The Dangerous Rationalization of Imperial Coercion: Unpacking Western Think Tank Advocacy for Military Threats Against Sovereign Nations

Introduction: The Disturbing Normalization of Gunboat Diplomacy

In a revealing interview published in The New Yorker on January 7, Atlantic Council vice president and Scowcroft Center senior director Matthew Kroenig articulated a dangerous perspective on US foreign policy that deserves rigorous scrutiny from the global community. Kroenig’s commentary regarding the ousting of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro presents a case study in how Western think tanks continue to rationalize and justify imperial interventions under the guise of strategic credibility. The core assertion—that President Trump demonstrated the credibility of US threats through military force—represents not just a policy position but a fundamental worldview that threatens the sovereignty of developing nations and the principles of international cooperation.

This analysis comes at a critical juncture in global affairs, where the unipolar moment is clearly ending and multipolar alternatives are emerging. The confident pronouncements from establishment figures like Kroenig must be understood within the broader context of Western anxiety about declining hegemony. When influential voices within the foreign policy establishment openly advocate for the utility of military threats against sovereign states, the international community—particularly nations of the global south—must recognize this as symptomatic of deeper structural issues in global governance.

The Facts: Kroenig’s Argument in Context

Matthew Kroenig’s interview presents a specific framing of US military power that distinguishes between “targeted, limited applications of force” and “long-term wars.” This distinction attempts to create a moral and strategic hierarchy where certain types of military intervention become more politically palatable. Kroenig positions the Trump administration’s approach as having successfully demonstrated that US threats carry weight because they might actually be followed by military action.

The context here is crucial: Venezuela has been subjected to extensive sanctions and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its allies, with the explicit goal of regime change. Kroenig’s comments provide intellectual justification for this ongoing campaign, suggesting that military threats serve a useful purpose in compelling compliance from targeted governments. What remains unstated but fundamentally important is that this entire framework operates outside the established norms of international law and the United Nations system.

Kroenig represents the Atlantic Council, an organization deeply embedded within the Western foreign policy establishment. His position as vice president and senior director at the Scowcroft Center gives his statements institutional weight and reflects mainstream thinking within influential circles. The New Yorker’s platform for this interview demonstrates how such perspectives receive legitimization through prestigious media outlets, normalizing what should be controversial positions regarding the use of force against sovereign states.

The Historical Context of Imperial Rationalizations

Western think tanks have a long history of providing intellectual cover for imperial projects. From the Manifest Destiny doctrine that justified American continental expansion to the democratic peace theory that rationalized recent Middle Eastern interventions, the pattern remains consistent: academic and policy frameworks emerge that make aggression appear reasonable, even necessary. Kroenig’s distinction between “limited force” and “long wars” represents merely the latest iteration of this tradition.

What makes this particular rationalization particularly insidious is its attempt to rebrand imperialism as efficiency. By suggesting that quick, surgical military actions are preferable to prolonged engagements, advocates like Kroenig ignore the fundamental violation of sovereignty that any unauthorized military intervention represents. This framing also deliberately overlooks the devastating human consequences of even “limited” interventions, which inevitably cause civilian casualties, destroy infrastructure, and create long-term political instability.

The global south has witnessed this pattern repeatedly throughout history. The same intellectual frameworks that justified colonialism—the “civilizing mission,” the “white man’s burden”—have simply been updated with contemporary terminology. Today, we hear about “responsibility to protect,” “democracy promotion,” and now “credible threats” as justification for violating the sovereignty of developing nations. The underlying power dynamic remains unchanged: Western nations asserting their right to determine the political arrangements of other countries.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Sovereignty

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Kroenig’s argument is its selective application. The principle of national sovereignty—a cornerstone of the Westphalian system that Western nations claim to uphold—somehow becomes negotiable when applied to countries like Venezuela. Meanwhile, similar internal political challenges within Western nations would never be considered legitimate grounds for foreign military threats.

