4

Recently the Russian Ministry of Finance stated it expects Venezuela to provide payments on time.

Given the U.S. has imposed sanctions against Venezuela, would the economic influence on Venezuela give Russia legitimate reason to include the U.S. or other nations in actions to recover the loan?

To clarify further, I am looking for any existing precedents on international law or Russian history (from the beginning of the Russian Empire, 18th century, roughly when the U.S. started just to pick a date) that would lend credence to Russia legitimately pursuing the U.S. for impairing Venezuela's capacity to repay the loan. Looking for historical evidence or cited context on previous examples that may be relatable to the current situation.

Are there actions Russia can take on Venezuela that the U.S. would be obliged to honor?

A hypothetical example: The US would be forced to pay the loan for Venezuela by breach of a treaty. Or, alternatively, the US would be forced to allow Russia to confiscate Venezuelan assets.

I am seeking potential actions based on evidence. Also, this is not speculating on motives or willingness to comply. Evidence being an treaty, declarations, or action done in a analogous situation.

The heart of what I am seeking is what happens to Venezuela if it doesn't pay Russia what it owes Russia?

Edit: Added some context. This is not seeking speculative or opinionated answers. The primary part of the question is focused on Venezuela. Anything related to the U.S. is ancillary.

  • 1
    I've removed a part of this question which was highly speculative. Please keep in mind that we do not answer questions which ask us to predict the future or ask for internal motivations, because answers can not be confirmed or refuted with information which is already available. – Philipp Jan 30 at 9:25
  • @Philipp Thanks for the edit. It isn't meant to be speculative. Really, I have zero knowledge on Russia-Venezuela relations or politics. I am more interested in what, if any, actions are established, understood, or common in a situation of foreign loans. – David S Jan 30 at 15:20
  • 1
    I don't follow the question at all. The loans from Russia to Venezuela are a bilateral agreement between those two countries. The loan, nor its potential default, creates no obligations on any third party. I don't understand what "this" refers to in the second paragraph. Nor do I understand what you mean "actions... that the US would be obliged to honor" What does it mean "to honor an act"? – James K Jan 30 at 21:18
  • @JamesK This loan seems different from my understanding of national debt. This seems to be a direct loan rather than bonds or other forms of capital raising mechanism a nation may use. You would be obliged to honor the bank repossessing your brother's car if he didn't pay his car loan. You can replace "must allow" instead of "obliged to honor" for simplicity, but it skews the meaning I am going for. – David S Jan 31 at 16:37
  • I still don't get it. I also don't get the analogy. If my brother's car is repossessed, what does that have to do with me? I don't have to pay my brother's loan, I have no obligation to the bank. And I don't see the relevance to the trilateral relationship between US, Russia and Venzuela. No agreement, treaty or deal or loan (in cash or bond) between two countries can create any kind of obligation on any third country under any circumstance. – James K Jan 31 at 22:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.