In a previous post (#1403596), @Aardvark raises some questions, interesting ones that, as someone living surrounded by venezuelans and knowing something about the topic, we have to understand something deeper. For much time, Latin America was treated (still) as a geopolitical piece. Economic integrations, trade liberalization, democratic transitions appeared to have neutralized this competition.
The capture of Nicolas Maduro was something that broke the ambiguity that has defined Venezuela's crisis. The international community, for years made sanctions, diplomatic pressures, selective engagement and condemnations. The regime survived through several paths, including repression and external backing. The capture signals something harder than the legal framing: this is not black and white stuff, it's something beyond.
This is not about an individual leader. Maduro's detentions represents the collapse of governing equilibrium that endured precisely because no single actor was willing to absorb the whole resolution. Now there are obvious questions: who will fill the power vacuum, what are the conditions, what is the price. Also, exposes the fragility of the system backed by inertia, patronage networks and strategic tolerance. Venezuela was a manageable crisis and now is a strategic contest. Every global actor is now positioning and taking place in the global arena.
A step back: the logic behindA step back: the logic behind
Western Hemisphere was always the US backyard. Since the 19th century, Washignton took special interest preventing other european colonies to consolidate here. If you want law, the Monroe Doctrine (1823) was the first step and then Roosevelt Corollary (1904) shaped its modern way, legitimizing US actions against foreign intrusion in the region. This worked during the 20th century and now, since China is coming for our region, this logic woke up...again.
China is the greatest trade partnerChina is the greatest trade partner
Beijing has become the primary trade partner for Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela, Chile and Argentina. From loans to infrastructure projects, China asked also energy and mineral extraction. The transactional part is huge: long-terms loans, commodities agreements, port constructions, railways, logistic hubs. China offered diversification of supply chains, LATAM agreed to it. But far for being neutral, China also become the new partner of all these countries, they don't come fo free, the long-term influence is their new tool in the diplomacy.
When you debt is so high, you have to play with your new landlord. Venezuela was this country.
The energy is more than commodityThe energy is more than commodity
Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, and that was their political leverage and their strategic asset that worked for decades. Venezuela has this type of heavy, sulfur-rich oil, requiring a refining capacity that US has. This created mutual dependence and persisted even when these countries don't talk each other. China's engagement diversified Venezuela's option but didn't eliminate the dependence. Oil-backed loans and long-term supply agreements tied future productions with a set of obligations. Energy is not the problem per se. Instead, it functions as a hard boundary, setting maximalist strategies and incentivinzing indirect pressure.
The narco is (not) the problemThe narco is (not) the problem
This is (for me) the weakest of all things. This says that Venezuela is taking drugs to US and making deals through the Cartel de los Soles, which existence is unknown even today. When we look at the statistics, Venezuela is not the primary corridor, major cocaine production comes from Mexico and Colombia, with Europe constituting a major destination via maritime traffficking.
See right there? That's Colombia, the main point. Venezuela is not. Source: UNDOC
A more analytically sound framework views Venezuela through four interacting layers:
- Structural competition between the United States and China
- Regional strategy, including energy flows and logistics control
- Domestic fragility, shaping feasibility and risk
- Narrative justification, enabling political legitimacy
None of these layers alone explains the crisis. Together, they clarify why Venezuela has reemerged as a strategic pressure point—and why simplistic explanations fail.
Mistake? (My view)Mistake? (My view)
Nicolas Maduro's capture was (possibly) a mistake. It removes the ambiguity but puts too much volatility. It confirms, also, the power competition between Washington and Beijing. Venezuela’s future will not be determined solely in Washington or Beijing. It will emerge from the interaction between global rivalry, regional doctrine, energy constraints, and domestic reconstruction—or further decay. Understanding this complexity goes beyond an academic exercise.