The Caracas Quandary, How Trump’s ‘Neocolonial Calculus’ Risks a Hemispheric Breaking Point

The Caracas Quandary, How Trump’s ‘Neocolonial Calculus’ Risks a Hemispheric Breaking Point

The unfolding crisis in Venezuela represents more than a regional political struggle; it is a stark and dangerous crystallization of a new, brutal strain of American foreign policy under the second Trump administration. Characterized by a chillingly transactional logic, overt coercion, and a brazen disregard for the foundational principles of national sovereignty, the U.S. approach has escalated from economic warfare to direct military intervention and state capture. What President Donald Trump has termed “running” Venezuela is, in effect, a sophisticated and cynical form of neocolonialism designed to achieve a singular goal: unfettered control over the world’s largest proven oil reserves without the messy and costly burdens of direct occupation or complete state collapse. This strategy, while superficially pragmatic, is a powder keg. By systematically pushing the Bolivarian state and its populace to a breaking point, Washington risks triggering the very chaos, regional instability, and anti-American backlash it purports to prevent, all while shredding the remnants of the international rules-based order.

From Sanctions to State Capture: The Evolution of a Coercive Strategy

The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy has followed a deliberate and escalatory trajectory, moving through distinct, punishing phases:

1. Economic Strangulation (2017-2024): The initial tool was comprehensive, extraterritorial sanctions. Targeting Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, its financial sector, and later the gold and mining industries, these measures were designed to collapse the country’s economy. The stated justifications—combating narcotics, promoting democracy—were pretexts. The objective was to create such profound humanitarian suffering and political desperation that the government of Nicolás Maduro would either capitulate or be overthrown. This policy succeeded in its destructive aim, plunging Venezuela into a profound depression, exacerbating a humanitarian catastrophe, and triggering a mass migration exodus. However, it failed in its political objective; the Maduro government, though battered, adapted, survived, and hardened.

2. Military Escalation and “Lawfare” (2025): With regime change via economic pain proving elusive, the strategy lurched toward direct force. The abduction of President Nicolás Maduro during a diplomatic mission—an act of state piracy without modern precedent against a sitting head of state—marked a qualitative leap. It was followed by the imposition of a naval blockade, a classic act of war, under the expanded auspices of the so-called “Donroe Doctrine.” This doctrine, a Trumpian evolution of the Monroe Doctrine, asserts an explicit U.S. right to direct political and economic outcomes in the Western Hemisphere by any means necessary. Concurrently, the U.S. intensified “lawfare,” leveraging its control over global financial systems to seize Venezuelan assets abroad and indict government officials.

3. The Neocolonial Pivot: Capturing the Apparatus (2025-Present): The most revealing and dangerous phase is the current one. Following Maduro’s abduction, the U.S. did not install the fractious U.S.-backed opposition. Instead, it effectively endorsed Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a senior Chavista figure. This was not an oversight or a compromise; it was the core of a calculated strategy. The U.S. has learned the bitter lessons of Iraq and Libya, where the physical destruction of the state apparatus led to prolonged insurgencies, the rise of extremism, and ungovernable spaces. The new model is more insidious: instead of dismantling the state, capture and repurpose it.

The goal is to keep the shell of Venezuelan institutions—the military, PDVSA, the civil bureaucracy—intact but hollowed out of sovereign will. Under this arrangement, the Rodríguez administration is pressured to maintain domestic order and legibility for international capital, while ceding ultimate control over resource policy, financial flows, and foreign relations to Washington. It is imperialism with a managerial face: control without responsibility, extraction without administration.

The Delcy Rodríguez Dilemma: A Government in a Vise

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez now sits in the eye of a perfect storm, embodying the unbearable contradictions of this American strategy. A lifelong Chavista and former foreign minister, her political identity is rooted in the Bolivarian project’s core tenet: resistance to American hegemony and the reclamation of Venezuelan sovereignty over its resources. Yet, she governs a nation brought to its knees by the very power she must now negotiate with, following the kidnapping of her predecessor and comrade.

Her public statement, “Enough already of Washington’s orders over politicians in Venezuela,” is a desperate cry that reveals the intolerable strain. She is attempting a near-impossible balancing act. To secure even minimal relief from the blockade and sanctions—the very tools that have crippled her country—she has made significant concessions. These include reorienting oil trade to comply with U.S. diktats, releasing some political prisoners as a “gesture,” and opening sectors of the economy to U.S.-aligned actors.

