It is now hamstrung--either invade (which would have disastrous consequences) or look weak to Russia (which would have negative consequences).

Read more...

Pence Points at Russia & China Support for Maduro

Mike Pence published an op-ed in today's Miami Herald saying "Nicolás Maduro must go." Aside from keeping the issue on the front-burner (because Trump is preoccupied and not tweeting about Venezuela) it has a Chinese and Russian audience.

The truth is, he does so with the help of nations who refuse to acknowledge that he has no legitimate claim to power, and who continue to prop up his dictatorship. 

Even now, Cuban military and intelligence services train, support, and equip Venezuela's secret police as they bully protestors and silence opposition. Turkey continues to deal in Venezuelan gold, providing Maduro with desperately needed cash to sustain his regime. 

Last month, Russia vetoed a resolution at the United Nations calling for unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid to Venezuela. 

And once again, China is advancing its own interests at the expense of the Venezuelan people. Later this month, China plans to host the Inter-American Development Bank's annual meeting. 

But despite claims of friendship, the Chinese are undermining the hemisphere's progress towards democracy by refusing to grant an official visa to Ricardo Hausmann, the lawful representative of Venezuela – the first time in the bank's history that a host nation has refused to seat a member.

We know that Elliott Abrams is talking to the Russians. And there had already been news of the high-level dispute about allowing Ricardo Hausmann to represent Juan Guaidó at the IADB meeting in Beijing. The Chinese were considering not inviting anyone from Venezuela, which actually would be an acknowledgment that Maduro's legitimacy was in doubt.

The two countries constitute Maduro's lifeline and we just don't know at what point they are willing to cute him loose. Neither wants to appear to concede to the United States or to lose their investments. I assume the latter can be worked out but the former is tough.

Read more...

Russia Negotiates Venezuela

Russia's foreign minister told Mike Pompeo that Russia is ready to have bilateral talks with the U.S. about Venezuela. It's not the only issue on the table, but it's especially notable in the context of the history of U.S.-Latin American relations. Think about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Spanish-American War, the Panama Canal, the development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, just to name a few. In all of these cases, the United States negotiated directly with Russia or a Western European power to decide the fate of a Latin American country on some particular (and important) issue.

Venezuela is not in the exact boat as Cuba during the Soviet era, but became closer to it since Maduro took power. That entails increasing economic dependence on Russia to the point that the Russian government has the power to manipulate you. Venezuela has more options than Cuba did because of oil, but it's a dire situation. As a result, Vladimir Putin can use Venezuela for his own purposes to make gains for Russia elsewhere. Venezuela is a bargaining chip with the U.S.

I don't know exactly what the Russians want, but that's beside the point. What matters is that they feel they have the authority to do it in the first place, and it's hard to argue. If I were Maduro, I'd be nervous because Putin has bigger interests. And historically these situations don't turn out well for the Latin American country in question.

Read more...

U.S. and Russia in Latin America

Ted Galen Carpenter writes in The National Interest that the U.S. needs to "enforce" the Monroe Doctrine with regard to Russia. By this he means the U.S. should "stress to Moscow" that it cannot have any "military ties" to Latin American governments, and in return the U.S. will ignore everything Russia does "deep into Eastern Europe."

Washington’s failure to enforce the Monroe Doctrine during the Cold War when the Soviet Union made Cuba into a client state and military outpost has not encouraged respect for that doctrine in the post-Cold War era. The Trump administration needs to adopt a firmer policy toward Moscow’s intrusions into Latin America. At the same time, U.S. leaders must recognize that U.S. policy has been clumsy and provocative toward Russia’s interests in Eastern Europe, especially regarding Ukraine. Washington needs to adopt a new approach that respects Moscow’s implicit version of a Monroe Doctrine.

There are a few problems with this argument.

First, like all such arguments--and there have been plenty--he never defines "enforce" or "stress." I take it this means threatening Russia somehow. That alone could easily precipitate an unnecessary and unwanted crisis. What does the U.S. do if Russia refuses? Back during the Cold War, do you mean nuclear war? It was close for a while.

Second, do we really want a foreign policy that simply says Russian expansion, even invasion of other countries, is perfectly fine? I am no fan of U.S. intervention, but at the same time publicly handing Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin does not appeal to me.

Third, this is a stretch even for the ever flexible Monroe Doctrine. I can't recall any version of it that forbade selling things to Latin American countries. Remember too that Latin American governments regardless of ideology dislike the Monroe Doctrine. Formally reviving it would be detrimental to U.S. interests.

Read more...

Victor Sebestyen's Lenin

Victor Sebestyen's Lenin: The Man, The Dictator, and the Master of Terror (2017) is a highly readable and entertaining biography of Vladimir Lenin. The subtitle is a bit sensationalist but is in fact accurate.

You get a sense of him as a person, especially his relationships with his mother, wife, and mistress. He did not really develop close relationships with men, but he was very tender with those women and they were dedicated to him. He was exiled for many years and spent much of that time in libraries, writing books and cranking out countless articles (later he would write decrees specifying exactly how libraries should be run). Some derided him as a mere journalist rather than a revolutionary. If there is one thing missing, it is how he managed to generate so much support since at times Sebestyen notes how small and weak a group the Bolsheviks were prior to the revolution and how far he was from the action. But that is perhaps part of the mystery--how did this otherwise unremarkable though highly intelligent man create something so huge and destructive?

Then the dictator and the master of terror, two roles that go together. Lenin had no regard for human life and believed killing was part of the process, even in large numbers. The regime commonly used the word "terror" to describe what they were doing--it was not hidden. He openly disliked peasants and favored policies of intimidation and murder. He had no interest in democracy, and launched the October Revolution before the awaited constituent assembly could meet. A lot of people saw him for who he was, and there were assassination attempts, including a very serious one where he was shot in the neck. He responded with an "orgy of revenge violence throughout the major cities and towns of Russia" (417). Lenin never actually committed violence himself but he ordered it constantly and forcefully.

One point that Sebestyen repeats is that Lenin survived for many years in exile and then got back into Russia because rich people supported him and his cause financially. It's amazing. One could argue that Lenin never would have gotten anywhere without the rich people he hated. Meanwhile, the Germans intentionally let him back into Russia to sow chaos, not knowing they were creating a monster.

Read more...

Russia's Bombers in Venezuela

Russia sent two bombers to Venezuela, which prompted a public (i.e. Twitter) rebuke from Mike Pompeo and then counter-rebukes. As with Cuba in the early Cold War, Venezuela is just a convenient place for Russia and the U.S. to push at each other.

As always, Russia wants to show that it can mess around in the United States' "backyard," which constitutes a warning to stay out of Russia's.

It can also serve as a warning not to invade Venezuela. Russia has a lot of money tied up in the country, and if the U.S. installs a new government, it might well push those new leaders to stiff Russia as part of an economic overhaul.

And Venezuela's role in this? It does not have one. Vladimir Putin is uninterested in Nicolás Maduro's views on anything.

This sort of thing has been happening for a long time. Almost a decade ago I wrote about all the false talk of Russia building military bases, rumors started by the Russians. This is what they do. The U.S. huffs and puffs, then it subsides, only to spring up again sometime in the future.

Read more...

Russians Want Their Money From Venezuela

The head of a major Russian oil company, Rosneft, went to Venezuela to let Nicolás Maduro know he was not happy about delayed oil shipments that were repaying loans. Reuters estimates Rosneft loans to equal about $17 billion since 2006. The added twist is that he complained further that Venezuela was paying China on time, but not Russia. The Russian government also recently made it clear it would not loan any more money to Venezuela given the current situation.

The point here is one I have made before about both Russia and China, but it bears repeating. You need to look beyond the simple "They are in our backyard to cause mischief and threaten us." The fact of the matter is that they want their money back. They are doing this in large to make a profit and fuel their own economies. The more Venezuela collapses, the more concerned they get. There is every reason to believe that if the government falls, a new one will try to get debt relief. So they need to balance the urgency of getting money back with trying to keep the government just afloat. This becomes just as much a matter of money as it is politics.

Read more...

Russia-Nicaragua Security Nexus?

There is a new senate bill that would impose sanctions on Nicaraguan officials responsible for human right abuses (see the text here). It also calls for credible negotiations and early elections. Pretty standard stuff, and a continuation of the sanctions already in place.

However, Ted Cruz takes it one step further by adding something not mentioned in the bill.

“There is a coalescing nexus of security cooperation between Nicaragua, Russia, and Venezuela that poses a direct risk to American national security. Targeting the assets of sanctioned Nicaraguan leaders, as required under this bill, will help reveal the network of financial institutions being utilized for illicit activity.”

This strains credulity more. Russia is certainly involved in both Nicaragua and Venezuela, but how much illicit activity is occurring that would rise to the level of a national security threat? These are most often overblown. He has made the pitch before. Fine, go ahead and target the assets and see what they show you. My guess is that it will be minimal.

I've mentioned this exaggerated Nicaragua-Russia "nexus" back in 2016 as well.

Read more...

How Trump Helps Russia in Latin America

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos tweeted to ask Donald Trump to push Vladimir Putin about his support for the Venezuelan government, though for some reason he did not actually tag Trump.

This is how weird U.S.-Latin American relations currently are. The only allies Russia has in Latin America are governments the Trump administration has identified as threats, specifically Cuba and Venezuela. Trump's vocal and constant positive portrayal of Russia is a huge boost to those governments because Putin feels no pressure to reduce his support.

Now we have the Colombian president pleading for Trump to do something. The funny thing here is that Santos is a rock solid U.S. ally but Trump has decided he is somewhat less than worthy. For his own reasons, Trump is desperate to remain on good terms with Putin so will likely ignore Santos entirely.

That's bad news for the Venezuelan opposition, which Trump claims to support. And what it boils down to is that Trump's need for Putin's approval places everything else in the backseat. This is just not how power relations have worked in the past.

Read more...

Russia Likes Trump's Latin America Policy

I'm quoted in this story about Russia's interest in Cuba and how Trump's reversal of normalization plays into Moscow's hands. I made the point earlier this year that Russia was clearly a suspect in the Cuba sonic attack affair, and in April I wrote more broadly that "As Trump creates vacuums, Russia is ready to fill them."

In Cuba this matters more because the Russians have enjoyed uncontested influence there for decades. Last year on my podcast I talked to Mervyn Bain, who studies Russian-Cuban relations. There is even nostalgia in Russia for Cuba and strong cultural/nationalist resistance to losing Russia's position there. In other words, the stakes are higher than we in the U.S. perhaps appreciate.

And it's a zero sum game, at least in Russian eyes. If the United States and Cuba improve relations, then Russia loses. Its privileged position is based entirely on U.S. hostility. The more hostile Trump gets, the happier the Russians are.

Read more...

Mexico Is Loving RT

I hesitate to call this causation, but as Donald Trump has publicly attacked and insulted Mexico since his election, so has RT expanded its audience in Mexico. As Trump creates vacuums, Russia is ready to fill them.

El mayor incremento de audiencia se ha registrado en los países de América Latina. En esta región, la audiencia semanal de RT ha crecido casi 3 veces, alcanzando los 17 millones de telespectadores en 7 países: Venezuela, Ecuador, México, Argentina, Colombia, Chile y Perú. En el estudio del 2017 se sumaron tres países latinoamericanos. Teniendo en cuenta esos países, la audiencia semanal de RT en América Latina alcanzó los 18 millones de espectadores.
 El líder de aumento de audiencia en esta región es México, donde la audiencia semanal de RT se multiplicó por más de 4,5 en 2 años.

Russia, of course, wants AMLO to win so RT is on the job in Mexico. If nothing else, it's plenty of extra positive news coverage for AMLO, packaged for Mexicans who want to consider themselves "alternative."

And, incidentally, more people in the U.S  watch RT than ever before even though it is registered as a "foreign agent." I imagine they consider themselves alternative too.

Read more...

Putin Trolls Tillerson in Latin America

First China trolled Rex Tillerson. Now Russia is, with a statement from the Foreign Ministry.

The main takeaway is that the Monroe Doctrine continues to hold sway in Washington, even though it will turn 200 years old fairly soon, in 2023. The world has changed significantly over the years, but the America-for-Americans principle appears to be alive and well. 

Like President James Monroe in his time, Secretary Tillerson cited Russia to justify his conceptual framework, and so we would like to express our view of the region without arguing “by contradiction.”

Boom! The Russians know their history.

There's plenty of flowery nonsense in the statement.

Russia’s relations with Latin American countries are based on substantial shared interests, such as the commitment to the principles of multilateral diplomacy embodied in the UN’s activities, protection and assertion of national sovereignty, and promotion of sustainable development.

Yeah, right. The Russians are not known for their interest in diplomacy and protection of sovereignty, and ideology matters a lot, especially with Cuba and Venezuela, where Russia takes great glee in tweaking the U.S. But the Russians know better than Tillerson what history means in Latin America and they shove his nose in it.

The liberator (as he is referred to in Latin America) Simon Bolivar said that all states have the right to choose their own particular system of government, and other states must respect this choice. The Secretary of State will have the chance to read this eternally relevant quote, when he is in Bogota, at the main entrance to San Carlos Palace, which now houses the Colombian Foreign Ministry. It rings as true as ever today, including in relation to the situation in Venezuela and the dynamics of internal life in Cuba. The experience of half-a-century of US embargo failed to convince only the most obstinate individuals that sanctions pressure will not work against freedom-loving countries and peoples.

Mr. Secretary, make sure you get your historical references straight before the next trip.

Read more...