A week from US military aggression: where is Venezuela going?

Events in Venezuela are unfolding at breakneck speed following the attack on 3 January and the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. The US is moving very quickly to assert control over Venezuela and its natural resources, while the Venezuelan government seems unwilling or unable to push back. Naturally, there are many questions which are being asked.

The US has clearly stated that it will run the country. Trump added that they will keep between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil (one or two months’ total production). The sale of that oil (part of which is stored on land, part of which is stored in tankers due to the US naval blockade, and part of which is yet to be extracted) will take place in the US, at market prices, and the US will control the use of that money (“for the benefit of Venezuelans and the US,” according to Trump).

Energy Secretary Wright added that this procedure would be extended indefinitely. In other words, the US has announced that it now controls the sale of Venezuelan oil and the money from its sale.

Oh, and by the way, Trump has added that with the money from the sale of oil, Venezuela will exclusively purchase US products!!

On top of this, Washington has repeated threats of further military action against Venezuela unless the government in Caracas complies fully. Coming after the military raid on 3 January, these are no idle threats.

The Venezuelan government of acting president Delcy Rodríguez responded to this with a statement announcing that they are in “negotiations” with the US to reach an agreement on the sale of oil, and that they are “building alliances that promote national development in favour of the Venezuelan people”.

Marco Rubio also stated that the plan for Venezuela has three stages:

1. Stabilisation, during which the US maintains the blockade to continue its “unprecedented leverage” (read: unprecedented capacity for blackmail) and sells the 50 million barrels;
2. Recovery, in which US and western companies have “fair access” to Venezuela and there is a process of “national reconciliation”;
3. Transition, finally towards democratic elections.

At the end of this transition he envisages a country "that is friendly towards the United States, that's not a foothold for our adversaries, that serves our interests". In other words, a colony or protectorate of the United States.

Rubio has demanded the release of prisoners. The Venezuelan government announced that it would release a large number (reportedly 88), but so far only 13 have been released, including five Spanish citizens and some others close to Enrique Márquez (a candidate in the 2024 presidential elections who, despite being a bosses’ candidate, was supported by the PCV, the Communist Party of Venezuela). None of the most prominent prisoners from the counter-revolutionary opposition around María Corina Machado have been released so far.

There have been rapid moves to reopen the US embassy in Venezuela, which will undoubtedly act as the spearhead of US colonial authority in the country. Venezuela issued a statement saying that this was being done “with the aim of addressing the consequences of the aggression and the kidnapping of the president” and “a working agenda of mutual interest” (!!!!).

In other words, the US invades the country militarily, kidnaps the president… and the response is to re-establish diplomatic relations to address the consequences and an agenda of mutual interest. What mutual interest can there be between the aggressor and the victim?!

Honestly, I am furious. What happened to all the statements made by the Venezuelan leadership prior to 3 January? Minister Diosdado said in case of military aggression Venezuela would not send “a single drop of oil to the US”. Maduro announced a “revolutionary general strike”. Delcy stated that they would not give in to blackmail and that the oil belonged to Venezuela.

US auctioning off Venezuela’s oil

On Friday, 9 January, Trump presided over a meeting/press conference with the executives of all the American and western oil companies. It was a spectacle with few historical precedents, at least in terms of being held in broad daylight. It reminds me of the Berlin Conference in 1884, when the European powers divided up Africa.

What we had here was the aggressive US government putting Venezuelan oil up for auction to the highest bidder. Literally. Trump told Exxon: “If you don't go, say so, because I have 25 others on the list.”

Some companies (led by Exxon) were not very keen. What they want are guarantees. They want to be paid what they say they are owed (between $2 billion and $12 billion) and, above all, they say explicitly that they want the legal framework to be favourable to them, including the repeal of Chávez's hydrocarbons law.

But others were enthusiastic, including Chevron, which has continued to operate in Venezuela all these years waiting for this moment, and others that remain in the country with lower production volumes (such as Spain's Repsol). They said that production could double in a couple of years.

During the auction/press conference, Trump was asked if he considered Delcy's government to be an ally. His response was: “They are acting as allies, and I believe they will continue to do so.”

There has been no response (as far as I know) from the Venezuelan government to this scandalous auction by Trump of something that does not belong to him. Two Venezuelan officials were in Washington on the same day to discuss oil.

Don't leave yet. There's more!

On the same day as the public auction of Venezuelan oil by the US, the US Navy carried out a new act of piracy by taking control of the tanker Olina (formerly the Minerva), which was leaving Venezuela loaded with Venezuelan oil destined for “customers in Asia”, and sent it back to Venezuela.

Obviously, there was an uproar on social media. Venezuelan (La Iguana) and Cuban (Cubadebate) government media outlets correctly described it as theft and an act of piracy.

But there was one detail. Trump, in making the public announcement, said that the operation had been carried out “in coordination with the interim authorities of Venezuela”.

