Editorial News Uncategorized

Delcy Rodriguez Challenges Trump as the United States Blocks Venezuelan Oil

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-21 00:04:06

A Political Heiress in a Position of Strength

Delcy Rodriguez, 56, is no political novice. The daughter of Jorge Antonio Rodriguez, a leftist guerrilla fighter and founder of the revolutionary Liga Socialista party in the 1970s, she has been steeped in Bolivarian socialist ideology since childhood. She has successively held the positions of Minister of Communications, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Vice President since 2018, establishing herself as one of the most powerful and influential figures in the Maduro regime. Nicolás Maduro himself described her as “a courageous, experienced young woman, the daughter of a martyr, a revolutionary, and battle-tested in a thousand battles,” demonstrating the absolute trust he placed in her. In addition to the vice presidency, she holds the crucial positions of Minister of Finance and Minister of Petroleum, giving her direct control over the economy and the country’s primary resource.

Rodriguez’s appointment as interim president by the Venezuelan Supreme Court on January 4, 2026, was seen by many as an attempt to maintain the continuity of the Chavista regime in the face of U.S. aggression. Some reports indicate that Rodriguez was in Russia at the time of the U.S. operation, which could explain why she escaped capture. Her brother, Jorge Rodriguez, president of the National Assembly, was in Caracas during the events. The Rodriguez family now forms the core of the Venezuelan resistance against U.S. pressure. Delcy Rodriguez has inherited a country in ruins, with inflation exceeding 3,000%, chronic food shortages, and a dilapidated oil infrastructure. Yet her determination to defend national sovereignty seems unshakable, as evidenced by her first public address following Maduro’s capture.

There is something fascinating about Delcy Rodriguez. This woman, who grew up hearing stories of her father’s revolutionary struggle, who has devoted her entire life to a political ideal, and who now finds herself leading a country under a barrage of international criticism… this is the kind of destiny that inspires novels, not geopolitical reports. I do not share her ideology—far from it—but I cannot deny the strength of character it takes to stand up to the Trump administration from a besieged capital. It is an untenable position, desperate even, and yet she holds on. Like a wounded animal that refuses to give way. I feel a mixture of admiration and concern as I watch him. Admiration for his resilience. Concern for what this kind of brutal confrontation might lead to.

Rhetoric of Absolute Defiance

In her televised address on January 3, 2026, Delcy Rodriguez adopted particularly virulent rhetoric against the United States and the Trump administration. She described Maduro’s capture as a “barbaric act” and an “illegitimate abduction,” asserting that the Venezuelan people would never be “slaves” to foreign powers. “If there is one thing the Venezuelan people and this country are absolutely certain of, it is that we will never again be slaves,” she declared emphatically, stressing that the entire country was mobilized. She insisted that there was “only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” thereby challenging the legitimacy of any U.S. attempt to impose a new leader. This firm stance contrasts with U.S. expectations, which had anticipated a swift capitulation following Maduro’s capture.

Rodríguez also called on the international community to condemn what she described as a “shameful act,” urging governments around the world to express their solidarity with Venezuela. She demanded proof of life for Maduro and his wife, expressing concern about their treatment in U.S. custody. This request for proof of life—even though Maduro had already been photographed in handcuffs upon his arrival in New York—is part of a communication strategy aimed at maintaining doubt and mobilizing the Chavista base. The vice president also emphasized that Venezuela continued to function normally despite Maduro’s absence, asserting that state institutions were operating in accordance with the Constitution. This statement—made as the capital remained unusually quiet and many businesses closed—was intended to project an image of continuity and stability in the face of U.S. aggression.

What I find troubling is the historical resonance of this rhetoric. The words “never slaves,” the defense of national sovereignty against U.S. imperialism… this is a narrative we’ve heard time and time again in Latin America, from the 19th century to the present day. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales… all have used this language to mobilize their people against what they portrayed as a foreign threat. And it still works. Because Latin American history is marked by U.S. interventionism, by coups d’état backed by Washington, and by dictatorships imposed from abroad. Delcy Rodríguez is playing on this deep-seated collective memory. She knows that even those who detest the Chavista regime may be reluctant to accept a brutal U.S. intervention. It’s a cynical but effective political strategy.

Section 3: U.S. Requirements and Marco Rubio's Strategy

Rubio’s Diplomatic Shift

Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, has adopted a nuanced position that contrasts with President Trump’s more aggressive statements. During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on January 4, 2026, Rubio clarified that the United States had no intention of directly governing Venezuela, but rather of maintaining an “oil quarantine” on the country. This statement marks a notable retreat from Trump’s previous assertions, as he had repeatedly declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela until an appropriate transition could be organized. Rubio’s strategy is to use the existing oil blockade as leverage to impose policy changes on Caracas without resorting to a direct military occupation, which could prove costly and unpopular.

Rubio explained that the quarantine on sanctioned oil tankers—some of which have already been seized by the United States—“remains in place and represents a considerable amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes.” These changes, according to Rubio, must include not only reform of the oil industry for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, but also an end to drug trafficking. The Secretary of State emphasized that this objective primarily serves U.S. national interests, while promising that it would lead to a better future for Venezuelans. This more moderate approach aims to allay fears both within the Democratic coalition and among supporters of an “America First” policy who traditionally oppose costly foreign interventions. Rubio sought to clearly distinguish this operation from previous U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, stating that “this isn’t the Middle East. And our mission here is very different. This is the Western Hemisphere.”

