Peace in Ukraine, War in Venezuela: American Foreign Policy, a Morality of Variable Geometry By Jean Venel Casseus

Personally, nothing surprises me anymore. I hope it doesn't surprise you... Recent international news reveals a disconcerting scene for anyone who takes official discourses on the moral coherence of the international order seriously. While Washington encourages, supports, and values a dynamic of de-escalation in Ukraine, in the name of global stability and strategic responsibility, the same power maintains sustained political, economic, and diplomatic pressure against Venezuela, in an openly conflictual manner. This juxtaposition is neither an error nor a confusion. It follows a constant in American foreign policy, where morality functions as an adjustment variable serving interests and power dynamics. In the Ukrainian issue, the central challenge lies in managing a conflict of high strategic intensity. The United States finds itself indirectly engaged against a nuclear power, endowed with military, energy, and diplomatic capabilities capable of permanently disrupting global balances. After a phase of affirmation marked by massive support for Kyiv, the calculation gradually shifted towards limiting costs, preserving Western cohesion, and preventing uncontrollable escalation. The pursuit of peace here responds to a logic of stabilization, not a sudden conversion to the pacifist ideal. Venezuela occupies a completely different place in Washington's strategic hierarchy. A weakened state, isolated on the international scene, lacking global disruptive capacity, it constitutes a theater where pressure appears manageable and politically low-risk. *American policy towards Caracas is part of a long hemispheric tradition, marked by the desire to preserve a zone of influence considered vital, to control regional energy balances, and to deter any lasting challenge to the continental order dominated by the United States.* The difference in treatment stems from an assumed strategic calculation. Prudence is required on the Ukrainian front, while the Venezuelan issue lends itself more to firmness. Russian power makes negotiation unavoidable regarding Kyiv, whereas in Caracas, coercion remains, for Washington, a lever deemed sustainable. This asymmetry expresses an assumed prioritization. The principles invoked—democracy, institutional legitimacy, political rights—structure the discourse and provide a framework for justification, without ever constituting the exclusive driver of action. This morality of variable geometry runs through the history of American foreign policy. It does not arise from an accident or a particular administration. From the Cold War to contemporary crises, *the United States has constantly modulated its normative discourse according to contexts, adversaries, and anticipated costs.* Values serve as a universal language, sometimes as rhetorical cover, rarely as an autonomous compass. It is power dynamics, systemic constraints, and strategic interests that determine the real direction of choices. What is striking today is the increased visibility of these mechanisms. In a saturated information environment, where declarations circulate faster than the decisions they claim to explain, the gap between stated principles and concrete practices appears with unprecedented clarity. Those who are still surprised by the American asymmetry between Ukraine and Venezuela continue to expect ethical symmetry in an international system structured by the asymmetry of powers. *Those who observe without illusion recognize that American foreign policy, throughout its history, has never promised either universal peace or permanent war.* It has always promised and acted in defense of its interests, wrapped in a moral discourse whose geometry varies with the world map.
_
Pennsylvania, December 15, 2025.
__ Jean Venel Casseus is a journalist, holding a master's degree in defense and security of the Americas. He is notably the author of a work dedicated to the geopolitics of the sacred, titled *Au nom de Dieu*.