There are two mainstream versions of the U.S. abduction of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. The first: it was a brilliantly executed operation by the U.S. military to remove a dictator. The second: the legitimate president of a country was illegally abducted by the U.S. military for imperial designs. There is an unpopular third scenario, however, which is neither one nor the other, but has elements of both.
The First Scenario: The Official Version
On the night of January 3rd, and after months of military buildup in the Caribbean, the U.S. conducted an operation and abducted Venezuela’s President, Nicolás Maduro.
The operation deployed around 150 aircraft and an unknown number of personnel. In around 30 minutes, U.S. Delta Force units — with aerial support to disable enemy defenses — stormed Maduro’s residence in the capital and took him away together with his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also a key Chavista leader. There were no U.S. casualties, and only one helicopter was reportedly damaged but not lost.
If we follow this version of the story, widely promoted by the U.S. administration and the mainstream media, we are to believe that this was a brilliantly planned operation between intelligence and the military — perhaps with some informants — but mostly based on U.S. capabilities. Indeed, this would demonstrate that the U.S. still has, perhaps, the best army in the world, as Trump claims.
In this version, the U.S. legally and justly apprehended Maduro because he was a narco-trafficker and a dictator. According to Trump, who said he watched it live, it was like “watching a television show.” It might have been just that.
The Second Scenario: The Idealist Version
The second version maintains similar facts but offers a different interpretation. The U.S. used its military strength in an operation that “no country on the planet” could have opposed to remove the legitimate president of Venezuela. The reasons, according to this view, are resources and fear of the revolutionary socialist ethos the country represents.
It also argues that this operation does not actually pose a threat to the socialist project, but on the contrary, serves as a tacit recognition that it is here to stay. Despite evidence that might point to the contrary, there has been no treason or selling out of Maduro, and the current government can keep its revolutionary pride.
In this version, the U.S. has entered a terminal phase of imperialism where it no longer bothers to dress its colonial hunger for resources and control in the language of democracy and freedom.
The Third Scenario: The Realist Version
In this scenario, the facts and the narrative put forward by the U.S. are questioned — but not in line with some incorruptible revolutionary fervor. The U.S. did illegally abduct the president of a country; whether he was legitimate or illegitimate is another discussion. But it did so in coordination with factions from his own government, in the execution of a planned coup. This possibility emerges from the loopholes in the military narrative as well as the subsequent political discourse.
For contrast, when the U.S. captured Panamanian President Noriega in 1989, it deployed around 27,000 Marines, many already stationed in bases inside Panama. It took them almost three weeks to get to him. Noriega eventually turned himself in after taking refuge in the Apostolic Nunciature. Twenty-three U.S. personnel were killed and 325 were wounded; 314 Panamanian military personnel were killed, as well as 202 civilians.
The effectiveness of the U.S. military is questioned by the fact that no Venezuelan defenses were activated. U.S. planes and helicopters were able to cruise through the Caracas sky without challenge. It could be argued that the U.S. disabled all anti-air defenses, which is debatable, but what about the MANPADS Venezuela possesses and similar firepower?
In a supposedly highly alert military environment and in the face of such a threat, it seems more probable that there were orders not to engage — orders that did not reach a few people, or that they decided to ignore.
This order might have come from someone high up in the ranks, or perhaps from a group of lower-rank officials acting in coordination with the U.S. Who exactly? It seems like we won’t be able to tell because whoever it was is receiving political coverage. But let’s not jump ahead.
The Delta Force unit knew the exact location of Maduro and the correct timing so that he could not reach a safe area. They penetrated his residence and abducted him with, it seems, only the protection of his 32 Cuban personal guards — all of whom were killed. Notwithstanding that Delta Force is an elite corps, they must have had an informant close enough to the president to know the exact place and timing — something news reports confirmed.
