..
VIDEO ..
The Monroe Doctrine is DEAD. Russian warships in Venezuelan waters just shattered 200 years of American hemispheric dominance. Prof. John Mearsheimer breaks down how Washington's own policies created this historic shift.
🎯 What You'll Learn:
How NATO expansion triggered Russia's Caribbean response
Why Venezuela became the testing ground for economic warfare
The real reason behind the Monroe Doctrine's collapse
How sanctions drove Venezuela into Russia's arms
What this means for the future of American power
I've spent my entire career studying how
empires rise and fall. But what I witnessed in the Caribbean last month changed everything I thought I knew about American power. Russian warships didn't just arrive in Venezuelan waters. They shattered a doctrine that has defined Western Hemisphere politics for two centuries. The Monroe Doctrine, America's sacred claim that this hemisphere belongs to Washington, died in those waters. And most Americans don't even realize it yet. What unfolded wasn't just naval positioning. It was the moment when the unipolar world order I've analyzed for decades finally cracked open. The question isn't whether America saw this coming. The question is why we forced it to happen. Let me tell you how a superpower accidentally destroyed its own empire. Picture this. Russian destroyers anchored off the Venezuelan coast, conducting joint exercises with a nation America has tried to strangle for over 20 years. CNN called it provocative posturing. The Pentagon issued warnings about destabilizing activities. But they missed the real story. This wasn't Russian aggression. This was Russian response. For 30 years after the Soviet collapse, I watched Washington make the same fatal mistake over and over. Every time we expanded our sphere of influence, we told ourselves it was about democracy and freedom. Every time Russia resisted, we called it paranoia and aggression. But power politics doesn't care about our moral The moment those Russian ships dropped anchor in Venezuelan waters, they were answering a simple question. If NATO can expand to Russia's borders, why can't Russia expand to America's? The logic was elegant. The timing was perfect and the message was unmistakable. The era of unchallenged American dominance is over. Everything started with hubris. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, America stood alone as the world's sole superpower. We had won the Cold War. History, Francis Fukuyama told us, had ended. Liberal democracy had triumphed forever. But instead of building a new security architecture that included Russia, we chose dominance. Instead of crafting institutions that reflected postcold war realities, we expanded the very alliance designed to contain the Soviet Union. I remember the debates in the 1990s. George Kennan, the architect of containment strategy, warned that NATO expansion would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire postcold war era. He understood what Washington refused to accept. Russia, regardless of who led it, would view NATO troops on its borders as an existential threat. But we pressed forward anyway. Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, then the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania. Each expansion wave was sold as spreading democracy. To Moscow, it looked like encirclement. The pivotal moment came in 2008 at the NATO summit in Bucharest. There, the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members. For Russia, that was the red line crossed. Ukraine isn't just another neighboring state. It's the historical heart of Russian civilization. The first Russian state was born in Kiev. The idea of NATO missile systems just hundreds of miles from Moscow was intolerable to any Russian government. But Washington believed Russia was too weak to respond, too dependent on Western institutions, too constrained by internal chaos. We were wrong, and Venezuela would pay the price for our miscalculation. While we were expanding NATO eastward, we applied the same dominance logic in our own hemisphere. Venezuela became our testing ground, a laboratory for how far economic warfare could go before a nation collapsed. When Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, he committed the ultimate sin in Washington's eyes. He decided Venezuela's oil wealth should serve Venezuelans, not American corporations. He redirected petroleum revenues into social programs, health care, education. He built alliances with Cuba and promoted Latin American independence. From that moment, he became a target. The pattern was predictable. First came diplomatic pressure and moral lectures, then economic sanctions and financial restrictions. When that wasn't enough, we backed a coup in 2002. It failed, but it marked a turning point. From then on, the relationship between Washington and Caracus descended into open warfare. By the time Maduro succeeded Chavez in 2013, our strategy had crystallized. economic strangulation designed to create desperation. We cut Venezuela off from international financial markets. We blocked oil exports, the lifeblood of their economy. We froze billions in state assets abroad. The results were catastrophic. Venezuela's economy shrank Inflation reached unimaginable levels. Hospitals ran out of medicine. Food shortages became widespread. John Bolton serving as national security adviser openly admitted our goal to make the economy scream. Tens of thousands died as a direct result of our economic siege. Millions fled the country. But the government didn't fall. Instead, our pressure achieved something we never intended. It drove Venezuela straight into Russia's arms. This is where Putin demonstrated the difference between tactics and strategy. While Washington focused on crushing individual opponents, Moscow was building a global network of resistance. Russia looked at Venezuela and saw opportunity where we saw defiance. A nation under siege from American sanctions, sitting at top the world's largest oil reserves, desperate for allies. It was perfect. The partnership deepened gradually. Russian energy firms invested