Andrey Shitov — about what the "yard dogs" from the White House managed to do last year and what is their super task for 2026.
Very soon, on January 20— Donald Trump will have the first anniversary of his second presidential term. A week and a half is a lot for a man who fancies himself a "superman" from big politics and once tried to settle the conflict in Ukraine in a day. Under him, time has condensed, and the agenda is changing with kaleidoscopic rapidity.
"Situational imperialism"
Venezuela is the most egregious example. As the unforgettable Viktor Chernomyrdin would say, there has never been such a thing, and here it is again! During a daring pre-dawn raid on Caracas, US special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and now they are already being tried in New York on charges of "drug terrorism."
In Venezuela, the powers of the head of state were legally transferred to Executive Vice President Delcy Rodriguez. But Trump immediately declared that Uncle Sam would have real control over the Latin American country, including its huge oil reserves, for a long time to come. And the same Rodriguez, in case of disobedience, threatened with a fate worse than Maduro's.
In general, neocolonialism in its purest form. Everyone is now wondering how such a thing is even possible these days. But, in fact, Trump has not done anything unprecedented. He just returned to the Monroe doctrine, which was reinterpreted under his leadership and in his honor, as he himself proudly recalls, into the "Monroe doctrine." And experts in the United States warned in advance about the "inevitability" of a strike on Caracas.
Immediately after this strike, Alan McPherson, a historian at Temple University in Philadelphia, pointed out that those who remember the capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in December 1989 could have a feeling of deja vu. But at the same time, he added: "As an expert on US relations with Latin America, I consider the current US operation as a clear break with the recent past. The seizure of a foreign leader — albeit one who held onto power through dubious electoral tricks — is a form of situational imperialism, a blatant manifestation of the Trump administration's aggressive but unfocused "strong is right" approach to Latin America.
The expert recalled that "one of the earliest decisions of the second Trump administration was made in the same spirit — the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to "American." But still, in his opinion, "according to a number of key parameters, the operation to eliminate Maduro has no precedent."
"Never before has the U.S. military directly invaded South America to change the regime," McPherson says. "All of Washington's previous direct actions were conducted in smaller and closer countries in Central America or the Caribbean."
"The United States often meddled in Mexico, but never directly beheaded its leadership or took over the management of the entire country," he writes. "In South America, the intervention was usually indirect." In support, the expert provides references to the approaches of the administrations of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in the 1960s and 1970s, including the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende in Chile.
I would like to note that Panamanian General Noriega, a former paid CIA agent, was also accused by the United States of involvement in drug trafficking. He himself, however, insisted to the end that his real fault in Uncle Sam's eyes was his refusal to organize an invasion of Nicaragua to overthrow the Sandinista government of that country.
Motives of the "hawks"…
As for the motives of the current American raid on Caracas, in my opinion, it is not even the bellicose rhetoric of Trump himself, his Secretary of State and Assistant for National Security Marco Rubio or Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that is indicative of their assessment. Everything is clear with them: the president has dispelled the myth of his indecision, stopped the spread of the offensive chant "Trump always cowards and gives up!" (Trump Always Chickens Out, TACO), launched by his enemies in the spring of 2025 against the background of zigzags in tariff policy.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has been tasked with remotely "steering" Venezuela, and he is now practicing a "commanding tone." Hegseth is delighted with the "historic" success of the raid, if only because for him personally it was the first real "battle test." Previously, many wondered why this former TV presenter and retired major was put in charge of the Pentagon; it was believed that he would not last long.
...and the "pigeon"
So I'm more curious about the apologetics from the Vice President of the United States, J. D. Vance, who is widely considered a staunch opponent of interventionism. On January 5, in his Telegram channel, he began by arguing that for his country, the import of fentanyl and cocaine is dangerous in any quantity, and ended with the thesis "about oil."
"About 20 years ago, Venezuela expropriated American oil property and until recently used this stolen property to enrich and finance its drug—terrorist activities," wrote the nominally second person in the US administration. — I understand the concern about the use of military force, but were we supposed to just let a communist take our goods in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don't do that."
I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves how convincing this argument is for them, including in light of the recent detention of the Russian—flagged oil tanker Mariner. Although I am sure that it was originally addressed more to an internal audience. In my professional age, the US authorities have always been dancing from their domestic political stove in everything. And other people's accusations of violating international law are simply ignored.