It would seem, then, that U.S. intelligence had been at work, as Trump had announced months earlier when he said he authorized CIA covert actions in Venezuela. But was that all? Informants and lower-rank officials enlisted by the CIA? It could be, but the ensuing political narrative suggests otherwise.
Following the end of the operation, Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth held a press conference announcing the “spectacular” success of the attack. In a remarkable statement, Trump openly admitted — as he had done before — that the aim of this operation was to control Venezuela’s oil by removing Maduro from power. He said María Corina Machado would not govern and that the U.S. was not interested in regime change if Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, would submit to U.S. demands. Otherwise, he threatened a second strike.
This can be interpreted as stark realism from the U.S. administration, openly stating its objective and not justifying it with pretty words. It’s a game-changer worthy of analysis — but not the focus of this text. What matters here is the invitation — or rather the order — to Delcy Rodríguez. But was it?
After the U.S. operation, Rodríguez gave a fiery speech denouncing the kidnapping of Maduro, asking the U.S. to return him, and declaring that Venezuela would not surrender to imperialism. However, following a meeting of the Chavista leadership, two remarkable things happened. Or rather, one happened — and one didn’t.
What did not happen was any visible change or friction within the government’s leadership. After perhaps the most serious security and intelligence failure a state can have, no one was held responsible and there was no division. There was no dissenting voice. This could be attributed to party loyalty, but it is at the very least suspicious. Only days later and after being sworn in as acting president, Delcy sesibly dismissed General Javier Marcano Tábata, who was the commander of the presidential guard.
Though the country’s attorney general said that a commission would investigate the deaths caused by the U.S. attack — estimated at around 100 — there has been no announcement of an investigation into the abduction of the president.
What did happen is that Delcy Rodríguez published a statement inviting the U.S. to cooperate — in which Maduro was not mentioned. This can be understood as a pragmatic response to avoid further strikes and destabilization. She had no choice and did what was best for the country. It’s possible — but also questionable in light of the arguments above and the reports that have emerged.
An alleged CIA report concluded that the opposition led by María Corina Machado had no chance of leading the country in the event of regime change, and that a transition to them was likely to result in chaos — something the U.S. wanted to avoid. It also posited that the most pragmatic option for a transition was Delcy Rodríguez and her brother, the head of the National Assembly. In fact, now that Rodríguez is the acting president, the two siblings hold two of the most important posts in the Chavista government.
Trump confirmed that Rubio was in touch with Rodríguez, and previous reports spoke of meetings brokered by a Gulf state between her and the U.S. to present herself as an alternative to Maduro. She denied it — but in light of current events, could it hold any truth?
There is not — and probably will never be — conclusive evidence. But the U.S. has warned Diosdado Cabello, a key party figure and named in the indictment against Maduro, that he must support Rodríguez or he might be next to fall. Rodríguez, on the other hand, has not been indicted.
If we accept this thesis as a possibility, the question is whether the decision to hand over Maduro was taken by the majority of the party’s leadership, or by a small group. In either case, Rodríguez seems to have been involved.
Does this mean a betrayal of the party’s socialist project? Perhaps yes — but it might also have been a cold assessment for its continuation. Maduro had allegedly offered everything to Trump except stepping down. At that point, some might have argued that he was already betraying the Chavista project for his own personal power. Why then should he continue?
They might have correctly understood that Trump would not back down without a spectacular win, and that Venezuela would be forced to cooperate or descend into chaos. Handing over Maduro, then, might have seemed the best decision for the country and perhaps even for the continuation of the Chavista project — albeit with crucial updates.
The Psyop Thesis
It is possible that the allegations about turning in Maduro are part of a psy-op by the U.S. — but if that’s the case, why?
By spreading this argument, the U.S. would undermine the perception of its own military’s capabilities. If they wanted to make Maduro’s capture a show of force — as their statements suggest — then promoting the idea that it only happened because of an inside job goes against that goal.
It could be argued that the aim is to delegitimize the remaining government and erode popular support. It is possible — but unlikely, or too early. If the U.S. goal is stability for a transition of power, undermining popular support could produce the opposite effect. If these claims were made during an electoral process to favor the opposition, they would make more sense.
There is also the possibility that these claims were a psy-op pushed by Venezuelans themselves. It would allow the government to preserve — at least internally — the perception of military strength. They were betrayed, not defeated. And, if needed, it would justify an inner purge to remove actual U.S. collaborators or silence those opposed to collaborating with the U.S. But at present, there is no evidence to support this.
A Few Things That Don’t Add Up
However, a few elements do not fully align with the coup thesis: Rodríguez’s background, the 100 people killed, and the presence of Russian and Chinese delegations at her swearing-in ceremony. But they might have explanations.
I’m going to quote directly from an article arguing against the betrayal, because both the content and the medium matter:
The Rodríguez family’s revolutionary credentials are etched in struggle. Their father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a leader of the Socialist League, a Marxist-Leninist organization, was tortured and murdered by the Punto Fijo regime in 1976. Both Delcy and her brother Jorge (the President of the National Assembly) emerged from this tradition of clandestine and mass struggle for socialism. President Maduro himself was a cadre of the same organization. To suggest betrayal among them or capitulation born of cowardice or opportunism ignores four decades of shared political formation, persecution, and leadership under relentless imperialist aggression and the class character of their revolutionary leadership.
As you might infer from the language, the paragraph comes from a website with clear Marxist leanings. It might project an idealized view onto Rodríguez, but as argued above, what if she and her brother are less idealistic and more pragmatic? What if, presented with the alternative of chaos or preserving Venezuela’s social fabric — and perhaps later, parts of the socialist project — they opted for the latter?
Rodríguez recently said that “regarding the threats, only God decides my destiny,” in what can be understood as a reference to Trump’s threats — but also internal ones, as she was speaking in Spanish to a Venezuelan audience. If she believes God might question her, she might have judged that it is better to face Him having handed over one man than an entire country.
The only confirmed deaths are those of the 32 Cubans and 24 Venezuelan security personnel. That already adds up to 56 and might be part of the 100 mentioned by the Interior Minister, who also said many of the deaths were collateral. I’m not implying that they were justified, but he did say they were a consequence of shrapnel and explosions — not targeted. The U.S. bombed several sites, and unfortunately, their deaths are a consequence. But one might argue that the bombing had to be part of the show to lend credibility.
Regarding the Russian and Chinese delegations, there are a few possibilities. First: whether it was a coup or not, they decided it was better to maintain friendly relations and observe developments. Second: they believed it was not a coup and wanted to support the government.
The third is more hypothetical but possible: the coup was arranged between the U.S. and Venezuelan factions with Russian and Chinese approval. We saw something similar last year in Syria, where before Assad’s escape, Turkish and Russian delegations were sitting together in Doha. They might have seen it as an acceptable exit from U.S. escalation with the least damage. Some Russian sources had proposed a tit-for-tat: Venezuela for Ukraine. For the Chinese, it might set a useful precedent for Taiwan.
Lastly, Maduro’s attitude while in custody seems oddly calm and friendly. Three explanations are possible.
First: he was part of the plan — making this not a coup but a managed exit — and will be allowed to go into exile after serving some time. I’m not particularly convinced; the U.S. rhetoric has been fierce, and he could have taken that route earlier. Second: he is in denial as a psychological defense. Third: he is taking the fall with grace.
As with the truth about his capture, only time will tell.
Maduro’s attitude:
How about another hypothesis?
Maybe he was “oddly calm and friendly” because he understood that the U.S. is elevating his stature throughout Latin America and the rest of the non-West nations to that of a RESISTANCE HERO…similar to another resistance hero who was imprisoned…like Nelson Mandela.
Or maybe he was doped up by his captors with haldol or ativan. DHS has a track record of several decades with this kind of thing.
Or maybe he is showing everyone that he is not suicidal, and that he won’t Epstein himself.
I think this is the most likely explanation. He knows that he is representing Venezuela, for he is still the president. So he puts a brave face on because he has the strength of a nation behind him.
As for the coup, I have another suggestion, albeit less likely.
The assassination attempt against Putin was a last straw for Putin. The Maduro kidnapping was a last straw for Xi. All the talk of an attack on Iran next means Iran is ready to do a pre-emptive strike. So the fact that the first emissaries Rodrigues met after being sworn in were the Russian, Chinese and Iranian ambassadors may suggest that Venezuela has been assured of their support and Delcy has been instructed to promise Trump everything to buy time but to deliver nothing while they plan a coordinated blow before the month’s end.
Stay tuned
> So the fact that the first emissaries Rodrigues met after being sworn in were the Russian, Chinese and Iranian ambassadors may suggest that Venezuela has been assured of their support and Delcy has been instructed to promise Trump everything to buy time but to deliver nothing while they plan a coordinated blow before the month’s end.
Making “peace” to buy time … sounds Merkel-esque, doesn’t it?
Perhaps the Russians and Chinese are finally learning.
The lack of scrutiny by the media on operational details is screaming here. The dog that is not barking. Let us not forget the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the volume of nonsense leaked out of Washington about the incident. In reality Pakistani intelligence rendered Bin Laden up, his security quietly left the building, and the US troops sent in met no resistance whatsoever. It took Symour Hershe’s reporting to reveal the truth.
I think we are seeing a carbon copy here. Maduro was rendered up, by the Venezualan state as a whole I think, possibly including himself. This “raid” was a prearranged force theater, as much to justify the costs of the massive military buildup if nothing else. The “kayfabe” around this likely meant to convince the Venezualan population first and foremost so they don’t smell a rat (that will certainly fail). The “cuban guards” were either killed by the Venezualans themselves, or, were indeed the ones who ferried Maduro to the rendezvouz and their exit.
Yet the indictment charges are weak. And don’t forget Trump ahs only been in office for a year.
The backroom particulars aside, if Venezuala has indeed “made a deal”, it means the country is destined for uttermost chaos. The CIA et al will use the betrayal or even the suggestion of it to further rip the country apart Syria-style. Division into cantons, and the population at the mercy of corpo gangs.
And looming over all of this of course, is Israel and it’s wants, the other dog that is not barking. Venezuala may be Iraq in more ways than one.
The scuttlebutt* within the last 8 hours is that the interim president Rodriguez has ordered the arrest of Major General Tábata on account of treason. Allegedly he informed the USA of the location of Maduro and ordered the Caracas air defenses to stand down.
* unconfirmed comments referring Venezuelan sources
I will just park this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
2003 the US attacked Iraqi Republican guards with Apaches. The Iraqis were armed with small arms and antiquated AA weapons.
Of the 30 Apaches that made it there, 1 was shot down and the other 29 were damaged. All but one were badly damaged, and the unit was taken out for a month. The Pentagon’s assessment of the fiasco was that they were very lucky.
The Apache is an attack helicopter. The Chinook is a giant target. Well aimed small arm fire can take them out. Drones can take them out. Helicopters are incredibly vulnerable.
So… the idea that you’d fly a bunch of Chinooks into Venezuela in SINGLE FILE, when the Venezuelans have a range of anti air weapons (including manpads), without being very confident that nobody was going to attack you, is laughable.
Apache is a problematic system, too complex….. In one deployment in the 1990’s two were lost during local familiarization training due to “hitting things”.
Delta force is carried by MH series helicopters; the gunships are likely Cobra upgrades the USMC has adhered to. They are equipped with long in use, successful countermeasures against MANPADS,
The Delta force operation did not need SEAD/DEAD, that was affected to give the expensive “fast movers” a role in the play. They have to get the money to keep their 45% mission ready rates.
