Tatyana Makeyeva/Reuters

Cars drive past the U.S. embassy building in Moscow, Russia, July 28, 2017.

Russian TV is running film of US diplomatic vehicles being turned away today from a suburban dacha complex that, until recently, served as the main weekend retreat for embassy staffers in Moscow to walk their dogs, have a barbecue, or just enjoy the outdoors. Sixty percent of US diplomatic staff in Russia will have to be cut within a month, and two key embassy facilities were seized today, amid a round of political body blows that looks almost unprecedented in the troubled history of these two countries.

What is most remarkable about the Russian TV coverage is the meanness of the tone. Behind it lies the clear suggestion that a just retribution is being meted out for the humiliation Russia suffered last December when 35 Russian diplomats were ordered to leave the US within 72 hours, and two Russian recreational compounds were confiscated as punishment for the Kremlin's alleged interference in US elections.

But the cycle of perceived offenses has clearly reached a tipping point, after a new US sanctions bill against Moscow was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last week and Russia belatedly reacted to the December expulsions with sweeping measures that will effectively hobble US diplomatic operations in Russia.

It may not spell a literal return to the old cold war, experts say, but that era's angry, irreconcilable, good-versus-evil spirit appears to be roaring back with a vengeance.

“We're into a situation where, for the indefinite future, there will be no ways to change the situation for the better, and plenty of ways to make it worse,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal. “We're not living anymore in the bipolar world that was dominated by US-Soviet rivalry and Russia, frankly, doesn't matter nearly as much to the global system as the USSR did. But it's pretty clear that no steps are going to be taken to improve things now, and the best we can hope for is rational management of our differences.”

A ‘grim’ mood

Russian diplomatic retaliation has been expected for some time. Kremlin hopes that the December expulsions of Russians might be reversed by the incoming Trump administration have evaporated amid the downward spiral of US-Russia relations that have marked the past few months. But few thought it would take the draconian form that Vladimir Putin announced in an interview Sunday, requiring the US to scale back its total diplomatic personnel in Russia to 455, the same level Moscow claims to maintain in the US.

The US had more than 1,200 employees in Russia in 2013, and experts say that picture hasn't changed much. That means the US will have to remove nearly 800 people working at its Moscow embassy and three consulates by Sept. 1, forcing a drastic curtailment of all but core diplomatic functions.

Those to be laid off will be mostly Russian support staff, such as drivers, security guards, secretaries, interpreters, cooks, and gardeners. But forcing diplomats to perform these jobs in addition to their regular duties is bound to impede activities like social outreach, visa services, and routine information-gathering, experts say. One staffer, who declined to speak on the record, described the mood in the embassy as “grim.”

But Russia has also hinted that it might retaliate further in “asymmetric” ways. Russian officials have declined to spell that out, and Mr. Putin said in his interview that he hoped further measures would not be needed. But the Moscow daily Kommersant explored a variety of steps Moscow might conceivably take, including blocking a US-sponsored resolution against North Korea in the UN Security Council. Trade turnover between Russia and the US was just $20 billion last year, but Moscow might inflict pain by curtailing export to the US of an exotic but vital list of Russian commodities, such as enriched uranium, titanium, and rocket engines.

Though the US holds most of the cards in any economic slugfest, many US-based companies hold significant stakes in the Russian market, including in information technology (Google, Apple, Microsoft), financial services (Visa, Mastercard), and processed foods (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald's).

“It's possible that Russia could hit US companies, if things got very bad,” says Mr. Lukyanov. “It would harm Russia as well, perhaps even more, but that's the way this kind of conflict goes.”

Hunkering down?

While the Kremlin's diplomatic strike at the US follows closely on the heels of Congress's passage of the new sanctions bill against Russia, the bill is not as significant a motivation as it might seem to Western eyes. No one here believes the new round of sanctions will have much impact on Russia, which is returning to economic growth after being driven into recession three years ago by the first cycle of sanctions after Russia's annexation of Crimea and the drastic fall of global oil prices.

“Russia is a big and resilient country that has more than adequately demonstrated that it cannot be sanctioned to its knees,” says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the international affairs commission of the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament.

Other experts point to the fact that Russia and the US have a strong safety net of arms control agreements, mostly fashioned in the late 1980s when the old cold war was being dismantled, that can still be relied upon to provide strategic stability even as the political atmosphere boils over.

“We might be in for a period of tough confrontation, but the situation is not critical. This is not a new cold war,” says Vladimir Dvorkin, a security expert with the official Institute of World Economy and International Relations.

Mr. Klimov suggests that official Moscow has come to believe that Washington is in the midst of some sort of nervous breakdown, and Russia might do best to hunker down and wait out the crisis.

“America has broken away from reality,” he says. “Its economic weight and political clout are not what they were in the 20th century, and Russia is not the prostrate country it was in the 1990s. They need to stop living in the past and come to terms with things as they are. The problem isn't with us.”

Ariana Cubillos/AP

Voters wait to cast their ballots next murals of Venezuelan Independence hero Ezequiel Zamora (l.) and the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, at a polling station in Caracas, Venezuela, on July 30, 2017.

After four months of steady anti-government protests, clashes between citizens and armed forces, and increasingly dire shortages of food and medical supplies, the world watched last weekend as Venezuela stepped into uncharted waters. President Nicolás Maduro hosted a nationwide vote to form a Constituent Assembly granted nearly unlimited legal powers and slated to rewrite the Constitution. What does this mean for the future of Venezuela?

What were Venezuelans voting for on July 30?

Venezuelans were selecting delegates to serve on a Constituent Assembly. The 545 members were chosen from a pool of about 6,000 candidates to rewrite the country's Constitution, drafted and passed under former President Hugo Chávez. Mr. Maduro’s wife, likely his son, and powerful ruling-party politicians were among those selected to serve on the Assembly, which is stacked with government sympathizers. Two-thirds of the delegates were chosen by voters from their region, while one-third were chosen to represent special groups, including indigenous communities and students. A poll suggests that 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose rewriting the Constitution.

Why does the Constituent Assembly matter?

The 1999 Constitution is a potent symbol of Chavismo and the Socialist project Mr. Chávez began, known as the Bolivarian Revolution. But now, the government says rewriting it will promote “reconciliation and peace” amid extreme polarization and simultaneous economic, political, and humanitarian crises.

In critics’ eyes, the process of drafting a new Constitution is a final grab at power, allowing the government to potentially do away with what remains of the democratic system. The opposition boycotted the vote and many argue it should never have happened without first holding a public referendum of support.

And it’s not just the Constitution, referred to by Chávez as the most important text after the Bible, that could change. The Constituent Assembly has the power to dissolve state institutions, including the opposition-run National Assembly, creating large-scale change by decree. Opponents – who now go beyond the “usual suspects” in the opposition, to include former Chávez supporters – fear this marks the end of Venezuela’s democracy.

How did the vote go?

Maduro called it a victory. But, despite months of sometimes violent protests, the vote marked the single deadliest day in Venezuela’s political theatre since demonstrations began in April. At least 10 people were killed, including an aspiring delegate named on the ballot. 

The government claims more than 8 million people cast votes, but that number is strongly disputed. That’s roughly the voter turnout for elections when Chávez was at the height of his popularity, while Maduro has suffered the low approval rating of about 20 percent in recent months. The opposition estimates roughly 2.5 million citizens turned out Sunday for the vote, which Maduro referenced as a “constituent party” and the United States called a “sham.”

Many of those casting votes last weekend were required to do so in order to keep public-sector jobs. There were no election observers or other standard measures to safeguard the authenticity of the vote. And many centers were reportedly deserted: One side-by-side photo posted by a Wall Street Journal correspondent on Twitter shows crowds gathered during a mid-July practice vote and no lines for the actual event on Sunday.

How is the international community reacting?

In a region so closely situated to the power-wielding (and historically quick-to-meddle) US, any kind of intervention in another country’s affairs has long been considered taboo.

Yet 10 Latin American countries, including Colombia and Mexico, condemned the vote and said they wouldn’t recognize the results.

Four of those neighboring countries have said they will join the US in enacting sanctions for following through with the vote. If these sanctions did, in fact, move forward, it would be the first time Latin American countries sanctioned their regional neighbors, experts say.

The US sanctioned Maduro on Monday, freezing his US-based assets and barring anyone in the US from dealing with him. The US is reportedly considering moves to target Venezuelan oil – the country's lifeline – as well. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, but after falling oil prices and years of disincentivizing local food production, it is now struggling to import needed food and medical products for its citizens.

As the international isolation of Venezuela increases, observers hope the government will be pressured to make a change, start a formal dialogue with the opposition, or even step down. But Venezuela still has some friends in its corner, including Bolivia, Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

What’s next for Venezuela?

Once drafted, the new Constitution will be put to a public vote, the government says. But there are no time limits in place, and already the government is using the new assembly – which will go into effect on Wednesday – as an occasion to clean house. On Monday, Maduro called for the restructuring of the prosecutor’s office, which is currently led by former Chavista-turned-Maduro-critic Attorney General Luisa Ortega. She told a news conference after the vote that the government is showing “dictatorial ambition.”

“This will be the end of the freedom to demonstrate, and of freedom of expression,” Ms. Ortega said. The next day, families of two opposition leaders reported that the politicians had been seized from their homes.

The assembly could also do away with the democratically-elected, opposition-led National Assembly, which lawmakers say would create a parallel government, as they have no plans to step down. Many believe the assembly will be used to postpone the 2018 presidential election, as well.

But some question whether the Constituent Assembly could backfire on Maduro. Divisions within the socialist party are no secret, and although Maduro was tapped by Chávez before his death, some say the assembly’s power could be used to oust the president, bringing a new party leader into the top seat.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (L) and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster address sanctions on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the White House daily press briefing in Washington on July 31, 2017.

After promising “strong and swift actions against the architects of authoritarianism in Venezuela,” the Trump administration went right for the top Monday – slapping sanctions on President Nicolás Maduro.

And more sanctions are likely to follow, perhaps even on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry, as Mr. Maduro pursues a rewrite of the constitution that the United States considers the final step in the country’s slide into “dictatorship.”

For starters, the US is threatening to impose targeted financial sanctions on anyone who participates in the Constituent Assembly resulting from Sunday’s elections. Those electors are almost certain to include Maduro’s wife and son.

But are all the punitive measures likely to alter Venezuela’s course?

History suggests they can, some experts in sanctions say, provided those sanctions are just one piece of a multifaceted and multilateral policy.

“Sanctions must not only enrage the target but engage the target,” says George Lopez, an international sanctions expert and professor emeritus at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. “Unfortunately, this administration is falling into the trap of letting the sanctions become the policy,” he adds, “instead of a tool in a larger diplomatic effort.”

But some experts in Latin America’s political history remain dubious that sanctions will ever coerce Maduro into altering his march toward a one-party political system inspired by Cuba and Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president, whose own ruling style was decidedly authoritarian, initiated the country’s leftist-populist revolution.

“Sanctions don’t have a very good track record of achieving their goal, and they certainly don’t in Latin America where there are such regional divisions and always someone to offset the sanctions’ impact,” says Eduardo Gamarra, a professor of political science specializing in Latin American democratization and populism at Florida International University in Miami.

A region divided

Noting the regional and indeed international divide on display following Sunday’s Constituent Assembly election, Dr. Gamarra says the international disunity will only fuel Maduro’s ambitions. The US, Canada, Spain, and a number of Latin American countries including Mexico and Argentina condemned the vote on one side, while Russia joined Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, and most Caribbean countries in support of the election on the other.

“Those two camps are basically the same camps we’ve seen forever,” Gamarra says. “Cuba always had the financial and [moral] support to resist decades of US sanctions, and Maduro will probably benefit from the same divide.”

Latin America is not the best place to look for successful sanctions implementation, Dr. Lopez acknowledges. But he says the region – and the Trump administration for that matter – could learn something from experiences in other places, notably Africa and the Middle East.