However, each concession tightens the vise. To the United States, these moves are never enough, merely the prelude to further demands for control over PDVSA’s operations, military cooperation, and alignment against geopolitical rivals like Russia and China. To her own Chavista base—the civil-military alliance, the grassroots colectivos, the party faithful—every concession looks like treason, a betrayal of the revolution’s founding principles. Rodríguez risks becoming a puppet leader who presides over the liquidation of the sovereignty she swore to defend, which would inevitably trigger internal revolt, fracturing the ruling party and potentially unleashing violence from disillusioned hardliners.

Washington’s pressure is thus inherently destabilizing. It demands that Rodríguez perform a political magic trick: to remain credible and in control domestically while systematically surrendering the pillars of that control to a foreign power. This is not a sustainable equilibrium; it is a mechanism for inducing controlled collapse, which is a dangerously volatile proposition.

The Flawed Logic: Extortion Masquerading as Diplomacy

The Trump administration frames its policy as a tough-but-necessary negotiation to restore stability and democracy. This narrative is a profound distortion. In reality, it is a cycle of manufactured crisis and coercive bargaining that can only be described as international extortion.

1. Create the Crisis: The U.S., through unilateral sanctions and then direct aggression, deliberately engineered Venezuela’s economic destruction and political crisis. The migration wave Trump cited to justify intervention was a direct consequence of these sanctions.

2. Offer a “Solution”: Washington then presents itself as the arbiter of relief, offering to slightly ease the pressure it created.

3. Demand Total Submission: The price for this “relief” is not compromise, but submission: effective U.S. control over Venezuela’s sovereign resources and strategic decisions.

This is not diplomacy; it is a protection racket at the nation-state level. As the text notes, a productive economic relationship was always possible without this “marauding path.” Normal diplomatic engagement, mutual interest, and respect for sovereignty could have paved the way for investment and cooperation. That path was deliberately rejected in favor of coercion, revealing that the true objective was never mutual benefit, but dominance.

The Global Implications: The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and the Unraveling Order

The implications of this strategy extend far beyond the Caribbean. The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ represents a clear and present danger to the entire international system. It unilaterally asserts that the United States has the right to kidnap foreign leaders, blockade sovereign nations, and dictate their internal governance if it deems it in its interest, particularly where resources are concerned.

This creates a devastating double standard that eviscerates international law. When Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty in 2014 and 2022, it was met with (inadequate but significant) international condemnation and sanctions. The principle invoked was the sanctity of borders and the prohibition of aggressive war. Trump’s actions in Venezuela are a far more egregious violation—involving the abduction of a president—yet they have been met with muted criticism from European allies and outright support from some regional partners. This silence is deafening and corrosive.

If this doctrine stands unchallenged, it signals that might makes right is the renewed operating principle of the 21st century. No resource-rich nation in the Global South—from Bolivia to Iran to African states—can consider itself safe. It invites a return to a grim past of gunboat diplomacy and spheres of influence, where great powers openly carve up smaller states. It also incentivizes preemptive alignment with other great powers (like China or Russia) as a form of protection, accelerating global bifurcation into hostile blocs.

The Path to the Breaking Point

The current strategy is pushing Venezuela toward several potential breaking points, any of which would be catastrophic:

1. Internal Fracture and Civil Conflict: If the Rodríguez government is seen as a U.S. proxy, it could splinter the Chavista movement, leading to armed conflict between state security forces and radicalized revolutionary factions, or within the military itself.

2. Regional Contagion: A full-blown collapse or conflict in Venezuela would trigger a new, overwhelming wave of refugees into Colombia, Brazil, and beyond, destabilizing neighboring countries already under strain.

3. Geopolitical Flashpoint: Venezuela has deep defensive ties with Russia and China. A U.S. attempt at full-spectrum control risks triggering a direct response from these powers, whether in the form of increased military support, asymmetric retaliation elsewhere, or a dangerous confrontation.

4. The Moral and Strategic Bankruptcy of the U.S.: Ultimately, the strategy may succeed in breaking Venezuela but fail to control it. The result could be a failed state on America’s doorstep, a permanent source of crime, migration, and anti-American hatred—a self-inflicted wound of epic proportions.

