Special Edition: Venezuela, U.S. Power, & What Comes Next

Summary

---

The NewsWorthy | Special Edition: Venezuela, U.S. Power, & What Comes Next

Date: January 10, 2026
Host: Erica Mandy
Guest: Ambassador Kevin Whitaker, former U.S. Ambassador to Colombia and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council

---

Episode Overview

This special edition dives deep into the U.S. arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro—a dramatic move making global headlines. Erica Mandy interviews Ambassador Kevin Whitaker, who brings decades of diplomatic experience, to unpack:

• The significance and precedent of the US action
• What message it sends globally
• The debated legality
• The role of drugs and oil
• Implications for the region, including future U.S. diplomacy and the possibility of violence
• The uncertain future for Venezuela’s people

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Unprecedented U.S. Action: Arresting Maduro

• Extraordinary Event:
  • Whitaker: “It is not at all typical to use the U.S. military to execute arrest warrants. And it's certainly not typical to have chiefs of state be arrested, although both of those things have happened.” (01:18)
  • Historical precedents: 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama (arrest of Noriega), but rare overall.

2. Global Message & Spheres of Influence

• Projection of Power:
  • Whitaker: “The principal message... is that this administration is serious enough to use military force, especially within our hemisphere, to ensure the stated goals of the administration are executed.” (02:00)
  • Refers to the new national security strategy—restating U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
• Global Reactions/Implications:
  • Whitaker: “The world is divided into various spheres of influence... U.S. in the Western Hemisphere, Saudi Arabia in its part, Russia in Europe, China in East Asia.” (02:38)
  • Echoes Russian justification in Ukraine and Chinese stance on Taiwan.

3. Legality Debate: U.S. Law and International Law

• Legal Gray Areas:
  • Whitaker: “There are really two questions. Was this raid a violation of US law? … International law is what the nations say it is... There’s no international enforcement mechanism the United States respects.” (03:54)
  • Raises the issue of the War Powers Act and lack of Congressional approval.

4. Drugs & Narco Narrative

• Maduro’s Indictment vs. Reality:

  • Whitaker: “He was indicted... for engaging in a conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States... But most cocaine comes out of Colombia, not Venezuela.” (05:11)

• Effect on Drug Flow Minimal:

  • Whitaker: “There’s no reason to believe that taking out a kingpin like this is necessarily going to affect the flows of cocaine one way or the other.” (05:50)

• Purpose of Indictment:

  • Whitaker: “The reason... is not the theory that this will collapse the organization, but rather…[they] violated US law, they need to be indicted and tried...” (05:50)

• Contrasts with Honduras:

  • On President Trump pardoning the Honduran leader convicted of drug crimes, Whitaker notes: “Doesn't seem very different. I mean, the only thing that's different is that Hernandez actually had his day in court... Maduro hasn't actually been found guilty by a court yet.” (06:34)

5. Oil, Energy Policy, and U.S. Interests

• Motivations Beyond Justice:
  • Whitaker: “It is about oil… the resources of Venezuela… should be available to the United States as a priority matter and should not be made available to extra-regional actors unless we say so.” (07:10)
  • Notes Venezuela's massive, if technically difficult, oil reserves.
• Challenges in Exploiting Oil:
  • “No big oil company is going to go into Venezuela unless it can be assured that it has access to the resource over the long term... there’s just physical security.” (08:11)
  • Predicts a decade before new investments could significantly impact output. (09:23)

6. Venezuela’s Future and Democratic Transition

• Lack of Visible Change:

  • Whitaker: “Broad scale demonstrations… have not [happened]... Venezuelans have not lost their fear. They are afraid, justifiably so, of a very repressive regime.” (10:11)

• Why Not Back Opposition Figures?

  • References U.S. caution based on the Iraq experience: “…what resulted was chaos and a civil war... It’s possible that people concluded that doing something similar in Venezuela… would lead to similar level of chaos.” (11:23)
  • Legitimacy problem for opposition candidates installed by U.S. force—a risk of “U.S. puppet” narrative.

