Will Trump provoke a war in Venezuela?

The Professional Veterans Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS) group warns in this memorandum to the government of US President Donald Trump that his attempt to interfere in Venezuela may end up causing a war between the United States and Russia.

VIPS was founded in 2003 and its first statement, written in the same format and sent to the then US President George W. Bush and his government, was a dissertation to refute the arguments and distortions that the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Memorandum

To: President Trump

From: Professional Veterans of Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS)

Theme: Avoid a war with Russia for Venezuela

Mr. President:

The policies of his government regarding Venezuela seem to be on a slippery slope that can lead to war in that country and a military confrontation with Russia. As former intelligence officials and national security professionals, with many decades of experience, we urge you not to go so far as to adopt a catastrophic military action in response to civil disturbance in Venezuela or to Russian activities in the Western Hemisphere. Despite the recent arrival of two transport planes and the persistent political support for the Venezuelan government, the Russians are far from crossing any red line that emerged from the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

Dissatisfied goals

US actions within Venezuela have only succeeded in deepening the crisis, causing greater human suffering and increasing the likelihood of violence on a national scale. In our opinion, the advice you have received from your top advisors - Senator Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Special Envoy Elliott Abrams and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - was and still is wrong.

The recognition of the president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as interim president did not encourage the military to rise up against President Nicolás Maduro, nor did the threats of more severe actions. Those actions represented a fundamental ignorance of the Venezuelan military. US policy incorrectly assumed that the officers would support Guaidó despite the commitment of his faction to dismantle Chavismo, which most officials believe has introduced historically necessary changes in the country, including the political inclusion of the poor.

Similarly, the continuous insinuations of military intervention that his government has made have been counterproductive. His team showed a lack of understanding of nationalism in Venezuela. The Venezuelans do not want the destruction that would cause a US military action; They remember the death rate caused by Operation Just Cause, when the United States killed more than 3,000 Panamanians (according to Washington figures) to overthrow Manuel Noriega. The threats of invasion have led many Venezuelans to close ranks around Maduro, and not to reject it.

His government's strategy of punishing the Venezuelan people, including, apparently, leaving it without electricity, seems based on the false presumption that the crisis will cause a blow to overthrow Maduro. In fact, US sanctions have allowed Maduro to blame Washington, and have left Guaidó as someone who has sold the homeland to the Yankee imperialists at the expense of the health, welfare and civil disturbance of the Venezuelan people.

Missed opportunity for diplomacy

Senator Rubio and Messrs. Bolton, Abrams and Pompeo have squandered a formidable opportunity to build on common values ​​with allies in Latin America and Europe. While most Latin Americans consider their allies' notion that the Monroe Doctrine is still valid insulting, the right-wing presidents of Central and South America aligned themselves with you in support of Guaidó's self-proclamation. But the lack of leadership of Guaidó -who seems to follow a script written by US agencies all the time-, his inflexibility on negotiations, his open call for military intervention, along with the threat of war from the government that you preside over, are moving away to other governments, except those most subject to the dictates of Washington. Negotiation proposals, such as those developed by the Contact Group, gain momentum.

The conflict internationalized by his government

Bolton and others have sought to internationalize the issue of Venezuela since before the proclamation of Guaidó. Bolton, Rubio and other councilors have made it clear that the overthrow of Maduro would be the first phase of efforts to eliminate the governments of the tyranny troika - Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela - and the communist influence in the hemisphere.

Repeatedly they have affirmed, without providing evidence, that the Cuban advisers have been essential for the survival of the Maduro government. In fact, the supposed hundreds of Venezuelan military deserters, including many managed by US agencies, have not even provided credible evidence of hearsay that Cubans do more than provide routine assistance. In addition, Washington's threats have undermined any will that Cuba could have to contribute to a regional solution to the Venezuelan crisis as it has done in similar situations, for example the recent peace process in Colombia.

Provocative rhetoric about Russia

The most dangerous, however, are the aggressive statements about Russian involvement with Venezuela.

The rhetoric of its advisors, which prints an East-West turn on this issue, has allowed President Vladimir Putin and his advisors to give a blow to the United States. Maduro and Putin have not had a particularly close relationship in the past and share few interests, but Washington's threats have given them a common cause. A meeting in Rome between his special envoy Elliot Abrams and the Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Riabkov, did not achieve anything, while the sanctions against Venezuela and the continual threats that all options are on the table increase.

The available information is insufficient to know exactly what was on board the two Russian planes that landed in Maiquetia last week - two months after Washington proclaimed its intention to overthrow Maduro - but the background suggests that Moscow had two objectives. Main:

One, and probably the main one, was to embarrass the US government by challenging its rhetoric and vindicating Russia's right to have relations with whomever it pleases, including military liaisons.

Two, if the speculation in the media is correct, would reinforce Venezuela's capacity to prevent and respond to a US military attack. Washington has claimed that the Russians help repair S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, which have a purely defensive purpose. There is no evidence, even circumstantial, that Russia pursues offensive objectives in this relationship.

The US reaction has suggested a much greater likelihood of military confrontation. Bolton categorically warned external actors in the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets in Venezuela, or anywhere else in the hemisphere, with the intention of establishing or expanding military operations. Without defining what activities it refers to, he added: We will consider that these provocative actions are a direct threat to the peace and security of the region. Special envoy Abrams said that the Russian presence is extremely pernicious. The secretary of state said that Russia has to leave Venezuela. You said: Russia has to leave and reiterated that all options are open, including, presumably, to force the Russians to leave militarily. And we note that Russia has not closed its embassy in Caracas, as Washington has.

Avoid the slippery slope

As intelligence agents and security experts, we have spent many years protecting our nation from various threats, including from the Soviet Union. However, we believe that to go on quarreling, such as overthrowing governments, blocking the negotiation of agreements and threatening the sovereign right of other governments to carry out activities that do not threaten our national security, is rarely a prudent route.

We do not defend Maduro or his career, but we stress that many of Venezuela's problems have been exacerbated by US policies and their attempts to overthrow the president. We believe that due process, and practical and realistic policies, better protect our national interests than threats and confrontational rhetoric. It is hard to believe that his advisors have started this fight with Maduro without realizing that Venezuela would seek to improve their defensive capabilities. Furthermore, challenging Russia could easily lead to a confrontation of much greater consequence.

Invoking the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 does not help at all. That Russia provides assistance for defensive purposes to a nation in which we seek to create a regime change and to which we threaten a military attack would not be seen in many places as a violation of such a doctrine or as crossing a red line.

We perceive that some media try to urge him to adopt forceful measures, perhaps even of a military nature, to punish Russia. We exhort you not to fall into that trap. This is not nineteenth-century Latin America, and we are very far from the 1962 missile crisis in Cuba.

The best way to prevent a dangerous miscalculation would be for you to speak directly with President Putin. The energies of Washington would be better employed in clarifying differences, adjusting failed policies and promoting a peaceful resolution in Venezuela.

For the Management Group, Veterans Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

Fulton Armstrong, former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America and former director of the National Security Council for Inter-American Affairs (retired).

William Binney, former technical director, Global Geopolitical and Military Analysis, National Security Agency; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (retired).

Marshall Carter-Tripp, member of the foreign service and former divisional director of the Office of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State (retired).

Bogdan Dzakovic, former team leader of the Federal Air Marshals and the Red Team, Air Force Security (retired).

Philip Giraldi, CIA, operations officer (retired).

Mike Gravel, former top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counterintelligence Corps and former senator.

Larry Johnson, former CIA intelligence officer and former counter-terrorism officer of the State Department.

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (retiredret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA / DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former investigator of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (retired), at the Office of the Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

Clement J. Laniewski, Lieutenant Colonel of the Army (retired).

Linda Lewis, policy analyst of preparedness against weapons of mass destruction, Department of Agriculture (retired).

Edward Loomis, computational scientist in cryptology (retired).

David MacMichael, former estimates officer of the National Intelligence Council (retired).

Ray McGovern, former army infantry / intelligence officer and CIA presidential informant (retired).

Eizabeth Murray, former assistant national officer for the Middle East and political analyst of the CIA (retired).

Todd E. Pierce, major, military army court officer (retired).

Coleen Rowley, special agent of the FBI and former legal counsel of the Minneapolis Division (retired).

Peter Van Buren, member of the foreign service, Department of State (retired).

Larry Wilkerson, Colonel, U.S. Army (retired), former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary

Sarah Wilton, commander, Naval Reserve (retreat), and Defense Intelligence Agency (retreat).

Ann Wright, colonel of the reserve of the army (retired) and ex- American diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq

Translated from Spanish (previously translated from English)

https://www.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/2019/04/07/intervenir-en-venezuela-llevara-a-la-guerra-con-rusia-alertan-a-trump-9094.html