The Venezuelan revolution is still standing: dismantling Trump's psychological operation
Tras The illegal operation by the United States against Venezuela has been accompanied by a deliberate disinformation campaign to sow doubt about the survival of the country's revolution.
MANOLO DE LOS SANTOS
The events of the last 72 hours represent a qualitative escalation in the 25 years of regime change operations by the United States government against the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. execution of “Operation Absolute Resolution”"by the United States, targeted bombing and the illegal kidnapping of President Nicolás MaduroThis has created a moment of profound crisis, but also of profound clarity. For revolutionary forces worldwide, concrete analysis is required to combat disinformation, understand the objective balance of power, and chart a path forward.
The objective conditions of the US military intervention
In the wake of the operation, much has been said about the unparalleled military capabilities of the American empire. But Marxists must begin by understanding the political balance of power. Upon closer examination, the fact that the Trump administration had to carry out an operation in this manner is also evidence of the political weaknesses of imperialism, both in Venezuela and internationally, as well as at home.
The Trump administration's decision to conduct this operation, rather than a full-scale invasion, is a testament to the power of organized popular resistance. Two main factors limited the United States' options:
- The mass mobilization in Venezuela: President Maduro's call to massively expand the Bolivarian militias This led to more than eight million citizens arming themselves. This, combined with Venezuela’s professional army, which has not fractured, created a scenario in which any ground invasion would degenerate into a protracted people’s war, with unacceptable political and material costs for the United States. A strong base of support for Chavismo and the Bolivarian Revolution remains, a fact the Trump administration tacitly acknowledged when it said there had to be “realism.” They admitted that the Venezuelan right wing lacks the necessary support to govern the country.
- Internal opposition in the United States: Widespread public rejection of military interventionwhich covers the entire political spectrum, including important sectors from Trump's own base, made a large-scale deployment politically untenable.
Faced with these obstacles, the White House opted for a decapitation strategy: using its overwhelming technological and military superiority to cut off the head of the revolutionary state and thus avoid a quagmire. By choosing a “surgical” strike, involving more than 150 aircraft and elite Delta Force units, instead of a war to destroy the Venezuelan state, they are tacitly acknowledging that it is here to stay. After two failed and costly military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has sought the path of least resistance, preferring bombing campaigns and kidnappings that can serve as political “trophies.” But beneath Trump’s hyper-emotional style and hyper-aggressive military tactics—reminiscent of earlier eras of “gunboat diplomacy” in Latin America—there is also a reluctance to go so far as a war to change the regime. It is a return to 19th-century gangster imperialism, which imposes concessions at gunpoint. This is what Trump really means by “running” Venezuela.
The asymmetry of power and the question of “betrayal”
Although the Venezuelan masses, party, and state were prepared to counter a large-scale US invasion with a decentralized people's war of resistance, no country on the planet currently has the preparation or capacity to withstand the overwhelming and brutal force of a US special operation like the one carried out. No nation, however morally justified, popularly mobilized, or militarily capable, can currently match the concentrated, high-tech, lethal force of the US war machine in this regard. The coordinated mass bombing, the disabling of communications, electricity, and air defenses, followed by the incursion into President Maduro's secure residence, was an application of this asymmetric power. The heroic resistance of the security detail, composed of Venezuelan and Cuban internationalist forces, which resulted in 50 deaths in combat, confirms that this was an act of war, and not a "surrender," despite all previous claims.
This clearly refutes the idea that multipolarity at the current stage can serve as a mechanism to protect the sovereignty of states in the Global South. The United States, with the world's largest military budget, the most extensive network of military bases, and technological superiority, has reaffirmed its unipolar hegemony in the realm of military power.
The subsequent psychological warfare operation has sought to sow disunity by alleging “treason” or “crimes against the nation” within the revolutionary leadership, particularly targeting Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. This narrative lacks evidence, appears entirely false, and is also a classic tactic of US military strategy and psychological operations.
The Rodríguez family's revolutionary credentials are etched in struggle. Their father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, 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 (president of the National Assembly) emerged from this tradition of clandestine and mass struggle for socialism. President Maduro himself was a member of the same organization. To suggest that there was betrayal among them, or a capitulation born of cowardice or opportunism, is to ignore four decades of shared political formation, persecution, and leadership under relentless imperialist aggression, as well as the class character of their revolutionary leadership.
The resilience of the Bolivarian State and the tactic of withdrawal
Immediately afterward, the Venezuelan state demonstrated its resilience and stability. Contrary to decades of US propaganda proclaiming its collapse, the political and constitutional chain of command remained intact. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, along with Diosdado Cabello (Minister of the Interior), Vladimir Padrino (Minister of Defense), and the core leadership of the PSUV and the armed forces, sought to stabilize institutions, reclaim public space by calling on the masses to mobilize in protest and demand proof of life for President Maduro. Although Trump initially asserted that the United States would “run the country,” Marco Rubio was forced to backtrack. The functional continuity of the PSUV leadership compelled this rhetorical retreat. Delcy Rodríguez, as interim leader, refuted the US narrative: “There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros… we will never again be a colony of any empire.”