• Election as Possible Path:

  • “An election which would be permitted under fairer conditions... it’ll be frustrating for Venezuelans, though, because they all turned out and voted... they were all subject to reprisal.” (13:11)

7. U.S. Control, Risks of Backlash, and Regional Response

• Controlling Venezuela’s Foreign Policy:
  • Whitaker: “The administration apparently has made clear that it has views on Venezuelan's foreign partners and that Venezuela needs to end its relationships with Iran, with Hezbollah, with Russia, with China and with Cuba.” (16:19)
• Potential for Retaliation:
  • Concern about insurgency or retaliation—“Latin America has a long history of creating insurgent groups which fight against the existing order.” (17:07)
  • President Trump’s explicit endorsements/interventions in elections could inflame regional tensions.

8. Other U.S. Threats: Focus on Colombia and Greenland

• Colombia:
  • Whitaker: “The stated concern of President Trump is drugs… But drug labs are little artisanal activities... It is not a rational use of US military force.” (18:43)
• Greenland:
  • “If the United States seeks to invade Greenland, the United States will conquer Greenland… if there are people... concerned about this use of military force in the case of Venezuela, they will be even more concerned about a U.S. use of military force... against a NATO ally.” (19:20)
  • Predicts such a move would spell “the end of NATO.” (20:04)

9. Dismantling International Order

• U.S. with a New Worldview:
  • Whitaker: “The entire interlocking structure of institutions... NATO, the U.N., the World Bank, the IMF, all of these institutions... all of them are being undermined... because President Trump has an entirely different view...” (20:09)
• Long-term Impact for Listeners:
  • “...we're looking at a future in which the essential nation, the United States, has decided to absent itself from all of those institutions and focus merely on our own hemisphere.” (20:58)

10. Underreported Challenge: Kinetic Force Is Not Enough

• Limits of Military Action:
  • “You can't kill your way out of these situations... There’s not an X number of people or X kinds of people you can kill to actually resolve the matter.” (21:36)
  • Raises doubts that the administration has thought through complex issues like managing oil revenue for the actual benefit of the Venezuelan people.
  • Stresses the essential need for security: “You can't have a democracy without security. You can't have a normal life without security.” (23:24)
  • Warns of the risk of violence, absence of a coherent response, and the chance of chaos.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “[The US is sending a message] that this administration is serious enough to use military force, especially within our hemisphere, to ensure the stated goals of the administration are executed.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (02:00)
• “The world is divided into various spheres of influence... fits very nicely with what President Xi has been saying about Taiwan.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (02:38, 03:05)
• “International law is what the nations say it is... There’s no international enforcement mechanism.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (03:54)
• “There’s no reason to believe that taking out a kingpin like this is necessarily going to affect the flows of cocaine one way or the other. But that’s not the point, right?”
  — Amb. Whitaker (05:50)
• “It is about oil...should be available to the United States as a priority matter...”
  — Amb. Whitaker (07:10)
• “Venezuelans have not lost their fear. They are afraid, justifiably so, of a very repressive regime.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (10:11)
• “It's possible that people concluded that doing something similar in Venezuela, dissolving and collapsing the armed forces and dissolving and collapsing the government, would lead to similar level of chaos.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (11:23)
• “Drug labs are little artisanal activities... It is not a rational use of US military force against such a small bore target.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (18:43)
• “If the United States seeks to invade Greenland, the United States will conquer Greenland. Denmark does not have the capability of confronting the U.S. military... this would effectively be the end of NATO.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (19:20, 20:04)
• “The essential nation, the United States, has decided to absent itself from all of those institutions and focus merely on our own hemisphere.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (20:58)
• “You can't kill your way out of these situations... you can't have a democracy without security.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (21:36, 23:24)
• “We’re in a different world... especially in this hemisphere, in our hemisphere, needs to listen very carefully to what Donald Trump says.”
  — Amb. Whitaker (24:18)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Extraordinary nature of Maduro’s arrest – 01:09–01:47
• Message to the world/Spheres of influence – 02:00–03:01
• Implications for Russia, China, Ukraine, Taiwan – 03:01–03:47
• Debate over legality under U.S./International law – 03:47–04:50
• Maduro, drugs, and the kingpin narrative – 04:50–06:52
• Oil motivations and energy geopolitics – 06:52–09:46
• Prospects for change inside Venezuela – 09:46–11:23
• U.S. stance toward opposition figures in Venezuela – 11:23–13:43
• U.S. influence on Venezuela’s policies and possible retaliation – 16:19–17:07
• Trump threats, regional elections, and Greenland – 18:28–20:09
• Potential end of NATO and international bodies – 20:04–20:55
• Summary of U.S. global role shift – 20:55–21:28
• Limits of military force and risk of violence – 21:36–24:05
• Final advice and closing thoughts – 24:18–24:59

