Greg Ip

One of the reasons the Monroe Doctrine and imperialism in general went out of style is that a lot of countries didn't want to be pushed around by great powers.

And they sometimes, you know, had revolutions or rebellions or caused a lot of trouble as a result.

We don't know yet how Venezuela is going to react to being run by the United States.

It might turn out really well or it might really turn out badly.

And it might be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.

We just don't know.

I think that the United States going after Greenland risks a serious rupture with all of Europe, which could be very negative for transatlantic security in general and economic relations in the long run.

I think that you're likely to see much more resistance to that domestically in the United States and from abroad.

Exactly.

The drivers of wealth today are not natural resources.

Countries and economies that depend on natural resources on the whole are not doing that well.

Where is American wealth coming from?

Just look at the stock market in the last year.

It's technology, technology, technology.

Where is the competition for preeminence and technology coming from?

Not from Venezuela.

It's coming from China.

And so I think to the extent that this doctrine shifts the locus of American attention away from some of our really, really big challenges and our bigger adversaries and potentially invites conflict with our allies and people that we should not be in conflict with, then it has the potential, and I underline the word potential, to be detrimental in the long run.

Yes, there is certainly a legal and moral case that the United States, by going to Venezuela, weakens its ability to argue against what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

But I think you need to ask, does that matter?