abduction

The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a grave escalation in US-Venezuela relations. By seizing Venezuela’s constitutional president, Washington signaled both its disregard for international law and its confidence that it would face little immediate consequence.

The response within the US political establishment to the attack on Venezuela has been striking. Without the slightest cognitive dissonance over President Maduro’s violent abduction, Democrats call for “restoring democracy” – but not for returning Venezuela’s lawful president.

So why didn’t the imperialists simply assassinate him? From their perspective, it would have been cleaner and more cost-efficient. It would have been the DOGE thing to do: launch a drone in one of those celebrated “surgical” strikes.

Targeted killings are as much a part of US policy now as there were in the past. From Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011 to Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, lethal force has been used when deemed expedient. And only last June, the second Trump administration and its Zionist partner in crime droned eleven Iranian nuclear scientists.

The US posted a $50-million bounty on Maduro, yet they took him very much alive along with his wife, First Combatant (the Venezuelan equivalent of the First Lady) Cilia Flores.

The reason Maduro’s life was spared tells us volumes about the resilience of the Bolivarian Revolution, the strength of Maduro even in captivity, and the inability of the empire to subjugate Venezuela.

Killing Nicolás Maduro Moros appears to have been a step too far, even for Washington’s hawks. Perhaps he was also seen as more valuable to the empire as a hostage than as a martyr.

But the images of a handcuffed Maduro flashing a victory sign – and declaring in a New York courtroom, “I was captured… I am the president of my country” – were not those of a defeated leader.

Rather than collapsing, the Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation. With a seamless continuation of leadership under acting President Delcy Rodríguez, even some figures in the opposition have rallied around the national leadership, heeding the nationalist call of a populace mobilized in the streets in support of their president.

This has pushed the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer, notwithstanding that the playing field remains decisively tilted in Washington’s favor. Regardless, Venezuelan authorities have demanded and received the US’s respect. Indeed, after declaring Venezuela an illegitimate narco-state, Trump has flipped, recognized the Chavista government, and invited its acting executive to Washington.

NBC News gave Delcy Rodríguez a respectful interview. After affirming state ownership of Venezuela’s mineral resources and Maduro as the lawful president, she pointed out that the so-called political prisoners in Venezuelan prisons were there because they had committed acts of criminal violence.

Before a national US television audience she explained that free and fair elections require being “free of sanctions and…not undermined by international bullying and harassment by the international press” (emphasis added).

Notably, the interviewer cited US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission made during his high-level visit to Venezuela. The US official brushed aside demands for short-term elections, instead arguing that they could be held by the end of 2027. In contrast, Rodríguez stressed that Venezuela’s electoral calendar is set by the country’s Constitution.

As for opposition politician María Corina Machado, the darling of the US press corps, Rodríguez told the interviewer that Machado would have to answer for her various treasonous activities if she came back to Venezuela.

Contrary to the corporate press’s media myth, fostered at a reception in Manhattan, that Machado is insanely popular and poised to lead “A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity: The Global Upside of a Democratic Venezuela,” the US government apparently understood the reality on the ground. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” was the honest evaluation, not of some Chavista partisan, but of President Trump himself.

Yader Lanuza documents how the US provided millions to manufacture an effective astroturf opposition to the Chavistas. It is far from the first time that Washington has squandered money in this way – we only have to look back at its failed efforts to promote the “presidency” of Juan Guaidó. Its latest efforts have again had no decisive result, leaving Machado in limbo and pragmatic engagement with the Chavista leadership as the only practical option.

Any doubts that there is daylight between captured President Maduro and acting President Rodríguez can be dispelled by listening to the now incarcerated Maduro’s New Year’s Day interview with international leftist intellectual Ignacio Ramonet.

Maduro said it was time to “start talking seriously” with the US – especially regarding oil investment – marking a continuation of his prior conditional openness to diplomatic engagement. He reiterated that Venezuela was ready to discuss agreements on combating drug trafficking and to consider US oil investment, allowing companies like Chevron to operate.

That was just two days before the abduction. Subsequently, Delcy Rodríguez met with the US energy secretary and the head of the Southern Command to discuss oil investments and combating drug trafficking, respectively.

Venezuelan analysts have framed the current moment as one of constrained choice. “What is at stake is the survival of the state and the republic, which if lost, would render the discussion of any other topic banal,” according to Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein. The former government official, who was close to Hugo Chávez, supports Delcy Rodríguez’s discussions with Washington – acknowledging that she has “a missile to her head.”