---

Summary Conclusion

This special episode provides candid, sobering analysis on the far-reaching implications of the U.S. arrest of Nicolás Maduro. Ambassador Whitaker highlights how the move signals a shift toward direct U.S. power projection, revives debates over spheres of influence, and layers in complex motives—both legal and resource-driven. He challenges optimistic narratives about swift regime change and discusses the enduring risk of violence, the fragility of Venezuela’s democratic prospects, and the potential unraveling of the post-WWII international order. Listeners are left with a warning: the world, and especially the Americas, have entered uncharted territory and must pay close attention to U.S. rhetoric and actions.

---

Transcript

[A]

Today is Saturday, January 10th. A dramatic move by the US to arrest Nicolas Maduro has put Venezuela at the top of the headlines and the center of a much bigger global debate. Today we're going deeper than we have time for on our Daily show with the help of our guest, Ambassador Kevin Whitaker. He's a longtime US Diplomat who spent more than four decades in the foreign service. He was a senior official at the US Embassy in Caracas years ago and was also the US Ambassador to Colombia. He's now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank the Atlantic Council. Today he's sharing insights and analysis on what message the capture of Maduro sends to the world, what this moment means for the US as well as Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, and what to expect next when it comes to drugs, oil and future conflicts. Welcome to the NEWSWORTHY Special EDITION Saturday when we sit down with a different expert or celebrity every Saturday to talk about something in the news. Don't forget to tune in every Monday through Friday for our regular episodes where we provide all the day's news in less than 15 minutes.

[B]

Erica.

[A]

I'm Erica Mandy. It's now time for today's Special Edition Saturday. Ambassador Kevin Whitaker, thank you so much for joining us here on the newsworthy.

[B]

It's my pleasure.

[A]

So first, just help set the scene for us. How extraordinary or not is the arrest of Nicolas Maduro in modern US Foreign policy? And you know, in the moment we're.

[B]

In today, Maduro and his wife, they had had indictments handed down against them and so they were subject to arrest. It is not at all typical to use the US Military to execute arrest warrants. And it's certainly typical to have chiefs of state be arrested, although both of those things have happened. For example, the former president Honduras ended up being arrested at a certain point, although not by the US military. And in 1989, the US invaded Panama, arresting the then dictator Manuel Noriego.

[A]

And I do want to talk a little bit more about those later. But for now, what message do you think Maduro's arrest sends to the rest of the world today about how America is willing to deal with foreign leaders that it considers illegitimate or criminal?

[B]

I think the principal message that's being sent is that this administration is serious enough to use military force, especially within our hemisphere, to ensure the stated goals of the administration are executed. This is all detailed pretty well and in a fairly clear way in the national security strategy which was just released by the administration. In short, this is our hemisphere and we have a right to do what we will in this hemisphere.

[A]

And yet some say, you know, Russia and China specifically may see this as the US Signing off on a global power forcefully taking what they want from weaker countries. What's your take on that argument?

[B]

It's a pretty credible argument, in my view. I mean, what. The most clear implication of the national security strategy, and more broadly, the way the Trump administration has responded internationally, is that the world is divided into various spheres of influence. There's the United States in the Western Hemisphere, there's Saudi Arabia in its part of the world, Russia in Europe, in China in East Asia.

[A]

So could this be used to justify Russia's war on Ukraine?

[B]

If you look at the plaintext of what Secretary Rubio said on Sunday in the talk shows is that the United States has the right to ensure that actors from outside this region are not involved in this region. And that's a matter of national security. And further, we have the right, the United States has the right to have priority access to all of the resources in this region. So that actually fits very nicely with Vladimir Putin's view of Ukraine. And, of course, it fits in very nicely with what President Xi has been saying about Taiwan, that Taiwan is really a part of China, and the interventions of other nations who seek to promote that Taiwan is an independent country is not permitted.

[A]

Can you briefly walk through the main arguments in the debate about whether this raid violated international law?

