A Gradual Pressure Mechanism
The current naval blockade did not arise spontaneously but is the culmination of a sanctions strategy spanning several years. The United States imposed its first economic sanctions against Venezuela as early as 2005, initially targeting specific individuals and entities linked to Hugo Chávez’s government. However, it was under the Trump administration that these measures took on a systematic and coordinated nature, culminating in 2019 with the imposition of sanctions targeting the entire Venezuelan oil sector, including the state-owned company PDVSA. This crucial step effectively blocked all exports of Venezuelan crude oil to the United States, which had traditionally been the main market for Venezuelan oil. The sanctions were subsequently expanded to include financial entities facilitating transactions related to Venezuelan oil, creating a network of interconnected restrictions aimed at completely isolating the Venezuelan energy sector from the international financial system.
The architecture of U.S. sanctions rests on several complementary pillars. The first concerns primary sanctions, which prohibit U.S. individuals and companies from conducting transactions with sanctioned Venezuelan entities. The second pillar—and arguably the most powerful—involves secondary sanctions, which threaten non-U.S. entities with being cut off from the U.S. financial system if they continue to trade with Venezuela. This mechanism has proven effective against other sanctioned regimes, notably Iran and Russia, by deterring international banks and companies from engaging in trade with those countries. The third pillar involves targeted sectoral sanctions, which aim at specific segments of the Venezuelan economy, notably the oil sector, the mining industry, and the financial sector. This gradual and methodical approach aims to maximize economic pressure on the Maduro regime while minimizing—at least in theory—the costs to the U.S. and international economies.
From a purely tactical standpoint, it is fascinating to see how this machine has been assembled, piece by piece, year after year. It is like a geopolitical chess game, with every move calculated and every restriction designed to weaken the opponent a little more. But what shocks me deeply is the utter indifference to the human consequences. Because behind these technical terms—“secondary sanctions,” “sectoral restrictions”—there are millions of ordinary Venezuelans whose lives have been devastated. Children who don’t have enough to eat, hospitals without medicine, an economy in ruins. Is it worth it? Does the end really justify these means? I ask this question because I feel that we’ve lost our moral compass somewhere along the way.
Designation as a Terrorist Organization
A particularly significant development in the U.S. sanctions strategy is the formal designation of the Venezuelan regime as a foreign terrorist organization. President Trump announced this measure in his statement on December 16, 2025, explicitly labeling the “Venezuelan regime” a “FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.” This designation, which places Venezuela in the same category as groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, opens the door to a much broader range of coercive measures, including asset seizures, the freezing of funds, and a ban on any material support for the regime. Most importantly, this designation provides a legal framework to justify the use of military force against Venezuelan entities, including ships transporting oil on behalf of the government.
The justification provided by the Trump administration for this unprecedented designation is based on several allegations. U.S. officials accuse the Maduro regime of using oil revenues to finance terrorism, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. The administration also cites alleged links between high-ranking Venezuelan officials and the Cartel de los Soles, a drug trafficking network reportedly infiltrated into the highest echelons of the Venezuelan government. This designation as a terrorist organization represents a major rhetorical and legal escalation, fundamentally transforming the nature of the conflict. The situation in Venezuela has been elevated from a traditional political and economic crisis to the status of a global terrorist threat, thereby justifying the use of tools and mechanisms normally reserved for the war on terrorism. This reclassification has been strongly contested by many experts in international relations, who point to the lack of tangible evidence linking the Venezuelan regime to conventional terrorist activities and highlight the risk of trivializing the “terrorist” designation for political purposes.
When I read that statement, when I saw the words “terrorist organization” applied to an entire government, I thought to myself, “That’s it—they’ve lost all sense of proportion.” Because this is a serious matter, after all. You don’t throw around accusations like that lightly. Terrorism is the Bataclan attack, it’s 9/11, it’s people killing innocents in the name of a fanatical ideology. Lumping Maduro and his government in with that is either crass ignorance or a cynical manipulation of words for purely political ends. It revolts me. Not that I’m defending Maduro—far from it. But there are lines we shouldn’t cross. Words we shouldn’t throw around carelessly. Because when everything becomes “terrorist,” nothing really is anymore. And that, in the end, is what’s terrifying.
The Impact on Venezuela’s Oil Economy
U.S. sanctions have had a devastating impact on Venezuela’s oil economy, which accounts for more than 90% of the country’s export revenue. Venezuelan oil production has plummeted, falling from a peak of over 3 million barrels per day in the early 2000s to less than 350,000 barrels per day in 2020, before stabilizing at around 900,000 to 1.1 million barrels per day by the end of 2025. This dramatic collapse is attributable to several combined factors: capital flight and the exodus of foreign investment; the inability to import the equipment and technology needed to maintain aging infrastructure; and a shortage of skilled labor caused by the mass exodus of professionals from the sector. Venezuelan refineries, once a source of national pride, now operate well below their nominal capacity, transforming Venezuela—which was once a net exporter of refined products—into a dependent importer.
The economic impact of this oil industry collapse has been catastrophic for the Venezuelan people. The country’s GDP has contracted by more than 75% since 2014, representing one of the most severe recessions ever recorded in peacetime in modern history. Inflation has reached hyperinflationary levels, exceeding millions of percent per year at its peak in 2018–2019, completely eroding the population’s purchasing power. The country’s foreign exchange reserves have been depleted, reaching historically low levels, which has reduced the government’s ability to import essential goods, including medicines and food. This economic crisis has triggered an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, with more than 7 million Venezuelans fleeing their country since 2014—the largest displacement crisis in modern Latin American history. U.S. sanctions, while far from being the sole cause of this catastrophe, have significantly accelerated and deepened the crisis, making economic recovery all the more difficult.