Shortly afterwards, PDVSA issued an embarrassing statement claiming that it had been a “successful joint operation” with the US authorities to achieve the “return” of the ship, which had set sail “without authorisation or payment”.

But if we read between the lines, there is only one possible interpretation. The oil blockade is the “unprecedented leverage” that Marco Rubio was talking about. If the US controls the export of oil, it can control its sale and the destination of the money obtained.

But now it turns out that Delcy's government says it's all part of a joint agreement… In other words, they are collaborating, but not as equal partners, rather as colonial subjects. It is as if you were stopped in the street by a thief who proceeded to take your valuables, and then you issued a press conference saying that your valuables had been ‘taken to the residence of the thief as part of a successful joint operation’!

To all these arrogant US statements and humiliating actions that place Venezuela in a situation of colonial subjugation, Delcy's government responded by stating that they did not want “revenge” but would respond with “Bolivarian diplomacy of peace,” which, she said, they had learned from El Libertador.

It's enough to make you weep. Simón Bolívar took up arms against Spanish colonialism! He did not use the ‘diplomacy of peace’ but rather a decree of war to the death, warning, “Spaniards and Canarians, expect death, even if you are indifferent, if you do not actively work for the freedom of America.”

What is the explanation for all this?

Some claim that it is all really a ‘struggle for the narrative’. According to this theory, Trump claims that he ‘controls Venezuela,’ but that is not true, because Caracas still has the same political and military leadership. In other words, Trump has only achieved a ‘Pyrrhic victory’ that has removed Maduro but will not change the course of the Venezuelan government.

Others go further and claim that everything that is happening was ‘Maduro's plan, which he put in place in case something happened to him’. They claim that the ‘prosperity that the country will achieve is thanks to the plan approved by the President’. That what Trump is proposing in relation to oil is in line with ‘the Chevron licence model’. That the opening of the US embassy is actually necessary to assist the President and the First Lady, imprisoned in New York.

It would seem that officialdom in Venezuela has plunged deeply into the world of magical realism, where one thing is itself and its opposite at the same time.

Jorge Arreaza affirms that “the grassroots understand the circumstances and support the tactical moves necessary to ensure that the major national objectives are met.”

In fact, they do not, and that is precisely the problem. No one understands because nothing has been explained.

How to explain the 3 January blow?

It has been a full week since the attack on 3 January, and no one in the Venezuelan political or military leadership has even come forward to explain what happened that day. Not only is there no explanation, it now seems that even asking questions is forbidden. ‘To doubt is to betray’ is the new slogan coming from the leadership.

The lack of explanation is what fuels the rumour mill, because there seems to be no logical and reasonable explanation for Venezuela's apparent lack of resistance to the aggression – beyond the heroic actions of the presidential guard.

What happened to the 5,000 Igla MANPADS (hand-held anti-aircraft missile launchers) that were supposed to be distributed throughout the country? The Russian anti-aircraft defences? The Chinese radars?

I am not a military expert. I have read some analyses from various points of view. My conclusion, in a nutshell, is this:

• The US used electromagnetic warfare to suppress the radars and anti-aircraft defences, which it had located in a weeks-long operation with Growlers (electromagnetic warfare aircraft that cause radars to emit their signal, allowing them to be detected) that had provocatively flown over the coast of Venezuela for weeks.
• Venezuelan anti-aircraft defences are partially obsolete (they are a variant of the Russian S300, aimed mainly at ballistic missiles, not low-flying aircraft).
• The US used low-altitude aircraft and electromagnetic interference, as well as localised attacks against anti-aircraft batteries (BUK) at specific points to open a safe corridor for attack helicopters.
• There is an element of inefficiency in the Venezuelan army (anti-aircraft batteries without camouflage or protection, in static positions), which was possibly combined with a certain element of fatal overconfidence (‘Trump is already focused on the oil blockade, an attack is out of the question’).
• There was at least one (failed) launch from a BUK battery in Catia la Mar, and apparently an Igla was also fired in Caracas. The US claims that one of the helicopters was hit but not disabled. These helicopters have electromagnetic systems to deflect projectiles that attack them.
• There’s speculation that troops were given their usual Christmas-New Year holiday permits, despite the situation of heightened threat.

Were these factors taken together decisive, and do they explain everything? It is difficult to say. There are a number of legitimate questions that remain. Why did the Venezuelan air force not respond from Maracay, for instance – a base which was not attacked? Why were there no further attacks on the helicopters, which were flying low, slow and for a long time?

Some argue that the air force could not respond because the radars and command centres had been disabled, and that the Venezuelans were ‘blind’.

Some military experts point to a tacit agreement between the US and the Venezuelan armed forces, which in one way or another reflected the disproportionate forces between the two: ‘we will not attack you broadly, but only in specific locations, and you will not offer widespread resistance that would only end in your total destruction.’