[B]

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, there are really two questions. Was this raid a violation of US Law? That is to say, there is the War Powers act, which requires the US President to seek authorization explicitly from Congress before taking military action. US Presidents for many years at an accelerating rate, have simply used force in a variety of circumstances without seeking a formal declaration or war, a formal permission from Congress. And that accretion of history matters in terms of how a court would look at the matter now and how Congress looks at it now, international law is what the nations say it is. If one nation believes that its actions are consistent enough with international law, or they don't care what international law is, then there is no recourse. There's no international enforcement mechanism. There's no international court that the United States respects.

[A]

So let's talk about drugs and oil. There have been many reasons the Trump administration has pointed to for why the US Captured Maduro, and drugs is one of them. What do you think is important for Americans to know about Maduro's role in drugs coming into the US as well as the potential impact, if any, of Maduro's arrest on that flow of drugs into the U.S. now, he was indicted.

[B]

By a grand jury for engaging in a conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. And the theory behind this was that the nation of Venezuela and its security forces were complicit in a wide ranging conspiracy to accomplish that. Now he's been arrested. The Justice Department will have the opportunity to present its evidence and prov its case. It's also true that the vast majority of cocaine which comes out of South America comes from Colombia, not from Venezuela. Most of the cocaine that comes out of Colombia is shipped from Colombian ports and not Venezuelan ports.

[A]

So in other words, this likely isn't actually impacting the cocaine coming into the.

[B]

U.S. in my experience, there's no reason to believe that taking out a kingpin like this is necessarily going to affect the flows of cocaine one way or the other. But that's not the point, right? The reason why people get indicted like major narcotraffickers in Colombia or Mexico is not the theory that this will collapse the organization, but rather the theory that these are kingpins. They are the heads of these large criminal organizations. They violated US Law, they need to be indicted and tried and if convicted, suffer the consequences of that conviction.

[A]

You brought up the former President of Honduras who was convicted of drug crimes in the US but we did see President Trump recently pardon him. Is there a double standard or contradiction there, or are these different enough circumstances?

[B]

Doesn't seem very different. I mean, the only thing that's different is that Hernandez actually had his day in court. The Justice Department was given an opportunity to present its evidence and a jury found that person guilty. That's a key difference, is that Maduro hasn't actually been found guilty by a court yet. It does seem hard to understand.

[A]

All right, so let's talk about oil. Trump has openly talked about bringing U.S. oil companies into Venezuela. There's already a deal being worked out. How central is oil and broader energy policy to all of what's going on now? And what impact could this ultimately have on both countries, Venezuela and the U.S.

[B]

Yeah, in part, this is about oil. And the President and the Secretary have both made that very clear that the resources of Venezuela and more broadly of the region should be available to the United States as a priority matter and should not be made available to extra regional actors unless we say so. That seems to be their vision. As best I can tell from their commentary, Venezuela is a very minor producer of oil. Right now, Venezuela produces less than 1% of daily production. It does sit on a lot of oil there's an absolute bonanza of oil that it sits on. It probably has a trillion barrels of oil. Of that, maybe a third is actually recoverable. It's recoverable depending upon the price, because it costs a certain amount of money to pull the oil up. But 300 million barrels would make Venezuela easily one of the top three or four countries in the world in terms of existing reserves. That's always going to be interesting to the United States. There's a whole other way to look at this. And it's above the ground and below the ground. There are below the ground problems. It's a really tough resource that they have in Venezuela. Very complicated underground structures, very dense, heavy, semi solid oil. It requires a lot of technical and engineering expertise to pull that up, to get it in a condition where you can either dilute it with something or heat it up so it can actually be pumped. All those below the ground problems, those are things that the oil industry can do. They know how to do this stuff. They've done it in a lot of places. They're above the ground problems like Venezuelan oil is subject to sanction now. Not just US Sanctions, but European sanctions. There is the question of legal security. No big oil company is going to go into Venezuela unless it can be assured that it has access to the resource over the long term. And then there's just physical security. Venezuela's a pretty chaotic place right now. And again, oil companies are used to dealing with challenging circumstances, but they're not going to go in unless their physical security is assured in some way too. So there's a lot of questions that would need to be answered before you got to the point where the resource could actually be further exploited.

[A]

So it's still a question of how this will play out and ultimately impact both countries.

