US-Venezuela Relations

The U.S. has attacked Venezuela through various means for decades and kidnapped President Maduro but is now claiming to assist with earthquake relief. If it’s role in Haiti is any guide, that so-called aid from the U.S. is a Trojan Horse bringing more plunder and control.

For decades, the U.S. has waged a carefully planned and unrelenting attack on Venezuela’s economy using unilateral coercive measures, commonly known as economic sanctions, to destabilize and destroy the country’s socialist Bolivarian government. Though the earthquakes that devastated the nation were not caused by the U.S., the destabilization of the Venezuelan government, economy, and infrastructure was. The damage from those sanctions was so pervasive that any natural disaster large enough would be catastrophic, leading to foreign aid being used not only to produce enormous capitalist profits for foreign interests but also to bring the country more firmly under U.S. control. This is the situation Venezuela faces today.

George W. Bush imposed the first coercive measures against Venezuela in 2006. Democratically elected President Hugo Chávez had the nerve to criticize the U.S. for its bloodthirsty response to 9/11 and refused to support or participate in the U.S. sham counterterrorism efforts. Chávez did so in a very public and embarrassing way for Bush, as he declared from the lectern at the United Nations that George W. Bush was the devil, and that the podium that Bush had just delivered his own remarks from still smelled like sulfur. Bush responded by declaring Venezuela a state sponsor of terror along with Cuba and Iran (notice a pattern here). Bush also claimed that Venezuela refused to adhere to international counternarcotics agreements, breathing life into the claim that the Bolivarian government was a sponsor of narcoterrorism. But even before that, in 2004, Bush restricted non-humanitarian aid to the country, claiming they weren’t doing enough to stop human trafficking. Bush did all of this after the failed U.S.-backed coup against Chávez in 2002 that was tied to his administration. 

The aggression toward Venezuela did not end with the Bush presidency. In December 2014, Obama signed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act after U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of State claimed that the Venezuelan government was committing human rights abuses against government opposition members. This was done in response to the Maduro government charging opposition members with engaging in conspiracies to overthrow him. Obama imposed sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials, and in  March 2015, he issued an Executive Order implementing these sanctions and expanded them to block their visas and freeze the U.S. property of the targets. Obama publicly declared Venezuela an “…extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States.” 

In response, President Maduro said in a nationally televised speech, “President Barack Obama, representing the U.S. imperialist elite, has personally decided to take on the task of defeating my government and intervening in Venezuela to control it.” One of the impacted Venezuelan officials, Diosdado Cabello, said, “What is being planned are attacks against our land, against our country, military attacks.” It took the U.S. a few years, but…

President Donald Trump imposed more, wider-reaching economic coercive measures in 2017 during his first term. In addition to recognizing unelected opposition figure Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, Trump also sanctioned the state-run oil company PDVSA, denying the government access to U.S. financial markets. He froze PDVSA’s assets and finally imposed a near-complete economic embargo on the country. And in 2020, the Trump Justice Department indicted President Maduro on charging the president and 14 others with narcoterrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and gun charges. It also accused him of coordinating with the leftist guerrilla peasant militia Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Founded as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, which sought to redistribute land and resources that the Colombian government denied to the desperately poor peasants in rural areas. After years of fighting with the government, FARC was officially dissolved in the 2016 Peace Accord with the Colombian government. They are now a legal left-wing political party, initially called the Common Alternative Revolutionary Force and later renamed the Comunes (Commons). Trump then issued a $15 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest. Not to be outdone in attempting to enact regime change in Venezuela, President Joe Biden doubled the bounty to $25 million, with no additional indictments added.

The measures barred Venezuela from importing equipment, spare parts, and industrial chemicals to maintain its oil production facilities and shipping capabilities. Oil infrastructure across the country deteriorated, and oil production was driven far below the previous 3 billion barrels a day at its 2008 height to barely above 300,000 barrels a day.  

While many people accurately note that the U.S. is after control of Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves, the country’s mineral wealth is also crucial to the U.S. and much of the world, as it includes bauxite and rare earth minerals critical for weapons systems, satellite manufacturing, and AI technologies. When we consider the struggle we are engaging in to stop the proliferation of these technologies from being used to violate our privacy, whatever freedom we have left, our environment, and our very lives, consider that the U.S. pursuit of these materials has already directly caused the instability, suffering, worsened health outcomes, and deaths of tens of thousands of Venezuelans.

Venezuela relies largely on oil exports to fund its public sector commitments; the collapse of oil exports crippled its primary source of public revenue, making it impossible to import essential goods like food and medicine. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimated that 40,000 Venezuelans died due to economic coercive measures between 2018 and 2019 alone. Former U.S. Special Rapporteur Alfred de Zayas estimated the deaths to have been over 100,000 by 2020. But this is neither unexpected nor unwanted by the U.S. government. Economic sanctions are designed to cause so much hardship for the people of a country that they will rise up in frustration and anger at their own government. U.S. officials understood that imposing economic sanctions on the country would prevent it from importing not just materials to maintain the oil sector but also necessities for the Venezuelan people, such as food, medicine, fuel, and even toilet paper. But public infrastructure, from hospitals and office buildings to apartment buildings and water systems, also fell into disrepair as materials needed to maintain it could not be imported due to sanctions. With the physical buildings weakened, the country was far more vulnerable to disasters like the June 2026 earthquakes than it would have been had the sanctions not been in place.

By the time Trump returned to the White House in 2024, despite the immense damage already done to the country’s economy and infrastructure, they had not done what successive U.S. presidents wanted: to bring about the collapse of the Bolivarian government in Venezuela. Trump imposed more measures after his return to office, doubled Biden’s bounty increase on Maduro to $50 million, and eventually carried out the violent kidnapping of President Nicholas Maduro and First Combatant Cilia Flores in the pre-dawn hours of January 3, 2026, with the help of the Navy and Marines of the Southern US Command (SOUTHCOM), which also carried out the indiscriminate murders of Caribbean fisherfolk in the months prior to the kidnapping. The bounty was never paid to anyone. He also added to the original 2020 indictment against Maduro by adding his now-kidnapped wife and National Assemblywoman Flores, and adding charges of “…narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States.” They are both held in separate solitary confinement cells in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, NY, awaiting their sham trials.

It is an obscenity that the same SOUTHCOM is now deploying forces to Caracas to provide post-disaster air traffic and airport support. But it is a greater crime that the U.S. has positioned itself and its interests to finally get what it wants – control of Venezuela’s oil and minerals sectors and eventual privatization of public services that define the Socialist Bolivarian government – even if it is a natural disaster that provides them the perfect opportunity to achieve it. This, after expropriating Venezuela’s oil industry and profiting from selling the stolen crude, Trump sending a measly $150 million in “aid” to the country he stole their sovereign materials from is a settler colonial level insult.

