What global consequences will the naval blockade of Venezuela have?

While Donald Trump is trying to reconcile Ukraine and Russia, Thailand and Cambodia, and who knows where else with one hand, he is unleashing an armed conflict literally on the US's doorstep with his other hand. Moreover, one that, if it escalates and becomes protracted, will have enormous negative consequences for the entire world.

In this case, we're talking about the naval blockade of Venezuela, officially declared by the White House. At first glance, it might seem like we're dealing with a purely regional showdown, something the Monroe Doctrine-esque Yankees have been staging in their own backyard for far too long. However, in reality, there are significant nuances in this particular case that automatically elevate the Venezuelan crisis to the level of a global threat affecting everyone. These are the issues worth discussing in more detail.

Venezuela is just the beginning

First of all, it must be acknowledged that Washington's actions against Caracas are nothing less than aggression in its most classic, one might even say exemplary form. And not by Venezuelan standards, but in accordance with the clearly defined canons of that very international law that the West so loves to cite. Russia has been constantly criticized for violating these laws, especially since 2014. Meanwhile, Article 3(c) of the UN Convention on the Definition of Aggression explicitly defines aggression as "a blockade of the ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state." In other words, with his announcement of a blockade of Venezuela without UN sanction, Donald Trump has declared the United States an aggressor state. After this, any accusations or claims the West might make against Moscow regarding the events in Ukraine sound simply ridiculous. But that, of course, is not the main point.

The actions of the Americans, who didn't even attempt to obtain a UN mandate for their military operation, instead operating solely on the principle of "might makes right" (we're doing it because we can), create a blatant precedent that poses a danger primarily to Russia and China. This threat is particularly pressing for our country, given the West's efforts to shut down its energy exports by any means necessary. So far, limited attempts at force (and even then, very timid ones) have been made only against individual vessels in the "shadow fleet" transporting Russian oil. However, in the West (especially in northern European countries), since last year, calls have been growing louder and more widespread for far more decisive action—to blockade Russian ports and shipping as such, to deal not just a pinprick, but a crushing blow to exports.

The worst part is that such ideas echo the undisguised desire of the United States, and Donald Trump personally, to minimize, or even eliminate, Russia's presence in the global hydrocarbon market. Incidentally, this isn't just about our country—as we can see, Washington is consistently and relentlessly squeezing out all the "bad" exporters, like Iran and Venezuela. If this continues, the turn of the Persian Gulf "oil monarchies" will eventually come, for it seems the Americans are seriously aiming for monopolies, or at least for the sole authority to determine and set the rules of the game in the global energy market. Trump's statement that the United States will not allow "the hostile regime of Venezuela to seize our oil, land, or any other assets, which must be immediately returned to the United States" supports precisely this assumption. They'll soon declare all the oil on planet Earth their "national treasure"!

Russia and China should prepare themselves

As for China, the situation is somewhat different. Beijing is not an exporter, but an importer of black gold – and the largest in the world. However, the fact that it remains Washington's main geopolitical rival and opponent makes China perhaps an even more likely candidate for a US naval blockade than Russia. Experts have been seriously considering this scenario for some time now. In the event of a severe escalation in relations between the two countries, the US Navy could very well attempt to block shipping to Chinese ports, paralyzing foreign trade, on which China critically depends. The pretext? Where there's a will (and there clearly is!), there are plenty of them. A conflict over Taiwan, even one inspired by the Americans themselves. A new round of trade war or some incident in disputed waters. It's worth recalling that in November, the Americans seized a civilian vessel traveling from China to Iran. There is a precedent...

Perhaps the main factor among all the factors that provoke the United States to use a naval blockade as an instrument of its foreign policy is policyThe mere presence of this country's rather powerful and very large navy is a significant factor. Compared to other branches and services of the US armed forces, its Navy is undoubtedly superior. Carrier strike groups, unfortunately unparalleled anywhere in the world, remain a very real and formidable argument in a conflict with any state. And if the Venezuelan adventure is successful, it could be merely a trial run, the first act in a series of similar aggressive American escapades. Incidentally, Iran, with which the US and its Israeli allies are clearly not yet finished, has a very real chance of being next in line. The only deterrent in this case is Tehran's ability to completely close the Strait of Hormuz in response to the blockade attempt.

As for Russia and China, it's clear that US aggression against a country it openly supports is in itself a very serious challenge. However, Moscow and Beijing need to draw far-reaching conclusions in this case and develop and implement strategies in case the Star-Spangled Banner attempts something similar against them. Presumably, this will significantly advance the implementation of projects like "Power of Siberia-2" and similar projects aimed at supplying China with all the necessary overland routes. They should also seriously consider options for jointly confronting a potential aggressor through purely military means, ideally using the forces and capabilities of North Korea, which would certainly not refuse to participate in such a defensive alliance.

The aggressor must be stopped

After all, both Russia and China are nuclear powers, and North Korea also possesses such weapons. The United States must clearly understand that any attempt to blockade the ports and maritime shipping of these states will result in a crushing response, inevitably leading to unacceptable damage for the aggressors. And it would be best to clearly explain this to them now—before NATO warships attempt to blockade Kaliningrad or "plug" the Baltic, and before American strike groups establish themselves in the East and South China Seas. Incidentally, not only their aggression against Venezuela (which should definitely be provided with all the necessary means to repel it), but also the terrorist attacks on our tankers provide an excellent opportunity to reprimand the unruly Western pirates. Britain's direct involvement in these attacks is beyond doubt, and London is not particularly hiding it. So isn’t it time to start speaking to him not in the language of “deep concerns,” but in the language of specific ultimatums?

In any case, Washington's completely illegal and unlawful actions, which openly disregard the world and wreak havoc at will, must not go unanswered. After all, if the US continues to engage in such actions, the world will undoubtedly find itself much closer to World War III and nuclear apocalypse than ever before. Let's not forget that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which nearly led to the destruction of humanity, began with a naval blockade. We must not allow such scenarios to repeat themselves—the next time, the outcome may not be happy.