The flight profile both ingress and escape is such that ground fire is hard to mass and near impossible to get a lock.
I think any analysis that require the US side to be sophisticated, or devious, runs into a significant problem. They’re morons. And any analysis that requires a deal has a similar problem – they have a history of breaking deals (including with Venezuela).
I suspect the reality is simpler. Some people were bribed (exploiting divisions among the Venezuelans), for whatever reason the CIA decided that the VP was the best choice for the interim and Maduro is just making the best of it. Probably doesn’t hurt that the charges against him are idiotic, so either he walks, or he goes to jail seen as a martyr/political prisoner.
Things will continue until Trump loses interest, or gets frustrated.
Three scenarios in this article, variants in others, more in comments. Maybe someday the skies will clear, maybe not. Does the snatch of Maduro mean that blasting small boats for the fun of it is over?
In my eyes, what gives credibility to the PsyOp view is that Trump’s demands – and his claims – are so over-the-top, that they seemingly cannot be anything else. Like, Delcy has agreed to everything we want, she will give us all their oil, etc. It can only be done to discredit the Chavista movement and puts Rodrigues at a very binary crossroads: if she is seen as doing anything to go along with this she will be seen as a traitor and sellout to her people and thus illegitimate. To preserve her legitimacy, she is forced to defy, so any deals with Trump would have to be covert. But Trump likes big flashy victories. It’s likely that this Maduro removal is all he actually needs, for now.
Ok, so I am going to push back on a couple of things.
First – the Cubans. Cuba has published the names, ranks and ages of the 32 dead (e.g. https://www.cubaheadlines.com/articles/317969). They include:
– 2 colonels, 1 lieutenant colonel, 4 majors, 4 captains.
– 2 persons in their 60s (62 and 67), 8 persons in their 50s (50-59), 10 persons in their 40s (42-49). Only one individual is in their 20s (26).
– 11 of the persons listed are from the Cuban Army (the rest are from the Interior Ministry); but 9 of the 11 are listed as “retired soldier” – almost all of them in their 40s or 50s, so basically “unofficial officers”. This is typically what you do when you want to insert your military personnel without officially so doing, e.g. to crew a weapon system (hello, “Ukrainian” Patriots…).
It seems to me that many, if not most of these people were not guards, but rather military and intel advisors. You do not put a 62-year old colonel or a 59-year old “retired soldier” on bodyguard duty, as a rule, except in some kind of a supervisory role. And if these were advisors, then logically they must have died not from the Delta raid on the palace, but from missile attacks on some of the Venezuelan bases around Caracas (there photos of at least a few buildings at various air bases crumped, and if most of them slept in one of those buildings, well, there you are). Cuba, of course, is not going to confirm or deny either way, not if they have any sense. And this does lend a bit more credence to the “inside job” angle, i.e. the Americans had to have found out somehow where these Cubans were staying.
Two – people keep running around with the “5000 manpads” thing. Ok.
How many of these missiles were sitting in warehouses, to be used to resupply the troops in case of an invasion?
How many of these missiles were distributed to units outside of Caracas?
How many of these were actually a) in Caracas and b) in the vicinity of the presidential palace, as opposed to, say, on an airbase close to the city’s outskirts?
We can surmise that there were no significant military units at or around the palace on the night in question – the Deltas would have had more than a few injured otherwise. Are we supposing that someone decided to arm presidential bodyguards, your basic “Clint Eastwood-Rene Russo” Secret Service types (that’s an actual movie, by the way) with surface to air missiles? Why? And if so, how many would they have had? And even if there had been a military unit stationed at the palace – a company of soldiers, say, because you’re not cramming a 400-strong infantry battalion in there except in the event of an actual invasion. How many SAMs does an infantry company have as standard, during ostensible peacetime? Two? Five?
