Donald Trump has always favoured grand spectacles to project the image of an all-powerful United States under his leadership. The raid on Caracas was one such attempt. However, contrary to the impression created by sections of the American media, the operation did not take place without resistance. Initial narratives of an internal collapse and a swift takeover are now being challenged by emerging reports that suggest Venezuela continues to resist external intervention. Far from being a clean or decisive operation, this episode risks becoming another Vietnam or Afghanistan for the United States.
Latin America’s history offers sobering lessons. Many countries in the region have experienced prolonged insurgencies, political instability, and social trauma following American interventions carried out in the name of “democracy.” These interventions rarely delivered democratic stability; instead, they entrenched dependency, violence, and elite domination aligned with Western interests.
Reports from Caracas now indicate large-scale destruction and civilian casualties resulting from US bombing. Early claims in Western corporate media that President Nicolás Maduro had been captured without resistance are increasingly being exposed as misleading. As more details emerge, it is reported that 32 Cuban revolutionary guards, who were part of the security detail protecting the Venezuelan president, were killed during the operation. Cuba has declared two days of mourning for those it describes as heroes who sacrificed their lives in defence of a friendly nation. Cuba’s influence across Latin America continues to be rooted in a long tradition of international solidarity, even as it remains vulnerable to becoming the next target of US intervention.
This episode also highlights a deeper reality: for major powers, countries and regions often become mere pieces on a geopolitical chessboard. Yet it is often smaller nations such as Cuba that demonstrate resilience, courage, and commitment to principles of sovereignty and solidarity. Those who speak endlessly about “democracy” must confront the contradiction between rhetoric and reality. The dominant versions of democracy promoted by Western powers frequently serve the interests of a corrupt global elite, facilitating hegemony, occupation, and resource extraction. Classical definitions of democracy in political science are rendered hollow when confronted with repeated illegal interventions that violate international law.
The geopolitical ripples of the Caracas operation are already visible. Denmark has reportedly gone on alert, with its prime minister urging the United States to respect Danish sovereignty. The issue is not whether American military power is formidable; it is whether such power, exercised through illegal raids staged largely for cameras and domestic political messaging, can deliver strategic outcomes. Similar displays of force have failed elsewhere, including Iran. The world is increasingly witnessing a reconfiguration of influence zones. In Latin America today, Chinese and Russian influence is arguably stronger than that of the United States. The message from Washington appears clear: this region is being asserted as a US domain, with no space for rival powers. Whether Russia and China will accept these “terms and conditions” remains to be seen, and much will depend on the eventual outcome of what is now being called “Operation Caracas.”
Europe’s response has been largely muted. There is a growing sense that the United States will eventually move to occupy Greenland, with little meaningful resistance, and that the European Union will acquiesce in the name of a so-called “greater democratic interest.” Such compliance would further expose the fragility of Europe’s claimed strategic autonomy.
Left parties, organisations, and trade unions have protested against the US attack on Venezuela, but the response of the Indian government has been deeply disappointing. Many have described it as timid. India now stands out as the only BRICS nation to have issued such a muted reaction. With India set to assume the BRICS presidency this year, this silence raises serious questions about its comfort level within the grouping. India’s historical leadership of the Global South, exemplified by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi hosting the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Delhi in March 1983 with over 100 participating countries, appears to have been deliberately sidelined. That summit, marked by her warm exchange with President Fidel Castro and a standing ovation from world leaders, symbolised India’s independent global voice. Today, the current leadership appears far more comfortable aligning with Western liberal democracies, even as liberalism itself faces serious erosion within India.
Regardless of the responses of individual governments, Latin America is clearly entering a difficult and uncertain phase. While many countries were once Spanish colonies, Spain today stands with other nations in opposing the onslaught on Venezuela. The region’s long history of insurgencies suggests that governance under conditions of instability will be increasingly challenging. Global corporations, too, will find it difficult to operate smoothly in societies marked by chaos, resistance, and political uncertainty.
Encouragingly, protest movements are emerging not only in Latin America but also in Europe and the United States against this blatant aggression. It is time for people of conscience to stand together and speak out. The unfolding debates at the United Nations will be important, as will the legal proceedings in American courts concerning Nicolás Maduro. Yet what matters most is the fate of the people of Venezuela and neighbouring countries now facing the threat of further intervention in the name of American national interest.
We stand in solidarity with the people of Venezuela and with all those who resist capitalist imperialism, which continues to threaten world peace and the livelihoods of millions who depend on shared natural resources.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments