Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
On this week’s One Decision In Brief, host Kate McCann is joined by co-host and former UK Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace to examine the fallout of the United States’ military raid in Caracas, Venezuela, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Sir Ben explains the military execution of the operation, why it achieved its goals, and how it differs from past conflicts with China or Russia. Kate and Ben also consider whether the move points to a wider strategic approach by Donald Trump or to a greater desire to use similar tactics against other countries. The discussion explores the potential consequences for Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland, as well as Europe's response. They question whether the UK and its allies are showing enough strength and determination, and why Greenland could become a new point of tension between Europe, the United States, and Russia.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: Hello, and welcome to One Decision In Brief. I'm Kate McCann, and I'm joined today by my cohost, sir Ben Wallace. Hi, Ben. How are doing?
Wallace: Hi, Kate. Good. New Year. Did you have a good Christmas?
Wallace: I was up north. Yeah. It was nice. Nice and
Mccann: Me too. And for our listeners around the world, up north means Yorkshire, and in Ben's case, Lancashire, but Yorkshire is far better, so we'll we'll leave that one where it is. We won't argue that one out here. Look, there's a lot going on, and I feel like you are the perfect person to get into all of this with because Venezuela, I mean, has huge implications for for what's going on in the rest of the world, and we can come on to talk about that, about Ukraine and about China, Taiwan and Russia. But just purely from a military perspective, something that I know that you know well, former defense secretary here in The UK, of course. I mean, it seems like a pretty perfect operation that Donald Trump has managed to pull off here. What do you reckon?
THE MILITARY OPERATION
Wallace: So from a military point of view, on the plus column, it was a pretty perfect operation insofar as no American casualties, no destroyed American platforms, the element of surprise perfectly dovetailed into an intelligence operation. On the negative side of the column, it's not true, I think, what the secretary of war said in The United States that only The United States could do this. I think only The United States could do it so neatly, and with such a zero casualty rate. But but ultimately, they did it to a country that has almost no real modern, certainly no modern capability to talk about in its military. It was also based, I think, from the reading of it, of somebody who clearly betrayed the president. They were alongside him inside to allow that pinpointing. Other first world nations could have done something similar, but I think definitely not with the 100% success rate that The United States delivered. So you absolutely have to give that to them, but this wasn't a peer adversary. This wasn't him flying into China or a well armed country with modern twenty first century equipment. But nevertheless, it was an extraordinarily successful campaign or operation that the men and women of Delta Force in The United States should be congratulated on as military professionals.
Mccann: One of the things I find really interesting is that Maduro, two days before this happened, two days before he and his wife are lifted out of Venezuela and into The United States, he gives an interview to a journalist in which, you know, Maduro is sort of laughing and he says, yeah, yeah, Donald Trump wants to strike a deal and, you know, he's made his terms pretty clear and I think we've probably managed that. We'll find a way to a deal. You don't need to worry about that. He seemed really confident that that was the way this was going. Do you think that the Americans always had this in their minds? They always had this kind of operation planned, and they were sort of lulling him into a false sense of security, or do you think something changed and they put this together quickly? Would that even be possible?
Wallace: Well, I think the way a lot of military planning goes is you make lots of plans for lots of options because what you want to do is give the politician a set of options. And, you know, do you wanna go plan a, b, c, d or an e? So I suspect that when the CIA went into Venezuela, and this is also a remarkable achievement that they went into Venezuela having no diplomatic presence there. I suspect if you look how Donald Trump makes decisions that this decision was not made a year ago or six months ago. This was one closer to the action date, but it was definitely developed as a plan over the last few months anyhow to be on the table. I think he started trying to buy them off. I know that they tried. There had been a conversation at one stage in the White House about who was the tallest, Donald Trump or the president, and what would they look like side by side. So there'd clearly been, I think, an initial Donald Trump view of, you know, I'm the great dealmaker, we're done. But I think when Maduro decided he wasn't gonna leave Venezuela, wasn't gonna give up his power. He wasn't gonna take the bribes that were on offer to him, I think. And I wouldn't be surprised if he then humiliated Donald Trump, then this is what happened. So I think the plans were probably long in the making. The decision to execute one plan over another was probably pretty short term, and then it would have depended on a window. So having made a decision to do that, they would have waited for the opportune moment when he was in the right place and whoever the person was who betrayed him was able to give the right indicator at the right time because it was a very, very good operation that delivered the effect that they required.
