Certain sectors of the left have positioned themselves as guardians of the faith, judging from abroad the difficult and risky tactical retreat undertaken by the Bolivarian leadership.

“Nothing is easier than to be an idealist at the expense of others.”
Karl Marx, 1858

Venezuela: Don't blame the victim

Roger D. Harris, Francisco Domínguez and María Páez

Under cover of night, the US military abducted the legitimate president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, and his wife—a member of the National Assembly—Cilia Flores, on January 3, 2026. Among the collateral damage were more than 100 deaths, including civilians and Cuban and Venezuelan guards.

This unprovoked surprise attack flagrantly violated international law. The hegemonic power acted with the expectation of being able to operate with impunity. Even neighboring progressive governments, such as those of Brazil and Colombia, offered only lukewarm criticism. Former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil declared, “We find ourselves alone.” It is in this context that subsequent events must be understood.

This atrocious military action culminated a quarter-century of maneuvers by the United States and its allies (particularly Canada and the United Kingdom) against Venezuela: suffocating sanctions, asset confiscation, diplomatic isolation, cyberattacks, assassination attempts, mercenary invasions, and the creation of a fictitious parallel government. For two months prior to the invasion, the U.S. Navy blocked oil shipments. Despite this, the empire failed to achieve its goal of constitutional regime change.

The resilience of the revolution forced the United States to escalate the conflict. Washington and its allies failed in their attempt to destroy Chavismo, the movement founded by Hugo Chávez and continued by his successor, Nicolás Maduro. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not collapse or descend into chaos after the decapitation of its leadership. Internal peace prevailed.

The far-right opposition, financed and supported by the United States, failed to seize power; on the contrary, it found itself even more marginalized and plunged into disorder.

The Chavista leadership of the PSUV ensured a smooth constitutional transition, with the swearing-in of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president. The unity of the high command remained firm, supported by the National Assembly and the Supreme Court. Likewise, the civic-military union, the communes, and the grassroots Chavista institutions offered their full support to the government.

Taking advantage of its overwhelming military superiority, Washington made a mafia-style offer: a proposition impossible to refuse. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Delcy Rodríguez on that infamous day and gave her an ultimatum: cooperate with the United States or face the military destruction of the country and the assassination of herself and other leaders. Various versions of this scenario are corroborated by both the corporate press and Chavista sources.

Trump explicitly threatened: “There are those who know where this is coming from.” The alternative was the devastation currently looming over Iran, a country with far superior military capabilities. With US forces deployed throughout the region and off its coast, a military confrontation would have meant annihilation, including the destruction of the oil industry. Rodríguez did what any responsible leader would have done given the available options: she made a tactical retreat in the face of overwhelming force.

Venezuela Has Not Surrendered

All the institutions of the Chavista state and the powerful network of grassroots organizations supporting the revolution remain intact. However, US imperialism, by holding a gun to the government's head, is able to exert substantial coercion that leads to unpleasant decisions, such as the deportation of Alex Saab.

These concessions reflect pressures that we, from the outside, can only imagine. How the solidarity movement should respond is a central question.

Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, a former official in the Chávez government, describes the current negotiations as an essential exercise in national preservation. He emphasizes: “What is at stake is the survival of the State and the Republic; if these were lost, the debate on any other subject would become trivial.” As former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said, “Now, everything is negotiable,” and Washington is forced to maintain constant, daily contact with Caracas.

Legislative reform had long been on Nicolás Maduro’s agenda. However, changes to the laws governing the exploitation of hydrocarbons and solid minerals meant offering generous conditions to international capital to attract much-needed foreign investment (which the Republic of Cuba also does).

The new amnesty law, another planned initiative, is a key instrument for fostering reconciliation and depriving extremist sectors of arguments to incite violence. The law strictly excludes “any person who has committed war crimes, human rights violations, homicides, drug trafficking, or treason against the nation.”

The government is maintaining negotiations with the moderate right. These successive rounds of dialogue have been a constant during Maduro’s presidency.

Rodríguez advised caution and strategic patience. It is worth noting that the core of the Chavista leadership — the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and the communal organizations — has remained united under enormous pressure, pressure designed precisely to fracture this unity.

Long-Awaited Successes

The United States has changed its position and, in practice, recognizes the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government. The Bolivarian project has not only endured but has also forced its greatest adversary to reach a degree of understanding.

Since 2019, the United States had prohibited transactions with the Central Bank of Venezuela and its major state-owned banks. Previously, US restrictions had isolated Venezuela from the global financial system, preventing access to dollar-denominated transactions and US financial channels. Oil sales to the United States have resumed, and some of the revenue is flowing back into the national economy.

The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has resumed relations with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Rodríguez stated that the Bolivarian nation is not seeking loans from the IMF but rather access to its own frozen funds.

Although sanctions remain largely in place, special licenses and a temporary easing of economic restrictions—intended to provide relief after the earthquakes—have given Venezuela’s beleaguered economy some respite while facilitating the flow of oil to the United States. These concessions are limited and reversible, so the overall structure of the US economic war remains intact. Nevertheless, this situation is preferable to the total oil blockade imposed just before the January 3rd assault.

