Why Venezuela? The Most Politically Advantageous Battlefield Chosen by the U.S.

Why does the U.S. choose "winnable battles"?

—The geopolitical reality surrounding Venezuela

If the U.S. were to take decisive military or paramilitary action against Venezuela,
it would not be a sudden impulse or a "runaway sense of justice."

Rather, it is more natural to view it as the result of extremely realistic calculations that have permeated U.S. diplomacy in recent years.

Hurting China without striking it directly

Venezuela is one of the world's leading oil-producing nations,
and one of the few countries that has continued to supply crude oil to China and Russia even under sanctions.

For China, Venezuela holds the meaning of being:

• an energy source independent of the Middle East

• a supply source with sanctions resistance

• a symbolic partner in the anti-American bloc

meaning.

If the U.S. secures this area,
a corner of China's "sanctions evasion route" will collapse.

Rather than a head-on collision in Taiwan or the South China Sea,
applying pressure indirectly through resources and alliance networks.
This is a highly traditional strategy that the U.S. has repeated since the Cold War era.

The immigration issue is happening at the "source countries," not the "border"

Venezuela is also one of the largest sources of emigration in South America.

Economic collapse, deteriorating public safety, and political corruption.
As a result, people head north.

Within the U.S., the immigration issue is a matter of:

• public safety

• employment

• welfare

• Elections

have become a political issue directly linked to everything.

Rather than stopping people at the border,
it is politically easier to demonstrate "results" by controlling the countries that are the source of the outflow.

Intervention in Venezuela is
both a foreign policy move and a response to domestic politics.

The cold rationality of fighting a "winnable war"

Another important point is that America is choosing its opponents.

• With Russia, there is nuclear deterrence

• With China, the cost of a full-scale conflict is too high

• In the Middle East, escalation is difficult to manage

In comparison, Venezuela has:

• Limited military power

• No easily anticipated immediate intervention by allies

• An overwhelming geographical advantage for America

In short, it is a "winnable war".

This may sound cruel, but
it is not an exception to the operating principles of a great power.

Another objective—setting a precedent

If Venezuela were to be suppressed,
it would send a message.

"If you are pro-China and anti-American, sanctions may not be the only thing you face."

This signal is directed at

• Latin America

• Resource-rich countries in Africa

• Countries in the gray zone

acts as pressure to restore order.

International politics as reality, not ideology

It is easy to talk about this composition in terms of "good and evil."
However, international politics is not driven by morality.

The United States is making an extremely realistic choice of

• not striking China directly

• curbing immigration pressure

• and winning where it can win

.

And what is important is the fact that
there are countries that can make such judgments and countries that cannot.

Which one is Japan?
We cannot turn our eyes away from this question.

The problem is whether a Takaichi administration can understand this composition.
And that is exactly the point that should be focused on right now.

The United States is driven by calculation, not ideology.
It chooses where it can win and redesigns order in the most politically advantageous way.
Venezuela is a typical example of this.

What Japan faces as an ally is not a simple binary choice of "agree or disagree."

• To what extent should we get involved?

• Where should we keep our distance?

• Which decision will lead to Japan's own national security and stability of governance?

—an extremely sophisticated and time-constrained choice.

If we do not understand this composition and continue to perceive international politics through "good and evil" or "official stances,"
Japan will make the wrong judgment.

Conversely,
if we can face this reality head-on
and calmly grasp what the great powers are thinking and where they are aiming to win,
Japan still has room for choice.

What will test a Takaichi administration is not the purity of its ideology.
It is whether it can understand reality as reality.

Venezuela is not a distant South American issue.
It is merely showing,
a step ahead, the difficulty of the judgments Japan will soon face.

Incidentally, I would say this:
"Japan is watching the situation surrounding Venezuela with grave concern.
The destabilization of the region and the expansion of terrorism and organized crime are issues for the entire international community,
and at the same time, it is essential that the principles of international law and respect for sovereignty be upheld.
Japan will contribute to maintaining an orderly international society through dialogue and international cooperation."

The True Nature of the Dilemma Japan Faces

• If clearly expressing support for the U.S.

  • The risk of being perceived by the international community (especially the Global South) as
    "supporting war" and "condoning the violation of sovereignty"

  • Tension with Japan's image as a "peaceful nation"

• If distancing from the U.S.

  • A decline in trust within the Japan-U.S. alliance

  • Disadvantages in future security and deterrence against China

In other words, Japan is

In this situation, "avoiding taking a stance"
is not neutrality, but could be seen as an inability to make a decision.

Is it safe to escape into "condemning terrorism and drugs"?

To conclude,

it is weak on its own, but effective as a secondary line of reasoning.

• Terrorism

• Drugs

• International crime

are values that no one will openly deny, and
they partially overlap with the U.S.'s official logic.

However, the problem is,

• Doing only that
  is highly likely to be perceived as "evading the essential issues (sovereignty, use of force, regime change)."
  

That is the point.

👉 Therefore, it will not become the main axis.

The most rational communication axis for Japan

To state the conclusion first, what Japan should adopt is

This is a message that is highly abstract yet hits the core.

This is not "equivocation." It is
a highly calculated message to an ally.

Click here for the Substack article (English):