Recent Items

War in Venezuela Could Be Another Vietnam, Warns Mexican Analyst Fernando Buen Abad

Posted on by

“The breakout of war in Venezuela could be a horror show for the entire continent. “

The Trump administration seems increasingly poised to climb a few more rungs of the escalatory ladder in its latest face-off with Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro government, perhaps even to the point of war. With the US keen to reassert its strategic dominance of its so-called “backyard” and Cuban American neo-con Marco Rubio occupying the dual roles of secretary of state and national security advisor, anything is possible.

The decision last Friday of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award its long-sullied Peace Prize to the Venezuelan far-right coup plotter Maria Corina Machado was merely the latest statement of intent. Following her nomination by Rubio and Mike Waltz, Machado’s unexpected victory has helped revive Venezuela’s “downcast” opposition movement, as BBC Mundo helpfully explains (translated by yours truly):

When the opposition to the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela seemed once again downcast and without the possibility of provoking change, the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to its leader, María Corina Machado, revives hopes.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday chose Machado “for her tireless work in promoting the democratic rights of the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

Machado has tried everything in her fight against the government first of Hugo Chávez and now of Maduro.

She has participated in elections and called for abstention, has sat at negotiating tables that have failed and has made calls to take to the streets.

What the BBC fails to mention is that Machado has worked tirelessly on behalf of US interests in Venezuela since the failed US-sponsored coup of 2002. That attempted coup came just two years after Chávez passed energy reforms that sought to ensure that more of the revenues generated by the oil sector stayed in Venezuela. Also in 2002, Machado set up her NGO Sumate with funds from the US’ National Endowment for Democracy, a notorious CIA cut-out.

Also not mentioned: Machado has repeatedly asked the US and other countries, including Israel and Argentina, to invade her home country of Venezuela and remove the Chavista government.  Like Argentina’s Javier Milei, her political rise has been facilitated by organisations belonging to the Koch-financed Atlas Network.

Like Milei, Machado, if given the keys to power, would privatise Venezuela’s oil industry and open the door to US military bases. Indeed, Milei just authorised by decree the entry into the country of members of the US Armed Forces to participate in a joint military exercise without consulting Congress, in direct violation of the Argentine Constitution

Here is Machado telling Donald Trump Jr in February how she would open up Venezuela’s markets and kick the government out of the energy sector:

Perhaps most controversially, Machado completely supports the US’s deadly, criminal attacks on unidentified boats belonging to her co-patriots in the Caribbean. The US so far claims to have destroyed four alleged drug trafficking boats, killing 21 people, without presenting a single shred of evidence. Here is the fourth one (allegedly), pulverised on October 3.

A Perfect Pretext

Roughly a week ago, Trump sent Congress a memo explaining that his administration had determined that members of Latin American drug cartels are “unlawful combatants” with which the United States is engaged in “non-international armed conflict” — an interesting choice of term. As we warned over two years ago, Washington is now using the War on Drugs as a pretext for reasserting itself in its direct neighbourhood, much as it used the War on Terror to assert itself in the Middle East.

Since August, the Trump White House has deployed warships, aircraft and over 4,000 troops in the Caribbean region on a purported anti-narcotics mission. Following at least four strikes against boats that have reportedly killed over 20 people, the Trump administration is reportedly considering launching attacks against alleged drug targets inside Venezuelan territory.

The fact that the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize supports not only Israel’s genocide in Gaza but also the US’ indiscriminate murder on the high seas of her own countrymen is yet another reminder of just how worthless that prize is. In the following clip of her conversation with fellow Zionist, Bari Weiss, Machado explains why she devoted her peace prize to President Trump:

So, how far is Trump willing to climb the escalatory ladder in Venezuela? According to Politico, Trump’s team doesn’t seem to be ruling anything out, including apparently sending in an invasion force (with 7,000 troops?):

[I]s Trump willing to eventually “do anything”? Send an invasion force to Venezuela or launch a missile with Maduro’s name on it, maybe? Trump’s team doesn’t seem to be ruling anything out.

Trump has many plans available to him, including ones calling for airstrikes against drug targets on Venezuelan soil, but he has issued no order to directly take out Maduro, the official said. Still, one person familiar with the discussions suggested that if Maduro is considered a drug lord and a terrorist, he could become a fair target. “Don’t we go after indicted narco traffickers and terrorists all the time?” the person said. I granted both people anonymity to talk about sensitive internal deliberations.