Interim President Delcy Rodríguez Rodríguez has repeatedly demanded that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela be freed from sanctions, while also formally requesting the release of Venezuelan assets abroad to address the devastation caused by the earthquakes. She has even appealed to King Charles III to return the 31 tons of Venezuelan gold held by the Bank of England.

A Transformed Political Landscape

The balance of power facing the current Venezuelan leadership is substantially less favorable than during Chávez's era; it is therefore wrong to judge its concessions based on an idealized standard of the Chavista period.

Some international sectors invoke Chávez's figure to discredit the current leadership. They forget that, during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela sold its oil almost exclusively to the United States, at a time of great dependence. Ignoring this change in context, they launch into childish leftist slogans claiming that Chávez never yielded and that "you don't negotiate with the enemy," forgetting the famous advice Fidel Castro gave him during the 2002 coup: "Don't sacrifice yourself, Hugo."

Chávez governed during a commodities boom that provided the Bolivarian project with resources to deliver material benefits that are now virtually inaccessible due to sanctions. The geopolitical context has changed considerably since Chávez’s time, especially under the current “Donroe Doctrine.” Since Maduro’s victory in July 2024, no left-wing candidate has won an election in Latin America. The right has prevailed in the last seven presidential elections. As long as this general reactionary trend is not reversed, further setbacks are likely.

The aim and cumulative impact of unilateral and illegal coercive measures has been to erode popular support for the government. Years of sweeping sanctions—despite the economic recovery of 2021–2025 following a GDP contraction of approximately 75 percent—have left the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in a vulnerable position. Currently, the Venezuelan economy is operating at about 30% of its pre-sanctions level.

The government of the interim president Rodríguez is trying to buy time to revive the economy, although the June 24 earthquakes were a devastating blow. According to the United Nations, the direct physical damage is estimated at over $37 billion, representing more than a third of Venezuela’s gross domestic product.

The majority of Venezuelans desire domestic peace and a return to prosperity, not a confrontation with the empire.

“Unity is the most important thing: without it, nothing is possible; with it, everything is possible.” These were the words of Fidel Castro when organizing the Cuban Revolution in 1956.

What is most dangerous for the sister Bolivarian Revolution is the insinuation that the current leadership has betrayed the cause and that a truly leftist “third way” can be encouraged to replace it. Rival factions have always existed within the Bolivarian movement. But ultimately, political decisions must be made within the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela itself, without international interference.

These analyses of the “third way,” which reject both Caracas and Washington, often fail to consider what Venezuelans could actually do at this historic turning point: they abound in criticism of what is wrong, but lack viable alternatives.

Not so long ago, far-right fascist figures like María Corina Machado spoke of “cracks and fissures in the Chavista ranks” and predicted “the beginning of a social explosion” against the elected Venezuelan government. Today, some solidarity activists are saying the same thing.

The “tragic essence” of the disunity of the left in Bolivia should serve as a lesson and a warning about what could happen in the Venezuelan nation. The Chavista leadership is painfully aware of this; Hence his energetic effort to establish the broadest possible united front against American colonization. Far from being traitors to the cause, the Rodríguez family and the Minister of the Interior, Diosdado Cabello, represent the most militant Chavistas: fighters who have been present since the very beginning of the revolution.

What Solidarity Requires

Constructive criticism and solidarity-based activism are not mutually exclusive. Dissenting opinions are appropriate when contextualized and presented as part of a collaborative effort to advance toward common goals, and not as an individualistic venting of frustration.

Some sectors of the left have positioned themselves as guardians of the faith, judging negatively from abroad the difficult and risky tactical retreat undertaken by the Bolivarian leadership, even though it avoided a suicidal military confrontation with American imperialism.

The anxiety and disappointment of the international left regarding the withdrawals from Venezuela are understandable. But the Global South is not prepared to fulfill the revolutionary aspirations of those living at the heart of the empire. This, it must be clear, is the task of those at the center of power.

As a Venezuelan activist friend said, “You gringos tell us how to make our revolution when our problem is that you haven’t managed to make yours.”

Venezuelans will determine their own path without foreign interference, from either the right or the left. Solidarity requires support and guidance, not imposition. The internationals living in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom should focus primarily on our own imperialists. All other contradictions are secondary.

The solidarity movement must unite in the broadest possible alliance around the defense of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, firmly opposing the farce of the trial of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores in New York, demanding the lifting of all sanctions, and calling for the restitution of stolen property.

A united people will never be defeated.

Roger D. Harris is the founder of the Venezuela Solidarity Network in North America.

Francisco Domínguez is the national secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign in the United Kingdom.

María Páez Víctor is the founder of the Louis Riel Bolivarian Circle in Canada.

https://www.lahaine.org/mundo.php/venezuela-no-culpen-a-la-victima

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….