It may well be the moment for everyone to genuinely focus on the sovereignty of their nations.
The recent editorial from SCF alongside Finian Cunningham’s article effectively capture Western mainstream views on the latest developments in Venezuela. While the editorial interprets Trump’s behavior as unveiling widespread hypocrisy and possibly signaling the benefits of ending it, Cunningham draws attention to the Western conception of a supposed “symmetry” between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and the U.S. intervention against the Bolivarian Republic.
The emergence of this prevalent notion of a bilateral equivalence between two purported evils has a lengthy background. Indeed, the narrative style and meme-like process echo the Western outrage stories linked to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Jacques Pauwels insightfully revealed the core fallacies and distortions in that historical context: see here, and here. Below, I outline key points related to the contemporary situation.
First, no official declarations have established any supposed partition of the world into “spheres of influence” among the USA, Russia, China, or other entities. Aside perhaps from some imperial propaganda, neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping introduced any new stance on this matter. The media mainly focused on the USA tightening control over the “Western hemisphere” as an apparent “compensation” if their influence felt threatened elsewhere. Beyond this, nothing else of significance transpired.
Second, the dynamics between USA/Venezuela and Russia/Ukraine are immensely different, with barely any grounds for comparison. The Northern “great republic” rooted in slaveholding and Gran Colombia’s past could scarcely contrast more in origins. The former’s continual territorial growth and imperial development differ sharply from the latter’s fragmentation and subsequent struggles faced by its successor states—Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, and Venezuela—who have followed distinct socio-historical paths. Concerning Russia and Ukraine, the real issue lies in how the Belavezha agreements of December 1991—signed by Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk, and Stanislav Shushkevich—which ended not just the USSR but a millennium of united Russian existence, ever came to pass.
Any objective observer of the USSR’s breakup might wonder: even assuming a needed downsizing (particularly with the departure of the three Baltic republics), why was there no attempt to establish a “Slavic Union” encompassing Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine? What drove this radical and unchecked disintegration? How was the long-held Western fantasy (shared by Ludendorff, Hitler, Churchill, Brzezinski, among others) of detaching Russia’s “soft underbelly” and turning it against Russia itself realized so easily?
This deserves extended study, naturally. Meanwhile, one should note that in its diminished post-1991 form—which broadly aligned with the Western border set by the notorious Brest-Litovsk Treaty (later repudiated by the Bolsheviks)—the Russian Federation exhibited remarkable patience towards its southwestern neighbor. Recent cases of Ukrainian regions seeking secession must be evaluated considering UN resolutions balancing two essential principles: the territorial integrity of states and the right to self-determination of peoples. Any independent thinker should recognize that Russia intervened, legitimized, and ultimately annexed these breakaway regions only after serious, systematic breaches of UN General Assembly resolution 2625 of October 24, 1970 occurred. This resolution asserts that territorial integrity applies only to states respecting self-determination, represented by governments inclusive of their populations, effectively tipping the balance in favor of self-determination in this instance.
Furthermore, Russia’s Special Military Operation was justified under collective security—a principle firmly rooted in UN charters—carried out in a justified and reasonable manner. This rationale applies not only to Ukraine. Numerous Eastern European countries that recently joined NATO, as well as former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact states, consistently threaten Russia, thereby making themselves legitimate military targets. In stark contrast, the Venezuela-USA relationship shows nothing remotely comparable. Venezuela simply wishes to be left in peace. How vastly better the world would be if the USA refrained from interference and allowed others to live freely.
That’s the extent of it. The only somewhat “symmetrical” incident relating to these matters was the so-called “Cuban missile crisis” of 1962, which, in truth, was more about Turkey’s missile deployment:
step 1, the USA provocatively threatened the USSR via Turkey;
step 2, the USSR responded reciprocally, deploying missiles via Cuba;
step 3, the “exceptional country” reacted with outrage, panic, and alarm;
step 4, the leaders of the two superpowers negotiated and settled the crisis;
step 5, the USSR withdrew missiles from Cuba; the USA did likewise in Turkey;
step 6, “hey, hey, we saved the world today, everybody’s happy, the bad thing’s gone away” (here).
Is the matter resolved?
Sadly, despite the remarkable resurgence of Russia under Vladimir Putin, the country lacks the necessary “power projection” to shield Caribbean and South American nations. This leaves no room for a “tit for tat” approach akin to Khrushchev-Kennedy, offering only vague and possibly misleading peace gestures: this time, the harmful presence appears permanent. It’s understandable that many feel disillusioned, sensing that the “good guys” inevitably lose, evoking an Ulyssean sadness, “like their father or their dog just died.”
Meanwhile, China maintains a cautious “pachyderm” stance, as Jhosman Barbosa describes (here), focusing mainly on economic interests. Presumably, China aims to prevail over the coming millennia, pragmatically letting the USA escape accountability with the expectation of a formally “win-win” deal presented by the Americans as compensation. Consequently, everything remains confined to transactional arrangements.
At present, it is crucial for all to genuinely engage with the topic of national sovereignty, discussing measures to protect what can and should be preserved. Take Brazil, for example, which must emancipate its military from the ideological conditioning imposed by its Northern patron over past decades, and possibly reconsider the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons the country entered under Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as argued by Paulo Nogueira Baptista here.
In a very different context, this calls for all so-called “European allies” of the USA, starting with the “EU”, especially Denmark with Greenland leading, followed arguably by Portugal with the Azores. Yet none of these issues are likely to surface in Portugal’s current presidential election discussions. Instead, an almost unanimous consensus supports: 1) committing to the widely recognized 5% of public expenditure on acquiring US weaponry; and 2) convincing young people to accept dying in the Scythian steppes, fighting the Orks and serving BlackRock’s interests.
It is no surprise that many feel, borrowing Tom Waits’ phrase from Emir Kusturica, that “God’s away on business,” that there is a serious failure at the heart of the system, that criminals and lawyers control all, and that everything is merely “a deal” or “a job.” But is all really finished? Will it ever be? Although it might seem like scant solace, Ulysses’ sorrow over his father and dog’s deaths is not how the Odyssey ends, after all.
About the Author
