➡ Mark Kansian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, discussed the strategic importance of the USS Gerald Ford’s movement into the Caribbean. He suggested that the U.S. will likely use the aircraft carrier for strikes against Venezuela or allocate it elsewhere. Kansian also mentioned that any action against Venezuela would likely be from the air, as the U.S. has limited ground troops in the Caribbean. He concluded that the U.S. is very close to a military engagement with Venezuela, given the strategic movement of the aircraft carrier.
➡ The U.S. is increasing its military presence in the Caribbean, which could be a sign of preparing for a potential strike against Venezuela. However, this doesn’t mean an attack will definitely happen. The situation is complicated by the potential involvement of other countries and the risk of Venezuela becoming a failed state if the current regime is overthrown. Additionally, the U.S. is considering providing Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles to help in their conflict with Russia, but there’s no single solution that will change the course of the war.
➡ The U.S. government is using lethal force in its anti-drug operations in the Caribbean, a new approach that raises questions about its legality. The administration justifies this by claiming it’s defending the U.S. Constitution against foreign attacks (referring to drug cartels) and that drugs are a form of chemical warfare. However, many believe these reasons are a stretch and possibly illegal, though this can only be confirmed by a court. The public and Congress may support a formal authorization for the use of military force, which has been used in recent years instead of war declarations.

Hello, I’m with Mark Kansian. He’s a senior advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, International Security Program, and he’s a retired colonel in the United States Marines. Mark, thank you for joining the Trans Journal today. Thanks for having me on the show. I wanted to get you on because I read the article in the Washington Post on Friday, where you discussed the movement of the USS Gerald Ford into the Caribbean. And one of the things that you told the paper was that the U.S. essentially will have to use it or move it. And that was your quote in the paper.

And I thought that was a fascinating quote because I’d love to hear your opinion on what exactly that meant. Now, what does that mean for someone who doesn’t know anything about aircraft carriers? What do you mean by use it or move it? I use it or lose it. I meant that the regional command needs to employ the carrier, likely in strikes against Venezuela, or give it up to some other global command. The United States has 11 aircraft carriers, but only about three of them are at sea at any time. So this carrier in the Caribbean represents a large piece of U.S.

naval capability. The fact that it moved from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean is strategically important. The Mediterranean, of course, it is Gaza that’s still unsettled. There’s Iran that’s still unsettled. There’s still a war going on in Ukraine. And the fact that it’s now in the Caribbean is a statement by the administration about where it wants to put its attention. But it can’t just wander around the Caribbean waiting for something to happen. It needs to do something. And we’re hearing that the president, in fact, has been presented with target lists in Venezuela for possible operations. Something’s going to have to happen with the carrier.

Can you explain? We saw what happened with the Houthis when the Houthis squared off with the United States in the Red Sea. And there have been people, there have been analysts who said that the Houthis fought the U.S. to withdraw. Some people said that the Houthis might have edged out the United States a little bit in that conflict. What do you think, is that a bad sign for the United States if there turns out to be a war with Venezuela? Is that coming off a kind of a tough loss? What’s your opinion on that, Mark? Well, it shows how difficult it is to destroy a group on the ground, particularly a group that doesn’t really have a territory, a state.

The Houthis have been fighting for decades. They’re very good at hiding and moving their equipment around. But it’s also important to note that they were getting support from Iran. They were getting resupplied. That’s something that would not be the case with Venezuela. But that as well is strategically important, though, for China and Russia. You think that they would sit this one out and let the United States, if land strikes begin, do you think Russia and China would be compelled to assist Maduro in any way? Or is this a fight that they don’t want to get bogged down in? The short answer is that they won’t get involved.

Maduro has already reached out to both of them, trying to get some help in the face of this challenge by the United States. The Russians sent one aircraft with some supplies, but that’s it. The Russians are fully engaged in Ukraine. They don’t have a lot of capability to spare. And Putin doesn’t want to alienate Trump too much because he doesn’t want Trump to come in on the Ukrainian side any more than he already has. And the Chinese are very far away. They don’t have military capability in Latin America, so they aren’t going to save Maduro. I spoke to one analyst who warned against any kind of real military invasion from the United States in Venezuela.

And he compared it to Venezuela potentially becoming like a Vietnam-type situation, where the U.S. could find itself in a war of attrition because of the dense jungles, that it’s easier to launch missile strikes or air strikes, but to carry out any kind of significant ground invasion or any kind of ground strikes with troops. That could be a completely different story. Do you think that any kind of strike carried out by the U.S. would be limited to air, or do you foresee any kind of troop mobilization in Venezuela on the U.S.’s part? All the indications now are that any action against Venezuela would come from the air, either aircraft firing long-range missiles or missiles fired from ship, for example, Tomahawks.

The United States only has 2,200 troops on the ground in the Caribbean. The Venezuelan military has something like 90,000 ground troops when you include all the different elements. That’s just too disproportionate that the United States is not going to land without a huge buildup of ground forces. Does the Venezuelan military have capabilities to give the United States headaches in the region? We have a carrier group out there now. If Venezuela stood up and mobilized and used their anti-air missiles, could they fight the U.S. and stand up to the U.S., or would it be a relatively quick encounter in your view? The short answer is that Venezuela does not have the capability to threaten U.S.

forces. Their navy is small and ill-repair. Their air force is the same. It’s small. They do have some relatively modern Russian aircraft, but those are few. They can’t challenge the United States. On land, they do have a large ground force, so that makes a ground invasion difficult for the United States. They also have pretty good and pretty extensive air defenses, and those are mobile. That’s why I think the United States will use long-range missiles rather than aircraft flying over Venezuela. Although we have the capability to fight in a contested air environment and could overfly Venezuela, the risk is just too great.

If we had losses in aircraft shot down, for example, that would change the political dynamics. So I think the administration will decide to use long-range missiles, conceivably stealth bombers, B-2s, although that’s not really necessary. Do we have a missile shortage in this country, Mark? I mean, I remember after Iran exchanged missiles with Israel in June, the U.S. had to respond and help defend Israel. And I remember reading after that that we had to quickly try to replenish the missile stocks that we used in that engagement. Obviously, we continue to be the world’s producer for Ukraine’s war.

We have European countries at least buying weapons from us. How many weapons are we producing right now, Mark, to consider going to war in Venezuela, to continue to provide weapons for Ukraine, to continue to provide weapons for Israel? Is the U.S. right now just absolutely going wall-to-wall weapons production? Is that what’s happening right now with Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed? There’s been tremendous attention to missile production in the last couple of years. The experience in Ukraine was an eye-opener for many in the defense community. The Ukrainians needed far more ammunition and missiles than the United States and NATO were able to provide.

Both Europe and the United States have increased their production capacity, but it takes time to get that capacity online. We’re producing munitions at the highest rate we can. Some areas are in relatively good shape. Long-range missiles, JASM, one example. We have a pretty good inventory. Tomahawks, we have several hundred that we could use. There are 180 on board ship right now. But long term, the United States needs to expand its production, given what we know about the high expenditures in any conflict, but particularly what might occur in a conflict with China. How vulnerable is an aircraft carrier off the coast of Venezuela? Is that something that the Venezuelans could, if they wanted to, if they really devoted themselves to, could they potentially strike a carrier in the U.S.

fleet? The short answer is no. They don’t really have the capability to strike at the carrier. They do have a few missiles, but the carrier has a lot of defenses, and we have reconnaissance surveillance screens in front of or off the shores of Venezuela. So their ability to strike a carrier is very limited. I would say it’s really non-existent. Now, that’s very different from a situation in the Western Pacific, if there were a conflict with China, which has a lot of missiles and would be very threatening to a carrier. So now that the carrier is in the region, do you think that’s indication that Trump is very close to going to war with Venezuela, to oust Maduro? I mean, do you see that as being a sign that, all right, we’re right on the doorstep here.

We’re going to be going to engage Venezuela. It’s not just going to be alleged drug boats smuggling any more strikes on those. It’s going to be an actual military engagement. How close do you think that that pushes us, Mark? Do you think we’re close now? I think we’re very close. When the administration announced that it was sending the Ford and its carrier battle group to the Caribbean, that caught my attention because a carrier is a very poor platform for counter drug operations. It has some helicopters, but its capabilities are optimized. They’re very good at striking targets ashore.