WHAT COMES NEXT: CUBA, COLOMBIA, GREENLAND
Mccann: Do you think that this is Donald Trump using Venezuela and, you know, the the administration there is a bit of an example in the hope that he can strike other deals with other nations, or do you think he's now got the appetite to try and repeat this elsewhere?
Wallace: Well, I think, first of all, success breeds that appetite. So he may think, hey, buddy. I can do this again whenever I want it. And he basically said that in his press conference, that that's what he can do. It's one of the reasons why us in Europe are determined to make sure Putin doesn't believe he's been successful. If Putin thinks he's won, he'll be even more dangerous to all of us, in Europe and The United Kingdom. And I think the person who should be most worried is Cuba for two reasons. Rubio is vehemently anti Cuban regime and has been part of that sort of Miami, Florida, Cuban exile gang who are very, very much determined to get rid of that government. Also, Cuba is highly dependent on Venezuelan oil and refineries. Right? That's where it comes from. So suddenly, the ability for The US to put their foot on the throat of Cuba is very real. So I think if you see any change happen. Oh, and thirdly, it's within the sphere of influence that Donald Trump believes is his. It's, I think it's 90 kilometers or 90 miles from the coast of Florida. Right? So it's right smack bang in what is now called the Gulf Of America, I think, whatever, you know, that that sphere of influence. So all those combinations would make me worried if I was Cuban. Then Colombia, I'm interested on the Colombia thing because America and Colombia were very, very close. And the real, if it's about drugs, a Colombia that's not on the side of The United States, and that I remember being in Central America as a soldier in the early nineties when, you know, Pablo Escobar was funneling billions of dollars of cocaine into The United States, is a high risk. And so the best way forward for Colombia would be to embrace them more and continue to work with them rather than pick a fight, who, by the way, were adversaries of Venezuela until the fight was picked. They had conflict. And then Greenland, yeah, Greenland should be worried. When Trump talks about the Western Hemisphere, Greenland is in the Western Hemisphere. Right? It's The Caribbean. It's Canada. It's Greenland. It's South And Central America. That is what defines the Western Hemisphere. That's in the national security strategy that they published. And we know that in Donald Trump's mind, it's not about basing. There's an American base on Greenland, but we know there's also lots of, no doubt, minerals and oil, and, who knows, whether they are going to go further. But, you know, Donald Trump bullies like to find someone to bully. Venezuela was an easy country to bully with its pretty useless military. And, you know, Greenland, it's got a tiny population. And Denmark, yes, it's civilized. It's European, but it's a long way away from Greenland, and it hasn't got any military might to stand up to United States. So it's an, is it another bullying victim? Is it another person in the playground? So I think that's why Europe as a whole, I don't mean the EU. I mean Europe, all of us should be very, very clear to The United States that picking on or trying to snatch or steal sovereignty from Greenland is totally unacceptable. It's an ally. It's part of NATO. And America has no business doing that at all. And I think American lawmakers on the hill would be equally horrified, by the way. This is more about Donald Trump.
THE EUROPEAN RESPONSE
Mccann: We've just had a conversation with Phil Gordon, who is the former national security adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris. And, you know, he's an expert in European security. He's obviously an expert in, you know, he worked in the Obama administration. He's been around in American politics for a very long time. And one of the things that he raised that I just find fascinating is this tension between, you know, what America sees as a display of American strength and Trump talks about as America first in the sense that it's putting American domestic politics first with what's happening in Venezuela. The tension between that and an overreach and this sort of real weariness with the idea that America has been the global policeman and is responsible for, you know, making sure that things are right around the world and that requires military intervention. That that tension, I wonder when that expires and when that becomes problematic for Trump and if Greenland is a step too far, even for him, despite what he said about it, and we'll have to wait to see because things are changing so quickly. But it does bring us on to talk about the European response, and you referenced a little bit there. I mean, there are lots of people who feel that, you know, Europe is irrelevant here. European nations, The UK, Keir Starmer as a prime minister may as well say nothing at all. You've been in government at the highest level. How do you feel about our response? Do you feel it's been adequate? Would you have wanted to see more? How do you feel EU nations, European nations, The UK have responded?