Marco Rubio intrigues me. This Cuban-American conservative, who built his political career in opposition to Cuba and socialism, now finds himself having to manage a direct military intervention in a socialist country… there’s an irony here that doesn’t escape me. His attempt to present this operation as fundamentally different from Iraq or Afghanistan leaves me skeptical. History teaches us that foreign interventions have their own logic, their own dynamics that often escape the control of those who initiate them. Rubio may well say that this isn’t the Middle East, but the mechanisms of occupation, local resistance, and military escalation are universal. And then there’s the personal dimension. Rubio knows Latin American history; he knows the scars left by U.S. interventionism. I wonder how he really feels about this situation.

Economic Pressure as the Primary Tool

The U.S. strategy relies primarily on economic leverage, particularly control over Venezuelan oil. The United States has maintained severe sanctions on the Venezuelan oil industry for several years, but these measures have been significantly strengthened following Maduro’s capture. The “oil quarantine” mentioned by Rubio involves intercepting any ship carrying Venezuelan oil suspected of violating U.S. sanctions. This approach aims to strangle the Venezuelan economy by cutting off its main source of revenue, in the hope of forcing the Rodriguez government to accept U.S. demands. Economic experts, however, are concerned about the potential humanitarian consequences of such a strategy, as the country is already facing a dire food and medical crisis.

The U.S. demands, though still only partially articulated, likely include ending the control of the oil sector by elements close to the Maduro regime, ceasing cooperation with drug cartels, and holding free elections under international supervision. Trump has suggested that U.S. oil companies would play a key role in rebuilding Venezuela’s energy industry, stating that “we built Venezuela’s oil industry” and that the United States would return there. This prospect worries many observers, who fear that Venezuela’s natural resources will be plundered by foreign interests rather than used to further the country’s development. The U.S. approach is based on the assumption that economic pressure will force the Rodríguez government to capitulate or collapse, allowing the United States to impose a political transition favorable to its interests.

This strategy of economic strangulation makes me deeply uneasy. I understand the political logic: using sanctions as an alternative to direct military occupation, avoiding American casualties, and forcing change through hardship rather than brute force. But the human consequences are devastating. Ordinary people—those already suffering from the economic crisis—will be the first victims of this oil blockade. Children who don’t have enough to eat, the sick who can’t find medicine… they are the ones who will pay the price for this economic war. It is a form of violence just as destructive as bombing, but less visible, less publicized. And then there’s this moral dimension that troubles me. Punishing an entire people for the crimes of their government… is that really fair? Is it truly compatible with the values we claim to defend?

Section 4: Venezuelan Oil at the Heart of U.S. Strategy

The World’s Largest Reserves

Venezuela officially has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even those of Saudi Arabia. According to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Venezuela holds more than 300 billion barrels of oil, primarily in the form of extra-heavy crude in the Orinoco Basin. These reserves represent a colossal potential source of wealth for the country, but their extraction poses considerable technical and economic challenges. Venezuelan oil is particularly difficult to extract and refine, requiring massive investments in infrastructure and technology that the country has been unable to provide in recent years. The state-owned company PDVSA, once an industrial flagship, has suffered from decades of underinvestment, mismanagement, and corruption, significantly reducing its production capacity.

Before Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, the Venezuelan oil industry produced more than three million barrels per day. Today, that production has fallen to less than 500,000 barrels per day, according to some estimates. This dramatic decline is due to a combination of factors: Chávez’s expropriation of foreign oil companies, the departure of experienced technicians, a lack of investment in maintenance, and increasing U.S. sanctions. The U.S. sanctions, imposed beginning in 2019, cut Venezuela off from Western financial markets and prohibited U.S. oil companies from doing business with PDVSA. These measures have exacerbated the country’s economic crisis, as oil has traditionally accounted for more than 90% of Venezuela’s export revenues. The Venezuelan oil industry is now in a state of advanced disrepair, with much of its infrastructure in need of complete reconstruction.

When I look at the figures for Venezuelan oil production, I feel a deep sense of sadness. It is the story of a monumental waste—of potential squandered by ideology, corruption, and incompetence. Venezuela could have been a prosperous country, one of the richest in Latin America thanks to its natural resources. Instead, its citizens stand in line for hours to get bread and basic medicines. How did we get here? How could a country with so much potential wealth have sunk into such misery? It’s a question that haunts me. And now, the United States sees these reserves as an opportunity to secure its own energy independence. There is something cynical about this approach, as if Venezuela were nothing more than a reservoir of resources to be exploited rather than a country with people, a history, and a culture.

Trump’s Energy Ambitions

Donald Trump has explicitly linked military intervention in Venezuela to U.S. energy interests. During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 3, 2026, he stated that the United States “built Venezuela’s oil industry” and that it “would return there.” He also suggested that American oil companies would play a central role in rebuilding the country’s energy industry. These statements are part of a broader vision of U.S. foreign policy, which Trump has presented as a modernized version of the Monroe Doctrine, ironically dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine.” This doctrine reaffirms U.S. preeminence in the Western Hemisphere and justifies direct intervention to protect U.S. interests in the region.

