If Russian support for Venezuela is more symbolic than substantial, as this article rightly suggests, why did the Trump administration make it sound like the Kremlin effectively blocked Maduro’s ouster? @AKurmanaev nytimes.com/2019/06/17/wor…
Here's Pompeo on May 1 talking about how Maduro "had an airplane on the tarmac, he was ready to leave this morning as we understand it and the Russians indicated he should stay. He was headed for Havana." cnn.com/2019/04/30/pol…
Trump later walked that story about the plane on the tarmac back and called it a "rumor."
https://twitter.com/iamGermania/status/1123741236211458049
But Pompeo/Bolton kept playing up Russia's role: "The coup here has been by the Cubans & the Russians...The main point is we're not going to see the Russians take over a country in the Western Hemisphere. Not directly or by their surrogates, the Cubans." video.foxnews.com/v/603181652400…
The Russians are, of course, masters at getting under the skin of US officials. But it sure looks in retrospect that the Trump WH's suggestion that the Kremlin were the puppet-masters in Venezuela was a convenient way of sloughing off any blame for US mishandling of the crisis.
Carnegie's Return of #GlobalRussia project looks at how the Kremlin is taking advantage of vacuums created by US retrenchment under Trump. But it's a big mistake to portray the Russians as being 10 feet tall in Latin America & Africa let alone the Mideast carnegieendowment.org/publications/i…
It's worth re-reading this very fine paper by Julia Gurganus about how the Kremlin's moves in Latin America are classic opportunism/geopolitics w a strong overlay of payback for US activities in Russia's own neighborhood END carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/03/rus…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