One thing at least is clear: the CIA had accurate information from an informant about Maduro's location and the layout of the residence where he was staying. This was confirmed by Trump and corresponds with the facts. The head of the presidential guard of honour and head of military intelligence (DGCIM), Major General Javier Marcano Tábata, has been dismissed (some say arrested).

But much of this is speculation, as there is no official explanation, and that is precisely what fuels the rumours: ‘Delcy handed Maduro over.’ ‘Maduro handed himself over as part of a plan.’

The easiest way for the Venezuelan leadership to put an end to these rumours would be to provide a clear explanation of what happened. Some comrades have argued that ‘we cannot reveal our weaknesses.’ But the enemy knows our vulnerabilities in detail! It is us, the ordinary anti-imperialist people, who do not know.

A strategy of submission

What we do know is that there were contacts and diplomatic channels between Venezuela and the US, particularly with figures in the oil industry, and that some of these contacts took place through Qatar. We know that Delcy Rodríguez, as head of the oil sector, was at the centre of many of those contacts. Some of us remember that, in 2017, the US-based petroleum company CITGO (a subsidiary of PDVSA and then under Venezuelan control) contributed half a million dollars to Trump's inauguration, at a time when Delcy Rodríguez was foreign minister.

The language and actions of Delcy Rodríguez's Venezuelan government in recent days can only be interpreted in two ways:

1. Either they are forced to act in this way under coercion from the US, but in reality they are trying to find room for manoeuvre (by talking to Spain, Colombia and Brazil);
2. Or, they are selling out the country’s oil and national sovereignty because they have decided that this is the least bad option from the point of view of their own personal interests (maintaining power and accumulated privileges).

In both cases, the reality is that the country’s natural resources and national sovereignty are being taken over by the United States and no amount of struggle for the narrative can change that. This is a strategy of submission, with a slight veneer of defiance aimed mainly at the grassroots.

This is a strategy of submission, with a slight veneer of defiance aimed mainly at the grassroots / Image: Presidencia El Salvador, Flickr

This ‘strategy’ is, in my opinion, absolutely disastrous from the point of view of defending Venezuela's national sovereignty and the struggle against imperialism (something that affects not only Venezuela but also other countries in the region).

It is a strategy that does not help to rally the masses for resistance, but rather confuses them. Words do not correspond to deeds. Trump and Rubio behave arrogantly and disgustingly as masters of the house, dictating policy, and Caracas responds with declarations of ‘Bolivarian’ peace and ‘mutually beneficial agreements’. This can only lead to cynicism, demoralisation and, at best, to some amongst the Madurista ranks breaking away from the leadership.

The question is, is another course of action possible?

I say, yes. It starts with recognising the facts. A leadership that said, ‘We have been hit hard (and explained how), the conditions are not right for fighting right now, we are going to regroup our forces’, and offered a clear perspective for struggle, would gain political authority and be able to prepare for the next phase.

The struggle against imperialism is first and foremost a political question. Of course, it has a very important technical-military aspect. But without political clarity, the military aspect is of little use.

Fundamentally, Vietnam defeated the US and Algeria defeated France not because of the military expertise of their respective National Liberation Fronts (which did exist), but above all because they were two peoples fighting for their liberation from the yoke of imperialism.

The destruction of the Bolivarian Revolution under Maduro

In Venezuela, the main obstacle to resistance against imperialism is not military, but political. Since Chávez's death, the Bolivarian leadership has followed a clear course of politically dismantling the Bolivarian Revolution.

Instead of heeding Chávez's warning in Golpe de Timón (that we must “build a socialist economy” and “pulverise the bourgeois state”), the opposite was done. Instead of a revolutionary internationalist policy, ‘multipolar’ geopolitics became the favoured policy.

Workers' control was destroyed, companies were privatised, land was taken away from the peasants, all structures of participation were bureaucratised, etc…

Faced with economic collapse, falling oil prices and sanctions, the leadership decided to abandon Keynesian policies of monetary expansion and market regulation and apply a brutal monetarist package that shifted the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the working class. Collective bargaining was destroyed, and trade unionists who fought to defend acquired rights were imprisoned. Millions were forced to emigrate.

All this was done cynically in the name of Chávez, Bolivarianism, revolution and socialism, when in reality it was moving in the opposite direction.

It was this Thermidorian counter-revolution, led by Maduro, that emptied out the Bolivarian revolution of its content and led to the disaster of 2024.

Those who have not understood this process are in for many surprises now.

And to top it all off, after promising ‘resistance to imperialism until death’, on 3 January, when the blow came, the leadership remained silent, and contingency plans were not activated. When the silence was finally broken… the call was for calm and peace.

The main task of communists, of revolutionaries, today is to mobilise with all our strength against imperialist aggression in Venezuela, across Latin America and all around the world. To do everything in our power to loosen the grip with which Washington is suffocating Venezuela. That is our fundamental duty.

But we would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not also open up the political debate on how and why we have reached this point and how we believe it is possible to combat imperialism.