U.S. energy ambitions in Venezuela are multifaceted. First, to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil by securing supply sources that are geographically closer. Second, to prevent China—the United States’ main strategic rival—from strengthening its energy presence in Latin America. China has significantly increased its investments in Venezuela’s energy sector in recent years, granting billions of dollars in loans to the Maduro government in exchange for access to oil. Third, to serve the interests of major U.S. oil companies that lost massive investments during the Chavista expropriations. Trump has stated that the United States would ensure that U.S. companies are reimbursed for the losses incurred under the Maduro government. The U.S. strategy thus combines geopolitical, economic, and ideological objectives, all linked to control over Venezuela’s oil resources.

This U.S. claim to have “built” the Venezuelan oil industry makes me smile bitterly. It is a selective reading of history, to say the least. U.S. oil companies certainly played a major role in the development of Venezuela’s oil sector in the early 20th century, but they did so within a context of colonial exploitation, extracting the country’s wealth while leaving few benefits for the local population. The nationalization of the oil industry in 1976—long before Chávez—was a response to this historical exploitation. Trump is rewriting history to justify a new form of exploitation, this time presented as “aid” for development. It’s the same pattern we’ve seen time and time again: Western powers coming to “save” countries in trouble by appropriating their resources. Nothing new under the sun, but just as disturbing as ever.

Section 5: The Reaction of the Venezuelan People

A Population in Shock

The Venezuelan people reacted with shock and confusion to the dramatic events of January 3, 2026. In the hours following the U.S. military operation, the streets of Caracas were unusually quiet, with few vehicles on the road and many businesses closed. A Caracas resident, David Leal, 77, said that people were “still in shock” two days after the events. This reaction of disbelief can be explained by the sudden and unprecedented nature of the U.S. intervention, which took even the most experienced observers by surprise. Venezuelans, already battered by years of economic and political crisis, now find themselves facing the added uncertainty created by this foreign intervention.

Political reactions among the population are divided. Opponents of the Maduro regime, who have organized numerous protests in recent years demanding his departure, are torn between relief at seeing the dictator gone and concern over the foreign military intervention. Many fear that the U.S. action will only exacerbate the existing humanitarian crisis. Supporters of the regime, for their part, have quickly mobilized to defend national sovereignty, organizing anti-American rallies and burning U.S. flags. The Rodríguez government has attempted to channel this nationalist sentiment to maintain the cohesion of its base despite Maduro’s absence. Venezuelan society thus finds itself deeply divided in the face of this new phase of the crisis, with little consensus on the path forward for the country’s future.

What moves me most about this situation is the everyday suffering of the Venezuelan people. Families who don’t know how they’ll feed their children tomorrow, young people who see their futures crumbling, the elderly who no longer have access to the medications they need… they are the invisible victims of this brutal geopolitical struggle. Politicians in Washington and Caracas may well debate sovereignty and the Monroe Doctrine, but on the ground, real lives are being shattered. I’ve seen images of women standing in line for hours to buy rice, of children growing up malnourished… it breaks my heart. And now, with this intervention, the situation can only get worse for them. It’s an absolute injustice.

Uncertainty About the Future

Venezuela’s immediate future remains extremely uncertain, and this uncertainty weighs heavily on the population. Fundamental questions remain unanswered: How long will the current crisis last? Will the United States impose a new government? What stance will the Venezuelan military take? Will economic sanctions be lifted or tightened? Every day brings its share of rumors and speculation, creating a climate of widespread anxiety. Venezuelans who have fled the country in recent years—estimated at more than seven million—are watching events unfold with a mixture of hope and concern, wondering if they will ever be able to return home.

The Venezuelan economy, already on the brink of collapse, risks suffering further shocks in the coming weeks. The U.S. oil embargo will likely further reduce government revenues, limiting its ability to import basic necessities. Inflation, which has already reached astronomical levels, could accelerate even further, further eroding the population’s purchasing power. Public services, already failing, are likely to deteriorate further due to a lack of resources and personnel. The healthcare system, on the verge of collapse, could collapse completely without international aid. Venezuelans are bracing for a period of even greater hardship, with no clear path to recovery in sight. Some observers fear an outbreak of violence if the political situation does not stabilize quickly, while others see this crisis as an opportunity for a genuine democratic transition.

This constant uncertainty is what kills most slowly but most surely. Not knowing if you’ll be able to eat tomorrow, not knowing if your children will be safe, not knowing if your country will still have a government tomorrow… it’s a form of continuous psychological torture. I can imagine Venezuelan parents trying to reassure their children even as they themselves are terrified. Couples arguing because the pressure has become unbearable. Friends who lose touch because one had to leave and the other stayed behind. It’s the entire social fabric of a country unraveling before our eyes. And the worst part is that we, as outside observers, feel powerless. We can certainly express our solidarity, our outrage… but we can’t stop this machine that’s crushing ordinary lives.

Section 6: International Reactions

A Divided Global Community

The international community reacted swiftly but without consensus to Maduro’s capture and the U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Russia and China, strategic allies of the Maduro regime, strongly condemned what they described as a flagrant violation of national sovereignty. Moscow warned that this operation “sets a dangerous precedent” and could lead to an “uncontrollable escalation” in the region. Beijing, for its part, called for respect for international law and non-interference in the internal affairs of states, while emphasizing that stability in Latin America is crucial for world peace. These reactions stem from the significant strategic interests that Russia and China have developed in Venezuela in recent years, particularly in the energy and military sectors.