A united African Union, usually with broad international backing, has stepped in successfully more than a half-dozen times in recent years “when there was an illegitimate transfer of power or illegitimate claim to power” in an African country, he says. A combination of aggressive diplomacy and coercive measures (or the threat of coercive measures) resolved the political crises, Lopez says.

Lessons from Libya

Many experts point to the role sanctions played in bringing Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. But Lopez highlights the case of Libya and the successful combination of carrots and sticks – sanctions, but also the promise of economic benefits as part of a diplomatic solution – that got Muammar Qaddafi to negotiate with the US in President George W. Bush’s second term.

Mr. Qaddafi gave up his nuclear infrastructure and turned over suspects in the Lockerbie airliner bombing as part of a deal allowing him to emerge and attempt to play a larger leadership role in Africa.

Crucial to the success of those cases was the broad international backing the efforts enjoyed, sometimes underpinned by multilateral sanctions. But if sanctions on Venezuela remain largely a US action, experts say, chances of success dwindle.

“What history shows us is that multilateral sanctions are much more effective than unilateral sanctions,” says Michael Camilleri, director of the rule of law program at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.

“That’s especially true in the case of the US and its efforts to use sanctions to try to bring about change in Latin America,” says Mr. Camilleri, who was director for Andean affairs on the National Security Council under President Barack Obama.

If anything, the US acting alone is the perfect foil for Maduro, who rails against the “imperial power” much the same way Fidel Castro used US sanctions to his benefit.

The Organization of American States, the regional body charged with promoting the hemisphere’s democratic governance and political stability, has so far been unable to present a united front for addressing Venezuela’s crisis.

Risks of broader sanctions

In the continuing absence of a robust multilateral effort to dissuade Maduro from his chosen path, the US could choose to move beyond targeted individual sanctions to broader economic sanctions, Camilleri says, but he calls such a move “risky.”

Not only would it be likely to weaken what multilateral support the US has for condemning Venezuela’s direction, he says, but it could also provoke an even sharper humanitarian crisis in a country already suffering from scant food and medical supplies and an exodus to neighboring countries.

Moreover, he says, such a turn by the US could prompt other powers, particularly China and Russia, to “change their calculations” and see an opening to make “a strategic investment” in America’s backyard.

Venezuela is already behind in paying off $62 billion in loans from China. Just last year Russia’s largest oil company made a significant investment in Venezuela’s state-run oil company – which manages the world’s largest oil reserves.

Neither China nor Russia has an interest in seeing Venezuela collapse into a failed state, analysts note. But some add that neither country is focused on preserving democratic governance, and they underscore what they see as the dangers of a US neighbor (still the third-largest supplier of crude oil to the US market) becoming increasingly indebted to global powers that do not necessarily share US interests.

Where is the middle class?

Some members of Congress are encouraging the Trump administration to shift immediately to broad economic sanctions, hitting the state oil company and blocking the Maduro government’s access to the US financial market. The US oil industry largely opposes such a move, however, saying it would harm US businesses and consumers but bring no guarantee of influencing Maduro.

In the absence of a united international strategy “and any real leadership” to confront Maduro, Gamarra says he fears efforts to influence Venezuela’s trajectory “will remain a spectator sport” and the world will be left to watch the country’s slide.

“People say the middle class will rise up and stop the Maduro government from doing exactly what they want to do, but those people forget that Venezuela’s middle class has largely fled, to Miami and Panama and a dozen other places,” Gamarra says.

“Cuba had the largest middle class in the region after Argentina at the time of the revolution, but then most of them left,” he adds. “The Cubans who stayed have survived 58 years under sanctions and without access to everyday goods, and unfortunately it looks like the Venezuelans are going to do the same.”

There’s not a snowflake in the sky, but Winter Olympic hopefuls are already flying off ski jumps in Utah, firing up their luge sleds in Lake Placid, N.Y., and cross-country skiing past Vermont cow pastures.

With everything from wet suits to wheels to virtual-reality tools, they’re simulating the challenges they’ll face at the 2018 Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea, next February. The perseverance and perfection highlighted on TV for those short few weeks are being honed now, thanks in part to the innovative methods devised by coaches, trainers, and equipment designers.