[B]

We don't know. And so just as a thought experiment, let's say the tens of billions of dollars which would be necessary to invest in the very dilapidated Venezuelan oil infrastructure is actually made available quite quickly. You're talking about probably a decade before you'd see a really significant impact in terms of new oil coming on the market.

[A]

When we're thinking about the future of Venezuela, I think most Americans agree that Maduro is a bad guy, that he wasn't the legitimate winner of the elections in Venezuel. But for now, at least, Maduro's vice president and the rest of his regime have taken over. And the vice president is even having the military search for anyone who might support what the US has done. So for now, can the Venezuelan people Expect any real change you haven't seen to date.

[B]

Broad scale demonstrations, people coming onto the streets, people feeling that some sort of change has occurred. Which leads me to conclude that Venezuelans have not lost their fear. They are afraid, justifiably so, of a very repressive regime. A regime that has conducted extrajudicial killings, has locked people up, has tortured people. This is a brutal regime. And the fact that Venezuelans are not coming on the streets suggests to me that Venezuelans have concluded that the regime is still in place. And what Secretary Rubio laid out a three step plan which would eventually come to a democratic transition. I think that's what Venezuelans are looking for. They're looking to see how their views about how that space is going to be made available so they can express their real views. And it is clear to me that they don't see that path at this point.

[A]

We have seen that Venezuela's opposition party so far has been left out of this. So why not just go in and put in, you know, opposition leader Maria Carina Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and supports President Trump's actions. You know, Trump has said she doesn't have enough respect to run the country. Why do you think the administration opted against backing Machado or Edmundo Gonzalez, who claimed victory in the 2024 election that was rigged and given to Maduro?

[B]

Yeah, Gonzalez clearly won the election. He won massively there. The administration has not been super clear about what its thinking is. As a matter of analysis, I can suggest two ideas. The first point that I'd make is the United States had a very bitter experience, the Iraqis an even more bitter experience when we invaded Iraq 20 years ago and dissolved the government and dissolved the armed forces. What resulted was chaos and a civil war which took the United States trillions of dollars and resulted in the deaths and wound of thousands of Americans and many, many more Iraqis. It's possible that people concluded that doing something similar in Venezuela, dissolving and collapsing the armed forces and dissolving and collapsing the government, would lead to similar level of chaos. And obviously that would be bad for everyone and would imply at least people would have to consider at that point the use of US Military force to sort of resolve the situation. At that point, if someone in the administration were to articulate that, I would find that pretty compelling. Nobody's really saying it that way, but perhaps this is what they're thinking. Though the other point that I'd make is, look, as I said, I am reasonably convinced that Edmundo Gonzalez won that election. Having said that, it is not clear that he would command the loyalty of the armed forces. One has to take into account as well, what would be the reaction, not just in Venezuela but elsewhere, about a president who is installed after a US Military intervention. Would that undermine that person's credibility? Would it cause people to question him and just say, look, this is a US Puppet, he won the election and so there is legitimacy there. But I think before taking a precipitous action like actually bringing him back in, you'd need to consider all of those.

[A]

Other factors and perhaps have another election to bring a more democratic leader in.

[B]

An election which would be permitted under fairer conditions. Right, because Maria Carina Machado would have been the candidate, but she was disqualified by the regime in a completely unjust way. It'll be frustrating for Venezuelans, though, because they all turned out and voted. This is a risky endeavor for them by turning up, by waiting in line, by voting, by expressing their views. They were all subject to reprisal by the Venezuelan dictatorship. And to ask them to go through that again is asking a lot of people who already said their piece.

[A]