The European Union adopted a more nuanced position, expressing concerns about the legality of the operation while acknowledging the need for political change in Venezuela. Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, called for “respect for international law” and the “protection of the civilian population,” while emphasizing that the EU would continue to support efforts toward a democratic transition in Venezuela. Latin American countries are also deeply divided. Mexico, Argentina, and Bolivia have condemned the U.S. intervention, while Colombia, Brazil, and Chile have taken a more cautious stance, calling for respect for Venezuelan sovereignty while acknowledging the need for regime change. International reactions reflect existing global geopolitical divisions, with growing opposition to U.S. unilateralism and increasing resistance to Western hegemony.

What strikes me about the international reactions is the systemic hypocrisy. The countries that today condemn U.S. intervention in Venezuela are often the same ones that supported similar interventions when they served their interests. Conversely, the countries that support U.S. action today would be the first to condemn a similar intervention in a friendly country. This is geopolitics in all its cruelty: no principles, only interests. Russia posing as a defender of national sovereignty while it occupies Crimea and invades Ukraine… it would make me laugh if it weren’t so tragic. China, which calls for non-interference while expanding its economic influence across the globe… the cynicism knows no bounds. And we, as Western observers, should be honest enough to acknowledge that our selective outrage is just as hypocritical.

International Institutions Under Pressure

International institutions, particularly the United Nations and the Organization of American States, are under immense pressure to respond to the Venezuelan crisis. The UN has called for calm and proposed sending an observation mission to assess the humanitarian situation on the ground. António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, expressed his “deep concern” over developments in Venezuela and called on all parties to exercise restraint. However, the UN’s effectiveness is limited by the United States’ veto power in the Security Council, which makes any resolution critical of U.S. action impossible. The Organization of American States, traditionally dominated by Washington, is also paralyzed by divisions among its member states.

The situation could be referred to the International Criminal Court, although the United States does not recognize its jurisdiction. Experts in international law have already begun debating the legality of the U.S. operation, with some characterizing it as a clear violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, while others justify it in the name of protecting civilians from a “narco-terrorist” regime. These legal debates are likely to drag on for years, during which time the Venezuelan people will continue to suffer. International institutions, designed to maintain global peace and security, seem powerless in the face of this crisis, unable to compel a superpower like the United States to abide by the rules it itself helped establish. This powerlessness fuels a growing sense of frustration with the multilateral system and reinforces the perception that might trumps right in international relations.

This powerlessness of international institutions depresses me. We built this entire system after World War II precisely to avoid this kind of situation: powers doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without being held accountable. And yet, seven decades later, we are exactly where we started. The United States can intervene militarily in a sovereign country, kidnap its president, and the world settles for “verbal condemnations” and calls for calm. It’s a joke. It’s a farce. I understand why so many people around the world have lost faith in this system. It was designed to serve the interests of the powerful, not to protect the weak. And when the powerful decide to circumvent it, there’s no one to stand up to them. That’s the harsh reality of the current international order.

Section 7: The Venezuelan Military: A Key Player

The Role of the Armed Forces

The Venezuelan military is a crucial player in the current crisis, with the ability to tip the balance one way or the other. Vladimir Padrino López, Minister of Defense and General-in-Chief, has publicly condemned Maduro’s capture, calling the U.S. operation a “cowardly kidnapping.” The Ministry of Defense issued a statement asserting that the armed forces “categorically rejected this cowardly act” and continued to “carry out their constitutional duties.” This public stance in support of the Rodríguez government suggests that, for now at least, the Venezuelan military remains loyal to the Chavista regime, despite the capture of its commander-in-chief.

However, the army’s true loyalty in the coming days remains a crucial and uncertain question. The Venezuelan military has been profoundly transformed under the Chávez and Maduro administrations, with officers loyal to the regime placed in key positions. Maduro has also cultivated close personal ties with high-ranking officers, offering them economic privileges and lucrative opportunities in the oil sector and other industries. These personal and economic ties have created a patronage system that ensures the military’s loyalty to the regime. Nevertheless, U.S. pressure, combined with growing economic difficulties and international isolation, could erode that loyalty. The Venezuelan armed forces find themselves in a delicate position, forced to choose between supporting an increasingly isolated regime and risking a direct confrontation with the U.S. superpower.

The Venezuelan military fascinates me. It is a hybrid institution, both a defender of the homeland and a pillar of an authoritarian regime. The officers who made their careers under Chávez and Maduro—who benefited from the patronage system and have personal ties to those in power—now find themselves facing an impossible choice. Should they support Rodríguez and risk war with the United States, or defect and lose all their privileges, and perhaps even their lives? This is the kind of decision that defines a career, a life. I think of these ordinary soldiers, these young people who joined the army to serve their country, not to defend a corrupt regime. What are they really thinking? What are their hopes and fears? They have no say in this geopolitical drama, and yet their loyalty could determine the final outcome.

Possible Scenarios for a Breakdown

Several scenarios for a split within the Venezuelan military are conceivable in the coming weeks. The most likely scenario in the short term is the maintenance of the status quo, with the military continuing to support the Rodriguez government and rejecting U.S. intervention. However, if economic sanctions begin to have a serious impact on the government’s ability to pay salaries and provide resources to the military, cracks could begin to appear. Another possible scenario is a split within the military, with some factions choosing to support Rodriguez and others siding with the opposition or the United States. Such a split could lead to internal clashes and increased instability.