And then, of course, there is the little matter of orders. I know nothing about how the Venezuelan army handles things, but as a rule, if a lowly sergeant or lieutenant – in peacetime – on guard duty spots 10-20 unidentified helos flying towards him, he does not simply fire whatever weapon is at hand; he radios up the chain of command, and asks for orders. If the chain of command at 2:01 in the morning happens to be asleep in their beds – that’s the “incompetence” version of events – or is in cahoots with the Deltas, that’s the “betrayal” version – then those orders never come, and the 5 SAMs are never utilized. Or maybe one-two are shot off in the last second for minimal effect (one helo was damaged somehow, after all).
To transition from the hypothetical to the real, when the Russians went into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, for at least the first 24 hours their helicopters ran around the place with relatively little resistance, I think only 1 bird was definitively lost (i.e. photographs exist). Per at least a few videos, literally hovering up to within pistol range of Ukrainian army vehicles, including air defense vehicles, before blasting them to pieces. And the Gostomel landing, involving dozens of helicopters, went off without a hitch, notwithstanding some Ukrainian units stationed nearby – who took a number of hours to figure out what’s going on, and start attacking the Russian paras. This is against a country which, at the time, had miles more air defense capability than Venezuela.
In other words, simply having 5000 Stingers or Strelas or whatever the hell they have, means very little unless we have a coherent sense of where these missiles were, and how many were actually combat capable. The real question that should be asked is – were there any military units stationed within a 10-minute response time of the presidential palace; if so, then why did they not respond (incompetence or treason?); if not, why not (incompetence or treason?).
Three. In yesterday’s links the article “Trump’s drug” by Julian MacFarlane includes a hypothesis advanced by “some guy” running the Latin American Center in St. Petersburg. I quote his quote, without necessarily endorsing this hypothesis:
To be sure, Russian “experts” on various TV channels often veer into conspirology, particularly when it comes to some far-away foreign lands. On the other hand, we’ve literally just had this year a) Iran being attacked when they thought they were about to have negotiations with the Americans; b) Hamas negotiators being attacked when they arrived at the meeting place. Is it really that much of a stretch to suggest the Americans somehow pretended to negotiate with Maduro to lull him into a false sense of security?
To recap.
I am a big believer in human incompetence, especially in matters of war, since these often entail a great deal of “friction” (per Clausewitz) and human psychology. So it is just possible that no-one expected a raid like this – for all we know, Maduro might have decided against stationing troops at the palace – and there was not enough time for the Venezuelan commanders to figure out what was happening and move troops to respond. Especially if they had been expecting a “27-thousand Marines” type of invasion, in which case there are probably other places for troops to be defending. Or if you believe some of the stuff Rybar has been posting on his LatAm-centric channel, suggesting that – allegedly per the Russian advisors stationed in Venezuela – the mighty Venezuelan military could give Keystone Kops a run for their money. [He’s really been flogging that horse pretty hard of late. One wonders.]
I am also a big believer in human indecency and venality, which means that yes, it is just possible that someone in the Venezuelan government might have decided to give Maduro up. Maybe even out of good intentions, you know, the old “kill Hitler and make peace with the Anglo-Americans” thing from 1944.
Finally, I believe we simply do not have enough information at the moment to definitively discount the “lulled into complacence by negotiations” hypothesis. Especially as we do not have precise information on who said what to whom during the talks between Trump and Maduro – and relying on various anonymous leaks and social media posts kind of reminds me of the recent nonsense around whether the Russians had written, proposed or endorsed the “28 points”…
To me, this will come down to actions of the Venezuelan government in the coming weeks and months. If the Maduro raid came off as a result of incompetence or a false sense of security – then they shall somehow fail to cooperate with any and all US demands, and we’ll know. Or, if they instead start “making deals” with the US, then that will lend more credence to the “betrayal” theory, again, possibly via a road paved with good intentions, as in, maybe we’ll give him something and he’ll leave us alone. But either way, we have to wait before things become apparent.