Wallace: I think they've run around like headless chickens and shown that they are weak, you know, And Donald Trump doesn't respect that. Donald Trump, to some extent, like president Putin, only responds to some form of strength, of messaging or strength, in Putin's case, strength of military. But certainly, you know, we do have some cards to play collectively and individually. And I think it is not hard as an ally. Allies do speak to each other quite strongly often. It's not hard to pick up the phone and say, look, this is unacceptable. Don't think that, you know, there won't be a consequence for all of us if you invade Greenland, you know, and make it clear. And you don't have to shout and scream and behave like JD Vance or whatever. You just have to be true to yourself and consistent and solid. We don't have huge amounts of power, but we do have collectively the richest consumers on earth, the people that Donald Trump wants to sell things to, wants to share things with. You know, we do have, Britain is the biggest investor in The United States. Right? We have all of these things in common. And I think that we just need to be clear about our position. Now he doesn't have to agree with us, and he probably will ignore us. But, you know, if we're not true to ourselves, we won't have any confidence in ourself, and we won't be able to decide when there is a moment to change a direction or indeed start making tough decisions at home, like investing in our own capabilities, investing in our own skill base. So we're not so dependent on anybody else.
Mccann: Were you surprised that American, you know, the American administration, Donald Trump, didn't let The UK know about what was happening in Venezuela before it happened? And as far as we know, you know, as we record this episode, Keir Starmer and Donald Trump are still not spoken. Did that surprise you?
Wallace: No. It doesn't. It doesn't for two reasons. The Americans have long held a sort of classification called NOFORN, no foreigners, And it is not uncommon for British, French, German, American, sorry, not American, Canadians to be asked to leave the room for certain missions. And while we all have presence in the Pentagon, certainly the Five Eyes do, NOFORN is quite a common issue. Sometimes it's perfectly understandable. Sometimes it slightly gets under your skin when it's maybe based on British intelligence, for example. But ultimately, that's not a new concept. And I think that's why Greenland is interesting because you could say if you believe in that type of foreign policy, I don't, but the spheres of influence and big, you know, the mighty just do what they want in their sphere. Greenland overlaps between a Western Hemisphere sphere of influence and a European sphere and cultural sphere of influence. Yeah, definitely. And that is a meeting point that doesn't exist elsewhere. And I think that is going to be interesting. Well, you could argue that Alaska is a meeting point between the Russian sphere of influence and The United States. And at the moment, that is not a point of friction, but eventually these things become frictional.
Mccann: Yeah. I think that for me is why I think Greenland, as much as Donald Trump talks it up, it feels like a step too far. It feels like it becomes very difficult to justify. I'm not saying that I don't think he has the desire to justify it. I just wonder if he ultimately backs down, you know, because of the implications of doing that.
Wallace: Well, president Putin, it will be in his interest to find a way to magnify that tension between Europe and America and Greenland. Because what Putin really, really wants is a fracture in the NATO alliance between Europe and The United States. That's what it wants. He wants more than anything, probably reflecting his own history and his own experience in the KGB, and Greenland is the perfect geographic button that if he can milk that, he may get his way.
Mccann: There is so much more to unpack here, but this is In Brief, so we're going to keep it brief. But I am going to say to people, if you want more discussion about what we were just talking about there, the idea of spheres of influence, if you want to know a bit more about what that means and what that says about the world order as it is right now and how it's shifting. And if you want more about the Russian reaction, the Chinese reaction, and where that might take things in the next few weeks and months, you can listen to that conversation that we've recorded with Phil Gordon. It will come out on Thursday. It'll be in your feed as all of our other episodes are, and it really is a great primer, a bit of a step back into where things are going and where things have been and what Donald Trump is really thinking with Venezuela. So do tune in for that, and hopefully, we've given you a little bit of an update with this In Brief episode today. We will be back, of course, as ever, next week with more In Brief and a full length episode. Thank you so much for listening.