This is “disaster capitalism,” popularized by Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine, but a well-documented aspect of imperialist plunder. In the process of imposing economic shocks through sanctions by an external entity or through the implementation of neoliberal policies internally, Klein explains how governments and corporations exploit the shock of an unplanned, catastrophic event to impose radical, wholesale austerity and control. Disaster response becomes the vehicle for enormous foreign investment and development, foreign control of that development, and ultimately the usurpation of the existing but weakened state in favor of the foreign governments and corporate interests behind the aid money. Economic policies that would be rejected under normal circumstances are more easily imposed on an already vulnerable state when that state and its people are rendered desperate by a natural disaster. 

The use of disaster relief as a Trojan Horse for neoliberal plunder and control after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti may give us a terrifying vision of what could be in store for Venezuela today.

The earthquake in Haiti was used as a pretext for the US to assert near-total control over the country’s recovery, if not the country itself, along with its foreign allies in the UN-imposed Core Group that governs the island nation. Aid and reconstruction, and the billions of dollars for it, were directed by those and other foreign governments and contractors, bypassing the Haitian state under then-president René Préval. International entities justified this by claiming Haiti was hopelessly corrupt. What they were, however, was in disarray after the earthquake destroyed much of the government’s infrastructure, including the National Assembly and the National Palace, and years of imperialist control usurped its sovereignty. 

But this excuse was needed to justify the Haitian government seeing very little of the billions of dollars pledged for relief and reconstruction. The Associated Press reported in 2013 that CEPR found that out of the $1.15 billion pledged, only 1% went to Haitian companies. They found instead that “…the ‘vast majority’ of the money it could follow went straight to U.S. companies or organizations, more than half in the Washington area alone.” And what was constructed was for the benefit of foreign corporate and Haitian comprador interests, who had the protection of the United States government to bend Haiti to all of their will.  

The $224 million Caracol Industrial Park, built with reconstruction funds allocated through the recovery mission co-chaired by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, is a continuing example of disaster capitalism and the nefarious ways that Western imperialists profit from natural and human catastrophe.

In 2011, scores of farmers and other residents were evicted from their fertile agricultural land, far from the impact zone, to make way for its construction. They were given little notice to leave and insufficient compensation. They fought for years to secure a reparations agreement with the Haitian government and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in 2018, which included new land, jobs, equipment, and other compensation. Many finally received reimbursement in 2020, but not all, and not nearly enough for what was taken from them by the U.S., the IDB, and USAID, who were the major funders of the project. 

The park was designed to attract foreign garment companies with tax exemptions and cheap labor, as wages were promised to be kept as low as $1.75 a day. The garment companies did come, and the Clintons promised hundreds of thousands of jobs. But fewer than 10,000 were produced, and they were at the same low rate of less than $2.00 a day that Haitians had been fighting to raise for years before the earthquake against a small group of Haitian manufacturing, import/export, and political elites controlling the country’s existing manufacturing industries with the backing of the U.S. government. When the Haitian government passed a law in 2009 to raise the country’s minimum wage for garment workers to $3 a day and $5 a day for other sectors due to the people’s agitation, foreign companies and the Haitian elite colluded with the U.S. State Department and, with a study from USAID that said raising the minimum wage would make the garment sector economically unviable, successfully blocked the legislation. 

While Bill and Hillary Clinton have never admitted involvement in suppressing Haitian wages, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under President Barack Obama when the State Department cables that WikiLeaks published revealed the covert wage-suppression scheme that resulted in legislation being passed in the U.S. to favor the Haitian elite and foreign investors: the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Acts I & II. There was no way the Clintons were not involved, as it was the Clinton Foundation through which they did much of their work in Haiti, and Haitians hold them responsible for the abysmal outcome.

By the end of 2011, one year after the earthquake, most of the promised aid had not been disbursed, and what was went to projects unrelated to housing, feeding, or providing any aid or support to the displaced, like the Caracol Industrial Park.  The scandal was compounded by revelations that some major aid organizations achieved very little with the funds they received, so no one could really account for where the billions of dollars went, other than into the pockets of non-Haitians. 

Today, Haiti is still among the poorest countries in the world. Haitians have continued to protest not just against the minimum wage, but also the lack of sovereignty and human dignity imposed upon them as they endure a rise in U.S.-fueled gang violence, attacks on Haitian immigrants from this administration, continued control from the UN-appointed Core Group with no elected leadership chosen by them, and another UN invasion/intervention to quell unrest. 

This is the future that the U.S. wants for Venezuela. To make Venezuela like Haiti or something close to it, at least in the manner of creating a dismantled state that the U.S. can swoop into, plunder, and control. Although Haiti and Venezuela may not be perfectly similar in many ways, but the use of an earthquake to further imperialist takeover of a country already weakened by relentless Western hegemony in response to the successful liberation struggle of largely Afro-descendent and Indigenous peasantry to free themselves from European settler colonial domination and capitalist exploitation are complementary examples of how a natural disaster is be used to deepen imperialist control under the guise of aid, instead of the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world using that power and money to help suffering human beings. And then the same country calls those states failed, and demonizes the government and the people as immature, unable to govern themselves, and an example of the failures of socialism or communism.

As U.S. officials are on the ground in Venezuela openly “coordinating” with the Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, it must be understood that this is done with the threat of her own indictment and imprisonment on bogus charges of narcotrafficking, human rights abuses, corruption, or grave robbing, depending on how amusing the U.S. wants to be with the sham accusations over her head. 

And now, the U.S. is poised to use this unbelievably tragic disaster as an even bigger cudgel to force the Venezuelan state to concede much, much more, seizing this opportunity to tighten its control over the country’s oil and mineral resources, effectively absorbing it into the U.S. sphere of influence, to be used as a weapon against the rest of the U.S.’s designated enemies, Cuba, China, and Russia. Venezuela has had friendly relations with all of these countries, and all countries that the U.S. is also softening up with sanctions, embargoes, and threats of worse treatment. 

We must expand and deepen the struggle against the U.S. re-colonization of the Western Hemisphere and join our struggling brothers and sisters in the Global South for an end to imperialist aggression, hegemony, and gangsterism, and we must target the enemy in whose camp we reside with clarity and purpose.

Because natural disasters will never stop happening. But disaster capitalism never has to happen again.

Not if we destroy capitalism and the empires that are erected upon it.

Jacqueline Luqman is a radical activist based in Washington, D.C., as well as a co-founder of Luqman Nation, an independent Black media outlet available on YouTube (here and here) and Facebook.

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

Source: Black Agenda Report

Caracas, July 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Commander General Francis Donovan has announced the deployment of some 2,000 military personnel in response to Venezuela’s June 24 earthquakes.

