The recent regime-change operation targeting Venezuela represents an indefensible foreign policy action that cannot be justified from any reasonable perspective. The administration expects observers to disregard what they witness with their own eyes, much like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s response claiming insufficient information existed to form an opinion on America’s intervention against Venezuela’s legitimate government.
Personal indifference toward the Chavez/Maduro administration stems from two fundamental positions: lacking the Cuban-American community’s intense focus on matters connected to Castro’s Cuba, and recognizing that Maduro represents Venezuela’s internal affair requiring their own resolution. Contemporary accusations of narcoterrorism serve the same dubious purpose as weapons of mass destruction claims from previous interventions.
Current outcomes remain murky. While the presidential couple was removed from Caracas and sanctions continue, Venezuela’s government persists under Delcy Rodriquez, operating contrary to expectations. The sidelining of a recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient who learned harsh lessons about limited Venezuelan support proves particularly notable. A future show trial in New York appears inevitable, with predetermined results reminiscent of Soviet proceedings once condemned during the Cold War era—unsurprising developments in this
post-Constitutional period.
The operation’s logistics demonstrate extraordinary efficiency. These forces apparently avoided direct engagement with Venezuela’s military. Maduro depended on twenty-two Cuban bodyguards and security personnel operating independently from army command structures. Numerous covert CIA operatives and assets in Caracas, trained in orchestrating protests, demonstrations, color revolutions, and governmental overthrow, successfully bribed security personnel. Commandos executed their mission while compromised security stood aside during the elimination of Cuban guards and extraction of the Maduros. Russian forces arrived moments too late, reportedly executing the bribed official upon discovery.
This situation reveals America’s contemporary international standing. Regime change represents a defining characteristic of current foreign policy. Research by Dr. Lindsey O’Rourke documents seventy such interventions between 1947 and 1989 during the Cold War period.
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs estimates approximately one hundred total regime changes, describing this pattern as an addiction involving systematic overthrow of governments when desired resources exist: Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria from 2011 through 2025, and Ukraine from 2014 onward.
During recent remarks before the UN Security Council regarding Venezuela, Dr. Sachs emphasized several points. The UN Charter’s Article 2 Section 4 fundamentally protects national sovereignty. The Security Council’s purpose involves protecting countries rather than evaluating individual leaders. Sachs outlined U.S.-Venezuelan history, noting regime-change attempts since 2002.
Venezuela’s 2007 discovery of possessing the world’s largest oil reserves created significant complications. A 2014 CIA-supported color revolution was attempted. Obama imposed 2015 sanctions and declared Venezuela a national security threat in 2016. Trump explored direct capture options with Latin American presidents in 2017, subsequently intensifying sanctions that devastated Venezuela’s oil industry. By 2020, production declined seventy-five percent while personal GDP collapsed sixty-five percent according to IMF data.
The administration then proclaimed the previously unknown Juan Guido as Venezuela’s legitimate president, with European allied states complying. Similar dynamics appear in current reactions from leaders like Macron.
Sachs questioned whether international law exists or anarchy prevails. The answer seems evident given threats directed at six nations following the Venezuelan operation: Mexico, Colombia, Denmark, Nigeria, Cuba, and Iran. Despite Sachs’ UN advocacy, he acknowledges the institution remains on life support. American commitment to international law appears absent as the world rushes toward great power politics and spheres of influence, carrying implications of increased warfare and aggression. Sachs characterizes the situation as dire given nuclear age realities, describing leadership as completely impulsive, poorly informed, and manipulable atop deep state
structures.
South American reactions reflect resignation. Conversations with Paraguayans produced shrugs and acknowledgment that resisting American desires proves difficult. Perhaps future responses will differ, but current sentiment remains apologetic.