The failure of the US strategy in Venezuela | The G …

From Caracas

The badault must be brief, the Maduro government was not in a position to resist. On this certainty, the United States launched a strategy to overthrow it: they built Juan Guaidó in the 2.0 presidency, conferred on him a governmental fiction, an international recognition, an articulated narration between the media, an acceleration of the economic sanctions. at different levels. From the superimposition of the variables, it was necessary to give the different results, until reaching the forced negotiation or the exit.

The course of events was not as it appeared on paper. The first and most important was the collapse of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (Fanb), an essential element that had to happen and failed. For this, a series of tactics have been downloaded, ranging from internal conspiracy with the support of dollars, visas and guarantees, to the latent threat strategy of a possible US intervention. A combination of bluffing, that is to say from pistol discharged in pointed tip, with dates of condensation to try the break, as it was on February 23rd.

The second event that should occur, with a lower definition capacity for the purpose, is the mbadive support of Guaidó in the streets. His speech indicates that 90% of the population supports him. The images of his ability to mobilize show that the first impulse of January 23 – the day of his self-recognition recognized by a tweet of Donald Trump – has lost its strength. One of the main reasons is the crisis of expectations because the promise of an immediate result has not occurred. Another is that it was an artificial, media and diplomatic construction, which has not been invoked beyond the historical social basis of law, marked by living conditions that are decided, geographical, material, idiosyncratic. and imaginary. The opposition is too similar to itself.

The third point was the attempt to overthrow the popular sectors towards the streets, for which the power outages and the resulting lack of water were the most favored provoked scenario. The result was not expected either: the enlarged image was that of a majority seeking to solve problems, individually, collectively, expressed in government. The demonstrations, directed almost entirely by the right, were small and without radiation capacity.

Each of these variables has return points. The crisis of expectations is due, for example, to the realization that the Fanb was not broken, that Guaidó speaks of an immediacy that does not occur and the conclusion that if none of the three results is given, it remains only to be asked for the international intervention led by the United States. This same interventionist discourse also affects those who might see Guaidó's proposal as an alternative to the current political and economic situation. Inviting majorities to build an international force faces obvious obstacles.

The overthrow of Maduro does not seem possible in the report of the national forces. He showed that the badault will not be brief and that Chavez, who is more than a government, is in a position to resist. If it was a national problem, Guaidó would lose strength until it was included on the list of opposition leaders marked by the weight of defeat. The problem is that this new coup attempt was built on a point of no return: an American construction. from a facade of parallel government, later recognized by the European Union, Britain, Israel, Canada, right-wing governments of Latin America. What to do with Guaidó if the plan does not give results because of the initial miscalculation?

The question is for the United States, its current administration in the Donald Trump-neo-conservative combination, and what is called the deep state, that is, the actual power structures and that constitute and guarantee the strategic development of the United States. in the geopolitical conflict. A defeat in Venezuela would be attributed to the administration, in a pre-election period, and would be double: the permanence of Maduro, that is to say the inability to align the key point of the Latin American continent on its involvement in the international scene.

The latter has taken a particular strength in recent days, in the voices and tweets of various US spokesmen, such as Elliot Abrams, special leader for Venezuela, Mike Pompeo, state secretary, John Bolton, advisor in national security, and Craig Faller, Commander South Command Their various statements shaped a narrative that places Venezuela as the base of operations of Russia, Iran, Cuba, and China, and the Maduro government as subordinate to each of these governments and their respective intelligence services, military in particular. first three.

On the construction of this American scenario announced the next steps. Pompeo will visit Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Colombia, Abrams in Spain and Portugal, and convened the third meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address the problem of Venezuela. The objectives for each of the movements have not yet been announced, even if it is possible to foresee that the agreements will have a private dimension and a public dimension. In the second case, it might be to move forward in what appears to be an American goal: to declare the Venezuelan government as a transnational crime organization and to clbadify the "collectives" – a form of organization. Popular Chavismo – as terrorist groups, Bolton said, "undermines Venezuela's constitution and territorial integrity." New possible actions emerge from each element.

This increase in pressures, blockages, isolation does not pose yet, beyond the repetition of "all options are on the table", the possibility of military intervention. The same Abrams returned away from this hypothesis last Thursday. How do you then climb to reach the result with the combination of these actions? USA It must define the means, the capacities of the operations on the territory, the internal and diplomatic agreements. On this last point, the position of the European Union, on behalf of Federica Mogherini, states that it must "prepare the ground for free and transparent presidential elections to be held as soon as possible".

Would the United States be willing? to a negotiated result with a possible permanence of Maduro? For the moment, that does not seem to be the case, nor is a defeat in Venezuela, which, as they have already explained, would be geopolitical. Tomorrow will be held the meeting of the Security Council on this point. The right in turn called mobilizations. The painting is always moving.