China’s leadership certainly seems to be taking the threats seriously:

From Venezuela Analysis:

Venezuela received strong support from geopolitical allies China and Russia during an emergency United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting focused on US military threats in the Caribbean.

The Friday afternoon session was held at Venezuela’s request, with the Nicolás Maduro government warning of the possibility of a US armed attack against the country “in the very short term.” No resolutions were proposed.

Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, who currently heads the UNSC, condemned Washington’s “unprecedented pressure and military threats.” The Russian diplomat warned the US against committing an “irreparable mistake” by launching a direct attack against the Caribbean nation.

“If there is an attack against Venezuela, it could affect the entire region,” he said.

Nebenzya went on to criticize recent US strikes against alleged drug-carrying boats, which have killed more than 20 civilians, as flagrant violations of international law and human rights. The Russian official likewise rebuked Washington’s “narcoterrorism” accusations against Caracas as “fit for a Hollywood script.”

Chinese Ambassador to the UN Fu Cong joined the condemnation of the lethal strikes against unarmed vessels in the Caribbean, calling them “unilateral and excessive” actions. The Trump administration has not provided evidence that the vessels carried drugs.

“We reject the threats or the use of force in international relations and repudiate the foreign meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs,” Cong stated during the session. Beijing’s diplomat urged Washington to heed international calls for peace and stability in the region.

A New Vietnam?

At the regional level, however, Venezuela is arguably more isolated than ever. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia and Honduras), most countries have refused to rally round Venezuela’s cause, including the two regional powerhouses, Mexico and Brazil.

This makes the region even more susceptible to a new wave of US imperialism, warns the Mexican philosopher and political analyst Fernando Buen Abad in an interview with the veteran journalist Julio Astillero (machine translated):

As of yet there have been no forceful pronouncements on the matter from the presidents of the region. Despite the gravity of the threat to all Latin American and Caribbean nations, there doesn’t seem to be any political backbone or expediency to put a stop to these despicable acts. Already an important number of people have been killed by attacks perpetrated by the US armed forces…

No country has the right to invade another to plunder its resources. If we tolerate it in Venezuela, we will have to tolerate it in Mexico and throughout the continent, not only for oil but for gold, silver, copper and for any other valuable natural resource that the US wants to steal, including water.

Buen Abad notes that the gradual normalisation of the US’ strikes against unidentified boats in the Caribbean suggests that the “people who have been slaughtered in this way, without a trial, without even a formal recognition of who they were, without the slightest regard for the basic foundations of international human rights law, deserved their fate.”

But if the US does launch a large-scale attack against Venezuela (which in my view is still a big “IF”*), and are expecting a cakewalk, they are likely to be sorely disappointed, says Buen Abad:

They are going to find themselves facing a people who are organised, who are united, who are already undertaking defensive manoeuvres…who are already being forewarned by these attacks [on the boats. What is happening in] Venezuela is a warning to us all; we need to think carefully at both a political and geostrategic level.

We will be making a grave mistake if we think that this is a problem only for Maduro and Venezuela, because this could create a very unpleasant situation for the entire region. Nobody thinks [the Venezuelan people] are naive and not ready to launch a counter-offensive…

I am cautiously optimistic, like some of my colleagues, like Venezuela’s own commander of the armed forces, Vladimir Padrino, who has repeatedly said: ‘We have the capacity to defend ourselves, we can exhibit that capacity because we are an armed people…” Venezuela has a civilian militia that has clear knowledge of the territory and knows how to operate, block by block, neighbourhood by neighbourhood…

I have heard Captain Diosdello Caballo warn about Venezuela’s defence systems that are already primed, oiled and ready for action. As Caballo said, it is likely that if they dare to enter some will get through but none of them will be able to get back out again. It sets the stage for another Vietnam war, this time in Latin America… The breakout of war in Venezuela could be a horror show for the entire continent.

Buen Abad also notes that Venezuela’s National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) will be able to count on the support of Cuban forces, which have a long history of resisting US imperialism. How much support it will receive from Russia and China remains to be seen.