These numbers, these statistics… they’re so enormous that they become abstract. A 75% contraction in GDP. Inflation in the millions of percent. 7 million displaced people. We read this, nod our heads, say “that’s terrible,” and turn the page. But I can’t. Because behind every percentage point, there are shattered lives. Separated families. Children growing up in poverty. Parents who no longer know how to feed their children. That is the true reality of sanctions. These aren’t just numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. These are human beings. And when I think about all of this, I really ask myself: Are we still human beings, or have we become monsters capable of inflicting such suffering in the name of so-called higher principles? The question haunts me.
Section 3: The Ghost Fleet
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1644089040-optimized-madmax-mk1m1xe7.jpeg)
The Emergence of the “Shadow Fleet”
In response to increasing U.S. sanctions, a complex ecosystem of ships and maritime operators has developed to enable the continuation of Venezuelan oil trade. This “shadow fleet” consists of often aging vessels operated by shell companies registered in opaque jurisdictions, which use various techniques to avoid detection. These vessels operate outside the normal channels of international maritime trade, using secondary ports, at-sea cargo transfers, and roundabout routes to transport Venezuelan oil to its buyers, primarily in Asia. According to industry data, more than 30 of the 80 vessels currently in Venezuelan waters or en route to the country are on U.S. sanctions lists, underscoring the scale of this parallel ecosystem.
The techniques used by this ghost fleet are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The most common practice is to disable AIS transponders—automatic identification systems that allow ships to be tracked in real time. This “going dark” makes the ships invisible to standard commercial surveillance systems, although military satellites and advanced surveillance technologies can sometimes detect them. Other vessels use more subtle techniques, such as AIS “spoofing”—transmitting false position data—or periodically switching between AIS A and B modes to evade automated detection systems. Some vessels also change their names and flags regularly, creating further confusion regarding their true identities. These techniques require considerable technical expertise and suggest the involvement of experienced maritime professionals in organizing these operations.
In a way, it’s fascinating to see human ingenuity at work to circumvent obstacles. These ghost ships, with their camouflage techniques, false identities, and covert maneuvers… it’s like a spy movie, except it’s real. But what fascinates me most is the dark side of this story. Because for this fleet to exist, there must be complicity. Banks that agree to process these transactions. Insurers that cover these risks. Ports that welcome these ships. Naval officers who agree to serve on these vessels. An entire parallel ecosystem has emerged—a world within a world, with its own rules, its own codes, its own economy. And that scares me. Because when entire systems develop in the shadows, it becomes very, very difficult to control them.
Clandestine Shipping Routes
The routes taken by Venezuelan oil tankers operating clandestinely have changed significantly in response to U.S. pressure. Historically, most Venezuelan oil destined for Asia passed through the Panama Canal, a direct and relatively short route to China and other Asian markets. However, as sanctions and the naval blockade intensified, this direct route became too risky for many ships. As a result, oil tankers have begun taking much longer and more circuitous routes, bypassing South America via Cape Horn and crossing the South Atlantic toward Africa before heading to Asia. This alternative route, which adds thousands of kilometers and several additional weeks of travel, significantly increases transportation costs but offers better protection against U.S. interception.
Another common practice is to use offshore transshipment hubs, particularly in the waters off Malaysia and Singapore. Venezuelan ships transfer their cargo to other vessels on the high seas, a technically complex process that conceals the oil’s origin. These transshipment vessels, often registered in discreet jurisdictions, can then transport the oil to its final destination under a different declared origin, often “blended crude” or “unspecified crude.” Commercial documents are also falsified to conceal the cargo’s true origin, with traders sometimes indicating that the oil comes from Brazil or other countries producing similar crude. These “rebranding” practices have been documented by maritime monitoring organizations such as Reuters, which reported in 2025 that traders were systematically selling Venezuelan oil as Brazilian to circumvent restrictions.
When I picture these routes, these ships sailing around entire continents, these transfers on the high seas… it makes my head spin. It’s a giant ballet, a complex dance orchestrated on a global scale. And all of this so that one country can continue to sell its oil. I think that speaks volumes about the madness of our dependence on fossil fuels. We’re willing to do anything: send ships around the world, invent sophisticated camouflage techniques, violate international laws, risk wars… just to keep pumping oil. It’s insane. And what scares me the most is that this madness has become invisible. We don’t even see it anymore. It’s become normal.
Section 4: The Chinese Perspective
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1692247032_1_-optimized-madmax-mk1m2197.jpeg)
Beijing’s Financial Exposure
China plays a central role in the conflict over Venezuelan oil exports, both as the primary buyer of Venezuelan crude and as a major creditor to the Venezuelan government. According to research by AidData, the China Development Bank has extended more than $60 billion in loans to Venezuela since 2007 as part of an “oil-for-loans” program, representing the largest commodity-backed exposure to a single country in Beijing’s portfolio. The main outstanding balance under this program currently stands between $17 billion and $19 billion—a substantial sum that poses a major financial risk for Beijing. These loans were secured by future deliveries of Venezuelan oil, but the collapse in production and complications caused by sanctions have turned what was supposed to be a profitable investment into a potentially unrecoverable liability.