“The search for a negotiation in the case of the January 3 kidnapping is not understood, therefore, as a surrender, but as an act of political maturity in a context of unprecedented blackmail,” according to Italian journalist and former Red Brigades militant Geraldina Colotti.

The Amnesty Law, a longstanding Chavista initiative, is being debated in the National Assembly to maintain social peace, according to the president of the assembly and brother of the acting president, Jorge Rodríguez, in an interview with the US-based NewsMax outlet.

As Jorge Rodríguez commented, foregoing oil revenues by keeping oil in the ground does not benefit the people’s well-being and development. In that context, the Hydrocarbon Law has been reformed to attract vital foreign investment.

The Venezuelan outlet Mision Verdad elaborates: “The 2026 reform ratifies and, in some aspects, deepens essential elements of the previous legislation…[I]t creates the legal basis for a complete strategic adaptation of the Venezuelan hydrocarbon industry, considering elements of the present context.”

As Karl Marx presciently observed about the present context, people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” The present US-Venezuelan détente is making history. So far – in Hugo Chávez’s words, por ahora – it does not resemble the humanitarian catastrophes imposed by the empire on Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.

But make no mistake: the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. And there is no clearer insight into the empire’s core barbarity than Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich conference with his praising of the capture of a “narcoterrorist dictator” and his invocation of Columbus as the inspiration “to build a new Western century.”

Washington’s kidnapping of Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. But it also exposed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they detest. The outcome remains uncertain.

With minor edits by Venezuelanalysis.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

ST. PAUL, Minn., Feb. 24 (UPI) — The high-profile abduction of Nancy Guthrie is focusing new attention on a little-known, but quickly growing, segment of the insurance industry known as “kidnap and ransom” in which underwriters cover clients at risk from criminals at home and abroad.

While “K&R” insurance has traditionally been seen the domain of business executives whose travels take them to hot spots across the globe where abduction risk is high, the Guthrie case shows that even within the relatively safe United States, anyone can be subjected to kidnapping or extortion, industry leaders told UPI.

As of Monday, the fate of Nancy Guthrie remained unknown. The 84-year-old mother of Today show host Savannah Guthrie has been missing from her home in Tucson since Jan. 31. Police were notified after she failed to show up to watch a live stream of a church service at a friend’s house.

Her family has been cleared in her disappearance and the case is still being treated as a kidnapping. The FBI describes the prime suspect as a male between 5 feet, 9 inches and 5 feet, 10 inches in height with a medium build and carrying a 24-liter black Ozark Trail Hiker Pack.

An unknown person’s DNA was recovered at the crime scene, authorities said.

Meanwhile, reports have indicated the Guthrie family received a ransom demand of millions of dollars to be paid in cryptocurrency.

As the search has dragged on for weeks without any substantial breaks in the case, the costs to the Guthrie family are likely mounting quickly, even excluding the potential payout of a multimillion-dollar ransom.

This has led to speculation over whether Savannah Guthrie — who has a reported net worth of $50 million — owns a kidnap and ransom insurance policy covering herself and family members.

But, if she is like the vast majority of high-net worth Americans such as top business executives, media figures, politicians, athletes and celebrities, it’s probable she does not have a K&R policy.

This is because kidnappings-for-ransom have always been rare in the United States and, as a result, the worldwide market for such policies has remained relatively small at an estimated at $2 billion in 2025.

But that figure is expected to nearly double by 2033 as buyers’ perceptions of the threat levels evolve.

“Glaring gap”

The Nancy Guthrie case, as well as a recent rash of kidnappings targeting holders of large amounts of cryptocurrency, is shining a light on what some have described as a “glaring gap” in the security measures typically taken by wealthy families, media personalities and others.

Insurers don’t want to talk about the cost of K&R policy premiums. However, according to independent estimates, basic policies can cost as little as $500 per year, but quickly rise in price as coverage expands and risks increase.

If, for instance, the policyholder is planning to travel to kidnapping “hotspots” such as Mexico, the cost will increase. Insurance for high-profile CEOs, regardless of where they travel, can ruin $10,000 or more per year, industry estimates indicate.

One of the world’s largest providers of K&R insurance is the French company AXA and its specialized division for complex risks, AXA XL. Denise Balan, the firm’s senior vice president and head of U.S. security risks, told UPI the need for these policies is evolving beyond business people traveling into risky global hotspots, although that remains a core customer base.

“You’d be surprised how many entities and individuals actually do carry this insurance, because it is a ‘duty of care’ product,” she said, meaning it is provided by businesses as part of their legal duty to protect their employees.