“The US military, the Department of War, has roughly 2,000 teammates in the area on land, air, and sea around Venezuela,” Donovan said in a Wednesday press briefing. On Tuesday, Donovan told Reuters that US forces had 900 servicemen and women in Venezuelan territory.

The US general claimed that the military presence aims to improve logistics and that US forces will leave once “they are done.” He also expressed confidence that the mission would improve “military-to-military” relations with Venezuela.

Washington activated its response force in the wake of the 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude double earthquakes that caused widespread destruction in the Caribbean nation, especially in coastal La Guaira State. The latest official figures reported 2,295 dead and over 11,000 injured, with thousands still declared missing.

Alongside specialized urban search and rescue units, US forces have also dispatched a significant contingent of Marines together with air and sea assets.

After carrying out repair works on a runway, the US Air Force’s Contingency Response Element (CRE) has been conducting “airfield management, air traffic coordination, communications, and security” at the Simón Bolívar International Airport. SOUTHCOM press releases have documented the arrival of multiple military transport aircraft, while MQ-9 Reaper drones and combat helicopters have conducted intelligence reconnaissance over Caracas and other affected areas.

US forces have likewise taken a position at La Guaira port with the docking of the amphibious USS Fort Lauderdale warship. US officials have assessed conditions and necessary works at the port and aim to establish a “vital command-and-control node” for the delivery of humanitarian aid.

In a Thursday press conference, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez thanked US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their “permanent contact and support.” She went on to acknowledge the US’ “major logistical deployment to receive humanitarian aid.”

Since the January 3 military strikes on Caracas and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has dramatically increased its foothold in the Caribbean nation. The Venezuelan legislature has approved multiple reforms catered to Western corporate interests, while oil export revenues are currently controlled by the US Treasury Department.

In addition, US forces ran military drills over Caracas on May 23 and conducted an extrajudicial execution of an alleged gang leader in southeastern Bolívar state in June in “coordination” with Venezuelan security forces.

Following the recent natural disaster, the US Treasury Department issued a time-limited license allowing relief-related transactions with Venezuela while maintaining its wide-reaching sanctions regime in place.

Washington and its allies likewise hold billions worth of Venezuelan frozen assets, including 31 tonnes of gold deposited at the Bank of England that the UK government has refused to release.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

[Updated on July 3 to include Rodríguez’s comments]

Mérida, June 29, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan and international rescue teams continue to search for survivors under collapsed buildings following last Wednesday’s back-to-back earthquakes.

The 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude tremors caused widespread destruction, primarily in the coastal state of La Guaira, which has been described as “ground zero.” Geological services have registered more than 500 aftershocks since the original earthquakes.

On Monday, Venezuelan officials reported that there have been 1,719 people killed, 5,034 injured, and more than 15 thousand displaced. According to the country’s authorities, 855 buildings have been damaged, including 189 totally collapsed, along with damage to 38 hospitals and 1,645 road structures.

“We are in critical and crucial hours to continue saving lives,” National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez stated during a Monday press conference. He confirmed that over 25,000 rescue workers, including military personnel, police, firefighters, and civil protection units, are currently deployed, supported by 3,319 international rescuers from 25 nations and 137 specialized canines.

Rodríguez added that 90% of electricity service has been restored in La Guaira State, and that a special hotline remains active to provide psychological support to relatives of the victims, displaced people, and those suffering from post-traumatic stress following the earthquakes.

Earlier on Monday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez celebrated the rescue of 21-year-old Aaron Levi Cantillo, who was pulled alive from the rubble in La Guaira after being trapped for 106 hours. The rescue was the result of 43 hours of intense, coordinated work by Venezuelan Civil Protection and brigades from Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. Emergency workers have warned that, as time passes, the probability of still finding survivors drastically decreases.

Over the weekend, the Venezuelan government has likewise ramped up efforts to tend to displaced families, with 15 temporary shelters set up in La Guaira and a further 50 in Caracas.

Other areas beyond La Guaira have also been severely impacted. Local residents reported structural damage and service failures in Morón, Carabobo state, close to the earthquakes’ epicenters. Similarly, in Tucacas, Falcón state, residents called for assistance from authorities as they face interrupted electricity or water services.

As part of its response to the crisis, the acting Rodríguez government restricted access to the state of La Guaira, the hardest-hit area. The measure aims to prevent traffic congestion and prioritize the movement of emergency vehicles and heavy machinery. Venezuelan officials have urged the public to avoid traveling to the area to ensure that rescue efforts are not impeded.

At the same time, authorities have sought to organize volunteer brigades, both for search and rescue operations and to tend to temporary shelters, via a registration center at the Poliedro complex in Caracas. 

As of June 29, 10,834 volunteers had registered, and they have been categorized according to their area of expertise: survivor rescue, medical care, logistics at temporary camps, and other essential tasks.

Following the double earthquake, the United States government has ramped up its presence in the Caribbean nation. The US Department of State has deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and specialized urban search and rescue units.

The Department of War has sent an expeditionary airfield management team to repair and reopen the damaged Simón Bolívar International Airport, which is now serving as the primary hub for international relief flights. The US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has stated that it is currently “managing tower and ground operations” at the country’s most important airport.

SOUTHCOM is also assessing conditions at the port of La Guaira and has docked the USS Fort Lauderdale warship to coordinate maritime deliveries. Various aircraft, including C-17 Globemaster, C-130 Hercules, MV-22 Ospreys, and helicopters, have conducted aerial surveys and transported rescue teams and supplies. 

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez personally thanked President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for US support following the natural disaster. In a social media message, the acting president said she was “deeply grateful for this gesture of friendship and cooperation.”

The Trump administration announced that humanitarian assistance to Venezuela has been increased to over $300 million. However, Washington has not offered any relief from widespread economic sanctions, only issuing a time-limited license allowing earthquake relief-related transactions.

The White House also retains control over Venezuelan oil export revenues, with the disbursement timings and amounts left at US officials’ discretion.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Caracas, June 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez held a meeting on Thursday with a US-picked opposition figure to launch a new political dialogue process.

In a statement, Rodríguez, who is also the Venezuelan government’s lead negotiator, disclosed talks with “the representative of the opposition lawmakers from the 2015-2020 period,” Dinorah Figuera, to launch “a joint technical and political working group” with “an agenda containing concrete milestones and timelines” aimed at “strengthening democracy.”

In a separate statement, the expired opposition-controlled 2015 National Assembly explained that the central objective of the process is “the construction of a shared vision for the future.” The communiqué claimed that the dialogue aims to establish a “roadmap for the construction of a democratic scenario” in the country. 

Figuera also met with US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett in Caracas on Thursday.

For its part, the US State Department welcomed the meeting, describing it as the “first step” toward “a free Venezuela.” The Trump administration has insisted on a “three-phase process” for the Caribbean nation which culminates with a political “transition.”

