Hello, I'm with Mark Hansian. 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. Uh Mark, thank you for joining the Trendy Journal today. >> Thanks for having me on the show. >> I wanted to get you on because I read the article in the 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 US 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 I'd love to hear your opinion on what exactly that meant that 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? By 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 US naval capability. The fact that it moved from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean is strategically important. the Mediterranean. Of course, there's 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 list in Venezuela for possible operations. something's going to have to happen with the carrier. >> Can you explain um we we saw what happened with the Houthis um when when the Houthies squared off with the United States in the Red Sea and there have been people there have been analysts who said that the Houthies fought the US to a draw. Um some people said that the Houthies might have even edged out the United States a little bit in that conflict. Um, what do you think? Was 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 a tough loss? What's your opinion on on that, Mark? >> Well, it shows how difficult it is to uh destroy a group on the ground, particularly a group that doesn't really have uh 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 Venezuela is strategically important though for China and Russia. You don't think you think that they would sit this one out and and and let the United States um if if they 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. Uh 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 that's it. The 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 anymore 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. >> Does the I I I spoke to one analyst who said who warned against any kind of real military um any kind of an invasion from the United States on in Venezuela. and he compared it to Venezuela potentially becoming like a Vietnam type situation where the US could find itself in a very in a war of attrition um because of the dense jungles that it's easier to you know launch missile strikes or air strikes but to carry out any kind of significant ground invasion or any kind of ground strikes with with troops that could be a completely different story. Um, do you think that any kind of strike carried out by the US would be limited to air or do you foresee any kind of troop mobilization in Venezuela on the US'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. 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. um if Venezuela stood up and mobilized and and used their you know anti-air missiles and um could they uh fight the US and and stand up to the US or would it be a relatively quick encounter in your view? >> The short answer is that Venezuela does not have the capability to threaten US forces. Their navy is small and and illrep force is the same. Uh it's small. It had they do have some relatively modern Russian aircraft. Uh 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 an contested air environment and could overfly Venezuela, the risk is just too great and the if we had losses in aircraft shot down for example, that would change the political dynamic. So I think the administration will decide to use long-range missiles, conceivably stealth bombers, B2s, although that's not really necessary. Do we have a missile a missile shortage in this country, Mark? I mean, I remember after Iran attacked uh exchanged missiles with Israel in June, the US had to respond and help defend Israel. Um, 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 um war. We have uh European countries at least buying weapons from us. are how how many weapons are we um producing right now, Mark, to consider going to war in Venezuela to continue to pro provide weapons for Ukraine, to continue to provide weapons for Israel. Is the US right now just absolutely going wall-to-wall weapons production? Is that what's happening right now? Um with Rathon, Boeing, and Lockheed, >> there's been tremendous attention to missile production in the last couple of years. The experience in Ukraine was an eye openener 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. Uh some areas are in relatively good shape. Long range missiles, JASM, one example. We have a pretty good inventory. Uh Tom 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 um off the coast of Venezuela? Um is that something that the Venezuelans could, if they wanted to, if they if they really devoted themselves to, could they potentially strike a a carrier in in from in the US fleet? >> The short answer is no. U they don't really have the capability uh 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. In fact, 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's in 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 we're we're going to be going to engage Venezuela. It's not just going to be alleged drug boat smuggling any more strikes on 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 uh carrier battle group to the Caribbean, that caught my attention because a carrier is a very poor platform for counterdrug operations. It has some helicopters, but it's capabilities are optimized are very good at striking targets ashore. uh that comes from its airwing 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, but we're adding and we're adding an asset that's really not very good at counterdrug 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. Uh 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 we mentioned the risk the potential risk for China and Russia getting involved. Do you think that that risk is very low? Um, what do you think the risks of regional countries like Cuba or Colombia getting involved to some degree? And also just uh this 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 uh has been in the works for a while now and is relatively um as as safe as could be if he if he goes to work? Well, Maduro has very few friends in the area. Most