Still ahead, we dig into how much control the US has over Venezuela right now and we get the ambassador's take on President Trump's threats to other countries, including Colombia and Greenland. Plus, he shares one thing he thinks more people should be talking about right now. That and more coming up. But first, a break for our sponsors at the start of a new year. I'm looking for clothes that just work in my everyday life. Well, Quint's makes it simple to get elevated essentials at a reasonable price and it's a great one stop shop for so many of my needs. From super soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters to 100% silk tops and skirts for dressing up to perfectly cut denim for everyday wear and more. These are the kinds of pieces you can wear on, repeat and feel put together with ease. And it goes beyond clothing. Quince also offers thoughtfully made items for home, travel and kids, as well as beautiful jewelry. Not only is my favorite cashmere sweater from Quint's, but I've also gotten my senna shirt from there, my favorite Carry on suitcases from Quince, and I wear a bracelet from Quint almost every day. And like everything from Quint's, each piece is made with premium materials in ethical, trusted factories, then priced far below what other luxury brands charge. Refresh your wardrobe with Quint's don't wait. Go to quints.comnewworthy for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available. Available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comnewsworthy to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comnewsworthy this episode is also brought to you by Skims. Especially when I work from home. I don't like wearing jeans every day because they're not as comfortable as leggings and I stretch them out just sitting at my computer. Yet I get tired of wearing leggings or workout clothes every day. I'm glad to say the Skims fold over pant is a great alternative. I can wear them with the matching tank and I feel put together and yet I'm super comfortable whether I'm lounging, working remotely or running an errand. I also love the Skims slip dresses for a comfortable yet sleek option to throw on and go. And I have several Skims tees, both short sleeve and long sleevesome of my go to basics that pair with everything and both feel and look great on. Of course, everything I get from skims is always super soft and high quality. I'm always impressed by the material and this is true of all their intimates as well. Soft, comfortable and functionality. Shop my favorite loungewear, pajamas, bras, underwear, T shirts and [e-mail] after you place your order, be sure to let them know we sent you select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show the newsworthy in the dropdown menu that follows. Now back to my conversation with Ambassador Kevin Whitaker. President Trump has said the US Will run the country. Rubio said it would be the direction of the country. How much is America steering things right now, do you think?

[B]

You know, it's such early days. The only two things that I think you can say with any level of clarity now, and this is all like some change I think, is that the administration apparently has made clear that it has views on Venezuelan's foreign partners and that Venezuela needs to end its relationships with Iran, with Hezbollah, with Russia, with China and with Cuba. This has been intimated by Rubio, including in his press conferences or press appearances. But there's been other discussion of it in the media that this is something that we're being insistent upon. So that's one thing that we are seeking to control their foreign policy. And then secondly the whole oil question.

[A]

You know, that might make Americans wonder if the US could face retaliation either from Venezuela or one of its more powerful allies.

[B]

That is a perfectly legitimate concern. Latin America has a long history of creating insurgent Groups which fight against the existing order. I'm not suggesting, I know, something like that is going to happen, but it does occur that when something like this happens, you could have that level of response, but you could have a response at a different level as well. President Trump has directly intervened in a number of recent elections. In Argentina, in Ecuador, in Chile, in Honduras. When I say intervened, he has stated his preference. In Canada as well, he has urged the citizens of Country X to vote for this candidate and not that candidate. An action like this, a military intervention in defiance of national sovereignty, which it clearly was, has a tendency of really irritating Latin American sensibilities for historical reasons. So you could see a reaction there, as well as sort of a, you know, what you would be looking for is whether President Trump's endorsement of a candidate helps or hurts after this event. Colombia is facing a presidential election later this year. And if President Trump, in the wake of our action in Venezuela, were to endorse a particular candidate or attack another candidate, I'll be very interested to see whether that has any impact on voting patterns within Colombia.

[A]

And you're talking verbally attack, but President Trump has made threats to other countries after this raid in Venezuela, including Colombia, where you were ambassador, as well as Greenland and others. So which of those threats are you taking most seriously or watching closely, or what do you think of them?

[B]

This is also unpredictable, so it's hard to say. I would say this with respect to Colombia. The stated concern of President Trump is drugs. And if what he wants to do is use kinetic force, use military force to go after the drug problem, it's not a useful approach, right? I mean, you're not going to get done what you hope to get done. He's talked about drug labs and there are cocaine laboratories in Colombia. That is absolutely true. Colombia is the principal producer of cocaine in the world. But drug labs are little artisanal activities. It's kind of three guys and five gallons of gasoline out in the jungle somewhere. It is not a rational use of US Military force against such a small bore target, nor would taking out such a target affect the overall situation with respect to drug production and shipment. Greenland is quite different. It seems this administration is very serious on doing something in Greenland. If the United States seeks to invade Greenland, the United States will conquer Greenland. Denmark does not have the capability of confronting the US Military. Just to state the utterly obvious, if there are people in the world who are concerned about this use of military force, in the case of Venezuela, they will be even more concerned about a U.S. use of military Force without the predicate of judicial action and against a NATO ally.