According to Washington, the proposed agenda includes priorities such as rebuilding democratic institutions, strengthening the National Electoral Council (CNE), restoring guarantees for political participation, and protecting the civil liberties necessary for an open political debate.

“The cornerstone of any transition is inclusive dialogue. We hope that conversations between Venezuelan political parties and the interim government in Caracas continue in the coming weeks so that this work can begin,” stated Thomas Pigott, spokesperson for US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Upon arriving at the airport on Thursday, Figuera told reporters that she had traveled to Venezuela at the invitation of the US State Department, with her tasks including the establishment of a “credible” electoral council. She added that her work intends to benefit all political forces while avoiding questions about whether the initiative had been coordinated with far-right leader María Corina Machado.

Figuera was among the lawmakers elected when the opposition won a parliamentary majority in December 2015. Anti-government parties attempted to use the National Assembly to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro government and pushed several laws that were struck down as unconstitutional. It was eventually sidelined after being declared in contempt by the Supreme Court, with the South American country’s legislation taken over by a government-supporting National Constituent Assembly. The ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) retook control of the legislature in the 2020 and 2025 elections that were boycotted by many opposition sectors.

Though the 2015 National Assembly’s term expired in January 2021, it unilaterally renewed its own mandate for successive one-year periods. The defunct parliament retained US recognition as Venezuela’s legitimate authority, which allowed it to manage Venezuelan assets abroad. Washington’s backing ended in March when Trump recognized Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.”

Figuera, who has lived in Spain since 2018, took over as president of the opposition-controlled body in January 2023 following the dissolution of the self-proclaimed “interim government” led by Juan Guaidó.

At the time, Venezuelan judicial authorities denounced Figuera’s role in an “illegitimate” parliament that aimed to “plunder Venezuelan assets abroad” and issued an arrest warrant and an Interpol red alert. While several opposition figures have benefited from an amnesty law approved by the present National Assembly in February, it is not known whether Figuera was among those whose legal cases were dropped.

Figuera’s return to Caracas also comes just weeks after the Unitary Platform—the coalition that groups the country’s main opposition parties—agreed during a meeting in Panama that far-right María Corina Machado would “lead negotiations with Chavismo to call elections” and eventually run as a presidential candidate.

Machado and the Unitary Platform have yet to comment on Figuera’s talks with the acting Delcy Rodríguez government, having previously demanded elections within a 40-week timeframe.

Since the January 3 strikes and kidnapping of Maduro, the Trump administration has wielded a strong influence over Venezuelan affairs. US officials have openly participated in legislative initiatives to open the Caribbean nation’s energy and mining sectors to Western companies while also accompanying corporate executives on trips to discuss business opportunities.

US forces likewise conducted an extrajudicial execution in Venezuelan territory earlier this month, with Caracas calling it a “joint operation” against organized crime.

Despite the diplomatic rapprochement and catering to US investment, Venezuelan authorities had previously brushed aside talk of early presidential elections. Maduro’s term, currently held by Delcy Rodríguez in an acting capacity, ends in January 2031. In a February interview with US conservative outlet Newsmax, parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez stated that no elections were expected in the short term because the priority was achieving economic stability.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Following the US attack on January 3, Venezuela was left in a state of turmoil and uncertainty that does not rule out further military actions. In recent days, there was “a joint operation between Venezuelan and US security agencies in the southeast of Bolívar state, in which organized crime networks were dismantled,” according to a statement from the Venezuelan government. Days earlier, the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, a historic Chavista organization, had denounced DEA involvement in planning a repressive offensive with the aim of “decapitating” the popular movement in the iconic 23 de Enero neighborhood, which Juan Contreras describes as “the most important in Caracas.”

A community leader, social work graduate, and president of the Coordinadora, Contreras is a longtime Chavista activist and staunch defender of the Bolivarian Revolution. Today he believes there are “shameful situations that must be denounced,” but he holds the US government – ”our enemy” – responsible. Contreras was born and raised in the densely populated and combative 23 de Enero neighborhood, where he still lives and where he welcomed us to analyze the complex situation facing Venezuela, and in particular the social movements.

How are Venezuelan social organizations responding to what has been happening in the country since the US military attack on January 3?

What happened was an act of aggression, an act of war. They [the US] sought and continue to seek to break our people, but we in the social movements have kept up our efforts because we still believe in the revolutionary process. Our enemy is the US government, which must have realized that the problem wasn’t Chávez, because Chávez died and the revolution continued. President Maduro has been kidnapped, and here we are. What we’re experiencing today is unique in history; I don’t think anything like what’s happening in Venezuela has ever happened anywhere else in the world – the closest thing was in 1989 in Panama, when they kidnapped Noriega. But here, their narrative has fallen apart: it has not been proven that Venezuela is a drug trafficking country, that its government is linked to drug trafficking, or that President Nicolás Maduro was one of the biggest drug lords, as they claimed. On the contrary, today all those narratives have been debunked, and what is clear is that they are coming after our energy reserves. The Venezuelan people are well aware of this.

Is identifying a state of war and an enemy the context for the denunciation you issued about the danger of a DEA-orchestrated attack on 23 de Enero?

This is information we’ve received from a reliable source indicating that a large-scale operation is being planned against 23 de Enero, which is not far-fetched. 23 de Enero, as a barrio, has historical significance dating back to the Fourth Republic, between 1958 after the fall of Pérez Jiménez and the advent of democracy. That threat is very real. I believe that at the time, there was an underestimation of the threats posed by the US empire: the fact that our coasts were blockaded, the fact that our airspace was blockaded… Now, what we’re denouncing here has all the hallmarks of becoming a reality. It’s not just me saying this, nor the source that gave us this information, which is a reliable one. It’s that all the propaganda out there points in that direction, starting with the journalists who now live in Miami and are waging a full-scale campaign against the colectivos. “What’s going on with the colectivos? Why aren’t they attacking the colectivos? Why don’t they disarm the colectivos?” Marco Rubio himself has said it, and just recently one of the top military leaders said it: they’re coming for the “armed groups.” The problem is that, in their narrative, they label social movements as armed groups, accusing them of being armed in order to justify their aggression. Well, today our people are armed with consciousness; today, after 27 years, our people are more Bolivarian than ever. These are the people who placed their trust in Comandante Chávez, who committed to refounding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. That is why we can understand all this cognitive warfare being waged against Venezuela.

There are no guerrillas here; what we have here is a people with a consciousness, a mobilized people, a people who, through culture, through popular education, have managed to advance in building the Bolivarian embryo from the barrio level, with the communal councils and the communes. So, the US seeks to dismantle that organization by employing the tactic of decapitation. They want to destroy the collectives, those who raise their voices against the empire, those who today denounce what is happening in our country, those of us who disagree with what is happening today, and who have maintained a principled and firm stance in the face of that aggression and invasion by the US empire.