In his hasty retreat, Rubio even went so far as to publicly discredit his carefully handpicked opposition figure, María Corina Machado, thereby de facto recognizing the Bolivarian State as the sole governing entity. Subsequent statements from Caracas calling for dialogue and negotiations with the United States should therefore be understood not as a capitulation, but as a withdrawal under duress. The objective conditions are dire.
The rightward shifts in Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Bolivia, and the wavering of progressive governments in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, mean that Venezuela faces political isolation in Latin America. The material and political support it has received from allied governments in Russia and China is clearly insufficient to deter US imperialism from further aggression. The ongoing naval blockade and the existential threat posed by renewed US military action remain the most significant challenges.
In his first statement on January 3, Trump insinuated that Delcy Rodríguez had expressed her willingness to cooperate with the United States and meet its demands. Some on the left believed him, interpreting this as a sign of Delcy's capitulation. Her press conference that same day reaffirmed Venezuela's sovereignty and its own demands of the United States, including the release of President Maduro. The following day, after chairing a meeting of the party leadership and government ministers—during which the unity of the party, the masses, and the military was reaffirmed—Decy issued a message to the world, clearly directed at Trump and the US government. She called on the US government to cooperate with Venezuela for peace and development, but on terms of sovereignty and equality. This should not be interpreted as a betrayal or a capitulation. In fact, this statement echoes all the statements made by Maduro in the last three months and throughout the years of tensions with the United States. Maduro himself consistently called for diplomacy and negotiation to avoid a full-blown war, and had already offered to negotiate comprehensive economic agreements with the United States regarding Venezuela's oil and mineral resources. If the Venezuelan state were to sign such agreements in the future—now with Maduro kidnapped—it would not constitute treason.
In 1918, Lenin and the Bolsheviks signed the famous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, ceding vast territories to imperialist Germany to save the fledgling Soviet Republic from annihilation. He was accused of selling out the revolution by the "Left Communists" within his party, but he likened this compromise to handing over his wallet to an "armed bandit" in exchange for his life. This concession led to a break in the alliance with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who accused him of "treason." The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries launched an armed struggle against the Bolshevik government, including an assassination attempt against Lenin as a "traitor to the revolution," which left him seriously wounded in September 1918. Two months later, Germany surrendered, and the Soviet Republic regained all the territory lost at Brest-Litovsk.
Today, Venezuela faces a similar “Brest-Litovsk moment.” Isolated by right-wing regional governments and facing a near-total blockade, the revolutionary core is prioritizing the survival of the state as a rear base for future struggle. In this context, the priority of the PSUV and the Venezuelan government is the preservation of revolutionary state power. As the late Commander Hugo Chávez reflected after the failure of the 1992 rebellion: “Today we must retreat in order to advance tomorrow.” This may entail open negotiations with the United States government that would allow US companies greater stakes in and access to Venezuelan oil production under conditions that largely benefit US interests, among other temporary concessions in the economic sphere, to secure political space and avoid total annihilation. The goal is to maintain Venezuela and Cuba as indispensable rear bases for socialism and anti-imperialism during a period of retreat for socialist forces in the Global South.
Trump He claims victory: “We are in charge.”He does this primarily for domestic political purposes. But that doesn't make it real. Incapable of carrying out genuine regime change, he is essentially using words to falsely declare that "the regime has changed." New York Times And other corporate media outlets are publishing misleading headlines and articles that support Trump's narrative that he "chose" Delcy Rodríguez because she is "docile." No socialist should instinctively accept bourgeois propaganda.
The revolution has suffered a severe blow, but its grip on state power persists. Although the coming period will test its cohesion and strategic creativity, it has consistently demonstrated a remarkable ability to navigate and overcome major crises. Our role from within the United States is to continue building internal opposition to the Empire's plans, counter disinformation campaigns, and do our part to shift the balance of power so that revolutionaries in the Global South have the space to chart their own course, free from threats and coercion. The revolution is not a person; it is a social process and a mass phenomenon. President Maduro is in a New York jail cell, but the Bolivarian project lives on in the streets of Caracas and in the Miraflores Presidential Palace.
Manolo De Los Santos He is the executive director of The People's Forum and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social ResearchHis articles appear regularly in Monthly Review, Peoples Dispatch, CounterPunch, La Jornada, and other progressive media outlets. He recently co-edited Viviremos: Venezuela vs. Hybrid War (LeftWord, 2020).
This article is published in collaboration with People's Dispatch