China’s exposure is not limited to the financial sector. Independent refiners in China’s Shandong province, known as “teapots,” have configured their coking units specifically to process Venezuelan heavy crude, which trades at significant discounts because Western buyers cannot touch it. These refiners have built their business model on sanctions arbitrage, buying Venezuelan oil at deeply discounted prices and realizing substantial margins thanks to the quality and price differential. This model is now threatened by the intensification of the U.S. blockade and sanctions specifically targeting ships carrying Venezuelan oil. Shandong refiners face an immediate and critical question: where can they find replacement barrels? Substitutes exist, notably Canadian heavy crude via the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion or Mexican Maya crude, but none exactly replicate the economics of Venezuelan crude.
There is a cruel irony in this situation. China, that economic giant that thought it had bought lasting influence in Latin America through its massive loans, now finds itself trapped by its own strategy. $19 billion is money that Venezuela will likely never be able to repay under current conditions. And Beijing knows it. They know it perfectly well. But what can they do? Stand their ground and risk a direct confrontation with Washington? Accept the loss and admit that their soft power strategy has failed? They’re stuck. And that’s fascinating to watch. Because it shows us the limits of economic power, even when it’s as massive as China’s. Money doesn’t solve everything. Money can’t counter a naval blockade. Money can’t force a country to sell its oil.
Beijing’s Strategic Options
Faced with this crisis, Beijing finds itself with a limited set of strategic options, each carrying significant risks. The first option, described by some analysts as “pragmatic accommodation,” would involve Beijing discreetly engaging with Venezuela’s transitional government and negotiating a settlement at 40–50 cents on the dollar, while redirecting demand from Shandong refiners toward Canadian and Iraqi crude. This approach would involve absorbing a substantial financial loss but would preserve broader trade relations with the United States and prevent an escalation into open conflict. Many observers consider this the most likely option, as it aligns with China’s tradition of pragmatism in international affairs and would help avoid U.S. secondary sanctions targeting Chinese banks that process payments related to Venezuela.
The second option would be a “prolonged standoff,” in which Beijing would refuse to recognize the new government and refiners would attempt to continue sourcing Venezuelan oil despite ship designations. This approach carries a high risk of escalation, with Washington likely to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese banks processing payments of Venezuelan origin. These sanctions would threaten Chinese banks’ access to the U.S. dollar clearing system, which would have devastating consequences for the entire Chinese economy. Refineries in Shandong would see their margins collapse within six to nine months, likely forcing some of them into bankruptcy. The third and most catastrophic option would be a “Venezuelan collapse,” in which the transitional government would fail, military factions would fragment, and production would fall below 600,000 barrels per day. In this scenario, neither China’s debt recovery nor U.S. reconstruction efforts would succeed, and heavy, sour crude would disappear from the global market for years.
When I look at Beijing facing this dilemma, I see a superpower that thinks twice before acting. And that’s something new. For years, we’ve been sold the idea that China would inevitably surpass the United States, that American supremacy was in decline. But what’s happening in Venezuela shows us a different reality. American power, when deployed in a coherent and determined manner, remains formidable. China may have the money, the technology, the factories… but it does not yet have the capacity for global military projection, nor the network of alliances that allows the United States to carry out this kind of operation. And that changes everything. It’s not that China is weak—far from it. It’s just that power isn’t solely economic. It’s complex. It’s multidimensional. And Beijing is learning this lesson the hard way.
Section 5: Legal Implications
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1715184964-optimized-madmax-mk1m25vo.jpeg)
An Act of War?
The question of the legality of the U.S. naval blockade is at the center of current international legal debates. Under customary international law, blockades are traditionally considered “instruments of war” justified only under strict conditions, generally in a state of declared or de facto war. A 1961 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice, drafted at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and Cuba, clearly stated that “a blockade is an act of war which, as a matter of international law, is ordinarily justified only if a state of war, whether legal or de facto, exists.” This legal position raises fundamental questions about the legality of U.S. action in Venezuela, since the United States is not officially at war with that country.
The U.S. position is based on a broad interpretation of presidential powers in foreign policy and national security matters. U.S. presidents have considerable authority to deploy military forces abroad, although the Constitution requires Congress to formally authorize war. The Trump administration has justified the blockade by citing presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president broad powers to declare national emergencies and impose economic restrictions. However, extending this authority to active military operations on the high seas represents a new and contested interpretation. Elena Chachko, an expert in international law at UC Berkeley Law School, noted that the blockade asserted by Trump “marks a new test of presidential authority” and that there are “serious questions on both the domestic and international legal fronts.”
And there you have it. This is where we’ve ended up. At the fateful question: Is it legal or not? And the honest answer is that we don’t know. Because international law isn’t like the rules of the road. It isn’t black and white. It’s gray, nuanced, and open to interpretation. The United States finds brilliant lawyers to justify what it’s doing. Venezuela finds others just as brilliant to argue the opposite. And in the end? In the end, it’s the balance of power that matters. The law of the strongest, so to speak. And that makes me sick. Not because I’m naive about the law. I know how the world works. But because this manipulation of the law for purely political ends undermines the credibility of the entire international system. If the rules no longer apply to everyone, then they no longer apply to anyone.
International Reactions
The international community has reacted with mixed, but often critical, responses to the intensifying U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The UN, through its Secretary-General António Guterres, has expressed “concerns regarding the instability in Venezuela and the legality of the U.S. operation,” highlighting the risks of regional destabilization. The Secretary-General specifically warned against the potential humanitarian consequences of a military escalation, noting that Venezuela was already facing one of the most severe crises in modern Latin American history. This criticism reflects a broader concern within the international community regarding the U.S.’s unilateral approach and its potential impact on the norms governing the use of force in international relations.
The reactions of Latin American governments have been particularly significant. Although several countries in the region, notably Colombia, Brazil, and Chile, have recognized the Venezuelan opposition as the legitimate government and supported increased pressure on Maduro, the U.S. military escalation has raised significant reservations. Mexico, under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, maintained a position of strict neutrality and criticized the military intervention, calling for respect for Venezuelan sovereignty. Argentina, under the Peronist government, has also expressed reservations, highlighting the risks of regional contagion and an exacerbation of the migration crisis. More generally, Latin American governments—even those hostile to Maduro—have shown marked reluctance to endorse a military approach that could set a dangerous precedent for foreign intervention in the internal affairs of nations in the region.
What strikes me is Europe’s deafening silence. The European Union, which presents itself as a champion of multilateralism and international law, which lectures the rest of the world on the need to respect the rules… yet, faced with what is happening in Venezuela, it remains silent. A few lukewarm statements, a few concerns expressed in hushed tones, but nothing concrete. Why? Because no one wants to fall out with Washington? Because economic interests take precedence over principles? I ask this question because it troubles me. This collective hypocrisy weighs heavily on me. If we are unable to defend the rules we claim to cherish when they are violated by our allies, then what is the point of these rules? To embellish our speeches? To ease our conscience while the world burns?
Section 6: Global Economic Impact
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1829627286-optimized-madmax-mk1m2aij.jpeg)
The Impact on Oil Prices
The impact of the Venezuelan blockade on global oil markets was immediate and measurable, though tempered by current production overcapacity. In the hours following Trump’s announcement of the blockade, oil prices rose by more than 1%, with Brent crude climbing 70 cents to $59.62 per barrel and U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) rising 73 cents to $56.00. This initial reaction reflects market expectations of a potential reduction in Venezuelan exports, although traders are waiting to see how the blockade will be enforced in practice and whether it will extend to non-sanctioned vessels. For now, the oil market remains well-supplied, with millions of barrels of oil stored on ships off the coast of China awaiting unloading.
However, if the embargo remains in place for an extended period, the loss of nearly one million barrels per day of crude oil supply is likely to drive oil prices up significantly. David Goldwyn, a former energy diplomat at the U.S. State Department, estimated that if the affected Venezuelan exports are not replaced by increased OPEC spare capacity, the impact on oil prices could range from five to eight dollars per barrel. This price increase would have a ripple effect on the global economy, raising transportation and production costs across all sectors and fueling inflation in economies already weakened by post-pandemic disruptions. Net oil-importing countries, particularly the emerging economies of Asia and Africa, would be hardest hit by this price hike, with potentially destabilizing implications for their economic and political stability.
It’s incredible, when you think about it. A country that accounts for less than 1% of global oil consumption, yet is capable of shaking global markets. That speaks volumes about the fragility of our energy system. We’ve built our entire modern economy on a finite, geographically concentrated, and politically volatile resource. And when there’s a disruption—even a minor one—the whole system begins to shake. It’s like a house built on sand. We know it’s unstable. We know it could collapse. But we keep building higher, bigger, and more complex. Until when? Until the ground gives way beneath our feet? It’s this collective madness that baffles me—this ability to see the danger coming and yet carry on as if nothing were wrong.
The Impact on Specialized Refineries
The impact of the Venezuelan blockade is not uniform across the global oil market but disproportionately affects refineries configured to process heavy, sour Venezuelan crude. Merey 16, the benchmark Venezuelan crude, is particularly heavy with an API gravity in the 16s, which requires refineries equipped with sophisticated coking and desulfurization units. These refineries, located primarily on the U.S. Gulf Coast and in China’s Shandong province, have invested heavily in these specialized capabilities precisely to take advantage of the significant discounts offered by Venezuelan crude. With the disruption of Venezuelan supplies, these refineries find themselves in a precarious situation, forced to seek substitutes that do not exactly match their technical specifications.
Potential substitutes for Venezuelan crude include Canada’s Western Canadian Select (WCS), Mexican Maya crude, and certain heavy crudes from the Middle East, such as Iranian Marran. However, none of these crudes exactly matches the profile of Venezuelan Merey, forcing refineries to adjust their operations, sometimes at the expense of efficiency. More importantly, increased demand for these substitute crudes is driving up their prices, reducing refining margins. U.S. refiners such as Valero and Marathon, which have priority access to authorized Venezuelan barrels, now find themselves in direct competition with Chinese refiners in Shandong for the available Canadian crude. This increased competition for a limited supply of heavy crude means that someone will have to pay more, which will inevitably translate into higher prices at the pump for end consumers.
There is a hidden tragedy in this story: that of the engineers and technicians who have spent years optimizing their refineries to process a specific type of crude. They know every valve, every catalyst, every optimal temperature. And then, overnight, everything changes. They have to readjust, tinker, and improvise. And all because politicians in Washington decided that Venezuelan oil was off-limits. It makes me angry—this inability to understand that the economy isn’t a game. It’s about lives. Careers. Skills built up over decades that can be destroyed in a matter of days by a political decision. This total disregard for technical reality on the part of our leaders terrifies me.
Section 7: The Human Dimension
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1661598956-optimized-madmax-mk1m2edl.jpeg)
The Escalating Migration Crisis
David Goldwyn, a former U.S. diplomat, warned that escalating pressure on Venezuela could trigger a “massive and immediate migration from Venezuela to neighboring countries.” This prediction has already come true to some extent, as the country’s economic collapse has already caused the largest exodus in modern Latin American history. More than 7 million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014, including approximately 2.5 million in Colombia, 1.5 million in Peru, 500,000 in Ecuador, and 300,000 in Chile. These host countries, already facing their own economic and social challenges, are struggling to integrate these refugee populations, creating social and political tensions that could worsen with a new wave of migration.
The impact of this migration crisis on neighboring countries is multifaceted. Economically, the sudden influx of refugees is putting pressure on labor markets, health care systems, and social infrastructure. Colombian border cities such as Cúcuta have seen their populations double or triple in just a few years, creating enormous challenges in terms of housing, education, and public services. Socially, the coexistence of local populations and refugees has generated tensions, with a reported increase in xenophobia and discrimination against Venezuelans. Politically, the management of this migration crisis has become a divisive issue in many countries, fueling debates on immigration policy and creating opportunities for populist movements that exploit security fears. If, as some experts predict, the U.S. blockade triggers a new wave of migration, these pressures could become unbearable for some host countries, risking the destabilization of entire regions.
7 million people. Try to picture that for a moment. It’s as if the entire population of Switzerland or Hungary had been forced to flee their country. Entire families who have left everything behind: their homes, their memories, their communities. Children who have known nothing but exile. Parents who no longer know how to give their children a future. When I read the testimonies of these refugees, when I hear their stories of trekking through the Andes, of dangerous river crossings, of daily discrimination… my heart breaks. These aren’t just statistics. These are shattered lives. And the most unbearable thing is that all of this was preventable. That if we had acted differently, sooner, or in a different way, perhaps this catastrophe could have been avoided. But no. We let it happen. And now, we look at the consequences with false compassion.
The Health and Social Consequences
Venezuela’s economic crisis, exacerbated by sanctions and now by the naval blockade, has had devastating health and social consequences. Venezuela’s healthcare system, once one of the most advanced in Latin America, has collapsed under the weight of underfunding, drug shortages, and the mass exodus of healthcare professionals. Hospitals lack essential medications, basic equipment, and even a reliable electricity supply. Diseases that were once under control, such as malaria, diphtheria, and measles, have reemerged and are spreading. The infant mortality rate has risen alarmingly, while life expectancy has declined—a trend rarely seen in peacetime in a middle-income country.
The social consequences of this crisis are just as severe. Venezuela’s education system has collapsed, with schools closing due to a lack of teachers and resources. Malnutrition has become widespread, particularly among children, with studies showing high rates of stunted growth and underweight children. Crime has skyrocketed, making Caracas one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Traditional social networks—family and community-based—which typically served as safety nets in times of crisis, have collapsed under the weight of widespread poverty. The mass exodus of the middle class and professionals has deprived the country of its technical and intellectual capacity, making recovery all the more difficult. In this context, the intensification of economic pressure through the naval blockade only exacerbates an already existing humanitarian catastrophe, with consequences that will be felt for generations.
When I think of those Venezuelan children growing up in poverty, who don’t have enough to eat, who don’t go to school, who live in fear… it breaks my heart. Because they are not the ones who caused this crisis. They aren’t the ones who made irresponsible political decisions. Yet they are the ones suffering the harshest consequences. And what hurts me the most is the rest of the world’s indifference. We see the images, we read the reports, we know what’s happening… and we go on with our lives as if nothing were wrong. It’s this ability to ignore the suffering of others when it’s far away, when it doesn’t affect us directly, that revolts me. Is this what humanity is? Is this what we’ve become?
Section 8: The Role of Regional Actors
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1692247032-optimized-madmax-mk1m2i89.jpeg)
Colombia’s Position
Colombia, which shares the longest land border with Venezuela, finds itself in a particularly critical and complex position in the face of U.S. escalation. The Colombian government, under President Gustavo Petro, has adopted an increasingly critical stance toward U.S. military intervention, despite historical tensions with the Maduro regime. This shift reflects Bogotá’s growing concerns about the regional consequences of a military escalation, particularly the risk of a massive influx of refugees and the destabilization of the shared border. Colombia is already hosting approximately 2.5 million Venezuelans, and a new wave of migration could overwhelm its already strained reception capacity.
Colombia’s position is also influenced by domestic security considerations. The Colombian-Venezuelan border is a historic trafficking zone, with illegal armed groups such as FARC dissidents and the ELN operating on both sides. Military escalation and potential chaos in Venezuela risk strengthening these groups, which could take advantage of the power vacuum to expand their operations. Furthermore, the closure of formal trade routes between the two countries—which are estimated to be worth several billion dollars annually—has significant economic consequences for Colombian border regions that depend on this trade. Faced with these challenges, the Petro administration has sought to maintain a dialogue with Maduro—despite U.S. pressure to isolate the regime—and has called for a negotiated solution to the Venezuelan crisis rather than a military one.
It’s ironic, when you think about it. Colombia, a historic U.S. ally in Latin America—a country that has hosted U.S. bases on its soil and cooperated closely with Washington in the war on drugs—is now the Colombian government that most firmly opposes U.S. military escalation. That speaks volumes about the shifting regional dynamics. Latin American countries—even those traditionally pro-American—are tired of being treated like Washington’s backyards or satellites. They want their autonomy, their own foreign policy. And that’s healthy, ultimately. Even if it displeases Washington. Even if it complicates matters. Independence always comes at a price. But it’s worth paying.
Brazil’s Role
Brazil, South America’s largest economy and military power, also plays a crucial role in the Venezuelan crisis. Under the presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil has adopted a position of “active neutrality,” criticizing both the Maduro regime for its economic management and U.S. intervention for its unilateralism. This stance reflects Brazil’s tradition of autonomous diplomacy and non-intervention, as well as its ambitions to serve as a regional leader capable of mediating conflicts without relying on the United States. Brazil also has significant economic interests at stake, particularly as a trading partner of Venezuela and as a minority shareholder in joint oil projects in the Orinoco Basin.
Brazil’s position is also influenced by broader geopolitical considerations. Brazil views the growing U.S. military presence in South America with suspicion, as it could challenge Brazil’s aspiration to regional hegemony. The establishment of a permanent U.S. military base in Venezuela—even under the guise of “humanitarian” or “stabilization” operations—would represent a significant shift in the continental balance of power to Brazil’s detriment. Furthermore, Lula has opposed the “weaponization” of the global economy, criticizing the use of financial sanctions as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. This criticism echoes the concerns of other major emerging economies such as China, India, and Russia, which view unilateral sanctions as a threat to the multilateral trading system that they have every interest in preserving.
Lula… is a fascinating figure. A man who survived prison, who returned to power, who continues to speak his mind even in his 80s. And what he thinks about Venezuela is that military intervention is not the solution. That democracy cannot be imposed by missiles. That national sovereignty matters. Ideas that seem obvious, but have become subversive in today’s world. What strikes me about Lula is that he speaks from the Global South. Not from Washington, not from Brussels, but from a perspective that understands how intervention is perceived when it comes from countries that themselves have a long history of interference. We need that voice. We desperately need it in this world that has become unipolar.
Section 9: Future Prospects
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1715184964_1_-optimized-madmax-mk1m2m3a.jpeg)
Possible Outcomes
The Venezuelan crisis, exacerbated by the U.S. naval blockade, could be resolved through several potential scenarios, each with very different implications for Venezuela, the region, and the international system. The first scenario, described as a “controlled transition,” would involve the fall of the Maduro regime, followed by the establishment of an internationally recognized transitional government and the gradual opening of Venezuela’s oil sector to foreign investment, particularly from the United States. In this scenario, the blockade would be gradually lifted in exchange for political and economic concessions from the new government. This scenario is favored by the Trump administration and its allies, but requires the cooperation of the Venezuelan military, whose stance will remain decisive.
The second scenario, a “prolonged stalemate,” would see the Maduro regime survive thanks to the support of its international allies, notably China and Russia, and the Venezuelan economy’s adaptation to sanctions through the “ghost fleet” and other circumvention mechanisms. In this scenario, the blockade would continue indefinitely, with ongoing economic and humanitarian costs for the Venezuelan population but without a clear political resolution. The third and most catastrophic scenario would be a “chaotic collapse,” in which the Maduro regime would collapse without any alternative authority capable of taking over, plunging Venezuela into anarchy and civil war. This scenario could trigger an uncoordinated regional or international military intervention, with unpredictable consequences for the entire region.
When I look at these scenarios, I feel powerless. Because in each one, ordinary Venezuelans are the ones who pay the price. In the best-case scenario, years of difficult reconstruction. In the worst, total chaos. There is no quick “happy ending” scenario. No magic solution. And it depresses me—this realization that political crises, once they reach this level of severity, cannot be resolved without pain. That we are condemned to choose between the lesser of two evils and the lesser of two evils. Not good versus evil. Just different varieties of suffering. That is the true tragedy of international politics. There are no perfect solutions. Only imperfect compromises that leave scars.
The Impact on the International Order
The Venezuelan crisis and the U.S. naval blockade have implications that extend far beyond Venezuela’s borders and even beyond Latin America, touching on the very foundations of the international order established after World War II. The normalization of the use of unilateral economic and military force as a tool of foreign policy undermines the multilateral system that the international community has spent decades building. Secondary sanctions, which threaten third countries with retaliation if they continue to trade with nations targeted by Washington, particularly contradict the principle of free international trade that lies at the heart of the World Trade Organization and other multilateral institutions.
Even more troubling is the use of the “terrorist” designation as a tool of political pressure, a practice that trivializes a serious concept and sets a dangerous precedent. If the United States can designate a sovereign government as a terrorist organization to justify military action, what will prevent other powers from doing the same in the future? This approach contributes to the erosion of international norms governing the use of force and state sovereignty—a process already well underway due to other recent interventions. Countries in the European Union, Asia, and the Global South are watching these developments with concern, fearing that what is happening in Venezuela will become a model for unilateral action in other regions of the world. The risk is further fragmentation of the international system, with different spheres of influence applying their own rules and standards.
What truly terrifies me is that we are witnessing something historic without even realizing it: the end of the international order as we have known it since 1945. Not through some grand apocalyptic spectacle, but through slow, insidious erosion. A decision here, a practice there, a precedent elsewhere… and in the end, the system warps, breaks down, and becomes unrecognizable. And what scares me the most is that we have no model for what comes next. We’re tearing things down without knowing what we’re going to build in their place. It’s like remodeling an airplane mid-flight. The passengers are on board, we’re taking the wings apart, and we’re hoping for the best. It’s madness. But that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Section 10: Lessons to Be Learned
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1692246935-optimized-madmax-mk1m2qq1.jpeg)
The Limits of Sanctions
The Venezuelan experience offers a number of important lessons on the effectiveness and limitations of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. First, it has become clear that sanctions—even the most severe and comprehensive ones—are generally not sufficient on their own to bring about regime change. The Maduro regime has survived years of escalating sanctions, adapting to each new restriction and developing increasingly sophisticated circumvention mechanisms. This ability to adapt suggests that sanctions are more effective as a tool of coercion than as a means of ousting governments, working best when they target specific, moderate objectives rather than radical political transformations.
Second, the sanctions against Venezuela have demonstrated that the humanitarian costs of comprehensive coercive measures can be disproportionate to the intended political objectives. Venezuela’s economic collapse has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe of a magnitude rarely seen in peacetime, with consequences that will affect entire generations of Venezuelans. This humanitarian dimension of sanctions raises fundamental ethical questions about their use, particularly when civilian populations are the primary victims. Third, the Venezuelan experience shows that unilateral sanctions are far less effective than multilateral sanctions, as they leave room for circumvention by third countries. China, Russia, India, and other countries have continued to trade with Venezuela despite U.S. sanctions, providing alternative sources of financing and markets for oil exports.
It is a bitter but necessary lesson: economic coercion has its limits. For decades, we believed that sanctions were the ultimate weapon, the clean alternative to war. No bloodshed, no destruction—just economic pressure until the enemy yields. But Venezuela shows us the reality: sanctions can be just as destructive as war, just in a different way. Slower, less visible, but just as devastating for the people who suffer them. Is that really better? Is destroying an economy and condemning a population to misery more “ethical” than bombing? I ask this question honestly. Because I am no longer certain that the answer is yes.
The Need for Multilateralism
The Venezuelan crisis also highlights, in a negative way, the importance of multilateralism in resolving international crises. The U.S. unilateral approach, while technically capable of imposing considerable costs on the Maduro regime, has failed to produce a lasting solution to the conflict. On the contrary, the lack of international consensus around the U.S. strategy has allowed the regime to survive by exploiting divisions among the major powers and relying on allies such as China and Russia. A multilateral approach, involving the UN, the European Union, and other regional actors, could have created more coherent and legitimate pressure on the Venezuelan government while minimizing the humanitarian costs.
Multilateralism offers several key advantages in crises of this kind. First, it lends democratic legitimacy to the actions taken, which is crucial for their acceptance by the affected populations and by the international community. Second, it helps distribute the costs of implementing coercive measures, preventing any single country from bearing the bulk of the economic and political burden. Third, it creates a framework for negotiation that can facilitate compromise solutions by involving parties that would otherwise have no reason to trust a unilateral power. Fourth, it provides monitoring and verification mechanisms that can ensure the equitable implementation of sanctions and prevent them from becoming tools of pure political revenge. The Venezuelan crisis tragically demonstrates the limits of unilateral action and the need to renew—rather than abandon—multilateral institutions.
I know, “multilateralism” has become a buzzword. A concept that everyone invokes without really believing in it. Politicians talk about it in their speeches, then continue to act unilaterally whenever they can. But the truth is, we have no alternative. If every major power decides to impose its will through economic and military force, if every country tries to resolve its security problems on its own, without consultation… then we’re screwed. Plain and simple. The international system will fragment. Conflicts will multiply. And we’ll all end up less secure, less wealthy, and less free. Multilateralism isn’t perfect. Far from it. But it’s the worst system… except for all the others.
Section 11: The Exit Route
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1659023401-optimized-madmax-mk1m2udw.jpeg)
The Conditions for a Peaceful Transition
Despite the scale of the crisis and the depth of the divisions, a peaceful transition in Venezuela remains possible, but it will require compromises from all parties involved. For the Maduro regime and its supporters, an acceptable transition would need to include security guarantees against legal prosecution and the confiscation of assets, as well as some form of political participation in the post-transition system. These guarantees would be essential to convince the military and senior regime officials not to resist a change of government by force. For the Venezuelan opposition and its international allies, a transition should include free and fair elections, the release of political prisoners, and commitments to economic reforms that would put the country back on the path to prosperity.
International actors, particularly the United States, China, and the European Union, will also have a crucial role to play in facilitating a peaceful transition. Washington will need to be prepared to gradually lift sanctions and the naval blockade in exchange for concrete political concessions, rather than demanding the regime’s total capitulation before any easing of restrictions. China and Russia will have to accept losing their exclusive influence in Venezuela and the possibility that their investments may be renegotiated as part of a broader agreement. The European Union and other regional actors such as Brazil and Colombia could serve as neutral mediators and provide the technical and economic assistance needed to support the transition. A coordinated international reconstruction effort, similar to the Marshall Plan for Europe after World War II, would be essential to prevent the collapse of the Venezuelan state and to create the conditions for a return to prosperity.
Is this realistic? Can we really imagine Maduro agreeing to step down, the United States lifting its sanctions, and China accepting the loss of its investments? I want to believe so. Not because I’m naive. Because the alternative is worse. The continuation of the conflict, the worsening of the humanitarian crisis, regional destabilization… no one wins. Even those who think they’re winning today will end up losing tomorrow. Politics is the art of the impossible. It’s about finding compromises when everything seems divided. It’s about building bridges where there are only chasms. And that—exactly that—is what Venezuela needs right now. Not missiles. Not sanctions. Bridges.
The Role of Civil Society
Venezuelan civil society, despite extreme polarization and economic devastation, remains a vital force that can play a decisive role in any peaceful transition. Non-governmental organizations, community groups, labor unions, professional associations, and grassroots social movements have maintained networks of solidarity and resistance throughout the crisis. These organizations can serve as mediators between polarized political actors, providing a space for dialogue and trust-building where official channels have been blocked. They can also play a crucial role in rebuilding the social fabric torn apart by years of conflict and in fostering the national reconciliation necessary after any transition.
The Venezuelan diaspora, estimated at more than 7 million people scattered across the globe, also represents an important resource for the country’s future. This diaspora includes highly qualified professionals in all sectors who could contribute to the reconstruction of Venezuela’s economy and institutions. Many members of the diaspora have maintained strong ties with their country of origin and have developed transnational networks that could facilitate the transfer of knowledge, technology, and capital to Venezuela. Voluntary return and refugee reintegration programs, coupled with economic incentives and security guarantees, could accelerate this reconstruction process. Venezuelan civil society and its diaspora embody the hope for a different future—a future in which the country could harness its immense natural resources and human capital to build a more just, prosperous, and democratic society.