Based on the information you have, how would the DEA carry out an attack of that kind on Venezuelan territory?

They have been operating by applying pressure. In all our countries, we have a repressive police force. Perhaps there is a segment of the police ranks – among their core leadership – that understands human rights issues, but there are other segments that are easily co-opted. We have 27 years of experience in which generals, colonels, and captains have turned their backs on us and served the empire’s policies. So, it’s not far-fetched to say that the United States is working with certain police forces, or with specific officials who might be willing to carry out an operation against the most important symbol in Caracas, which is the 23 de Enero parish. From 1958 to 1998, approximately 160 martyrs were killed there by the police. In other words, this is not crazy: it is serious, and as the pressure on our government to move toward an electoral process intensifies, the plan of aggression may also accelerate.

So, of course, it’s entirely possible that they’ll move forward with an action like this to eliminate what they consider “the Bolivarian resistance,” represented by social movements organized into communes, communal councils, and long-standing social organizations such as the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, which is an expression of the popular power.

Did you receive any show of solidarity from the government?

Someone with influence within the government called us, reached out, we talked, and they agreed to investigate and look into the matter. What they recommended was caution: to steer clear of any provocation. And well, we’re waiting to see if what was discussed will be carried out, that a thorough investigation is conducted into what we’re denouncing. Because up until now, we thought [the US] would never invade, but they did; we underestimated them, and they invaded. And today they have the audacity to sell our oil, manage our finances, provoke us, and say they’re going to turn us into their 51st state. And on top of that, they’ve placed us under tutelage as if they were the owners of our country. This is, of course, shameful, and we must denounce it.

That is why we, as part of the popular movement, remain mobilized and continue to denounce what happened on January 3 and the consequences we are enduring in Bolívar’s homeland.

This situation has not yet had any international repercussions. What message do you have for the social and political forces in Latin America?

It has been 200 years since the Amphictyonic Congress, that call made by the Liberator to build a confederation of nations and defend ourselves against the US empire, which was already showing its claws. What better time to call for a continentalization of the struggle of our social organizations? It is not just Venezuela that is at risk: it is all of Latin America. They are coming for their backyard. Today, brazenly and in an interventionist manner, they are meddling in Colombia’s elections and declaring which candidate they want to win. They did the same in Honduras. 

So, in light of these events, the call to expand the struggle across the continent must be a reality today. Latin America’s only chance to escape the aggression of Donald Trump’s administration is through the coordination of the popular and revolutionary movement across the region. We must unite, we must denounce this situation, and we must move forward, because they’re coming for everything. The only way forward is to make the struggle a continental one. This is something that, at one point, was not only stated by Bolívar but also attempted by Comandante Ernesto Guevara. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts: on uniting the popular and revolutionary forces of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Source: Tiempo Argentino

Mérida, June 16, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has signed two agreements with foreign companies as part of efforts to bolster the country’s National Electric System (SEN).

On Monday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez penned a memorandum of understanding with GE Vernova, a company formed from the 2024 breakup of US conglomerate General Electric, at Miraflores Palace in Caracas.

“This memorandum is historic for Venezuela, so we can recover such an essential service for the Venezuelan people,” she stated during a televised broadcast. “I have asked the teams to convert this memorandum into a contract as soon as possible and start the works.”

According to Rodríguez, the agreement will incorporate 1,000 Megawatts (MW) into Venezuela’s electricity grid in the next 24 months, and 5,000 MW over four years. The acting president added that GE technicians have spent “six weeks” in the country assessing conditions of electric equipment.

Rodríguez did not disclose what the deal entails, nor what components of the electric grid will be turned over to GE Vernova, but stated that the plan concerns generation, transmission, and electricity substations.

The Venezuelan acting leader went on to thank US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett, who was present at the ceremony, for promoting engagement with major US corporations like GE. Company executives Roger Martella and Eric Gray were likewise in attendance. Martella stated that GE’s objective was to quickly reactivate electricity generation. 

“We want to move quickly so the system can work as best as possible in a few months. We already have an agreement on technical details,” he said.

Two days earlier, Venezuelan authorities announced a separate accord with Argentina-based firm Industrias Metalúrgicas Pescarmona (IMPSA) to rehabilitate the Manuel Piar and Antonio José de Sucre hydroelectric projects, known as the Tocoma and Macagua dams. Both are located in the Caroní river, in Bolívar state, which also supplies the Simón Bolívar Hydroelectric Plant, known as the Guri Dam.

The official release indicated that the agreement aims to inject 2,640 MW into the grid. IMPSA President Jorge Salcedo clarified on social media that the company’s initial target is to restore 672 MW of capacity from Tocoma within 19 months. 

“This agreement launches a broader effort to strengthen Venezuela’s power system through a comprehensive plan that could deliver up to 2,160 MW at Tocoma and 480 MW at Macagua over the next five years,” he wrote.

The Tocoma project dates back to the 2000s. In 2008, Venezuela’s state electricity company CORPOELEC hired a construction consortium headed by Brazilian firm Odebrecht to build the dam, with IMPSA tasked with supplying machinery. 

However, despite costs running over US $9.3 billion, more than triple the original $3 billion budget, the project was not culminated. Venezuelan authorities reported that construction was at 90 percent completion in 2016. A $1.2 billion debt owed by CORPOELEC saw IMPSA suspend activities with only two of the ten projected turbines partially installed.

According to Reuters, IMPSA is holding most of the contracted equipment in storage and will replace the missing or obsolete ones with new technology.

IMPSA was temporarily owned by the Argentine state before being privatized by the Milei administration in February 2025. The company was acquired by the US-based consortium Industrial Acquisition Fund (IAF). IAF’s main partner is ARC Energy, headed by close Trump ally and donor Jason Arceneaux.

Venezuela’s electrical system has suffered under years of US sanctions as well as underinvestment, lack of maintenance, and corruption. Around 40 percent of its installed 30,000 MW capacity is currently operational, with generation deficit around 3,000 MW meaning regular blackouts in most of the country.

Strengthening the electrical supply is a precondition for the country’s economic recovery, with growing oil production placing an additional burden on the grid.

The Rodríguez acting government has sought to address the issue by opening the electricity system to the private sector, with GE and IMPSA the first corporations formally engaged. 

On June 4, the National Assembly preliminarily approved a reform of the Organic Law of the National Electricity System. The new legal framework breaks with the 2007 legislation under Hugo Chávez that centralized the grid under CORPOELEC and defined all stages of electricity generation and distribution as “strategic for the nation.”