[A]

Right. This would effectively be the end of NATO, which obviously would help places like Russia.

[B]

Yeah, you know, we may already be there. Right. I mean, it's hard to see how NATO survives all this. And it's all consistent with the vision that's in this national security strategy that President Trump and his people released recently. The entire interlocking structure of institutions that were created in the wake of World War II. NATO, the UN, the World bank, the IMF, all of these institutions that we created, and we put ourselves at the center of them in a privileged position in all of those organizations, all of them are being undermined to a greater or lesser extent, and all of them are at risk precisely because President Trump has an entirely different view of how international affairs should be organized and what the United States role in the world should be.

[A]

For listeners, how would you summarize that?

[B]

If the United States turns its back on NATO, World Bank, IMF, and the U.N. those organizations, those institutions, will continue to exist in some sort of reduced form, but without us at the center of them, they will lack not just the financial weight, but the credibility that they had before. And so we're looking at a future in which the essential nation, the United States, has decided to absent itself from all of those institutions and focus merely on our own hemisphere.

[A]

As we wrap up here, is there anything that we haven't talked about or just generally people aren't talking about that you think we should be discussing more.

[B]

As we look at this question of the United States insisting on certain actions by Venezuela? At the end of the day, what we have is force. I mean, if Del Rodriguez doesn't do what we say, then our alternative, our response to that is force. Kinetic action. Listeners may recall this phrase from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we used it in Colombia when I was ambassador there. I think originally it came from General Petraeus is you can't kill your way out of these situations. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, there are some people who put themselves outside the bounds of normal human behavior, and it's a rational reaction to respond with violence. Look at Ukraine now. But you can't kill your way out of the situation. There's not an X number of people or X kinds of people you can kill to actually resolve the matter. And so I'm concerned that the administration hasn't thought through how it can work beyond the kinetic. What is it going to do? For example, with respect to the oil revenues, Secretary Rubio indicated that we'll be selling Venezuelan Oil, and we will take those proceeds and provide them to the benefit of the Venezuelan people. That sounds great. How's that going to work exactly? Where are the contracts going to be written? What buyers are we willing to accept? Who's going to accept the resources? Where are those resources going to go? How will we. And much more importantly, how will the Venezuelan people be assured that those proceeds will actually go to them? You know, it's an immensely complicated activity, and it is not clear that it's all been thought through. Just a final point on this is before, like absolutely anything else in life, what people need is security, like physical security. You can't have a democracy without security. You can't have a normal life without security. Venezuela has long been a lawless country. It's very easy to imagine really serious outbreaks of violence, both in the urban environment, where there's massive crime organizations and the government is complicit with them, but also with the Colombian illegal armed groups which have taken up residence in Venezuela. Groups like this, this is the only language they know. This is the only tool that they have. They have violence. If there is widespread violence in the urban or the rural environment in Venezuela now, how can we respond to that? Are we meant to respond with U.S. troops? Will we seek friends and partners and allies to come to our side? We certainly haven't done anything to organize that. And so I'm very worried about the possibility for violence and the lack of a coherent response to it.

[A]

Really good points that have not, as we said, been discussed all that much. As people try to wrap their heads around everything that's going on, can you leave us just with one final thought, what you'll be watching for, or just how you would summarize this moment?

[B]

We're in a different world. And so every country in the world, but especially in this hemisphere, in our hemisphere, the Western hemisphere, needs to listen very carefully to what Donald Trump says. One of the things about Trump is he's not, like, super opaque. He's very transparent. He says very clearly what it is that he wants. And so if nations understand what it is that Trump, what the United States wants and can in some manner provide it, assist in it, collaborate in it in a way which is consistent with their own principles and their sovereignty and their law, then that would be the smartest course that they could take. That's the best advice that I could provide.

[A]

Thank you so much to Ambassador Kevin Whitaker for joining us and sharing his insights and analysis. Again, he's part of the nonpartisan think tank, the Atlantic Council of course, we here at the Newsworthy will continue to keep you updated on the latest developments with this story during our daily news roundups during the week. Yes, every Monday through Friday, we keep you informed in less than 15 minutes a day, so be sure you are subscribed or following the Newsworthy in your favorite podcast app. We're back on Monday with the latest news. Till then, have a great rest of your weekend.