Maduro Is Not Just a Shadow of Chavez
Nicolas Maduro has won the presidential election in Venezuela with 50.76 percent of the vote, while his rival, Henrique Capriles, captured 49.07 percent. Capriles announced that he would not recognize the results of the election until the votes were recounted. Vladimir Putin has congratulated Nicolas Maduro on his victory. The situation is highly irregular, and it is important to Russia on both an economic and a geopolitical level. The gap between the two candidates is so small that it has become a good excuse for civil unrest and tensions — ideal for a “colored revolution.”
In the last few days the complicated relationship between Russia and the U.S. has been further strained, and Venezuela could become a site of direct confrontation. Whether or not the Americans will risk it is still an open question.
Venezuela is not Libya. The former Libyan leader had not been our ally in recent years. He simply gave his debt to the president of France, and he also unfortunately put more than a billion dollars into the trustworthy hands of Goldman Sachs. Sometimes it is cheaper and pleasanter to liquidate a creditor than to fulfill one's obligations. Only cowards fulfill their debts, and Anglo-Saxons are certainly not cowards. In addition, the wartime premium on oil during the Libyan conflict has covered the loss of Russian income but not the fact that in the future, contracts will definitely be fulfilled on the Libyan side.
For Russia, Venezuela represents serious money and serious politics. As we know, in 2006 Americans introduced an embargo on arms deliveries to Venezuela, after which Chavez opened up relations with Russia. According to rough estimates, the current value of our signed arms contracts with Venezuela is valued at around $10 billion. Half of this has already been fulfilled, and half has yet to be worked out. Participation in oil projects in Venezuela, according to various estimates, will cost Russia $20 to 38 billion. The main actor on our side is Rosneft, which is controlled by Parliament. Some actors in the financial market even fear that the opposite outcome in the elections could strike Rosneft's participation in the current market.
Some of my colleagues have asked me with surprise how I, a stockbroker and market fundamentalist, can support the left-wing Venezuelan president. My answer is simple: He buys weapons from us and takes from the West in order to give us his oil. The color of the cat is not important as long as it catches mice. From the geopolitical point of view, Venezuela is like a bone stuck in the U.S.' throat. It is our last trump card on the chessboard of the world.
It seems that the army is on the side of Nicolas Maduro. However, if the situation worsens, he will have to prove his qualities of leadership and prove that he is not just a shadow of Chavez. But for now, the general opinion of him is that “he's a good lad, but not an eagle.”
The situation in Venezuela is highly important. Big politics and big money are at stake. Even if everything ends up going well, the victory will not be guaranteed and will come with a chance of future destabilization. Our liberals love to reminisce and shed tears over those suppressed by Soviet troops during the Prague Spring, forgetting that if Czechoslovakia had withdrawn from the USSR's sphere of influence, it would automatically have entered that of the U.S.
There are only the political interests of one's own country and the financial interests of one's own corporations. Nothing else deserves one's attention. During the 2004 Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, one liberal radio station in Moscow threw a fit every half hour because the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate was allegedly in Kiev. Unfortunately, this was too good to be true. Both Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's foreign policies were nothing more than playing at giveaway. The Munich speech and the Battle of Tskhinvali in 2008 showed the West that it was finished. But the West does not believe it and requires further confirmation.
In the last few days the complicated relationship between Russia and the U.S. has been further strained, and Venezuela could become a site of direct confrontation. Whether or not the Americans will risk it is still an open question.
Venezuela is not Libya. The former Libyan leader had not been our ally in recent years. He simply gave his debt to the president of France, and he also unfortunately put more than a billion dollars into the trustworthy hands of Goldman Sachs. Sometimes it is cheaper and pleasanter to liquidate a creditor than to fulfill one's obligations. Only cowards fulfill their debts, and Anglo-Saxons are certainly not cowards. In addition, the wartime premium on oil during the Libyan conflict has covered the loss of Russian income but not the fact that in the future, contracts will definitely be fulfilled on the Libyan side.
For Russia, Venezuela represents serious money and serious politics. As we know, in 2006 Americans introduced an embargo on arms deliveries to Venezuela, after which Chavez opened up relations with Russia. According to rough estimates, the current value of our signed arms contracts with Venezuela is valued at around $10 billion. Half of this has already been fulfilled, and half has yet to be worked out. Participation in oil projects in Venezuela, according to various estimates, will cost Russia $20 to 38 billion. The main actor on our side is Rosneft, which is controlled by Parliament. Some actors in the financial market even fear that the opposite outcome in the elections could strike Rosneft's participation in the current market.
Some of my colleagues have asked me with surprise how I, a stockbroker and market fundamentalist, can support the left-wing Venezuelan president. My answer is simple: He buys weapons from us and takes from the West in order to give us his oil. The color of the cat is not important as long as it catches mice. From the geopolitical point of view, Venezuela is like a bone stuck in the U.S.' throat. It is our last trump card on the chessboard of the world.
It seems that the army is on the side of Nicolas Maduro. However, if the situation worsens, he will have to prove his qualities of leadership and prove that he is not just a shadow of Chavez. But for now, the general opinion of him is that “he's a good lad, but not an eagle.”
The situation in Venezuela is highly important. Big politics and big money are at stake. Even if everything ends up going well, the victory will not be guaranteed and will come with a chance of future destabilization. Our liberals love to reminisce and shed tears over those suppressed by Soviet troops during the Prague Spring, forgetting that if Czechoslovakia had withdrawn from the USSR's sphere of influence, it would automatically have entered that of the U.S.
There are only the political interests of one's own country and the financial interests of one's own corporations. Nothing else deserves one's attention. During the 2004 Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, one liberal radio station in Moscow threw a fit every half hour because the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate was allegedly in Kiev. Unfortunately, this was too good to be true. Both Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's foreign policies were nothing more than playing at giveaway. The Munich speech and the Battle of Tskhinvali in 2008 showed the West that it was finished. But the West does not believe it and requires further confirmation.