By Luís Bonilla-Molina*
January 5, 2026
The international legal system was torn to shreds on
January 3, when the United States military intervened in Venezuela, kidnapping
President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse [National Assembly deputy Cilia Adela
Flores de Maduro].
The announced plans to install a US-run government
harks back to the colonial era. The damage to Latin America’s dignity and
sovereignty will not be easily undone.
The relaunch of the Monroe Doctrine, now with its “Trump
corollary”, confirms that the US has initiated a new phase of assaulting
territories that possess natural resources in order to appropriate them for
itself. No one in the region is exempt from this danger.
New era
The leader of the world’s most powerful nation
confessed to launching the attack from 20 different military bases, using 150
aircraft, attack helicopters and state-of-the-art drones to subdue the
Venezuelan government, massacre troops and civilians, and establish a new model
of coups openly directed from the White House.
Far from just being bravado, the era of US continental
territorial domination has begun. Trump’s words were precise: “All political
and military figures in Venezuela should understand what happened to Maduro can
happen to them.”
“We are going to run the country,” Trump said.
Neither Maduro nor vice-president Delcy Rodríguez, and
not even opposition leader María Corina Machado or opposition presidential
candidate Edmundo González Urrutia are viewed as national figures with
sufficient merit to oversee the neocolonial transition.
Instead, Trump has proposed that a group of “good
people” of his choosing will manage the transition. In other words, a
submissive and unconditional transitional authority “Made in the USA”.
But it does not stop there. Trump also said that Cuba
was in their sights, to which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio added: “If I
lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little
bit.”
Closing ranks in defence of Venezuela’s sovereignty is
the path to guaranteeing the entire region’s sovereignty. Only a united Latin
America can confront the US neocolonial offensive.
Machado, an ultrarightist who supports the genocide in
Gaza and aligns herself with the global far right, had been, until now, the US’
Trojan horse.
But, as Trump said, Machado does not enjoy the respect
of all Venezuelans. Her rhetoric seeks to deepen polarisation and divide the
people. But that is not the US’ main concern.
Rather, it is the possibility that her leadership
might at some point clash with its neocolonial agenda. Abruptly pushing her
aside, as Trump has done, expresses the US’ determination to prevent any
leadership with mass appeal from leading the Venezuelan government and state.
The US needs weak governments, without any organic
connection to the masses and therefore unable to in any way resist US
neocolonial policies.
Neocolonial transition
Trump has threatened that a new military attack on
Venezuela could happen at any time if the remnants of the Maduro regime do not
quickly agree to a neocolonial transition.
Trump’s media conference addressed several central
points.
He acknowledged Maduro’s capture, with whom a
transition was being negotiated but, according to Trump, talks had stalled.
He stated that if a transition agreement with
Venezuelan authorities was not reached soon, the US would launch a much more
lethal attack against the country, signaling that the January 3 actions were
the beginning, not the end, of possible military actions.
He announced the US decision to remain in control of
the Venezuelan situation, maintain the naval blockade and foster a government
of “good people” that would answer directly to a team led by him, his
secretaries of War and Homeland Security, and the military Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Machado would not be the figurehead of the transition
because, according to Trump, “it would be very tough for (Machado) to be the
leader. She doesn’t have the support or respect within the country.”
He recognised Rodríguez as Maduro’s successor to have
someone to discuss the transition with. He said Rodríguez had a long
conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in which Trump claimed she
said, “‘We’ll do whatever you need.”
He said the US will control the transition until the
full potential of the oil industry is restored and the “recovery of the country”
is underway.
Trump’s media conference was a declaration of
Venezuela’s neocolonial status, the loss of its territorial and political
sovereignty, and the capture of its wealth (in particular oil resources).
It was a practical and tangible launch of his National
Security Strategy, which considers the Western Hemisphere as its domain.
Unanswered questions
Several questions remain, answers to which will enable
a more in-depth analysis in the coming days.
Why did Maduro’s military and security detail fail so
catastrophically? Why was the military response to the US operation so weak to
the point of being almost nonexistent?
Who benefits from a transition without Maduro or
Machado? Why was the government silent for so many hours regarding Maduro’s
kidnapping?
Are we witnessing a transfer of power to a
civilian-military junta negotiated between the current government authorities
and the Trump administration?
If this negotiation fails, will it lead to a prolonged
military campaign to crush Maduro’s regime?
And will US interference — until the country’s
situation normalises — involve the establishment of military bases on
Venezuelan soil?
Reaction
Rodríguez — now acting as president in accordance with
the constitutional line of succession — issued a call for popular mobilisations
in defence of Maduro and the government.
Unlike what happened with the 2002 coup against
then-President Hugo Chávez, almost 24 hours after the US military action, the
call to mobilise in support of Maduro failed to resonate with the population.
There have only been small gatherings of 100 people, broadcast on the
government television channel. [Editor’s note: Venezuelanalysis.com
reports that thousands took to the streets of Caracas on January 4 to demand
Maduro’s release.]
Anti-imperialist sentiment is not widespread; on the
contrary, anti-Maduro sentiment is the driving force behind the actions of
large segments of the population.
While it is crucial to prioritise anti-imperialism and
denounce US interference in Venezuela’s affairs, it is essential to emphasise
that this sense of frustrated nationalism among a significant portion of the
population stems from the Maduro government’s disastrous mistakes.
Maduro chose to abandon the popular social program
championed by Chávez and implement neoliberal policies under the guise of
leftist rhetoric. He was the architect of the erosion of anti-imperialist
sentiment in Venezuela, which ultimately led to his downfall.
In the era of Trumpism, democratic, progressive,
left-wing and revolutionary sectors need to build a broad and diverse global
alliance that prioritises anti-imperialism and the struggle for the sovereignty
and self-determination of peoples.
Faced with the US’ neocolonial offensive, we defend
sovereignty by promoting broad alliances that uphold the right of peoples to
decide their own futures.
[A longer version of this article was first published
in Spanish at Viento
Sur. Translated by Federico Fuentes.]
* * *
Comment (Richard Fidler): Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney was quick to endorse the US kidnapping of Maduro, which he called an opportunity for change in Venezuela: “The Canadian government… welcomes the opportunity for freedom, democracy, peace and prosperity for the Venezuelan people.” In a more critical vein, the leading capitalist media portrayed the attack on Venezuela as an illustration of Trump’s new National Security Strategy and its threat to state sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere. The response of the Globe and Mail editors was to trumpet the opportunity to speed the expansion of fossil-fuel production and export and massively increase the size of Canada’s armed forces as an “elbows up” response to Trump’s trade wars and threats to Canadian independence. However, Montréal’s Le Devoir warned of how the governments of Quebec and Canada are using Trump’s threats to backtrack on their commitments to climate and environmental protection.
Carney participated with European NATO leaders in a
Paris summit designed to pressure Ukraine’s president Zelensky to accept a Trump
proposal for a deal with Putin that would sacrifice 20% or more of Ukraine to
Russia. The summit discussed support for Ukraine once a deal was concluded,
ignoring the fact that Putin has shown no intention to negotiate or to accept
even a ceasefire. Unwilling to challenge outright Trump’s attack on Venezuela
or his resistance to bolstering Ukraine’s ongoing military defence against
Russian aggression, the Paris summit instead featured statements in defence of
Greenland, one of Washington’s threatened takeover targets – all in the name of
defending NATO unity.