U.S. Ski & Snowboard

Keaton McCargo uses the Ski Simulator at the Center of Excellence in Park City, Utah. The simulator can be used in tandem with virtual reality technology that simulates the sensory environment of an alpine ski run.

In some ways the lack of natural snow or ice actually makes for safer, more efficient training. Whereas alpine skiers would spend much of their on-snow training sessions riding the chairlift, for example, a skiing simulator allows them to cut straight to the actual training run. Essentially a lateral treadmill, it mimics the forces skiers contend with while hurtling down mountains – and can be used in tandem with virtual-reality technology that replicates the sensory environment of a ski race. A huge bonus: there’s no danger of crashing.

“What we’re trying to do is use virtual reality to expand the time that the athletes can spend in their field of play,” says Luke Bodensteiner, executive vice president, athletics at the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA) in Park City, Utah.

But he doesn’t want to talk too much about that. It’s one of the team’s secret weapons heading into Pyeongchang.

The art of jumping

Bodensteiner works out of the USSA Center of Excellence, which supports 195 national team athletes with state-of-the-art facilities (including napping areas) and a staff that includes conditioning coaches, dietitians, and physical therapists.

Chris Lillis is one of those athletes, and a rising star on the United States freestyle ski team. Last year he became the youngest male to win a World Cup in aerials skiing – at age 17.

Tyler Tate/T Squared Action Sports

Freestyle skier Chris Lillis stands atop a jump at the Utah Olympic Park at the Tri-Nation Aerials Showdown on Sept. 11, 2016. Lillis trains at the facility during the summer and fall, and says that the softer landing afforded by the pool (below) enables him to fit in twice as many training jumps as on snow.

Five days a week, he averages 25 to 30 jumps off the ramps at the Olympic Park, twisting in the air before landing … in a pool. He wears ski boots and skis, and a wet suit in the summer – switching to a dry suit in the fall as the temperatures drop, sometimes with sweatpants underneath.

The easier landing means he can do twice as many jumps as he would on snow. But there’s a catch.

“When we jump on snow the landing we jump on is between 28 and 32 degrees of pitch downwards, so if you land completely flat on water, you would land [wrong] on the snow,” he explains, so they have to adjust their technique. “You want to land forward to simulate snow.”

Abby Ringquist also flies off jumps in Utah – sans wet suit. A ski jumper, she cruises down porcelain tracks, springs into position, and floats through the air to land on moistened plastic. When she takes off, her hips must make an arcing motion – “similar to shooting a basketball … your fist is kind of like your hips in ski jumping,” explains Ringquist.

To perfect that motion, she also does “imitations.” Crouching down, she rides a small platform down a rollerboard, and then springs onto a pile of mats. That’s easier than when you’re going 60 m.p.h. off a jump, explains Ringquist, who just placed second at US Nationals.

In between training, Lillis and Ringquist chip away at college and work multiple jobs. He works for a public-speaking company and a golf course; she coaches, works at a Habitat for Humanity ReStore, and waits tables at a breakfast restaurant.

“None of my travel or equipment or lodging are covered unless it’s a World Cup weekend…. So for me to travel this summer and next winter, it’s about $20,000,” says Ringquist, who lives on a mini-ranch with her husband and their three dogs, two goats, and nine chickens. “My plate’s overflowing, but I do the best I can.”

17,000 bullets

Perhaps one of the hardest elements to replicate in summertime is the distractions of competition day. Take biathlon, for example, which combines cross-country skiing with shooting. As biathletes come into the shooting range, they stream into narrow lanes, pull their guns off their backs, load their ammo, and take aim at their five targets – often with competitors right at their elbows.

“You’ll hear what they’re doing, you’ll see them out of the corner of your eye,” says Susan Dunklee, whose silver at this year’s World Championships made her the first American woman to win an individual medal at Worlds. “You always have to have a plan for when you do get distracted – what are you going to do to refocus?”