Thanks for the summary of information. The Cuban casualty list is really surprising. This really feels like the “perfidious decapitations” that Israel (and apparently US) have been carrying out in the Middle East (and the Cuban advisors, who may well have been the only competent and reliable cadres in Venezuela given all that I’d been hearing) may well have been as much the main target as Maduro himself, I wonder.
“clandestine and mass struggle for socialism”
To me this speaks to a group which doesn’t operate under the western concept of “leader” as someone particularly special, endowed with some kind of power or ability. So in other words, leaders in this context are expected to be taken, captured or killed, the organization is structured to continue operations accordingly.
In this context it would have been honorable, consistent even, for Maduro to discuss and agree in advance with his colleagues, brothers and sisters in the struggle, that orders will be given not to resist when/if Trump, Rubio and Hegseth launched some kind of birdbrained scheme to take him out. He would go willingly, others can take his place and continue the struggle.
And perhaps his protective guard knew, had orders but, honorably, refused to follow them. And perhaps also Cilia Flores knew but resisted, got a US taxpayer sponsored beating for it.
And, far from this being an intelligence operation or win, the US was then informed there was a stand down, orders not to resist.
Only then did the US go in, knowing there was to be no resistance. If there was expectation of resistance they probably would have stayed home.
No planning whatsoever on the CIA side, none of the usual CIA methods. No need to turn anyone, no buying or selling of souls, no traitors needed. No work done on the American side, whatsoever, to produce this outcome. The complicated part was calculating how much gas was needed to get from point A to B. The fireworks were thrown in only cuz they needed theatrics, something had to be blown up.
That’s my take.
The other point in Delcy’s favor is that she can promise Trump the oil, but unless he ponies up hundreds of billions in investment dollars (MAGA would love that), there will not be any significant oil in Trump’s remaining lifespan. Meanwhile, China and Russia are suing the US in multiple overseas venues for compensation (from overseas assets) for any broken contracts. I can’t recall where I heard this – I know that is what Russia is doing wrt the EU central bank seizure. The US has trillions in assets in foreign banks around the world that are at risk of seizure – and Trump’s pirate talk is aiding the lawsuits against the US.
Meanwhile, Col Wilkerson on Judge Nap reports Russia has seized a dozen full US merchant vessels. The cost of shipping is going to inflate.
If there is a psyop there around, then it may tie with rumors that some inner groups are at odds with each others, and rumors of betrayal of Maduro by some, or of the VP giving too much away to the USA, may cause internal violence and revolt. And there are a few anti-bolivarian hardliners in the shadow, as usual.
So, really, if it’s a psycop, considering the widely spread comments that extracting Venezuelan oil is very costly even for US Big Oil, then the goal isn’t regime change or a compliant new president. The real goal would most probably be chaos (like what Israel actually aimed for in Iraq, Syria and now Iran) – so that nobody can benefit from Venezuela’s oil. It’s making sure BRICS as a whole are deprived of any hope of getting these reserves for themselves for the foreseeable future. That oil prices may go up may be seen as a bonus by US Big Oil. Of course, the irony is that would benefit Russia a lot, too.
But I’ve no idea if there is a psyop ongoing, and what actually happened. I’m just thinking about what would be the most logical goal if there was one.
The thirty two dead Cubans asks some serious questions:
– Why was one third of them high ranking officers?
– Why were no wounded casualties counted?
– If the probable wounded Cubans murdered who killed them, they Americans or the Venezuelans?
Sadly yes. If they were really any kayfabe being played out, some parties would have had to be kept “out of the loop” for it to feel real. Unfortunately, I suspect those were the Cubans.
I can’t help but think that the dismissal of Machado, that erstwhile darling of the Venezuelan “resistance” and the cavalier manner in which that dismissal was conducted, averring that “she doesn’t have the support” — doesn’t have the support of whom? The Venezuelan people? It’s various elite factions? The US administration? — is important.
I would like to know more about this.