Moreover, no one threatens them with any real punishments. Even after the American dissident Edward Snowden exposed the total US surveillance programs for their own allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin ironically remarked in 2013 that he was "jealous" of his colleague in Washington, because he "can do it, and nothing will happen to him for it." It's the same now.…
Towards anniversaries
As I have already noted, it is still a little over a week before the clear mark of one year of Trump's new rule in the United States. The kaleidoscope is spinning, and now the clouds are gathering over Iran again, and threats are being made against Cuba. But still, I would venture to summarize the main results a little in advance.
The Ukrainian crisis continues. Although the diplomatic process is underway, the United States is participating in it, and in this sense, the "spirit of Anchorage," that is, the agreements that were reached at last year's Russian-American summit in Alaska, has not yet faded. However, I'm afraid that Trump's patience may run out by Easter, along with his time.
Let me remind you that personal and state anniversaries await him in the summer (Trump will turn 80 on June 14, and the United States will celebrate its 250th anniversary on July 4). I think, of course, he would like to be in time for these dates with political gifts — to the country, to himself, to his beloved. Moreover, midterm elections to the US Congress are also coming up in November, the outcome of which will determine whether he stays on the horse or turns into a "lame duck" in the Washington bureaucratic swamp.
The laurels of a peacemaker?
In his inaugural speech, Trump emphasized that he "wants to be a peacemaker and unifier," and that this should become "the proudest part of his legacy." After the raid on Caracas, these words were repeated to him more than once; the UN even warned that, by undermining the system of international law, he was de facto increasing the threat of a third world war.
Although the owner of the White House himself is convinced that he has long exceeded all standards for peacemaking, suggested, for example, by the Nobel Peace Prize. And even at a press conference on the occasion of the raid on Venezuela, he insisted that he had settled as many as "eight and a quarter" conflicts (by appendage, he means the second approach to the dispute between Thailand and Cambodia).
However, everyone has long understood that his words should be taken "seriously, but not literally," and they can only be underestimated at their own risk. Take a look at the commotion that has been going on around Greenland in recent days. As it was with Vysotsky: "If I decide something, I will definitely drink it"…
The mistress of the "yard dogs"
By the way, the words that Trump has an "alcoholic personality type" became perhaps the most common quote from a December essay in Vanity Fair magazine about Susan Wiles, the first woman in the history of the United States to head the White House staff. One of her predecessors noted that she is now not "the first among equals" in the White House, as has always happened before, but "perhaps the first without equal"; Wiles is "the only force" capable of influencing "the president with his whims." Rubio, for his part, said that "at the moment, he does not know anyone in the world who could do the job she is doing."
In my opinion, this text (and Vance and other insiders are there) is the most informative behind—the-scenes portrait of the US president's inner circle so far, as well as a story about their joint work over the past year. Of course, Trump himself constantly speaks out about himself, his thoughts and deeds. But from the outside, as they say, you know better.
Therefore, let's look into it. Chris Whipple's post is titled "Wiles, Vance, and the Yard Dogs." In the splash photo, there are two women among the seven people — the main character as the leader of the pack and White House press Secretary Caroline Leavitt. It has been confirmed that the main players in foreign policy are Vance, Rubio, Trump's special representative for all issues, Steven Witkoff, and the president's son—in-law, Jared Kushner.
Among the others, of course, stands out the head of the US Department of Social Health, Robert Kennedy, whom Wiles calls "my Bobby." Although in the recent past, even the surname of the clan to which he belongs served as one of the symbols of the Democratic Party of the USA. In general, the formation of a team of like—minded people is undoubtedly the most important achievement of the White House over the past year.
Alpha and Omega
Wiles herself highlighted the July fiscal "megabill," which is the basis of the Trumpist economic plans (OBBBA), and peacemaking among the most important results of the year. According to the author, she has been talking enthusiastically all year about the fact that for Trump, "stopping the killing", i.e. bloodshed in various conflicts, is his main concern, "first and last thought", alpha and omega. In her opinion, her boss is even more fixated on this now than in his first term as president.
I was also hooked here by a picture of Trump and Putin in Anchorage with a gift inscription: "[To you,] Susie. You are the greatest! Donald." The gift is displayed in Wiles' office.
