“In the unity of our nations rests the glorious future of our peoples,” said Simón Bolívar. What should be done if there is no unity?
On the night of January 2–3, 2026, the United States carried out a military operation on the territory of sovereign Venezuela, resulting in the kidnapping of the country’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation, codenamed “Absolute Resolve,” included airstrikes on targets in Caracas and other states, after which special forces seized the leader of the state. Maduro and Flores were transported to the United States, where they were charged with narco-terrorism and other crimes.
US President Donald Trump, speaking at a press conference, stated that the United States would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” of power became possible. He also confirmed his intention to use the country’s vast oil resources by involving US companies in their extraction. As reparations, Trump stated that the Venezuelan authorities would transfer up to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States for sale. “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me,” the president said.
The bombings and the nighttime raid by US Delta Force special operation force in Caracas showed that Latin America, first and foremost, has ceased to be a “zone of peace,” and second, that the unity of the continent spoken of by Bolívar (and only continental unity would allow Latin American countries to resist the United States) remains nothing more than a dream.
There are very few countries and politicians in the region who are not oriented, to one degree or another, toward the United States. Thus, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was oriented toward Trump and the US Republican Party, while Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva toward the US Democratic Party. However, the action taken by the Trump administration was such that it should have been condemned by everyone, regardless of political affiliation. First and foremost, the Trump administration designated alleged cartels as terrorist organizations. Then it appointed the Venezuelan president and the top military leadership as heads of the non-existent “Cartel of the Suns.” That is, now any president of a sovereign country can be declared the leader of a cartel hiding from US justice. And then it abducted and seized the president of Venezuela and his wife. All this was accompanied by Trump’s statements that Maduro kills US citizens with drugs, and that US oil flows beneath Venezuela’s soil.
Thus, the attitude toward the seizure and kidnapping of Venezuela’s president became a test of minimal political independence and sovereignty.
Left-wing and center-left governments condemned the attack as a gross violation of international law and national sovereignty. On the other hand, right-wing and far-right leaders in the region, sharing Washington’s anti-socialist and anti-Chavista rhetoric, saw the operation as a chance to finally eliminate a regime hostile to them. For these countries, condemning Maduro’s dictatorship under the pretext of fighting “narco-terrorism” outweighed considerations of preserving sovereignty.
Opponents of U military intervention
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the strike “a serious insult to Venezuela’s sovereignty and an extremely dangerous precedent.”
“These actions recall the worst moments of interference in the politics of Latin America and the Caribbean and threaten the preservation of the region as a zone of peace,” he said.
He emphasized that attacks on countries constitute a blatant violation of international law and the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over the principle of multilateralism.
According to Lula, the international community must respond decisively to US interference through united action. Brazil initiated an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) countries to discuss a collective response.
The Mexican government called the operation carried out by the United States a military intervention. In its official statement, the Mexican administration condemned the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US special force, strongly urging respect for international law and the search for a peaceful resolution.
The statement published by the Mexican government emphasized that such actions represent “a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” while Mexico’s foreign policy principles are aimed at promoting peace and non-intervention.
After the United States began strikes on Venezuela, Colombia sent its military to the border to protect civilians and maintain stability. President Gustavo Petro condemned the US operation, calling it “an encroachment on the sovereignty” of Latin America and warning of an inevitable humanitarian crisis.
“The Government of the Republic of Colombia views with deep concern the reports of explosions and unusual air activity in recent hours in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as the resulting escalation of tension in the region.,” President Gustavo Petro wrote on X.
He emphasized that the country maintains a position aimed at preserving regional peace and strongly urged all parties involved to refrain from actions that deepen confrontation and to give preference to dialogue and diplomatic channels.
In addition, in connection with US aggression against Venezuela, Colombia convened an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. A request was also sent for an extraordinary meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) and a meeting of foreign ministers of the CELAC, of which Colombia is the chair.
Cuba and Nicaragua, as Venezuela’s closest allies, condemned the operation most sharply, calling it “state terrorism” and seeing in it a direct threat to their own security.
Cuban authorities called the US operation a criminal act violating international law and the UN Charter. In Havana, what is happening is seen as a dangerous escalation of Washington’s long-standing policy of pressure on Caracas. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel demanded an “urgent” response from the international community to the “criminal attack” by the United States on Venezuela.
In a government statement distributed by Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was said that Cuba is ready to give its own blood in defense of brotherly Venezuela amid US military actions. The Cuban Foreign Ministry also emphasized that US actions are aimed at intimidating not only Venezuela but also other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as at restoring hegemonic ambitions in the region.
“Our ZonaDePaz [‘zone of peace’ — Rossa Primavera News Agency] is under brutal attack. State terrorism against the brave Venezuelan people and against Our America,” Miguel Díaz-Canel added.