Venezuela’s Military Capabilities

A few months ago, El País‘s English-language website published a cursory analysis of Venezuela’s military capabilities:

The successive governments of Hugo Chávez and Maduro have made doctrinal work on the Armed Forces one of the pillars of the continuity in power of the Bolivarian revolution. Both leaders have always kept in mind the strategic nature of military spending in the country, which has been consistent despite criticism from some civilian sectors of the opposition.

The Chavista commanders have strived to expand their military forces, with the obvious growth of the National Guard and the creation of the Bolivarian National Militia, the fifth component of the armed institutions and one that is particularly ideologized as the pillar of a hypothetical armed confrontation in the internal protection of the country based on an asymmetric strategy.

Global Firepower’s 2025 Military Strength Ranking places Venezuela at 50 in the world in terms of military power, out of a total of 160 nations analysed. It ranks seventh among Latin American nations (in recent years it has occupied fifth and sixth place), behind Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, and is in a very close bracket with the Armed Forces of Colombia, Chile, and Peru. Venezuela also ranks seventh in terms of regional military expenditure…

[T]he Maduro administration has made its relationship with Commander-in-Chief of the FANB and Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino López one of the foundations of its stability in power. Padrino López has made an enormous effort to meet the military needs of the state and contain the economic environment of military personnel.

With a force of some 150,000 regular combatants and 430,000 reservists, the FANB is noted for its Air Force, one of the best equipped in the region with 79 units in total, whose line-up includes 24 Russian Sukhoi fighters and 16 U.S.-made F-16s in addition to 23 Chinese-made Hongdu K-V units and 10 Embraer Tucano aircraft.

The national defense system has a sophisticated M1-Tor anti-aircraft missile system; 53 attack helicopters; 250 combat vehicles, and about 180 tanks, some of which are currently undergoing refitting and maintenance. The army has an inventory that includes 100,000 AK-Kalashnikov assault rifles that are already manufactured in the country…

Bruno Sgarzini’s recent interview of Sovereign Protocol‘s Thomas Keith, an expect on conflicts and information warfare, for Diario-Red fills in some of the gaps. Keith points out how  Venezuela’s close ties to Iran have been instrumental in rapidly scaling up the South American country’s drone program (machine translated):

After two decades of cooperation between Iran and Venezuela, Caracas went from having no unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to a stratified fleet: the Harpy-001 (derived from the Iranian Mohajer-2) for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks; ANSU-100 armed drones capable of launching Qaem (Iranian guided missiles) munitions for precision harassment; ANSU-200 “flying wing” prototypes that are difficult to detect…; Zamora V-1 loitering ammunition for kamikaze attacks; and swarms of first-person drones (FPVs) for assaults against sensors and vulnerable targets on congested coastlines. (author’s note; this model of drones, also called loitering munitions, are used by Russia to overwhelm Ukraine’s air defences and launch multiple attacks on cities, or key infrastructure).

Keith also warns that if the US and Machado-led Venezuelan opposition forces are looking to replicate Israel’s success with its assassination campaign against Hezbollah, they are likely to be disappointed:

The Israeli campaign relied on on-the-ground human intelligence developed over many years, on infiltrated networks within the organisation [of Hezbollah], on favourable logistical conditions, and on a compact theatre of operations that allowed Israel’s military aircraft to enter and leave the country without facing significant retaliation. Venezuela, on the other hand, is a sovereign state with external allies that has spent years investing in shielding the mobility of its leadership and creating redundancies in its command and control. Attempting a Mossad-style decapitation operation would be met with air defences covering large distances and would involve complex political considerations, and the backing of allied countries, factors that could transform a “limited” show of force into a crisis of regional scope.

As we have noted in previous articles, a large-scale offensive against Venezuela may well spread to neighbouring Colombia. Cuban forces will almost certainly join the ruckus, as may certain Latin American and Caribbean countries aligned with the US. What’s more, as Thomas notes, the US and Venezuelan opposition should not underestimate the scale of resistance they would likely meet from Venezuela’s militia units.

The deployment of the Bolivarian militia and the social fortification, moreover, turn the land incursions into a political trap. The activation of 5,336 Communal Militia Units, linked to 15,751 “popular bases of integral defence” and 8.2 million enlisted men and women, comprises a formidable territorial force based on popular resistance. Even without considering official militia numbers, the distribution of defence at the parish level ensures that any ground incursion faces politically toxic resistance, followed by attrition that far exceeds the tactical advantages gained. This dynamic of mobilisation also explains why confronting “humble Venezuelan fishermen” or carrying out attacks against small boats is counterproductive, since it hardens social cohesion and provides Caracas with propaganda material of high media impact to support its mobilisation and diplomatic efforts.