The reform allows for private sector participation in generation, transmission, distribution, and commercialization ativities through concessions lasting up to 25 years. It also envisions new tariff structures based on “real costs and reasonable returns” for investors.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Caracas, June 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The United States launched a military strike inside Venezuelan territory that reportedly killed Héctor “Niño” Guerrero Flores, an alleged leader of criminal group Tren de Aragua.

US President Donald Trump first announced the “swift and lethal kinetic strike” via social media on Friday evening. 

“At my direction, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren de Aragua,” he wrote. “Tren de Aragua terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else.” 

Trump added that the extrajudicial execution was “coordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela.” An accompanying video showed a house or compound being blown up. 

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed the operation shortly afterward, adding that it had taken place earlier in the week. He reiterated the “full collaboration with Venezuelan security forces” and claimed that Guerrero was confirmed dead in the strike.

“The operation underscores the shared US and Venezuelan commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists and deny them any safe haven in our hemisphere,” he stated. SOUTHCOM Commander General Francis Donovan also expressed “gratitude” to Venezuelan security forces for their “support to the successful joint operation.”

In a Sunday interview, Hegseth claimed that US forces were “invited” by Venezuelan authorities and that further operations in Venezuelan territory were to be expected.

The Wall Street Journal, citing an anonymous administration official, reported that the CIA provided intelligence for the strike.

For its part, the Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez issued a Friday evening statement informing of a “joint operation” between US and Venezuelan security forces to dismantle “organized crime structures” in southeast Bolívar state.

“During the operation there were clashes with members of these criminal structures that resulted in ‘Niño Guerrero’ being neutralized,” the communiqué read. Neither Venezuelan nor US officials offered details about the operation, the alleged clashes, or additional casualties from the lethal strike against Guerrero.

Caracas went on to claim that the mission involved “intelligence sharing” between the two countries and reiterated its “commitment to fight organized crime.” 

According to the Venezuelan Constitution, the deployment of foreign military missions in the country’s territory requires approval from the National Assembly.

The military procedure coincided with a Venezuelan armed forces deployment to dislodge illegal mining outfits from mineral-rich Bolívar state as Western corporations eye lucrative exploration projects under a new, pro-business mining law. Tren de Aragua was alleged to be one of several criminal groups operating in the area.

The reported execution of Guerrero is the first recorded joint US-Venezuela military operation on Venezuelan soil. Since September 2025, the Trump administration has struck dozens of small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing over 200 civilians. US authorities have claimed to be targeting drug trafficking operations but have not put forward any evidence.

In 2025, Washington likewise ramped up “narcoterrorism” accusations against the Nicolás Maduro government while setting up a large-scale military deployment near Venezuelan shores. Caracas denounced the charges as a pretext for foreign intervention, pointing to United Nations and DEA reports that repeatedly showed the South American country to play a marginal role in global narcotics trafficking.

On January 3, US forces bombed Caracas and kidnapped Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. They are currently facing trial in New York and have pleaded not guilty to charges including drug trafficking conspiracy. Despite recurring accusations in recent years, US officials have not provided any public evidence tying high-ranking Venezuelan officials to narcotics activities.

Since the attack, Acting President Rodríguez has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump White House while reforming oil and mining legislation to favor Western investment. Multiple US officials have visited Caracas in recent months, including SOUTHCOM Commander Donovan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine.

Dating back to his election campaign, Trump consistently talked up the threat posed by Tren de Aragua in the US as part of his anti-migrant crackdown and alleged that it acted in collaboration with the Maduro government. In February 2025, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), having previously announced a US $5 million reward for information leading to the capture of Guerrero.

However, despite repeated rumors of crimes attributed to Tren de Aragua, US intelligence agencies found no evidence of the organization having any coordinated activity on US soil or ties to the Venezuelan government. Separate reports have documented that the group runs criminal activities, including human trafficking, in several Latin American countries.

For their part, Venezuelan officials stressed that Tren de Aragua had been dismantled in Venezuela following a 2023 raid on Tocorón prison, from where the gang was believed to run its operations. Nevertheless, Guerrero was reportedly alerted in advance and managed to break out.

The 42-year-old had been in and out of prison several times before being handed a 17-year sentence in 2018 for charges including homicide and drug trafficking. In January, he was charged in New York as a co-conspirator in the case against Maduro.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Caracas, June 11, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration continues to dictate conditions on Venezuela’s energy industry for the benefit of US and Western corporations.

At an event organized by Politico, National Energy Dominance Council Director Jarrod Agen stated that he is in contact with Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and her team “multiple times a day” to discuss the legal framework for foreign conglomerates.

“I raised issues [on oil contracts] when I went down [to Venezuela] and she said ‘we’ll work with you to get through it,’”the Trump official added. 

Agen stated that the administration is currently working to turn “memoranda of understanding (MoU) into binding contracts” and insisted that Venezuela has “made a lot of progress” in overhauling the country’s hydrocarbon and mining laws. 

The legislation approved by the National Assembly slashes royalties and fiscal responsibilities for private companies, while also granting them expanded control over operations and sales. After the laws were approved, authorities were tasked with drafting regulations for their implementation and new contract templates.

Agen went on to announce that a Trump administration delegation will travel to Caracas in the coming days to further discuss conditions for multinational firms in petroleum and gas projects.

Venezuelan oil authorities have reportedly begun circulating drafts of regulations and contract models with industry partners, though the texts have not been made public. The final versions are required to be published in the country’s National Gazette. 

According to Bloomberg, Caracas has revised the proposals under pressure from investors, including the removal of a clause that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to terminate contracts, with compensation, for reasons of “public interest.” Venezuelan leaders have openly acknowledged incorporating private sector input into the recent oil and mining reforms.

Since launching military strikes and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has seized control of the South American country’s energy and mineral exports.

While keeping wide-reaching sanctions in place, the US Treasury Department has issued multiple sanctions waivers allowing select Western corporations to undertake oil and gas operations in Venezuela while barring participation from Chinese, Russian, and Iranian competitors. The general licenses mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments, including royalties and taxes, be deposited in a Treasury-run account.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration updated multiple licenses concerning energy, petrochemical, and mining activities, stipulating that contract disputes can now also be settled in the United Kingdom, France, and Singapore, rather than just the US. However, the licenses still demand that contract terms be “construed and interpreted” in accordance with US laws and jurisdiction.

The revised waivers likewise establish that contracts may recognize that “certain aspects” of the activity are subject to Venezuelan laws and regulations.

For its part, the acting Rodríguez administration has aggressively courted foreign investment in the oil and gas sectors.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA signed a memorandum of understanding with SLB, formerly Schlumberger, one of the world’s largest oil services providers with a presence in the Caribbean nation since the 1920s. The Houston-based multinational stated that the agreement intends to “strengthen operational execution and promote sustainable development” of the Venezuelan energy sector.