Not only states reacted to the event. Thus, FARC-EP (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — People’s Army) issued a statement,
“On January 3 of this year, early in the morning, the decadent US empire carried out a treacherous and cowardly military attack on our brotherly Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
The justification for this insane act was the fight against drug trafficking, just as weapons of mass destruction were used in Iraq, and democracy in Syria and Libya, just as terrorism was used to destroy and plunder other countries. These are merely pretexts of imperialism. The truth was revealed by the psychopath Trump in a recent interview: they are hunting for oil and wealth, and are also targeting the Venezuelan government, which represents an example of dignity and sovereignty in the face of the empire.
US-Americans need to know that Venezuela has fought and will continue to fight shoulder to shoulder with a people who do not forget the legacy of Bolívar, Commander Chávez, or the worthy Nicolás Maduro. The seeds of freedom are sown in the hearts of the people, and once they bear fruit, no one will ever again be a slave,” the statement reads.
The armed group called on the Colombian government to free itself of US military bases on its territory, which serve as centers of destabilization in Latin America, attack insurgents, “serve as cemeteries for victims of extrajudicial executions, and harbor pedophiles.”
Supporters of the US military operation
Governments aligned with the administration of US President Donald Trump, such as Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia, predictably welcomed US encroachments on Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Argentine President Javier Milei was the first to support the seizure of the Venezuelan president by U.S. forces.
“Freedom is advancing! Long live freedom, dammit!” he wrote on the social network X. Libertad Avanza (“Freedom Advances”) is the name of Argentina’s political coalition, and “Long live freedom, dammit!” is Milei’s favorite slogan, with which he began his inauguration speech.
In other posts, Milei consistently called Maduro a “dictator” and a “narco-terrorist,” and his rule a “horrifying and inhumane dictatorship.” He claimed that the United States carried out the operation “because he is a narco-terrorist.”
Later, Argentina’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement praising the “determination shown by the US president” and calling Maduro’s capture “a decisive step against narco-terrorism” affecting the entire region.
Thus, Argentina’s official position confirmed its foreign policy course aimed at a strategic alliance with the United States and confrontation with leftist forces in the region, but at the same time caused a split within the country. Former President Alberto Fernández condemned the US attack as “a serious threat to peace in the region” and a violation of international law. The governor of Buenos Aires Province, Axel Kicillof of the Peronist opposition, also stated that US actions violate international law and create a dangerous precedent.
Argentina’s official position was supported by the presidents of Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, and the recently elected president of Chile, José Antonio Kast.
Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, a right-wing politician, also welcomed Maduro’s overthrow, addressing “the Venezuelan people” and opposition leaders María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, “The time has come to regain control of your country.”
The government of Peru, where Maduro has long been considered illegitimate, also approved what happened, promising to simplify procedures for the return of Venezuelan migrants.
Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned US military actions in the country and called for a peaceful solution. At the same time, condemnation from the outgoing Chilean president, who has done a great deal to hand the country over to a representative of the Pinochetist elite, is worth little. Chile’s elected president José Antonio Kast, who will take office on March 11, 2026, called Maduro’s capture “great news for the region.” He described Maduro’s regime as an “illegitimate narco-regime” and called on Latin American governments to ensure the complete removal from power of the entire apparatus of this regime.
Consequences of the operation for the region
Direct US military intervention in a major South American country has buried the illusion of a region free from interstate conflicts. Countries, even those that remain generally pro-American, will sooner or later be forced to ask uncomfortable questions about their own security.
The lack of unity among Latin American countries makes it practically impossible to develop a single regional position on any key issues. Countries whose presidents Trump has, so to speak, “approved” — namely the presidents of Chile, Argentina, and Honduras — as well as all countries that supported US aggression against Venezuela and its president, will become US strongholds in the region.
The new US National Security Strategy has designated the Western Hemisphere as a sphere of exclusive US interests. To avoid any ambiguity, the U.S. State Department published a poster on social network X, “This is OUR hemisphere.”
The Trump administration has shown how it intends to achieve this.
“The president [Trump] is fully deploying his ‘peace through strength’ foreign policy agenda, so we’re continuing to be in close coordination with the interim authorities. And their decisions are going to continue to be dictated by the United States of America,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on January 7.
“You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” said US Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told Jake Tapper of CNN on Monday.
“We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” he warned.
All interested parties should hear this. In the near future, Latin American countries will face a fundamental question: will the region be able to preserve the remnants of its unity and strategic autonomy in the face of the impending “diplomacy on steroids” and the forceful redistribution of spheres of influence, or will it finally split into hostile blocs defined by ideology and external patronage? The answer to this question will take shape in the coming months, and its consequences will affect not only the Latin American region, but the entire “multipolar” world.
This is a translation of the article by Larisa Besedina, first published on Rossa Primavera News Agency web site.