A third scenario, less likely but more dramatic, would be a complete break by the military with the Rodriguez regime, leading to a military coup. Such a scenario could be encouraged by the United States, which has a long history of supporting coups in Latin America. However, the United States has also indicated that it would not directly govern Venezuela, suggesting that it would prefer a Venezuelan-led transition rather than a direct takeover by the military. The loyalty of the Venezuelan military will likely remain the determining factor in future developments, with the potential either to stabilize the situation under Rodríguez or to trigger a sudden breakdown that could lead to civil war or more direct U.S. military intervention.

Coups d’état in Latin America… it’s a story that repeats itself endlessly. Why are we still here? Why does Latin American democracy remain so fragile, so vulnerable to military interventions? I look at Venezuela and see the tragedy of a country that cannot break free from its historical demons. Every time it seems to be making progress toward a democratic future, something pulls it back. The current U.S. intervention, whatever its justification, risks reinforcing this perverse dynamic. It gives the military a disproportionate role, effectively making it the ultimate arbiter of the country’s fate. And that is a recipe for more instability, more authoritarianism, and more suffering. At times, I despair of ever seeing Latin America truly break free from these historical patterns.

Section 8: The Humanitarian Dimension of the Crisis

A Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela—already one of the most severe in the world before the U.S. intervention—is likely to worsen considerably in the coming weeks. According to UN estimates, more than seven million Venezuelans have fled the country in recent years, representing the largest refugee crisis in modern Latin American history. Those who have remained face chronic food shortages, with more than 90% of the population living in poverty and nearly 10% suffering from malnutrition. The healthcare system, once one of the best in the region, has collapsed, with shortages of medicines and medical equipment costing thousands of lives each year.

U.S. intervention and intensified economic sanctions are likely to worsen this dire humanitarian situation. The oil embargo will further reduce government revenues, limiting its ability to import food and medicine. Political unrest and economic uncertainty risk further disrupting already fragile supply chains, exacerbating shortages. International humanitarian organizations have expressed deep concern over this situation, calling for the protection of civilians and humanitarian access. However, their ability to operate in Venezuela remains limited by government restrictions and logistical challenges. The Venezuelan humanitarian crisis risks becoming a full-blown catastrophe if the political situation does not stabilize quickly and if international aid is not massively increased.

When I think about the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, I feel overwhelmed by the scale of the suffering. Millions of people forced to leave everything behind in search of a better life elsewhere. Children growing up hungry, elderly people dying for lack of medicine, families torn apart by exile… it’s a human apocalypse. And the worst part is that this suffering is largely preventable. It is the result of political choices, of decisions made by men and women who will never have to face the consequences of their actions. Those responsible for this catastrophe—whether in Caracas or Washington—continue to live comfortably while the Venezuelan people suffer. This is the ultimate injustice. And I feel powerless, unable to do anything concrete to help these people. It eats away at me.

The Inadequate International Response

The international response to the Venezuelan humanitarian crisis has been largely inadequate, both in terms of financial aid and support for countries hosting refugees. Neighboring countries—particularly Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil—have taken in the majority of Venezuelan refugees but lack the resources to cope with this massive influx. Humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have issued funding appeals to support the response, but these appeals have been significantly underfunded. The COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated the situation, making it more difficult for vulnerable populations to access aid.

Paradoxically, U.S. intervention could either improve or worsen the humanitarian situation, depending on how it unfolds. If it quickly leads to regime change and the lifting of sanctions, it could pave the way for economic recovery and the return of refugees. However, if it results in a prolonged period of instability and conflict, it could significantly exacerbate human suffering and trigger a new wave of refugees. Humanitarian organizations are preparing contingency plans to address various scenarios, but their resources are limited and their ability to operate in a conflict environment is constrained. The international community faces a moral test: will it be able to respond adequately to one of the most serious humanitarian crises of our time, or will it leave millions of people to suffer without sufficient aid?

This inadequacy of the international response outrages me. We live in a world of unprecedented wealth and seemingly limitless technology, and yet we are incapable of meeting the most basic humanitarian needs. Rich countries spend billions on weapons, space programs, and entertainment… but when it comes to saving human lives, suddenly there aren’t enough resources. It’s a choice. It is a moral, political, and economic choice. And we, collectively, accept this choice. We go on living our comfortable lives while others die of hunger or treatable diseases. How can we live with ourselves? How can we look our children in the eyes knowing that we accept this unjust world? These questions haunt me every night.

Section 9: The Role of the Media in the Crisis

Competing Media Narratives

The media plays a crucial role in how the Venezuelan crisis is perceived and understood around the world. In the United States, most mainstream media outlets have adopted a narrative that justifies U.S. intervention as necessary to eliminate a “narco-terrorist” regime and bring relief to the Venezuelan people. Channels such as Fox News and CNN have portrayed Maduro’s capture as a victory for justice and a step toward democracy, highlighting the allegations of narco-terrorism and the suffering of the Venezuelan people under the Maduro regime. This narrative focuses on the criminal and humanitarian aspects of the crisis, downplaying issues of sovereignty and international law.

In Latin America and other parts of the world, the media have adopted different narratives. Many have highlighted the dangerous precedent set by this military intervention in a sovereign country, expressing concerns about U.S. imperialism and the return of an aggressive Monroe Doctrine. Pro-government media in Venezuela and allied countries have portrayed the intervention as an act of imperialist aggression and a violation of international law, highlighting the heroic resistance of the Venezuelan people. Russian and Chinese media, for their part, have emphasized U.S. unilateralism and the dangers of Western hegemony. These media divergences reflect global geopolitical divisions and fuel existing polarizations, making it difficult to reach a consensus on how to respond to the crisis.