That comes from its Air Wing 48 fighter attack aircraft. So moving this asset into the Caribbean is a statement that we’re increasing our capability to strike Venezuela on the ground. And we’re adding an asset that’s really not very good at counter drug operations. So my thinking on that was, this is a statement that the United States is putting in place the capabilities to conduct a strike against Venezuela. The carrier combined with the other naval vessels in the area combined with the bombers, for example, that have done flybys. All of these would be suitable for attacks on Venezuela.

It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, but the administration has put all the pieces together. We mentioned the potential risk for China and Russia getting involved. Do you think that risk is very low? What do you think the risks of regional countries like Cuba or Colombia getting involved to some degree? And also just as far as regional stability, do you think that this is a risky gambit by Trump? Or do you think that this is something that has been in the works for a while now and is relatively as safe as could be if he goes to war? Well, Maduro has very few friends in the area.

Most of the countries in the region would be happy to see him go. The Cubans may be the only ones who have a close relationship with him. The risk and the thing that makes their neighbors nervous is the possibility of a war that goes along, the possibility of U.S. forces remaining in the region, and the possibility that Venezuela might become a failed state where the Maduro regime is overthrown, but the opposition can’t effectively control the country and it becomes this wild west of cartels and gangs and guerrillas. So they would not be sad to see Maduro go, but they do want to see a stable and peaceful Venezuela on the other end.

And you mentioned stability, and this is the country sitting on the world’s largest oil reserve, right? So that, I guess, adds even more concern as far as Western Hemisphere goes. You don’t want that to be up for grabs potentially. Well, that’s true. The United States and I think the global energy market wants to make sure that that oil continues to flow regardless of who’s in charge. Now, the good news is that because that’s along the northern coast, that would be relatively easy for a new administration, a new government to have control over. The challenging part for a new government is the hinder land.

While I have you my last question, Mark, I appreciate you joining me. I just want to just shift gears to Ukraine real fast. Obviously, we know what’s going on there. We have Russia and Ukraine are now striking a little bit more on soft targets. Energy has been a big target for Ukraine in trying to attack Russian energy facilities, oil refineries, and Russia has been striking Ukraine’s energy facilities for the winter months. Trump has also been debating whether or not to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. What do you think if Trump does give any kind of a green light on Tomahawk missiles? It hasn’t been mentioned in the news the past week.

It’s kind of, you know, he said that he’s not going to, but he seemed like he left the door open a little bit. Are there any game changers out there, Mark, for Ukraine? They’re losing in Praborsk, the strategic hub in the Donbas. Do you see any kind of anything that the West could do as far as weapons go to help Ukraine on the front lines, or do you think just keep the status quo going and maybe just wear down the Russian forces that way? What do you think? Is there any kind of a magic bullet out there, a silver bullet? Well, there is no silver bullet.

And from the beginning of the war, many people have been looking for such a silver bullet. We focused on javelins early on, and then it was HIMARS, and then it was Patriot, and then it was M1 tanks, and then it was F-16s. All of these are helpful, and they build the Ukrainian military capability, but no weapon in its own is going to change the course of the war. That said, Ukraine needs two things. One is it needs a continuous flow of weapons, immunitions, and supplies. Militaries in combat go through, supplies, and immunitions at a very high rate.

They need continuous resupply. The analogy I make to people is that this is like going to the grocery store. You have to go every week because you consume what you bought the week before. It’s not like furnishing your house where once you’ve bought everything, you’re done for at least a number of years. The other thing that would be very helpful are the Tomahawks and long-range strike capabilities. The Ukrainians are building some of their own long-range drones. Flamingo is the name of one of them. The Europeans have given them some of their own. Tomahawks would help also because it would give the Ukrainians leverage against the Russian energy industry, particularly its oil industry, natural gas industry.

That’s where Russia is getting the money to fight the war. That’s where it gets the money to pay its supporters like Iran and North Korea and China. If that is imperiled, if that is reduced, and it’s already been reduced to some degree, that’s one thing that might push them into serious negotiations. Mark Hanson, CSIS, thank you so much. Oh, did you have one more thing you wanted to say? I do. Okay, I can edit this out. Yeah. All right, just continue with whatever you wanted to say. A wild card in the US confrontation with Venezuela is the cartels.