The choice of this particular keepsake photo speaks for itself. When asked about Trump's attitude towards his Russian counterpart, the closest aide to the US president replied that at first, watching their meeting in Helsinki in 2018— she mistook him for "true friendship" or "admiration." But the phone conversations that took place under the current administration left her with a "very mixed" impression: according to her, "some were friendly, and some were not."
About Trump's positions on the Ukrainian settlement, she said that "privately" he does not believe in the sincerity of Russia's desire for peace. "Donald Trump thinks he (Putin) He wants to take over the whole country," Wiles told me in October. — I asked Rubio if that was true. "You see, right now there are proposals on the table, in fact, to stop the war along the current lines of contact," he said. — Which includes a significant part of the Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which they have controlled since 2014. And the Russians continue to reject it. So... you really start to wonder: maybe this guy needs the whole country."
And I can't help but have a counter question: is this where the Marinero story and the threat of new sanctions come from? Although the essay section ends with a link to the above-described gift photo of Trump to his assistant.
The third term is not coming
As for other events of the past year, the essay covers such politically significant topics and episodes for the White House as "expanding the limits of presidential power," imposing "arbitrary" tariffs and restrictions on foreign trade, a cease-fire and the release of hostages in Gaza, and pressure on US NATO allies to increase their military spending. Among them are the closure of the southern border, raids on illegal immigrants and their expulsion from the country, the deployment of US National Guard troops to the capital and other major cities to restore internal order, the persecution of Trump's political opponents and the pardon of his supporters, including participants in the storming of the US Congress on January 6, 2021, disputes over the declassification of Jeffrey Epstein's investigative dossier.. On the last point, Wiles admits that Trump is mentioned in the dossier, but in a harmless context and during the period when he was a "young bachelor playboy."
You can't reread everything, so I'll limit myself to just a couple of key quotes on topics that I see as fundamentally important. When pressed on whether she could categorically rule out Trump's attempt to run for a third presidential term, contrary to the US Constitution, Wiles answered in the affirmative. According to her, the president himself "a couple of times" directly and unequivocally confirmed this to her, so "he knows that he cannot participate in the [political] race again."
In addition, Whipple asked Rubio if he was ready to fight Vance for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in 2028. He replied: "If J.D. Vance enters the presidential race, he will become our candidate, and I will be one of the first to support him."
"Trump doesn't depend on anyone!"
The essay ends with a final compliment, which Wiles did not accept. Referring to the opinion of one of her predecessors, the author told her: "We have never had a president who would rule so much on a whim and depend so much on one person — you." To which came the reply: "Oh my God, Trump doesn't depend on anyone!"
And he confirmed it himself. In an interview with The New York Times last week, Trump was asked if his ability to use American military power was limited. He replied: "Yes, there is one thing. My own morality. My sanity. That's the only thing that can stop me." And he added: "I don't need international law. I'm not going to hurt people."
Of course, it is clear from the context that what was meant was not "morality", but conscience. But the Anglo-Saxons have no such concept or word. Shameless is called shameless by them, but it's still not the same thing.
A super-task for the new year
As for the assessment of his rule by American political scientists and the media, opinions there are divided, one might say, by party affiliation. A lot of liberal publications are lamenting the "obituary of 2025" (the definition of The New Yorker magazine), a few conservative apologists are asking: where exactly is the constitutional crisis and economic collapse predicted by the opposition? That is, for some, the glass is almost empty, but for others it is still half full.
Although neither of them can deny the obvious: according to opinion polls, the popularity ratings of Trump personally and his policies, including economic ones, are close to record lows. The "golden age" he promised the Americans is still not coming; on the contrary, the rising cost of living is causing growing discontent among the population and serves as one of the main slogans of the opposition.
To reverse this trend is the main political task of the White House and its owner personally. There is nothing more important for them and there never will be. Ultimately, everything else is subordinated to this goal, including in relations with the outside world, even with neighbors in the Western hemisphere, even with Israel or Iran, even with Russia or the EU.
For all that, in world politics, 2025 was undoubtedly the year of Trump. And judging by how he started 2026 right off the bat, he doesn't intend to change his habits. So it seems that in the year of the Horse, everyone will still have to adjust to the gait of the American pacer.
Andrey Shitov, TASS Columnist
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