It can be something as simple as focusing on your trigger squeeze, which can’t be too quick or too hard, or it will throw the bullet off course. So she practices that in the summertime – just her finger and her rifle, getting to know that exact place where the trigger will engage, like the clutch of a car.

And that’s just part of it. She also runs, hikes, bikes, and rollerskis through Vermont's rolling hills. Altogether, it’s up to four hours of training in the morning, and 1.5 hours in the afternoon – six days a week. She goes through 17,000 rounds of ammunition a year.

Courtesy USA Luge

As part of his summer training ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics, Tucker West (l.) practices his luge starts at a refrigerated facility in Lake Placid, N.Y.

A luge track in the backyard 

Dunklee got her start in biathlon at the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center, where elite athletes can live and eat for free.

Tucker West was recruited there after USA Luge heard about the luge track his dad had built in their backyard in Connecticut, which West would ride down on a plastic sled.

Those who deride luge as “not a sport” clearly haven’t heard about West’s workout regimen.

After 30 to 60 minutes of jogging and stretching, he shows up by 9 a.m. at a refrigerated facility with a short luge starting ramp equipped with starting gates and precision timing. He “pulls” six to 12 starts, then it’s off to the gym for an hour-long plyometric workout.

He eats lunch in 10 minutes – no dessert – and then one to three hours of lifting. Power cleans, power snatch, power jerks. And hanging by his fingers. All for those first few seconds when he’ll pull himself off the start and then use his hands to paddle down the icy track.

Sometimes they put wheels on their sleds and go down the streets of Lake Placid or even the actual luge tracks – but that’s too risky for an Olympic year. After stretching, massage, and other recovery methods, he eats dinner at 5 p.m. and then chips away at online college classes.

“In bed by 10:30 to 11,” he says. “And then repeat.”

With 192 days to go until the Pyeongchang Olympics opening ceremony, athletes from Lake Placid to Latvia have a lot of training ahead of them before the global spotlight is flicked on. Then, the world will see the fruits of their labors – and maybe another little boy and his dad will be inspired to build something in their backyard, with a distant Olympics in mind.

Staff writer Story Hinckley contributed reporting.

Reuters

A Tunisian woman holds up the national flag during a march to celebrate International Women's Day in Tunis March 8, 2014.

Experts on the Middle East often draw a connection between the region’s conflicts and the high rate of violence against women. In the past decade, legal rights for Arab women have slowly improved, offering hope of decreasing violence overall. On July 26, Tunisia set a new standard for the region. The North African country approved a law that recognizes abuse against women in the home as a crime against society.

The new law shifts the blame for violence against women to the perpetrator. It outlaws harassment in public spaces and abolishes the right of rapists to escape punishment if they marry their victims. And it calls for practical assistance for victims of domestic violence, such as emergency shelters and restraining orders against abusers.

Compared with other Arab states, Tunisia is already a model of gender equality. Its legislature has the highest rate of female representation. More women than men graduate from its universities. And its women can initiate a divorce and establish a business without spousal consent.

But it still has one of the highest rates of domestic violence. About half of Tunisian women experience violent attacks in their lifetime. Worldwide, according to the United Nations, a third of women have suffered sexual or physical abuse.

The new law is seen by rights activists as representing a “mental revolution” against the notion that violence in the home is a private matter. It still needs to be funded and implemented, an essential step that will be a test of changing cultural attitudes, not only in Tunisia but in many Arab countries. 

A poll released in May by the UN Development Fund for Women is telling about gender inequality in the region. It surveyed 10,000 men in Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, and the Palestinian territories and found a majority expect to control their wives’ personal freedoms. Yet a quarter or more support at least some aspects of women’s equality and empowerment.

Even without changes in laws like Tunisia’s, Arab women are finding ways to express their rights within the system, according to the 2016 Arab Human Development Report. “[S]ome are challenging the laws and codes by proposing alternative religious readings and their own visions of equality,” the report states.

The region has also “moved towards more socially open values in recent years; especially, the support for gender equality has increased, and civic involvement has expanded,” according to the UN-backed report. In Tunisia, that social trend is fast becoming a legal reality.