During a televised ceremony, Rodríguez said she was “very pleased” with the deal and expressed confidence that SLB’s cutting-edge technology would have a “major impact on oil exploration and production.”

The acting leader has inked agreements with multiple Western energy giants in recent weeks, including Chevron, Shell, BP, and Repsol. Rodríguez has announced that more companies are set to arrive in the coming weeks. Business executives have made repeated trips to Venezuela to evaluate opportunities and meet with government officials.

Rodríguez recently visited India and touted oil project opportunities in meetings with Reliance Industries and Indian public sector energy firms.

Other government officials, including Economy Vice President Calixto Ortega and Oil Minister Paula Henao, have also held closed-door meetings with investors to promote recent reforms and incentives for foreign firms. At a Houston conference in May, Henao trumpeted the new oil law’s international arbitration clauses for offering more “legal certainty” to investors.

Venezuela’s oil output has continued its recent upward trend, with OPEC’s secondary sources registering a production of 1.072 million barrels per day (bpd) in May, up from 1.036 million in April.

For its part, PDVSA registered a 1.179 million bpd output last month, up from 1.136 million in April. Direct and secondary measurements have historically differed over disagreements on the inclusion of condensates and natural gas liquids.

According to Reuters, Venezuelan oil and byproduct exports rose for a third consecutive month, registering 1.25 million bpd, thanks to increased volumes shipped to the US and India.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, amid the terminal crisis and collapse of the so-called European socialist bloc, the era of struggle that had begun following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution came to a close in Latin America. A new phase began, during which the leftist and progressive social and political organizations and movements of the subcontinent went through phases of accumulation and de-accumulation of forces.

Phases of accumulation

From 1985 to 1998, these movements accumulated enough social power to topple neoliberal governments and enough political power to secure seats in local governments and national legislatures, but not enough to take control of the national government.

From 1998 to 2009, they accumulated enough social and political power to elect—and in some countries, to re-elect several times—leftist or progressive governments.

Phases of de-accumulation

From 2009 to 2012, there were no electoral defeats for leftist or progressive governments, but there were coups d’état of a “new type” in the “weakest links in the chain”: Honduras and Paraguay.

In 2013 and 2014, there were no electoral defeats, but the margin by which the left retained power in Venezuela and El Salvador was reduced to a bare minimum.

From 2015 to 2019, electoral defeats in Argentina, El Salvador, and Uruguay, coups of a “new type” in Brazil and Bolivia, along with Lenín Moreno’s betrayal in Ecuador, broke six of the “strongest links in the chain,” and the siege against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba intensified.

Phase of partial recovery and subsequent acute loss of strength

Following the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador as President of Mexico in 2018 and Alberto Fernández in Argentina in 2019 at the end of the phase of decline, between 2020 and 2024, the left and/or progressive movements regained power in Bolivia, Honduras, Brazil, and Uruguay, held power in Chile, Colombia, and Guatemala, and lost it again in Chile and Honduras in November and December 2025, respectively. In January 2026, President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were kidnapped by the US military and are currently being held illegally in that country.

Predominant factors in the phases of accumulation (1985–1998 and 1998–2009)

1. The legacy of the historical accumulation of popular struggles, particularly during the period ushered in by the Cuban Revolution in which other revolutionary or reformist processes did not succeed or survive, contributed to opening up spaces for legal struggle.
2. The rejection of the genocidal repression traditionally employed against the peoples of the region forced the United States and its Latin American allies to seek less brutal forms of domination.
3. The momentum of popular movements in full swing brings into the political and electoral struggle social sectors that previously lacked the consciousness, motivation, or conditions to participate in it.
4. The protest vote against neoliberal governments by broad sectors of the population that were not politically conscious could nonetheless be turned against leftist and progressive forces if they failed to meet their expectations, whether fair or unfair, rational or irrational.

Predominant factors in the de-accumulation phases from 2009 onward

1. Historical accumulation depreciates. As time passes, with the superseding of recent realities, the emergence of new social expectations and demands – in some cases due to the fulfillment and in others due to the unfulfillment of previous ones – and the shortcomings and errors of the left and progressivism, there is a relativization or devaluation of the historical legacy.
2. The brutal repression of the past was replaced by “full-spectrum destabilization” against progressive and left-wing governments.
3. Due to their dissatisfaction with left-wing or progressive governments over the failure to fulfill their economic and social promises – due to the “constraints” of the system, pressure from the powers that be, and shifts toward the “center” to broaden their electoral base – a large part of the popular social movements that had provided decisive support in earlier phases began to exercise punitive abstention against them.
4. Social sectors without political ties or preferences, which in an earlier phase cast their protest votes against neoliberal parties, began to cast them against the left and progressivism.

​​With the exception of Uruguay, the overthrow, defeat, or betrayal of left governments was followed by the criminalization, prosecution, and, in many cases, imprisonment of their leaders, most notably Lula in Brazil.

The transformative processes with the greatest capacity to remain in power have been those in Venezuela and Nicaragua, which set out to and succeeded in establishing control over all the institutions of state. It is this concentration of power that has guaranteed the survival of the Cuban Revolution over six and a half decades. However, in Venezuela and Nicaragua there is a contradiction between the formally prevailing liberal/bourgeois system and the actually prevailing institutional system, with characteristics of state socialism, in which a political party – not the only one, but certainly the dominant one – monopolizes control of the four branches of government, the armed forces, and the security services.

The incompatibility between the formally existing institutional system and the institutional system actually in place in Venezuela and Nicaragua remained latent as long as the leaders of their respective transformative processes enjoyed widespread popularity and maintained high levels of approval, or raised expectations regarding the fulfillment of social needs and interests. However, this concentration of power has both a positive and a negative aspect:

• The positive aspect is that it has been decisive in resisting the policy of encroachment, economic blockade, and political isolation that has affected Cuba since the triumph of its Revolution (1959), Nicaragua during the two periods of FSLN rule (1979–1990) and (2006 to the present), and Venezuela since the first term of Hugo Chávez’s government (beginning in 1999).

• The negative aspect is that it distorts the relationship between the end and the means. The end was to develop a national project that would satisfy society’s material and spiritual needs and aspirations, and the means was to establish a power capable of guaranteeing that national project. The distortion consists in continuing to exercise power when one no longer has the capacity to satisfy society’s needs and aspirations, either because one failed to develop that capacity or because it was lost.

Given that external and/or internal forces are attempting to undermine or overthrow the established institutional systems in these countries, and given that neither of them has managed to make progress in building a new society – with this project becoming unattainable in the form and substance originally envisioned – the defense of power becomes an end in itself.

When evaluating any process of progressive social reform or revolutionary social transformation, it is necessary to consider the extent to which it has met or failed to meet its historical goals. In cases of failure to meet these goals, one must take into account the adverse and external factors that have influenced this outcome. However, it cannot be ignored that, even if resulting from such factors, the failure to meet historical goals erodes these processes. In essence, every transformative process is compelled to achieve its historical goals within a timeframe no longer than the moment society perceives it as an “eternal uphill battle.”