That is Venezuela’s true strength. Not oil. Not gold. Not natural resources. The people. Those millions of Venezuelans who, despite everything, continue to believe in their country. Who, despite exile, poverty, and persecution, have not lost their dignity, their creativity, or their ability to dream of a better future. When I listen to them, when I read their stories, I am in awe. Of their resilience. By their courage. By their refusal to give up. That is the Venezuela that deserves to exist—the Venezuela of ordinary people, not that of dictators or strongmen. And it is for them, ultimately, that I am writing these words—to say that I see their pain, that I respect their courage, and that I believe in their future.
Conclusion: A Shadow Cast Over the Future
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1633037664-optimized-madmax-mk1m2yfq.jpeg)
A Historic Turning Point
The U.S. naval blockade against Venezuela and the clandestine flight of oil tankers represent more than just a regional crisis: they constitute a historic turning point in contemporary international relations. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, a major power is openly using naval military force to impose a complete economic embargo against another sovereign state, without the explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council. This action marks a break with the international norms that have governed the use of force since 1945 and sets a precedent whose repercussions will be felt for decades to come. The world is entering a new era, one in which economic and military power can be deployed unilaterally without the constraints that emerged in the wake of the horrors of World War II.
This development is part of a broader context of redefining the international order. The collapse of the Soviet Union had created a period of U.S. unipolarity that lasted about two decades, but recent years have seen the emergence of new powers such as China and India, as well as the strengthening of regional actors such as Russia, Brazil, and Iran. In this emerging multipolar world, the United States seeks to maintain its hegemony through more assertive means, including the use of massive economic sanctions and, now, direct military force. Venezuela is thus becoming a testing ground for a new U.S. doctrine of power projection—a doctrine that could be applied elsewhere in the world in the future. The implications for global stability are profound, as this approach encourages other powers to develop their own doctrines of intervention, creating a vicious cycle of military and economic escalation.
When I look to the future, I am filled with conflicting emotions. On the one hand, a deep dread of what lies ahead. A world where the law of the jungle has once again become the only rule. Where the institutions we have patiently built over decades are being dismantled one by one. Where every conflict could trigger a global catastrophe. But on the other hand, there is a strange glimmer of hope. Because I also see people who are resisting. Who refuse to accept this world of brutality. Who still believe in the possibility of an international order based on law, not force. Venezuelans fighting for their dignity. Diplomats working behind the scenes to find solutions. Ordinary citizens everywhere saying “no” to the logic of power. It’s fragile—as fragile as a breath. But it’s there. And as long as it’s there, there is hope. Not much. Not enough to sleep soundly. But enough to keep fighting.
Venezuela as a Mirror of the World
The Venezuelan crisis acts as a mirror in which the world can see itself, reflecting both its strengths and its deepest contradictions. It reveals the contradictions of an international system that champions sovereignty while violating it when it serves its interests. It exposes the flaws of a globalized economy that depends on a small number of resources that are geographically concentrated and vulnerable to political disruptions. It highlights the hypocrisy of powers that claim to defend human rights while imposing sanctions that destroy the lives of millions of innocent people. It shows the limits of liberal democracy when confronted with resilient authoritarian regimes that know how to exploit international divisions to their advantage.
But the Venezuelan crisis also reveals something more positive about the contemporary world. It demonstrates the extraordinary resilience of civil societies in the face of the most extreme adversity. It shows the ability of ordinary people to survive and maintain their dignity even when their leaders have betrayed them and the international community has abandoned them. It bears witness to the strength of family and community ties that transcend national borders, as evidenced by the massive outpouring of solidarity from host countries in the face of the Venezuelan exodus. Ultimately, it proves that even in the darkest circumstances, hope does not die completely, and that the will to build a better future persists despite everything.
So, what should we take away from all this? That the world is changing radically, that the rules we thought were eternal are being rewritten, that Venezuela is the first victim—but probably not the last—of this new global disorder. Or that, despite everything, humanity possesses unsuspected reserves of resilience, courage, and solidarity? I want to believe that both are true. That we are living through a time of immense danger, but also a time of possibilities. That what happens in the years to come will depend on all of us. On our ability to resist the logic of force. To defend what is right when others choose power. To remember that behind every statistic, every barrel of oil, every ghost ship, there are human beings. People like us. Who deserve dignity, respect, and a future. It’s not much of a legacy. But it’s what we have. And it will have to be enough.
Sources
Primary sources
Reuters, “Trump Orders ‘Blockade’ of Sanctioned Oil Tankers Leaving and Entering Venezuela,” published December 16, 2025. CNN, “Trump Orders ‘Total and Complete Blockade’ of Sanctioned Oil Tankers Coming to and Leaving Venezuela,” published December 16, 2025. Forbes, “Maduro, Venezuela, the U.S.—And the Oil Shock China Can’t Price In,” published January 3, 2026. TankerTrackers.com, maritime tracking data on Venezuelan vessels, accessed in January 2026. Statement by Donald Trump on Truth Social, December 16, 2025.
Secondary Sources
Bloomberg, “More Venezuela-Bound Oil Ships U-Turn Amid U.S. Blockade,” published January 2, 2026. AidData, research on Chinese loans to Venezuela, 2025. Elena Chachko, UC Berkeley Law School, legal analyses of the U.S. naval blockade, 2025. David Goldwyn, former U.S. energy diplomat, interviews and statements, December 2025–January 2026. OPEC and PDVSA, data on Venezuelan oil production, 2025.
This content was created with the help of AI.