I watch the news about Venezuela and feel disoriented. Each source tells a different story, presents different facts, and emphasizes different aspects. It’s as if we were living in parallel realities, with competing narratives that contradict and refute one another. And the worst part is that each narrative contains a grain of truth. Is Maduro a narco-terrorist criminal? Probably. Is U.S. intervention a violation of national sovereignty? Undeniably. Are the Venezuelan people suffering terribly? Absolutely. How can we make sense of it all? How can we discern the truth through this fog of propaganda? I sometimes get lost in these contradictory narratives, desperately searching for an objective truth that seems elusive. It’s exhausting.

Disinformation and Fake News

The Venezuelan crisis has also seen a proliferation of disinformation and fake news, further complicating our understanding of the situation. Propaganda networks linked to both the Maduro regime and its opponents have spread false information to influence public opinion. Images from other conflicts have been presented as coming from Venezuela. Unfounded rumors of imminent coups or military interventions have spread rapidly on social media. U.S., Russian, and Chinese intelligence agencies have likely also conducted online influence campaigns to promote their respective narratives.

This disinformation makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to form an informed opinion about the crisis. It also fuels political polarization, as each side is exposed primarily to information that confirms its existing biases. Journalists attempting to provide objective and nuanced coverage of the situation face considerable challenges, including restrictions on access, threats of violence, and accusations of bias from all sides. The information landscape surrounding the Venezuelan crisis has become a battlefield, where narratives are weapons and the truth is often the first casualty. In such an environment, it is more important than ever to develop critical thinking skills and consult a variety of sources before forming an opinion on this complex crisis.

This era of misinformation terrifies me. We have access to more information than ever before in human history, and yet we are less informed than ever. Social media algorithms trap us in information bubbles, exposing us only to what confirms our existing opinions. Malicious actors—whether states, political parties, or interest groups—exploit this vulnerability to manipulate our perceptions. I look at my own reactions to the news about Venezuela and ask myself: Am I reacting to reality, or to a filtered and manipulated version of that reality? It’s a dizzying question. And if we can no longer even trust our own perception of reality, on what can we base our understanding of the world?

Section 10: Possible Future Scenarios

The Controlled Transition Scenario

The first possible scenario is a controlled political transition, in which the Rodriguez government ultimately accepts certain U.S. demands in exchange for sanctions relief and international recognition. In this scenario, Rodriguez might agree to hold elections under international supervision, reform the oil industry with the participation of foreign companies, and cooperate with the United States on security issues, particularly drug trafficking. In return, the United States might accept a role for Rodriguez in the transition, allowing elements of the current regime to retain some influence. This scenario would require a willingness to compromise on the part of both Rodriguez and Washington, as well as the support of the Venezuelan military.

This scenario of a controlled transition is undoubtedly the most desirable for regional stability and for minimizing human suffering. It would help avoid a protracted civil war or foreign military occupation, while offering a path toward some form of democratic normalization. However, it is also one of the least likely in the short term, given the intransigent rhetoric on both sides. Rodríguez has publicly rejected any form of compromise with the United States, while Trump has warned that she would “pay a very heavy price” if she did not do what the United States considers right. A controlled transition would require major shifts in the current positions of both sides, which seems unlikely in the current climate of confrontation.

I dream of this scenario of a controlled transition—an intelligent compromise that would allow Venezuela to regain stability without a devastating war. But when I look at reality, that dream seems rather naive. Rodríguez has built her political career on anti-American imperialism. How could she accept a compromise with Washington without losing all credibility with her base? And Trump, with his rhetoric of domination and his distrust of anything resembling a compromise, could he really accept a solution that isn’t a total victory? Both seem trapped by their own narratives, unable to back down without losing face. And in the meantime, the Venezuelan people continue to suffer. This is the tragedy of political conflicts: egos and ideologies take precedence over the needs of ordinary people.

The Scenario of Prolonged Confrontation

A second possible scenario is a prolonged confrontation between the Rodríguez government and the United States, with a gradual escalation of sanctions and military pressure. In this scenario, Rodríguez would maintain his uncompromising stance, rejecting U.S. demands and calling for national resistance. The United States, for its part, would intensify the oil blockade, expand economic sanctions, and increase military pressure on Caracas. The Venezuelan military would remain loyal to the regime, at least initially, while the civilian population would suffer increasingly from the economic consequences of the confrontation.

This scenario of prolonged confrontation could last for months or even years, with a continuous deterioration of living conditions in Venezuela and an increase in the number of refugees fleeing the country. It could eventually lead to a total economic collapse in Venezuela, potentially followed by a split within the ruling elite or direct military intervention by the United States. This scenario would be the most devastating for the Venezuelan people, resulting in massive human suffering and increased regional instability. However, it is also one of the most likely in the short term, given the current positions of both sides. Prolonged confrontation risks becoming the new normal, with Venezuela becoming an isolated pariah state and its people continuing to suffer while its leaders fight for their political survival.

This scenario of prolonged confrontation gives me nightmares. I envision years of unending suffering for Venezuelans, an entire generation of children growing up amid poverty and instability. The country is sinking ever deeper into an economic abyss, with little hope of recovery. And all because political leaders are incapable of setting aside their egos and ideologies for the sake of their people. This is political selfishness in its purest and most destructive form. And then there’s this regional dimension that worries me. A Venezuela in ruins becomes fertile ground for all kinds of illicit activities: drug trafficking, terrorism, organized crime. The consequences could spread far beyond Venezuela’s borders, affecting the entire region. It’s a ticking time bomb.