So, once again, the US appears to be shooting itself in the foot from a strategic perspective. Taking out easy targets, including possibly innocent fishermen, merely serves to harden the loyalty of Venezuelan communities to the Chavista government while eroding what little remains of US soft power in the wider region.

Again, the key question here is: what are the US’ long-term goals?

The three most likely ones are: a) the toppling of the Chavez government in Venezuela; b) its replacement by a new client State presumably headed by the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Machado; and c) the overt assertion of US dominance over the Caribbean region. However, as Thomas notes, while the US deployment in the Caribbean may expand its coercive options and reduce timelines for limited actions, it does not ensure a low-cost decapitation strategy:

Venezuela can build—and is building—a defence that significantly raises the price at every stage of the confrontation: technically, through S-300VM/Buk-M2 systems, drones and speedboats equipped with Nasir missiles; tactically, through territorial dispersion, strict emission control, use of decoys and exploitation of coastal disorder; and politically, through the mass mobilization of militias, the documentation of incidents, and active regional diplomacy.

Venezuela’s strategic goal is not to militarily outmaneouvre the United States, but to turn each additional step of the confrontation into an operation so costly, visible, and illegitimate that Washington chooses not to escalate the conflict.

* As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, if the conflict does turn hot, the US’ most likely strategy is to launch limited missile and drone attacks against key Venezuelan targets, including the political leadership of the Chavista movement, in a similar vein to Tel Aviv and Washington’s recent attacks against Iran.

This will probably be accompanied by on-the-ground attacks by pro-Machado forces, assisted by mercenaries pouring in from Guyana and Colombia. The ultimate hope will be that Maduro and his senior colleagues will be taken out and that enough senior members of the Venezuelan armed forces will subsequently defect to a newly installed Machado-led government.

The odds of this succeeding are, I believe, quite slim — the US’ regime change operations in Venezuela have tended to get less rather than more effective over time, and it is far from clear how much real support Machado has on the ground — but that doesn’t mean it won’t be attempted.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
12 comments

  1. Safety First

    This is all nice, but are we really seriously discussing a ground invasion?

    Trump’s MO going back to Syria and the 2017-2018 strikes has been – lob in a few Tomahawks/bombs/whatever; declare victory; move on to the next thing. [Not counting proxy operations, of course, that’s a different subject.] He is more risk averse about committing actual US troops than Clinton had been, so as long as he does not paint himself into a Kosovo-like corner with a sustained bombing campaign.

    I think it should be fairly transparent that the play here, if Trump chooses to move up the escalatory ladder, will be to strike some “drug labs” with standoff weapons and use that to demand concessions (e.g. Maduro must go), then, if concessions are not forthcoming, forget about the whole subject a week later. The only question is will they simply try to blow away some military and economic targets, or attempt to off Maduro himself hoping this will trigger a “machadist” revolution of some description. Or will they decide it’s easier to do nothing and sink a few boats for Fox News audiences now and again. Also, I do not know where the Pentagon sits in this equation, this time – remember, the Syrian strikes were their idea, brought to Trump on a silver platter, and basically fit into that proxy war (the second time around, most targets – per the Russian MoD – were not “chemical weapons” places, but airfields and related infrastructure, i.e. places from which US proxies were getting bombed).

    Also, too, I had been under the impression that Colombia was a faithful US vassal, and indeed the reason Venezuela had the “people’s militia” or whatever it had was to defend against a possible proxy invasion from that direction. But then, I hadn’t been paying attention to the region for a while, so whatever.

    But the point is, most of the breathlessness in the post above seems…not warranted. The only real issue is that, yes, if a one-and-done strike (or even several) against Venezuela goes through, then Mexico or whoever else might be next. But then conversely, the problem with this standoff strike strategy is that all the other side has to do is withstand it and continue to offer no concessions – precisely because there is no real invasion threat behind the strikes.