Conclusion: The Imperative for International Rejection

The world cannot afford silence. The international community, particularly Latin American nations through bodies like CELAC and the African Union, along with principled voices in Europe, must unequivocally condemn the abduction of President Maduro, the naval blockade, and the extortionate demands placed on Venezuela. This is not about endorsing the Maduro or Rodríguez governments’ domestic policies, which can be critically debated. It is about defending the fundamental, non-negotiable principle of national sovereignty and the prohibition of aggressive war—the very pillars that prevent a descent into global jungle law.

The alternative is to accept a world where any powerful nation can “run” a weaker one. Trump’s Venezuela strategy is a test case for this dystopian vision. Its failure or success will determine not only the fate of Venezuela but will set a precedent that will either restrain or unleash imperial impulses for a generation to come. The breaking point in Caracas may well be the breaking point for what remains of a rules-based world.

Q&A: The Venezuela Crisis and U.S. Strategy

Q1: Why did the U.S., after working to overthrow the Maduro government, effectively endorse acting Chavista President Delcy Rodríguez instead of installing the opposition?

A1: This is the core of the neocolonial strategy. The U.S. learned from Iraq that physically destroying a state apparatus leads to chaos, insurgency, and ungovernability. Endorsing Rodríguez allows Washington to pursue “state capture.” The goal is to keep the existing Venezuelan government structure (military, oil company, bureaucracy) intact to maintain basic order, while pressuring it from within to surrender control over resources and policy. This is seen as a cheaper, less messy way to achieve control over Venezuela’s oil than installing a weak opposition figure who might not control the state’s coercive apparatus and could precipitate total collapse.

Q2: What is the “Delcy Rodríguez Dilemma” and why is her position untenable in the long run?

A2: Rodríguez is trapped in an impossible contradiction. Her power base is the Chavista movement, founded on resisting U.S. domination. To gain relief from the U.S.-imposed blockade and sanctions, she must make concessions on oil and governance, which her base sees as treason. However, if she refuses U.S. demands, the economic strangulation continues, crippling her country. She must therefore simultaneously maintain revolutionary credibility while dismantling revolutionary sovereignty. This balancing act is unsustainable; she will either be overthrown by her own base for surrendering too much, or rejected by Washington for surrendering too little, likely triggering internal fracture.

Q3: How does the U.S. justification for its actions create a “cycle of extortion”?

A3: The U.S. strategy follows a coercive three-step pattern: First, it creates a crisis through devastating sanctions that cripple Venezuela’s economy and cause a migration exodus. Second, it cites that very crisis (the migration, the instability) as justification for further aggressive intervention (blockade, abduction). Third, it offers to ease the pressure it created, but only in exchange for total submission to U.S. control over resources. This is not good-faith diplomacy; it is a form of international extortion where the U.S. both creates the problem and demands unilateral concessions as the price for a solution.

Q4: What is the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and why does it threaten the global order?

A4: The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ (a portmanteau of “Donald Trump” and “Monroe Doctrine”) is the articulated or de facto policy that the U.S. has an overriding right to dictate political and economic outcomes in the Western Hemisphere by any means necessary, including kidnapping heads of state and imposing blockades. It threatens the global order by explicitly rejecting the bedrock principles of national sovereignty and the prohibition of aggressive war. If this doctrine is normalized and goes unchallenged, it establishes that powerful nations can openly and forcibly “run” weaker ones for their resources, unraveling the post-1945 international legal framework and inviting a return to 19th-century imperialism. It creates a dangerous double standard that other major powers may emulate.

Q5: What are the potential “breaking points” that this U.S. strategy risks triggering?

A5: The strategy risks several catastrophic outcomes:

• Internal Venezuelan Collapse: Pressure could shatter the Chavista coalition, leading to civil war between state factions and hardline revolutionaries.

• Regional Humanitarian Disaster: A conflict or final state collapse would unleash a new, massive refugee crisis, destabilizing Colombia, Brazil, and the wider region.

• Great Power Confrontation: Venezuela has defense agreements with Russia and deep economic ties with China. A U.S. takeover could compel these powers to respond, risking a direct geopolitical clash.

• Blowback for the United States: The most likely outcome may not be a stable puppet regime but a perpetually unstable, anti-American failed state on its doorstep, becoming a permanent source of drugs, migration, and terrorism—a self-defeating result.