of the countries in the region would be happy to see him go. Uh the Cubans may be the only ones uh who have a close relationship with him. the risk and the thing that makes their neighbors nervous is uh the possibility of a war that goes long, the possibility of US 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 gerillas. Uh so if the they won't be 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 and uh and this is 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 um you don't want that to be uh you know up for grabs potentially you Well, that's true. The uh 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. Uh 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 hinderland. My while I have you my last question mark. I I appreciate you joining me. Um I I just want to just shift gears to Ukraine real fast. Um obviously we know what's going on there. We have uh Russia and Ukraine are now striking a little bit more on soft targets. Energy has been a big target for Ukraine and trying to attack Russian energy facilities, oil refineries, and Russia's been striking Ukraine's energy facilities before the winter months. Um, Trump has also been debating whether or not to provide Ukraine with tomahawk missiles. Um, do 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 uh Ukraine? They're losing in Perbosk. Um, that the the strategic hub in Nambas. Um, do you see any kind of uh any 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? Um, what what do you think? Is there is there 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 uh focused on javelins early on and then it was highars and then it was patriot and then it was M1 tanks and then it was F-16s. All of these are helpful and uh 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 needs a continuous flow of weapons, ammunitions and supplies. Militaries in combat go through supplies and munitions at a very high rate. They need continuous resupply. It's uh the analogy I make to people is that this is like going to this 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 you know once you've bought everything you're done for at least you know a number of years. Uh 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. Tom Hawks 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. And if that is imperiled, if that is uh reduced, and it's already been reduced to some degree, that's one thing that might push them into serious negotiations. >> Mark Mark Hansen, CSIS, thank you so much. Oh, did you have one more thing you wanted to say? >> I do. >> Okay. I could just I could edit this out, so yeah. >> All right. Just continue with whatever you wanted to say. >> Yeah. 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 car 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. And you could imagine that maybe one of them would get fed up and uh maybe ambush a military truck in Puerto Rico or maybe even shoot up a resort in the Caribbean with US tourists uh 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, you know, to try to g a false flag uh attack. That would definitely, I think, you know, at least some in the on social media would question an attack like that. Don't you think, Mark, that would be hard for um you know, 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 I don't think most Americans from a poll that I recently read, I think I think 53% of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are opposed to going to war with Venezuela and these and these boat these boat strikes. So So the the mess the public's not completely on board right now, >> right? >> Oh, absolutely. Uh and you know, if there were such a terrorist incident, uh 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, um do you think that these are legitimate strikes on these drug boats um in in the Caribbean? Do you do you agree with the Trump Trump's position that these are naroterrorists and these are legit we're at war with these narot terrorists so the president has the ability to carry out these strikes or do you agree with the position from like the Rand Pauls of the world who say who say no these strikes are illegal you need to go through Congress before we can go and do this and and also Europe has been opposed to these strikes um they've been vocal about that it's Marco Rubio even said recently that you know we don't tell Europe what to do and they should tell us what to do in our hemisphere um 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 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 uh 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. Um there are stories that some of the crews are are were fishermen who were just looking for an extra buck and signed on with a drug boat. Um but there hasn't been any concrete evidence that um that they weren't drug boats. So right now I'm inclined to believe that they were they were um we'll see if that continues because sooner or later they might hit a boat that is clearly not a drug runner and that you know would uh you know 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. United States has been doing counterdrug operations in the Caribbean for decades, but that's mostly been done by the Coast Guard uh which has law enforcement author authorities and u arrests um the crews of any vessels that they capture and puts them on trial. The administration has claimed uh justification. They've they've made two claims. One is the president saying that this comes under his authorities under section under article two of the constitution that he is defending the constitution of the United States against a foreign attack characterizing the cartels as a a for you know attack by a foreign entity. The second is that drugs constitute chemical warfare and therefore this is covered by some of the 911 authorizations. Legal scholars consider both of these a tremendous stretch and many people call them illegal. 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 uh 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 cons conduct certain operations. Mark Hansen, CSIS. Thank you so much for joining the Trends Journal today. Mark, you're always such a wealth of information. I appreciate it.