Although the Venezuelan government and military has little capability of striking the United States or its military, the cartels could execute some terrorist incidents. The cartels are very decentralized. Even a single cartel is made up of many different groups. The cartels are extremely violent. You could imagine that maybe one of them would get fed up and maybe ambush a military truck in Puerto Rico or maybe even shoot up a resort in the Caribbean with US tourists residing there. So far, the cartels have kept their heads down. But if they did decide to strike back, that would change the entire political dynamic of this confrontation.

That would definitely get people wondering whether or not that was some kind of a secret CIA ops to try to get a false flag attack. That would definitely, I think, at least some on social media would question an attack like that. Don’t you think, Mark, that would be hard for, I’m sure, critics of the engagement would say, wow, that’s just what Trump needs to go to war with Venezuela. Because I don’t think most Americans, from a poll that I recently read, I think 53% of Americans, Democrats and Republicans are opposed to going to war with Venezuela and these boat strikes.

So the mass, the public’s not completely on board right now, right? Oh, absolutely. And if there were such a terrorist incident, there’d be lots of conspiracy theories. But you don’t have to go to conspiracy theories. The cartels are extremely violent. We’ve seen what they have done, what they’re willing to do. And it’s not inconceivable that they would strike back. Speaking of cartels real fast, do you think that these are legitimate strikes on these drug boats in the Caribbean? Do you agree with Trump’s position that these are narco-terrorists and we’re at war with these narco-terrorists so the president has the ability to carry out these strikes? Or do you agree with the position from the Rand Poles of the world who say, no, these strikes are illegal.

You need to go through Congress before we can go and do this. And also, Europe has been opposed to these strikes. They’ve been vocal about that. It’s Marco Rubio even said recently that we don’t tell Europe what to do and they should tell us what to do in our hemisphere. What’s your position on that, Mark? Do you have a position on whether or not these are justifiable strikes from the administration? Well, there are two questions in what you asked. The first is, are these drug boats? And of course, the administration has not provided any concrete evidence that that’s the case.

But there are two pieces of evidence that indicate that they probably are. The first is that the administration gave a series of briefings to members of Congress. The members were very unsatisfied with the briefings, but several did come out and say that they were satisfied that these were drug boats. The second thing is that there have been many journalists who have gone to the ports and villages where these boats came from. They’ve interviewed a lot of the families and nothing has come out that says that these were innocent fishermen. There are stories that some of the crews were fishermen who were just looking for an extra buck and signed on with a drug boat.

But there hasn’t been any concrete evidence that they weren’t drug boats. So right now, I’m inclined to believe that they were. We’ll see if that continues, because sooner or later, they might hit a boat that is clearly not a drug runner. And that would change some of the discussion. The second thing is whether the administration has the authorization to conduct these lethal strikes. And the lethal strikes are new. The United States has been doing counter drug operations in the Caribbean for decades. That’s mostly been done by the Coast Guard, which has law enforcement authorities and arrests the crews of any vessels that they capture and puts them on trial.

The administration has claimed justification. They’ve made two claims. One is the president saying that this comes under his authorities under Section Article Two of the Constitution, that he is defending the Constitution of the United States against a foreign attack, characterizing the cartels as an attack by a foreign entity. The second is that drugs constitute chemical warfare, and therefore this is covered by some of the 9-11 authorizations. Legal scholars consider both of these a tremendous stretch, and many people call them illegal. We really can’t call them illegal until some court, like the Supreme Court, declares them to be that.

But we can say that these justifications are a tremendous stretch, and that members of Congress and probably most of the public would support an authorization for the use of military force. And these are pieces of legislation that have been passed in the last couple of decades that have substituted for declarations of war and have given the executive branch authority to conduct certain operations. Mark Kansy and CSIS, thank you so much for joining the Trend Journal today, Mark. You’re always such a wealth of information, and I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on the show. [tr:trw].

See more of Trends Journal on their Public Channel and the MPN Trends Journal channel.