Section 11: Lessons from History

The History of U.S. Interventions

U.S. intervention in Venezuela is part of a long history of U.S. military and political interventions in Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted that the Western Hemisphere was a sphere of exclusive U.S. influence, Washington has repeatedly intervened in the affairs of Latin American countries. These interventions have taken various forms: military coups, such as in Chile in 1973 and Guatemala in 1954; direct military occupations, such as in Haiti and the Dominican Republic; support for rebel groups, such as the Contras in Nicaragua; and economic and political pressure, such as in Cuba and Nicaragua. The justifications for these interventions have varied: combating communism during the Cold War, protecting U.S. commercial interests, fighting drug trafficking, or, more recently, the “war on terrorism.”

However, the results of these interventions have rarely been as intended. Instead of promoting democracy and stability, they have often led to brutal dictatorships, protracted civil wars, and increased regional instability. The intervention in Chile, which overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and installed the Pinochet dictatorship, remains one of the most infamous examples of this dynamic. The intervention in Nicaragua, which supported the Contras against the Sandinista government, led to a civil war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. The history of U.S. interventions in Latin America is rife with such failures and unintended consequences, suggesting that the current intervention in Venezuela risks following a similar pattern.

When I study the history of U.S. interventions in Latin America, I feel a mixture of shame and resignation. Shame for the suffering my country has inflicted on our southern neighbors. Resignation because we never seem to learn from our mistakes. How can we repeat the same destructive patterns over and over again? Each time, we have different justifications, different contexts, but the result is always the same: human suffering, instability, anti-American resentment. And yet, each new generation of American leaders seems convinced that this time will be different, that we will do better than our predecessors. This is the arrogance of an empire that never sees its own guilt, only others as threats to be contained. And I wonder how many generations of Latin Americans will have to suffer before we finally break this tragic cycle.

Mistakes to Avoid

The lessons of history suggest several mistakes the United States should avoid in its approach to Venezuela. First, avoid a prolonged direct military occupation, which has almost always led to local insurrections and enormous human and financial costs. Second, avoid supporting elements of the old regime simply because they seem familiar or controllable, instead of supporting a genuine democratic transition. Third, avoid imposing neoliberal economic solutions that serve the interests of U.S. corporations rather than the needs of the Venezuelan people. Fourth, avoid underestimating Venezuelan nationalism and resistance to foreign interference, even among those who oppose the Maduro regime.

The lessons also suggest that any intervention must be accompanied by a serious commitment to reconstruction and development, not just regime change. The examples of Germany and Japan after World War II show that successful reconstruction requires massive investment and a long-term commitment. However, unlike those examples—where the United States acted as an occupying power with the support of the international community—an intervention in Venezuela would take place amid international opposition and deep internal political divisions. The historical mistakes the United States has made in Latin America risk being repeated if Washington does not learn from the past and adopt a more nuanced approach that respects Venezuelan sovereignty.

These historical lessons seem so obvious to me, and yet they are so rarely heeded. Why is it so difficult to learn from the past? Why does every new generation of leaders seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of its predecessors? I am thinking of the concept of “hubris”—that arrogance that afflicts powers at their zenith and leads them to believe they can control complex and unpredictable realities. The United States, with its unparalleled military and economic power, is particularly vulnerable to this form of arrogance. We believe that we can reshape the world in our own image, that our values are universal and must be imposed if necessary. But history humbly teaches us that the world is more complex than that, that local realities have their own logic and their own resistance.

Section 12: The Perspective of International Law

Issues of Legality

The legality of U.S. intervention in Venezuela raises important questions of international law. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. The U.S. operation does not appear to meet either of these criteria, making it potentially illegal under international law. The arrest of Maduro, a sitting head of state, on the territory of his own country by foreign forces constitutes a particularly flagrant violation of national sovereignty and the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by heads of state.

The United States has attempted to justify the operation by citing allegations of narco-terrorism against Maduro and the need to protect the Venezuelan people. However, these justifications are contested by many experts in international law, who argue that international law does not provide for an exception for regime change motivated by criminal allegations, even serious ones. Some have also pointed out that if the United States applied the same standard to other countries, it could intervene in a large number of states whose leaders are accused of crimes. The legal issues raised by this intervention are particularly troubling because they set a dangerous precedent that could be used by other powers to justify their own unilateral interventions.

As a lawyer, I am deeply troubled by the blatant illegality of this intervention. International law, however imperfect it may be, constitutes the minimum framework that allows nations to coexist peacefully. When the most powerful nations systematically disregard this law, they undermine the entire system and create a world of chaos where the only rule is that of the strongest. And yet, as a human being, I find myself torn. Is Maduro innocent? Certainly not. His regime has committed horrific crimes against its own people. Should we allow these crimes to continue with impunity in the name of national sovereignty? This is the moral dilemma I cannot resolve. How can we reconcile respect for the law with the need to protect vulnerable populations from criminal regimes? I don’t have an easy answer, but I know that ignoring the law is not the solution.

The Consequences for the International Order

The consequences of this intervention for the international order could be profound and lasting. One of the fundamental principles of the international order since World War II has been the prohibition of the use of force in relations between states—a principle codified in the United Nations Charter. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela openly contradicts this principle, suggesting that major powers can use military force to change regimes they deem unacceptable. This precedent could be used by other powers, notably Russia and China, to justify their own interventions within their respective spheres of influence.

