- This topic has 5 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Judging by this news article (Russia to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy), as a part of US policy, the Monroe Doctrine is dead.
Two reasons why I don't believe this has anything to do with the Monroe Doctrine:"any attempt by a European nation to oppress or control any nation in the western hemisphere would be seen as an act of aggression and the United States would intervene""stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent states of the Americas"I'm under the impression that Russia was invited by Chavez.
The Monroe doctrine is all about curbing European influence in the Americas. If Russia isnt trying to gain influewnce in Latin America by cozying up to Chavez I will bite my leg off. Russia is not trying to do anything more than create a bloc of anti-american nations and Venezuela and some other South american countries are parts of this bloc. Why else would Russia go out of their way to cavort with such regimes as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. This is just as much a violation of the Monroe Doctrine as the Soviet attempts to export communism to Latin America in the 50's and 60's.In the Monroe Doctrine America basically claims that the Americas are our stomping grounds and Europeans or others are not invited. It was originally promulgated as a check to Spanish attempts to regain their empire but has evolved to mean all Europeans. Let us not forget the Roosevelt Corollary wich holds that America has the right to intevene in Latin America to correct injustices. This makes me wonder why we dont invoke the Roosevelt Corollary to reestablish democracy in Venezuela given Chavez's usurpation and assumption of near dictatorial powers.
This is just as much a violation of the Monroe Doctrine as the Soviet attempts to export communism to Latin America in the 50's and 60's.
But that was forced. Russia tried to overturn the current, existing goverments. As much as we don't like it, Venezuela has full sovereignty and can do whatever they want. If Chavez wants to form an anti-American bloc, then he can do that.I'll have to research the Roosevelt Corollary more, don't know much about it. But I'm all for a "CIA intervention" in Latin America to make sure everybody's being good.
The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine covers exactly the kind of stuff that has been happening in Latin America over the last few years. Especially the kind of stunts Chavez has been pulling. See:Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Yeah, but even that seems questionable for this situation. It's unlikely Venezuela is going to be taken over by any outside forces nor is their government near collapse (at the moment) and these two doctrines, if I read them correctly, are only meant to prevent something like that.
I just dont think the US should sit idly by while a regime like Chavez's attempts to establish a power bloc next door to us that has as one its goals harming the US. What I find particularly objectionable is the attempts by Chavez to curry favor in the US with things like his free heating oil program. I think it is amazing that we are putting up with these provocations.
America doesn't have the resources to enforce the Monroe Doctrine anymore. The United Nations trumps it now anyway. We cannot act unilaterally in the emerging world government. Sorry to say it, but the days of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere are numbered.
From my foxhole it appears that the US does a poor job of picking its battles. The turmoil and Anti-US coalition in Latin America is not a new thing, it has been developing for at least the past 8 or 9 years.
I think that under Obama the Monroe Doctrine would probably not be vigorously followed because it would be considered too unpopular on the world stage. As for joint Russia-Venezuela actions, I wonder if the lack of current U.S. response is because the nuclear program is only at the planning phase now. Perhaps the U.S. thinks the agreement is not credible at this point, but if additional concrete steps were taken in the building of a nuclear program in Venezuela something would have to be done. Besides, I think that historical doctrines can be shelved or brought back to life depending on the geo-political situation at which a nation finds itself. I wouldn't say the MD is dead, but perhaps just on the back-burner right now.
If Russia wants to put nukes in Venezuela, there isn't much short of World War III we can do about it. We're talking about Russia here; not Iran. 🙁
Yes, but Russia has backed down once under similer circumstances. If a similer situation were to arise as the Cuban Missle Crisis, I believe the world and the U.N. would be much more involved than they were When Kennedy was president. I mean come on, they wouldnt let anything happen to the “chosen one.”
If Russia wants to put nukes in Venezuela, there isn't much short of World War III we can do about it. We're talking about Russia here; not Iran. 🙁
Yes we are talking about Russia here not the Soviet Union. Russia is a second rate power that only has prestige because it controls 1/3 of the energy supplies to western Europe. As a functioning nation Russia is defunct. It is an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy. Russia is not the behemoth it was 20 years ago or even 100 years ago under the Czars. It would actually be pathetically easy for us to stop russia from putting anything in Venezuela or any other South American country. All it takes is political will on our part to use our navy. We could defeat any five other novies in the world combined if it came down to a shooting match. Put it like this, if anybody else had ONE of our carrier battle groups and nothing else they would have the second most powerful navy in the world. We have 12 of these battle groups which gives us the ability to dominate all the oceans of the world. At a minimum we could control the waters and Littoral of the Americas.Despite the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq we still have the most powerful military in the world.
As a Land Power Russia is unequaled in terms of tanks and infantry outnumbering our conventional forces sometimes 5:1 (and this is post USSR too). Their air force is roughly the same size (perhaps numerically superior as well). Their navy is smaller yes, but we could never win a land war with Russia on the Eurasian continent. We would have to go nuclear to win, and clearly that's unacceptable except as a last ditch effort. Russia did have five carrier battle groups at one time, and that would be sufficient to keep us out of the Black Sea which is the only major waterway they really care about.
According to Jane's, current Russian Ground Forces number in the neighborhood of 400,000-500,00 and their navy consists of Coastal defence vessels and a limited blue-water capability except for their submarines. The state of their navy can most reasonably be gauged as poor, examples of their poor training are most notable in the spectacular accidents they have from time to time. You can bet that for every accident that makes it into the western press there are at least 3 or 4 that dont.I have personal experience of working with Russian soldiers and I was unimpressed. Their equipment is crap and their training is substandard. Do not let Russian exploits against the like of Georgia fool you. It is easy for a division to beat a battalion even a crappy division, and that was the situation in Georgia. Russia still has space but no real force projextion capability. Russian propaganda is good and the press does a good job of talking them up but their military is a joke. The only thing we need to worry about is their strategic rocket forces, that is why they are so upset about our missile defense plans. Without a nuclear threat, they are toothless as far as the US is concerned. At that, their strategic rockets forces have not been upgraded since the fall of the Soviets. It is questionable how many missiles they have operational.