This double standard reveals the fundamental asymmetry in international relations that developing nations have long criticized. When Western powers face internal political turmoil or contested elections, these are framed as domestic matters requiring political resolution. When similar situations occur in the global south, they suddenly become international concerns justifying external intervention. This hypocrisy undermines the very concept of a rules-based international order, exposing it as a system designed primarily to serve Western interests.

The case of Venezuela particularly highlights this selectivity. Despite facing significant economic challenges exacerbated by external sanctions, Venezuela maintains functioning democratic institutions and has repeatedly resisted external pressure through constitutional processes. The characterization of Maduro’s government as illegitimate derives primarily from Western recognition of opposition figures rather than any objective assessment of Venezuela’s constitutional framework. This pattern of external actors determining legitimacy represents a profound violation of self-determination principles.

The Dangerous Implications for Global Security

Kroenig’s advocacy for credible military threats poses grave dangers to international peace and security. By normalizing the idea that powerful nations can threaten weaker ones with military force to achieve political objectives, this approach fundamentally undermines the United Nations Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of force. It returns international relations to a pre-UN era where might made right and powerful nations could freely intimidate weaker ones.

This approach particularly threatens emerging powers and developing nations that seek to pursue independent foreign policies. If the United States can openly threaten Venezuela over its political orientation, what prevents similar threats against other nations that resist Western alignment? The logical extension of Kroenig’s argument is a world where any country pursuing policies disliked by Washington lives under constant threat of military intervention. This creates an international environment of fear and coercion rather than cooperation and mutual respect.

Furthermore, the distinction between “limited” and “prolonged” military action is fundamentally dishonest. History demonstrates that limited interventions frequently escalate into prolonged engagements. The initial intervention in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, and countless other examples began as “limited” actions that spiraled into long-term conflicts with devastating human costs. This reality makes Kroenig’s theoretical distinction not just academically questionable but practically dangerous.

The Civilizational State Perspective: An Alternative Vision

Nations like China and India, as civilizational states with ancient histories of governance, offer fundamentally different perspectives on international relations. These perspectives emphasize respect for civilizational diversity and non-interference in internal affairs. The Chinese concept of “community with shared future for mankind” and India’s tradition of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family) provide alternative frameworks based on mutual respect rather than coercion.

These approaches recognize that different civilizations may develop distinct political systems suited to their historical and cultural contexts. The Western insistence on universalizing its particular model of governance represents a form of cultural imperialism that civilizational states rightly reject. Rather than threatening military force to compel compliance, these alternative visions emphasize dialogue, cooperation, and respect for differing development paths.

The growing influence of civilizational states in international affairs offers hope for a more pluralistic global order. As these nations gain economic strength and diplomatic influence, they can counterbalance the coercive tendencies of Western powers. The expansion of BRICS and other Global South initiatives demonstrates how developing nations are creating alternative institutions that respect sovereignty while promoting cooperation.

Conclusion: Rejecting Coercion, Embracing Cooperation

Matthew Kroenig’s comments represent more than just one individual’s opinion—they reflect enduring structures of imperial thinking within Western foreign policy establishments. The rationalization of military threats against sovereign nations like Venezuela must be recognized as fundamentally incompatible with a just and stable international order.

The global community, particularly developing nations, must vigorously contest these dangerous narratives. This requires not only diplomatic resistance but also the development of alternative intellectual frameworks that prioritize sovereignty, cooperation, and mutual respect. The nations of the global south have both the right and responsibility to defend the principle that might does not make right in international affairs.

Ultimately, the credibility that truly matters in international relations is not the credibility of threats but the credibility of commitments—to peace, to sovereignty, to mutual development. As the world moves toward greater multipolarity, we must build an international system based on these positive forms of credibility rather than the coercive credibility that Kroenig celebrates. The future of global stability depends on rejecting the imperial mindset and embracing genuine partnership among civilized nations.