The Venezuela Case: Between Reality and Utopia

The kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores by the US military – along with the questions of how such an operation could have been carried out (no less than inside the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces!), how the kidnappers knew where they would be sleeping that night, and that they were indeed there, why there was no response, which had been assured would occur in the event of any aggression against Venezuela, and, on top of all that, that the outcome is a “normalization of relations” with the aggressor power agreed upon by the very government that Maduro headed – reveals the fragility of revolutionary processes that claim to have a solid base of popular power, but events like this reveal that, in reality, they lack it.

Twenty-seven years and five months after the start of the Bolivarian Revolution – the first link in a chain of elections and re-elections of leftist and progressive governments that has become increasingly fragmented since 2009–2019 and is now practically extinct – it is time to face reality and assess to what extent the parties, movements, fronts, or coalitions that have held and/or currently hold power in their respective countries are aware of the true relationship between their rhetorical utopias and their political realities.

Between every emancipatory utopia and its corresponding reality lies a “missing link.” The “missing link” between utopia and reality creates a “gap” between the project of revolutionary social transformation or progressive social reform and the transformative or reformist process intended to bring it about. The danger lies in failing to recognize the cumulative widening of the “gap” between utopia and reality and clinging to a utopia as the foundation of a process of revolutionary social transformation or progressive social reform that is increasingly deviating from and becoming disconnected from it.

The disconnect between utopia and reality has consequences, including most notably: the conversion of utopia into dogma; the social alienation that every reformist or revolutionary process is meant to eradicate; the divergence of interests and direction between “leaders” and “followers”; the drift of the process toward disillusionment and failure; and, in well-known historical experiences, such as that of the USSR (to mention only the most prominent), the absolute empowerment of a caste that creates and defends its own political and economic interests, leading to the negation of utopia: from the very pinnacle of “power” itself!

Utopia must be systematically grounded in reality through the active, genuine, and effective participation of society, and never reaffirmed or reformed from “above.” This reevaluation and renewal led by society is the only way to ensure that utopia not only serves as a guide, as Galeano says, but also serves to walk the path that turns it into a political, economic, and social reality that is as close as possible to the vision itself.

Based on experiences and studies conducted in previous decades, since the beginning of the chain of elections and re-elections of leftist and progressive governments in Latin America, attention has focused on denouncing media warfare, cognitive warfare, cultural warfare, and fourth- and fifth-generation warfare. In recent years, Caracas has been the main venue for events and the most active platform for denouncing this form of counterrevolutionary action. These analyses and denunciations must continue “at full speed,” but we must also recognize and accept that this is not the only threat facing leftist and progressive governments and political forces.

All forms of external and internal counterrevolutionary activity must be analyzed and combated, but with the knowledge and understanding that this is not the only battlefront. Another front, just as important or even more so, is the recognition and eradication of our own weaknesses and errors, which make transformative and/or revolutionary processes vulnerable to enemy strategies and tactics. What has happened in Venezuela is proof of this omission: plenty of denunciation of the enemy and little to no self-reflection.

The moral of the story is that yes, we must denounce and unmask the enemy. But no, we cannot focus attention on denouncing the enemy at the expense of recognizing and eradicating our own weaknesses and mistakes.

Roberto Regalado is a Cuban political scientist and PhD in Philosophy. He is a professor at the Center for Hemispheric and U.S. Studies at the University of Havana (CEHSEU) and a member of the Historical and Social Literature Section of the National Union of Cuban Writers and Artists.

He is the author of, among other essays, Latin America Between Centuries: Domination, Crisis, Social Struggle, and Political Alternatives of the Left (2006), Encounters and Disagreements of the Latin American Left: A View from the São Paulo Forum (2008), The Latin American Left in Government: Alternative or Recycling? (2012), and numerous articles in specialized journals.

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

Source: Blog América

Caracas, June 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has instructed airlines and shipping companies to direct fuel payments to a US Treasury account.

Spanish newspaper El Diario published a May 28 letter from state oil company PDVSA addressed to “aviation and maritime customers” that laid out the “banking coordinates” for foreign currency payments concerning JET A1, MGO, and IFO 380 purchases.

JET A1 is a kerosene-based fuel widely used by commercial airplanes, while Maritime Gas Oil (MGO) and Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) 380 are standard for ship engines.

“We urge our customers to take the necessary precautions and forward the payment receipt to PDVSA sales representatives so that the payment is cleared and fuel supply is assured,” the letter read.

An attached US Treasury information sheet contains details for Fedwire payments to a “Venezuela custody account” and requires information about “source of funds, e.g., oil, gold, minerals, etc.”

The leaked letter is the first publicly available document from a Venezuelan state institution directing foreign currency payments to an account run by the US Treasury Department as opposed to the country’s Central Bank (BCV) or some alternative state-run mechanism.

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of the country’s export revenues. The White House has likewise extracted concessions in the form of pro-business reforms, preferential access for Western corporations to natural resources, and external audits of the Venezuelan Central Bank.

US Treasury general licenses allowing select Western corporations to engage in oil and gas activities mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments for royalties, taxes, and dividends be deposited in US Treasury accounts. Additional sanctions waivers imposed similar constraints on mining sector services and exports.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed information about the funds, the timings of their disbursements back to Caracas, and the percentage kept by the Trump administration. The US president stated in a May interview that Washington has “made a fortune” from Venezuelan oil sales.

Both Washington and Caracas have acknowledged the use of Treasury-held Venezuelan revenues for the purchase of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers. In January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Senate hearing in January that Venezuela would need to submit a “budget request” to access its own funds.

According to reports, Washington is mandating that the Venezuelan Central Bank distribute the returned foreign currency to private sector importers via exchange table auctions run by public and private banks. The BCV has reportedly allocated more than US $5 billion thus far in 2026.

The Rodríguez acting government’s diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump White House, coupled with reforms to attract Western investment, has led to a growing number of international airlines reestablishing flights to the Caribbean nation. American Airlines currently runs two daily direct Caracas-Miami flights, while United Airlines will launch a Caracas-Houston connection in August. Jetblue, for its part, is set to initiate its first-ever Venezuela route later in the year.

Venezuelan authorities have likewise recorded increased shipping activity at the country’s ports.

Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the  Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.

Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?

Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.

And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.

In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?

I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians. 

Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state. 

One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power. 

Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.

But what if that triggers another US military attack?

I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination. 

Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.

US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?

The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination. 

In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.

In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?

Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.

But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy. 

I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.

In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?

First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy. 

However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that  – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.

You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?

This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on. 

I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed. 

I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.

Note

(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.