    Reply ↓
    1. tegnost

      The typical usian stance is to create chaos and disruption, not so much to gain a goal as to prevent someone else from gaining theirs.
      The washington neolibcons look at what is israel is getting away with and they are green eyed with envy and their pride lusts to release their own wrath on those whom their greed would subjugate because they’re gluttony needs servants to maintain their sloth, if you get my drift…

      Rule number one is rational explanations, as pleasing as they may be, don’t reflect events on the ground (or sea). We’re still dealing with people who think they rule the world and from that perspective there is no impunity, no wrong…their way or the highway…and it spans both iconic megaparty candidates, governors, and those whom they serve. Which, needless to say, is not you or me, but mammon.

      Political commentary from the great clint eastwood…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xahKdzQR3PE

      Reply ↓
  2. Manuel

    After 2003, the US has mostly abandoned directly invading a country with their people, in favor of using airstrikes to to prepare the ground and floor the zone with nazis/jihadists.

    Got to mention that the Venezuelan government has caught several mercenaries trying to so sabotage, whose nationalities you would expect to be in Ukraine. So, they are going to depend on sending Colombian paramilitaries and second/third world cannon fodder, and urging the military to defect.

    They haven’t been able to break the civic-military union so far.

    Also to complement the cannon fodder, would be the possibility of sending the military of the right wing vassal states in the region.

    Besides privatizing everything and breaking all debts and economic ties with non western countries, another thing the US wants for sure is the Venezuelan and Iran’s oil reserve’s use in maintaining the petrodollar, as it would be difficult for the US to keep otherwise in the current climate.

    Reply ↓
  3. Candide

    Thanks for the warning against military action while exposing the cowardly Nobel committee’s choice.

    Minor correction:
    Missing letter “t” before “his.”

    “Machado has tried everything in his fight….”

    Reply ↓
    2. ilsm

      Look at the bright side nobel could have selected US’ orange Caligula.

      US regime change is peace……

      Orwell did write training manuals!

      Reply ↓
  4. DJG, Reality Czar

    In case one keeps wondering about Maria Corina Machado:

    She did a videoharangue at Vox (yes, the foam-at-the-mouth Spanish righties) for their recent Europa Viva 2026.

    My Castilian isn’t great, but Swiss Info is fairly reliable. What a cast of characters:

    https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/mar%C3%ADa-corina%2c-kast-y-uribe%2c-la-derecha-latina-se-suma-a-la-cumbre-ultra-de-vox-en-espa%C3%B1a/90001626

    And in that Xitter above: petroleos infinito. Like so many neoliberals, she has no sense of the limitations of the physical world and our duty to be good stewards of the Earth. Infinite, indeed, the bullshit.

    Reply ↓
  5. The Rev Kev

    A good coverage here. I should point out that Venezuela has a population of over 32.5 million people. And if you want to successfully occupy a country, I am given to understand that you need 20 soldiers for every 1,000 civilians. I am not going to bother to do the mathematics as the truth of the matter is that the US does not have the troops to occupy Venezuela. Scott Ritter was making the same point how the US did not have the troops to occupy Yemen so certainly the same would be true of Venezuela. Maybe the idea is that the US will do a decapitation strike, the US lands and takes the ports and airports, Machado become the new el Presidente who gives all that country’s oil to the US, then the troops are back home in time for Christmas. The reality? Let’s just say that some old songs from the 60s will become popular again. Songs like “Paint it Black”, “Fortunate Son”, “We Gotta Get Out of This Place” and “All Along the Watchtower”.

    Reply ↓
  6. ChrisFromGA

    …assisted by mercenaries pouring in from Guyana and Colombia.

    Well, Sports fans, we have ourselves a problem. It’s a shame that all those Colombian mercs were killed over in Ukraine. Or still over there, desperately trying to stay alive.

    The cupboard is empty. If that’s the Trump strategy, he needs to go back to playing “Candyland” against some 3-year-olds. This game requires no reading and minimal counting skills, so it should be right up his alley.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Land

    Reply ↓
  8. mrsyk

    Thank you Nick. About the narcotics those “narco-terrorists” are allegedly smuggling. Venezuela ain’t involved in the fentanyl trade. Virtually all fentanyl in the US comes from and is produced in Mexico.
    What Venezuela does smuggle is cocaine, produced in Colombia, moved across the border into Venezuela where it is then shipped off to destination countries. So consider, as added color to the picture,

    Those trade routes are worth real money.
    The US has form in the drug smuggling business.
    The US has history funding regime change with the proceeds.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *