“Lest We Forget”: Notes on the Imperialist Aggression Against Venezuela

Ten days after the imperialist aggression against Venezuela—an operation that ended with the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and National Assembly deputy and First Lady Cilia Flores, as well as claiming the lives of more than 120 people, leaving dozens of civilians and military personnel wounded, and causing significant infrastructure damage—we have some elements that allow us to analyze and attempt to understand what happened, and to share, insofar as possible, a very general assessment.

It is essential to identify the roles played by each of the actors involved in this event and to assess both domestic and international responses to an occurrence that, undeniably, represents a circumstance to which the country has never been subjected before. In fact, no country in Latin America—no South American capital—had been the target of such a brutal and direct military operation by the world’s leading imperialist military power in more than 200 years. International doctrine expressly prohibits this type of unilateral act of war. Therefore, the scale of what happened in Venezuela on January 3 still has—and will continue to have—far-reaching repercussions. There are also many questions yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, it is also possible to draw some conclusions.

The first conclusion is that this represents the first act of enforcement of the National Security Statement (NSS) announced a few months ago by the United States administration, and is clear proof that Latin America and the Caribbean will indeed be—and already are—the central target of imperial ambition. This ambition demands swift action to secure control that would give Washington an advantage over its main rival, China. The “Trump Corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine unleashed its burden of violence and death on Venezuela, laying bare its cynicism and cold-bloodedness.

Because Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, occupies a key geographic and geopolitical position on the northern edge of the Caribbean Sea, and possesses a vast array of strategic resources essential to the global capitalist system—and especially to the ongoing war—it has become the most prized spoils in U.S. colonial ambition. A fundamental fact for understanding this operation is what it means to defeat a political project of sovereignty and self-determination that has endured for more than 25 years. Despite its ups and downs and its contradictions, that project—alongside Cuba—represents the main barrier preventing the region from being fully controlled by the U.S. agenda.

What happened in Venezuela, therefore, has dimensions that are very difficult to quantify domestically, beyond the pain, the loss, and the impact it is having on the country’s internal dynamics. This is a country that, over the past three years, has shown high rates of growth and economic balance, as well as peace and institutional stability—conditions that were felt and valued by the population at large. Those of us who were in Venezuela in recent days were able to experience first-hand the impact of an operation of such magnitude on a country that was calm and at peace, and that had never before suffered an attack on that scale. We shared this feeling of helplessness and indignation. Internally, the repercussions will continue to unfold over a long period of time, because it will not be easy to have witnessed—indeed, to have been part of—such a brutal operation of aggression and terrorism as the one experienced by Caracas and other cities in Venezuela.

Those of us who were there—especially those who live in the regions that were struck by the attack—suffered not only material losses, but also a profound psychological, emotional, and moral impact. The scale of what happened is far too great to expect, just ten days later, to have a clear—and above all serious—assessment of what it represents and will continue to represent.

The second important conclusion is that, although the Venezuelan government was expecting a military operation at any moment, it never anticipated that such an operation would involve an attack of this magnitude: planes, helicopters, missiles, and drones striking the very heart of the city of Caracas. More than 150 military vessels and aircraft were deployed inside and outside the country. All communication and defence systems were neutralised, leaving millions of residents of the capital and other regions effectively unprotected. It is still unknown how many U.S. military and intelligence personnel were mobilised for this act of war against a country that was asleep. This entire scenario culminated in the kidnapping and transfer to U.S. territory of the president of the republic and the first combatant.

That action, of course, shaped the government’s response and organization in the early hours of January 3. I admit there were many unknowns about how events would unfold and what the reaction would be. However, the government not only regrouped quickly in terms of its internal organization, but also acted in accordance with constitutionally established procedures. This prevented a power vacuum and allowed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume her constitutional role as acting president. Together with the cabinet, she adopted all the measures necessary to ensure the continuity of the executive branch, assess the situation, and take immediate action to keep the country functioning and respond swiftly to the impact of the violent operation.

As the acting president herself and several government spokespeople have repeatedly stated, decisions had to be made in real time. Some of them were misunderstood, or not necessarily accepted or fully understood. They may well be questioned in terms of their longer-term impact, but the urgency of stabilizing the country and preparing to prevent a new military action—one that would entail even greater loss of life and damage impossible to quantify at this stage—made the adoption of those measures unavoidable.

The government has three immediate priorities, clearly stated and observable both by those of us who were there and by observers outside the country. The first priority is to restore order in the nation and prevent a second situation that could threaten the peace and stability of the republic. This task falls under the leadership of the presidency and the various branches of the State, the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, and the mobilization of the territorial social forces that support the Bolivarian project—represented through the different organizational structures intertwined within the civic-military-police union that exists across the country.

The second task is to secure the release of the hostages—the president of the republic and his partner—which involves entering into a negotiation in which the captor exerts leverage over the lives and conditions of those held, leveraging them to try to force the country to hand over what they want. At its core, this is about sovereignty—through control of energy resources and the economy—a point repeatedly emphasized by Trump and various spokespeople of the U.S. administration. All the false arguments about combating drugs and “narcoterrorism” disappeared, and even less remains of any pretence of defending democracy and human rights.

This has meant that every day the negotiation has demanded concessions and the adoption of measures to reduce pressure from the enemy, some of which were already being taken or were part of President Maduro’s own negotiation plan with the Trump administration that had been attempted since last year. Those efforts were grounded in guaranteeing that energy trade with the United States would not entail a surrender of sovereignty.

The Venezuelan government, even since Chávez, has acknowledged the need to establish an oil agreement with the United States that would offer guarantees and security for both nations, within a framework of respect for sovereignty and adherence to international law. However, that dynamic was interrupted beginning with the unilateral coercive measures adopted by the first Donald Trump administration in 2016, following President Barack Obama’s 2015 declaration that Venezuela constituted an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”.

It is these measures that have caused—and continue to cause—the greatest damage to the Venezuelan economy, the state’s capacity to meet the needs of its population, and the deepening of social problems, most of which had been addressed during the first ten years of the Bolivarian Revolution. The massive migration and “exodus” of millions of Venezuelans cannot be explained without the strategy of “twisting the arm” and applying “maximum pressure” carried out by imperialism and its internal collaborators. The aim has always been to dominate the country economically and politically in order to control its strategic resources.

What is happening in concrete terms is that those agreements that once had the potential to be implemented gradually are now being accelerated. This is nothing different from what had already been underway, and that is part of what has changed in recent days. The other part has to do, as we’ve said, with preventing a larger‑scale aggression and, especially, buying time to prevent not only the country but the region from being the target of a far more deadly attack. Such an attack would be driven by the ambition that now dominates the policy and stance of the United States—an ambition focused not just on Venezuela but also on Cuba and other countries in the region.

We are up against an imperialist, psychopathic regime that lies, manipulates, and threatens non-stop around the clock. This is part of what it means to negotiate with an enemy that is the world’s leading nuclear power, with the most well-equipped and technologically advanced military, as they demonstrated in the early-morning operation on January 3. Preventing that ambition from sweeping away not only thousands of lives and the destruction of the country, but also the political and social project that has been built over 25 years, is part of the urgent tasks at hand.

A fourth task involves creating international conditions to prevent this escalation of aggression from advancing. The acting government has secured important agreements in terms of solidarity—not only with its traditional allies, such as China, Russia, and Iran, but also with regional governments, which are crucial for building a broad circle of support, including Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. This has also involved some level of engagement with European governments and other regions around the world, in order to establish a framework of alliances to face this moment. The resumption of direct relations with EU diplomatic missions and other governments in the Global North has been an event we have witnessed in recent days, and it is no small matter, given the gravity of the situation.

My personal assessment, after being in Venezuela from mid‑December through the days during and after the terrorist attack—living and sharing time with family, friends, and a range of people who support the government, as well as with those who oppose or do not sympathise at all with the Bolivarian project—allows me to confirm the broad backing enjoyed by the government of acting President Delcy Rodríguez. Any initial doubts or uncertainty have been minimized. From January 3 onward, initially modestly but increasingly intensely in the days that followed, Chavismo has demonstrated its capacity for mobilization and initiative in defence of the country. 

Similarly, from the very first hours, there have also been noticeable reactions from social movements, political parties, and various sectors of society mobilizing in a broad international call for solidarity with Venezuela and anti‑imperialist condemnation. This movement has continued to grow, even within the United States, where people are confronting the authoritarian and dictatorial excesses of Trump. As the days pass, more movements and organizations are joining in expressions of solidarity—not only those that have always stood with the Bolivarian Revolution, but also those that, on principle and conviction, understand that this moment is extremely delicate and that Venezuela cannot be left alone.

This is an action that must continue to be taken by everyone who can. It is not only a task for the government, but for all social and political forces both inside and outside Venezuela. It is a medium‑ and long‑term task, because preventing a new aggression—given what could happen in Venezuela—also means buying time to prevent operations in other countries such as Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, which are especially in the sights of hawkish hardliners and those who, driven by an absurd anti‑communist obsession, focus on the island and its revolution.

As I said, there are still many uncertainties, but there are also many certainties, and the certainties are: Venezuela must be defended both inside the country and abroad; now is the moment for unity; confidence must be placed in the current leadership; and we must confront the narratives that operate simultaneously, making us distrustful and fearful. The most important thing right now is how the people of Venezuela are defended and protected from a new aggression. This is not the time to squander time, resources, and energy on debates or speculation, especially in the face of an operation whose underlying framework continues to be the justification of aggression, death, and kidnapping.

So this is not a time for doubt about the responsibility we have to defend the country, condemn the aggression, stand up to imperialism, and especially preserve Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, because this is in the interest of Venezuela and the entire region. What is happening in Venezuela and the Caribbean may well be playing out as a test of whether the United States’ approach will dominate U.S. action in the hemisphere. If that ambition succeeds and the goals behind the operation are realized, the fate of the rest of the region and possibly the world could be significantly compromised.

Today, Venezuela is in the hands of the Venezuelan people, its political leadership, and the democratic forces that have resisted—and will continue to resist—any new aggression. What happens on Venezuelan land is not determined by President Trump’s bombastic, disconnected announcements and his allies, but by the people of Venezuela and their institutions. Containing the multiform war in its cognitive dimension—meaning the battle over narratives, truth, and perception—is the most urgent task after the pain, the bloodshed, the smoke, and the rubble. Defending the truth about Venezuela is also an obligation for those committed to internationalism and the solidarity of people.

This is a personal note after having been in Venezuela — in Caracas, in Barquisimeto, and in other places — talking with many people, spending time with comrades both inside and outside the government, with activists and also with members of opposing sectors, about how they view the moment the country is living through. It is an attempt to prevent the whirlwind of events, the fragmentation of information, and the manipulation of facts from clouding our memory and erasing our own understanding of this historic event. It may also help answer some of the questions and doubts that many people inside and outside my country have asked me to weigh in on.

Iván González Alvarado, Venezuelan, history professor, internationalist activist. January 13, 2026