“So, most companies that have a significant number of employees who either travel internationally or have CEOs or board members who have concerns about threats to their physical safety or extortion, they do tend to carry this insurance.”

There are basically two elements to a typical K&R policy, Balan explained, including the obvious benefit: reimbursement of expenses and costs up to and including the ransom payment.

“But the more important aspect of the policy that you get is the service,” she said. “And that’s in the form of a security consultant. I’m sure you’ve heard a number of different security consultants who have been interviewed recently about the Savannah Guthrie case. Each insurance company that offers kidnap-for-ransom policies also offers a security service.”

The cost of the consultants, usually drawn from a small pool of well-known providers such as London-based S-RM Intelligence and Control Risks Group, is entirely absorbed by the insurer and doesn’t erode the policy limit — rather, it is in addition to the limit.

“It is a wonderful service that will give you not only response in a crisis, but will also give you preventative assistance,” Balan said. “It’s useful if a company wants to set up a crisis management plan or to do an exercise so they’d know how to react if, for instance, they get a call on a Sunday night from someone who says one of their products is going to be tampered with unless they get a million dollars.”

The provided security consultant can offer expert advice on “everything from how to speak to a kidnapper to how much ransom might be an appropriate amount to pay. They might know, for instance, that the going rate for kidnapping in Mexico is $2,500, and they can help with the negotiation, although they never speak directly to the kidnapper.”

One reason that K&R policies are generally little-known is that they’re highly confidential in nature and the potential for their abuse is high.

“You can’t be out there talking about how you have an insurance policy that pays in the event of a kidnap because there’s just so much potential for fraud,” Balan said. “So, it’s a very under-the-radar product that’s been around since probably the early 1920s.”

Another indication that threats are expanding beyond the traditional business travel sector is evident with a new phenomenon dubbed “crypto-kidnapping,” in which organized gangs utilize leaked data to locate and target high-net-worth cryptocurrency holders.

The latest such incident came Feb. 12 outside of Paris when masked assailants targeted Binance France CEO David Prinçay in a failed home invasion and kidnapping attempt — an attack that has put the entire cryptocurrency industry on high alert.

Matthew Humphries, head of crisis management at Lockton Cos., the world’s largest privately held independent insurance broker, said such incidents show the universe of who should have K&R policies is expanding.

“Kidnap and ransom insurance is available for people and organizations whose profile or operations are exposed to heightened security risks, whether abroad or closer to home,” he told UPI.

“There’s a perception that kidnapping only happens in places with obvious political or security tensions, but the risk is far broader. We’ve seen kidnapping cases emerge in places few would expect, including some high‑profile incidents targeting people in the crypto sector in the U.S., France and Canada.”

Payment for expert security teams covered

Estimates indicate as many as 25,000 kidnappings occur each year worldwide, according to another leader in the industry, the U.S.-based Travelers Cos., which warns in its literature, “If you still think it could never happen, consider this: Coercive threats to you and your business can take many forms.”

The company cites two real-life examples.

In one, the president of a company was kidnapped in his parking lot and held for five days until a ransom was paid. Costs incurred included $650,000 for the ransom, $2,000 per day for an independent negotiator, $500 per day for recording equipment used to obtain the man’s release, and $200 per day for extra security guards hired to protect his family.

In the other case, a physician’s wife was attending a conference. The physician received a call that his wife had been kidnapped and that he had two hours to wire a ransom payment. He wired the funds, but realized later that his wife was never kidnapped or in any danger — and all the while the expenses, such as the ransom payment and costs for a security team, quickly added up.

What’s essential in any kidnapping scenario is the presence of experts to advise those close to the victims, which is perhaps the most important benefit of a K&R policy, said Tracey Santor, assistant vice president for financial institutions at Travelers.

Much like AXA AL’s Balan, she emphasized the policies usually come with a crisis management team to be made available to victims’ families and paid for by the carrier.

“The firm usually consists of former law enforcement officers from a number of agencies, such as the FBI, DEA and CIA, who can often determine if a kidnapping is from a specific group and what past behavior and demands have been,” she told UPI. “The crisis team may also work with local authorities on the safety and return of the kidnap victim.”

Travelers only issues commercial K&R policies for businesses rather than personal policies for individuals, for whom they recommend another U.S. provider working with the Travelers Syndicate 5000 in London.

Asked whether heavily publicized cases such as the abduction of Nancy Guthrie can drive up demand for K&R insurance, Santor responded, “Any high-profile story in the news has the ability to influence new buyers to look to purchase coverage related to the incident.”