billions in Venezuela's state oil company. Technical advisers arrived, followed by military specialists. Moscow supplied fighter jets, air defense systems, armored vehicles. Then came the naval deployments. Since 2008, Russian warships have periodically visited Venezuelan ports. At first, these were gestures of solidarity. Now, they're unmistakably political declarations. Each arrival sends the same message. If you can deploy forces on our borders, we can do the same on yours. The symbolism was perfect. For every missile system placed in Eastern Europe, here was a Russian frigot off the coast of South America. For every alliance built in Russia's neighborhood, here was a counter alliance in America's backyard. But Russia's involvement offered more than symbolism. Under siege from our sanctions, Caracus desperately needed economic lifelines, technical expertise, international legitimacy. Russian oil companies helped sustain production. Russian advisers trained Venezuelan personnel and fortified key installations. The partnership became one of necessity, not ideology. And that's what made it unbreakable. What we failed to understand was structural. We weren't just pressuring individual countries. We were creating a network of resistance. Every nation we sanctioned, isolated, or threatened became a potential ally for our adversaries. Venezuela joined a growing club. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba. Different systems, different ideologies, but united by one shared experience. They'd all been targeted by American coercion. Their cooperation was born from survival instinct. Every time we added another country to our sanctions list, that network grew stronger. We forced our enemies to find each other, to trade with each other, to protect each other. We created the very alliance we claimed to fear. The genius of Russia's strategy was recognizing this pattern and exploiting it. While we played whack-a-ole with individual opponents, Moscow was building a parallel system, one that could function entirely outside American control. China provided the economic foundation with massive trade relationships and alternative financial systems. Russia provided security guarantees and energy cooperation. Iran offered technical expertise in sanctions evasion. Together they created an ecosystem where survival was possible without American approval. Venezuela became the crown jewel of this network. proof that even in America's own hemisphere, alternatives existed. The Monroe Doctrine proclaimed in 1823 declared the Western Hemisphere America's exclusive sphere of influence. For two centuries, that assumption held. No European power could establish permanent presence in the Americas without American permission. But doctrines only work when you have the power to enforce them. And power, as I've learned through decades of study, is always relative. When those Russian warships arrived in Venezuelan waters last month, they weren't just conducting naval exercises. They were performing a funeral for the Monroe Doctrine for American hemispheric dominance, for the illusion that geography still guarantees security. The world has changed in ways Washington refuses to acknowledge. We live in a multipolar system now where influence must be earned rather than assumed. Where alliances are voluntary rather than imposed. Russia's message was simple but devastating. The Western Hemisphere is no longer America's exclusive domain. Other powers can project influence here, too. The age of unilateral control is over. What makes this moment so profound is how it exposes the fundamental contradiction in American foreign policy. We maintain nearly 800 military bases in over 70 countries. Our naval fleets patrol every ocean. We spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined. We justify this as global leadership, as maintaining a rules-based international order. But when Russia deploys a few ships to the Caribbean, suddenly it's aggression. When we build alliances, it's collective security. When others do This selective morality hasn't gone unnoticed. To much of the world, America's rules-based order looks like a hierarchy where rules apply to everyone but us. We invoke sovereignty when convenient and violate it when not. The double standard is staggering. We condemn election interference while funding opposition movements. We denounce authoritarianism while arming dictatorships that serve our interests. We demand other nations respect international law while ignoring it whenever it constrains our actions. People remember the coups we backed in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina. They remember the death squads we trained. They remember how we supported dictators as long as they were anti-communist and undermined democracies that challenged our control. So when Washington claims to care about democracy in Venezuela, few believe it. The world has learned that America's concern for democracy is conditional. Used when it aligns with our interests, discarded when it doesn't. What we're witnessing isn't the sudden emergence of new threats. It's the predictable result of imperial For 30 years, we've tried to maintain global dominance through coercion and control. But coercion breeds resistance, and resistance eventually finds expression. Every intervention, every sanction regime, every military deployment has costs, not just financial, but strategic and moral. We've spent decades lecturing others about freedom while denying it to those who choose paths we don't approve. The tragedy is that none of this was inevitable. After the Cold War, we had a historic opportunity to build a cooperative international system based on shared prosperity and mutual respect. Instead, we chose dominance. We could have integrated Russia into European security architecture. We could have worked with China on global challenges. We could have partnered with Latin America rather than trying to control it. Instead, we expanded military alliances, imposed punitive sanctions, and pursued regime change operations. We mistook our temporary advantage for
No comments:
Post a Comment