«Trump's actions are not those of an armored democrat, but of a very tough guy in dealings with just tough ones»

Nicolas Maduro with his security forces during his last inauguration on January 10, 2025. Photo: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos, File

On the one hand, the news from Venezuela evokes a desire to complain that, supposedly, it's a violation of rules and norms, an undermining of international law, and so on.

But I personally won't complain simply because international law, which was established after World War II and, with some modernizations, lasted for several decades, has long been hopelessly undermined. And not somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, but in our region. Therefore, this process has long affected us not indirectly, but in the most direct way. And you don't cry over spilled milk (literally, "losing head, don't cry over hair").

On the other hand, over these years it has become evident (to me, at least) that it is almost impossible to give a worthy rebuff to international hooliganism while strictly adhering to the rules.

Hooliganism has become accustomed to such a situation and feels completely comfortable in it. Because if an opponent plays strictly by the rules, you can accurately calculate their actions. But they can't calculate yours, because you disregard the rules.

And so, an absurd situation arises where the hooligan's economy and all other indicators of power are many times, even tens or hundreds of times, smaller than those of the "law-abiding" — yet the latter have huge problems mobilizing and utilizing their capabilities because, unlike the hooligans, they are bound hand and foot by rules. Rules that democratically extend to the hooligans themselves, who, of course, have twisted these rules as they please.

This cannot go on forever, and life itself pushes towards a situation where old rules collapse and new ones are written — in blood, of course, as it usually happens. This can be infuriating and terrifying, but it seems there's no other way.

Often, it's simply a matter of basic security, of mere survival. Let's recall the situation a few years ago when Lukashenka's hooligan regime began attacking the bordering EU countries with illegal migrants. The calculation was simple: they had rules, according to which every migrant who, by hook or by crook, reached the border and even crossed it illegally, was to be treated according to the plot of the Russian folk tale about Baba Yaga and the good fellow: "Steam them in the bathhouse, give them drink, feed them, put them to sleep, and then question them."

And if this rule had been strictly, to the letter, observed, then very quickly the entire corresponding system, at least in the bordering countries, would inevitably have collapsed: its capacities would have been exhausted, and the crowds of migrants would only have grown. But the Polish or Lithuanian authorities understood this in time and, after a certain period, simply stopped enforcing the rules — they turned back violators at the border without discussion, including using brutal force. And the relevant legislation was adjusted post-factum.

This is a local episode, but in reality, the established rules of international coexistence have long been spiraling into an abyss at a global level. And truly, international hooligans can only be stopped if they are not persuaded or urged to "come to their senses," but rather clearly shown what happens otherwise.

And in this regard, the fact that Nicolas Maduro, who was declared an illegitimate usurper after two elections but didn't give a damn about it, was clearly shown that all of this is not really "hee-hee, ha-ha, what the hell can you do to me" — is a positive fact in principle. As the saying goes, "his example is a lesson to others" — including his dear friends on other continents. To avoid using expletives, I'll use a dialectal word from one of the Polesian dialects here — he "overplayed his hand" (Belarusian: "довыкобэльваўса").

The other thing is that at the same time, we must understand that Donald Trump, by his nature, is the same international hooligan who violates rules not out of urgent necessity because the situation demands it, but because he likes it, because it's his style. And his actions are not those of a rational democrat, armored because one must howl with the wolves if one lives with them, but the actions of a very tough guy in dealings with just tough ones.

One can compare this to the criminal underworld, where constant showdowns occur, during which representatives of various gangs perish or suffer severely in other ways — but one's tongue wouldn't turn to call either the executioners or the victims the "good guys." Something similar is happening here.

There's absolutely no desire to sympathize with Maduro, especially since a logical question arises: why on earth should international law protect him if he is officially recognized as a usurper? But Trump, at a press conference, already quite transparently hinted that Mexico is next in line, even if there's supposedly a good woman in power there.

And it's remembered that not long ago, mentions of Canada and Greenland were constantly on the tip of his tongue. Will it not soon turn out that Greenlandic Inuit are also groaning under the rule of cartels? Or are they simply necessary for securing living space?

Here arises the eternal dilemma, reflected in the Soviet film "The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed." That episode where Gleb Zheglov plants a wallet in the pocket of the undoubted criminal Kirpich, not only to simplify the process of sending him to jail, but most importantly, not to cut the thread by which one can unravel the ball and reach a dangerous gang. Watching the film, one might sympathize with Zheglov (especially as played by the charismatic Vysotsky) — well, Kirpich really is a criminal, and against him, all means are good, why bother with these silly formalities. Well, yes, supposedly it's all true. But parallel to this, a plot unfolds where the same Zheglov handles the case of Ivan Gruzdev — and there, too, he is just as staunchly convinced from the start and not inclined to bother with formalities. The result is the same double-edged sword.

Only rules can save the weak from the strong, rules that even the strong must reluctantly adhere to, because there are checks on them too. But for now, old rules are inevitably crumbling, new ones don't exist, and it's unknown when they will be written.

Therefore, it's difficult to predict what awaits us in the nearest future. I suspect nothing particularly good, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I think that if the Americans now take control of Venezuela's oil riches — the largest proven reserves in the world, by the way — then tactically, this is to our benefit. Because this, at least theoretically, gives the Western world, of which the USA still remains a part, more tools to influence the global oil market. And that means more mechanisms to influence Putin's Russia. I repeat — theoretically. As for how it will be in practice — we shall see. As they say — stay tuned.

• 29
• 0
• 3
• 2
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0