The consequences could include a further erosion of the United Nations’ authority, which has already been weakened by the unilateral interventions of Western powers in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. The UN’s inability to compel the United States to comply with international law could lead to a broader questioning of the organization’s usefulness. International relations could slide toward an increasingly unstable multipolar system, in which various powers seek to expand their spheres of influence through military force rather than diplomacy and law. The international order, already weakened by growing geopolitical tensions, risks suffering another serious blow that could have consequences for world peace in the decades to come.

What worries me most is what this intervention means for the future of the international order. We are already living in an era of regression, marked by a resurgence of conflicts between major powers, a rise in nationalism, and an erosion of multilateral institutions. This intervention in Venezuela is another step in this regressive direction. It sends the message that might trumps right, that the powerful can do whatever they want, whenever they want. It is a return to the international anarchy that characterized the interwar period. And we know where that led: to World War II, to the Holocaust, to human suffering on a scale never before seen. I do not want to believe that we are destined to repeat these mistakes, but the signs are troubling.

Conclusion: Venezuela's Uncertain Future

A Point of No Return?

The capture of Nicolás Maduro and the U.S. intervention in Venezuela mark a point of no return in the history of the country and of Latin America. Whatever future developments may bring, Venezuela has been irrevocably transformed by these dramatic events. The country faces unprecedented challenges: a deep economic crisis, a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, a major political crisis, and a foreign military intervention that calls its national sovereignty into question. How Venezuela navigates these turbulent waters will determine not only its own future, but also the future of Latin America and perhaps even the international order as a whole.

Venezuela now stands at a historic crossroads. One path leads toward a controlled political transition, which could eventually lead to some form of democratic normalization and economic reconstruction. Another path leads toward a protracted confrontation, with massive human suffering and increased regional instability. A third, darker path leads toward civil war or direct military intervention that could devastate the country for years to come. The choice between these paths will depend not only on the decisions of Venezuelan and U.S. leaders, but also on the response of the international community and the resilience of the Venezuelan people themselves.

When I look at Venezuela today, I see a country at a crossroads, the likes of which I have never seen in living memory. Everything is at stake: the future of democracy, national sovereignty, human dignity. And at the same time, I feel exhausted by this story that seems to never end. How many crises will we have to endure? How much suffering will we have to endure? Sometimes I wonder if Latin America is doomed to be forever the playground of foreign powers, the stage for conflicts that are not our own. And then I look at ordinary Venezuelans—these people who continue to live, to love, and to hope despite everything. And I find a glimmer of hope in their resilience. Perhaps that is what true strength is: not weapons, not politics, but the human spirit’s ability to persevere in the face of adversity.

A Call for Responsibility

The Venezuelan crisis is a call to responsibility for all parties involved: Venezuelan leaders, who must place the interests of their people above their own power; the U.S. government, which must respect international law and avoid actions that exacerbate human suffering; the international community, which must find the courage to oppose unilateralism and support a solution based on law and justice; and citizens around the world, who must champion an international order founded on respect for sovereignty and the protection of vulnerable populations.

Venezuela’s history is still being written, and its final chapter has not yet been determined. But one thing is clear: the path to the future will be difficult and demanding. It will require courage, wisdom, and compassion from all those involved. It will also require that we acknowledge our own responsibility in this crisis, reflect on the lessons of history, and commit to not repeating the mistakes of the past. Venezuela deserves better than to be a battleground for geopolitical conflicts. It deserves peace, justice, and dignity. And it is our collective responsibility to work together to ensure that this day finally comes.

Ultimately, this may be the most important message we must take away from this crisis: our collective responsibility. Not the responsibility of others, not the responsibility of politicians or diplomats, but the responsibility of each and every one of us. We cannot look away. We cannot say that this is not our problem. The suffering of the Venezuelan people is our suffering. The violation of their sovereignty is a violation of our own rights. The collapse of the international order is a threat to us all. This may be the most difficult but most necessary lesson of this tragedy: we are all connected, all responsible for this world we are building together. And we have the power, if we choose, to change it.

Sources

Primary Sources

The Daily Beast – “Venezuela’s VP Surfaces to Thumb Her Nose at Trump” – January 4, 2026

Associated Press via WRAL – “Rubio says US won’t govern Venezuela but will press for changes through oil blockade” – January 4, 2026

Fox News – “Trump Issues Direct Warning to Venezuela’s New Leader Delcy Rodríguez Following Maduro’s Capture” – January 4, 2026

Statements by Delcy Rodríguez, Vice President of Venezuela, during her televised address on January 3, 2026

Remarks by Donald Trump during his press conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 3, 2026

Remarks by Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, during his interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on January 4, 2026

Secondary sources

Reuters – “Venezuelan oil industry: world’s largest reserves, decaying infrastructure” – January 3, 2026

Al Jazeera – “Who is Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, now leading the country” – January 4, 2026

CNN – “Who is Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture” – January 4, 2026

NPR – “Venezuelans wonder who’s in charge” – January 4, 2026

Atlantic Council – “Experts react: The U.S. just captured Maduro. What’s next for Venezuela and the region?” – January 3, 2026

Politico – “Trump warns acting Venezuelan leader will ‘pay a big price’” – January 4, 2026

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating