These are just collections of some of my comments this morning as someone who's put a lot of time and effort into learning about Venezuela over the past 5 years. My bookshelf is full of books about it, and I wrote my university dissertation on imperialism in Latin America. No, I'm not an expert, but I certainly know more than your average person. These takes are field tested against liberals and conservatives alike, and they usually just shut up about it and change the topic.
ON MADURO'S 'AUTHORITARIAN REGIME'
Tricky one - authoritarian? Technically true.
But what country wouldn't enter a state of law and order if you had an invasion force on your coastline for 20 years? When multiple coups have been attempted supported by a foreign government? A foreign government that currently funds political yet 'non governmental organisations' for the opposition party in your country to the tune of millions of dollars when the average monthly wage in the country is $200? When that opposition party has repeated supported coups and foreign influence? When a country has repossessed billions of dollars of gold, and explicitly states it wants to strangle your economy until the country chokes? When there's a 200 year old precedent of U.S invasion in the region? When the U.S is following the classic playbook for invasion?
You either roll over and have your country sold to the highest bidders, or you put the walls up. Look at any country in wartime. This is the only way to conceptualise this. Latin America has been at war with the U.S since the 1800's (The Monroe Doctrine - 1823). EDIT: in the press conference, Trump just called it the 'Donroe Doctrine'. FML.
So here's my task for you all: Ask an American how they'd feel if China had done even half of those things in America. How would the U.S react?
ON VENEZUELAN REFUGEES FLEEING THE REGIME
Can't stand this line being parroted about how '8 million refugees fled the Maduro regime' because its a tyrannical government, when the reality is that they fled a country whose economy was being strangled by the USA to the point of collapse. The USA openly admits they were essentially holding the Venezuelan people hostage by destroying the economy - presenting two options: live in poverty or overthrow Maduro.
Here's John Bolton talking about it: "The effect of the sanctions is continuing and cumulative. It’s sort of like in Star Wars when Darth Vader constricts somebody’s throat, that’s what we are doing to the regime economically." Yes, seriously, he compared America to Darth Vader.
If this ends in a new right wing Venezuelan comprador government, there will be an 'economic miracle', and the west will report that Venezuela has been saved. The reality is that the sanctions would be taken off the economy, and a large extraction of wealth would take place within the oil sector, thus inflating GDP. In the short term, the people of Venezuela will see an increase in quality of life - a quality of life they never would have lost in the first place were it not for U.S encirclement. I'm sure a lot of Venezeulans won't fight the change in government because it means a (perhaps temporary) reprieve from poverty, and peoples material circumstances are, as we all know, the bottom line.
ON NARCO TRAFFICKING CHARGES:
So Maduro's got a 50 million dollar bounty on his head and is deposed, when the USA has a long history of endorsing drug trafficking for their own purposes. Let's not forget that the USA supported and did business with Manuel Noriega (a prolific trafficker) throughout the Iran CONTRA affair until he stopped serving US interests (so they then couped him). And Trump just pardoned the conservative ex president of Honduras Orlando Hernandez, despite the fact that:
"US prosecutors argued that he was a central figure in a more than 18-year-long drug-trafficking scheme that funnelled over 400 tonnes of cocaine into the US - equivalent to roughly 4.5 billion individual doses", and "US federal prosecutors accused him of accepting a $1m bribe from notorious drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán for his first presidential campaign in exchange for protecting narcotics routes through Honduras." Prosecutors also detailed how "Hernández abused office by shielding drug traffickers armed with machine guns and grenade launchers. In exchange, he received millions of dollars to fuel his political campaigns."
**There are of course more arguments than this, but yeah, these are the big three in my opinion. **
I would add something about 'rigged elections', but I don't have time right now as it's quite complex. The bottom line is that there cannot be calls for democracy when USAID and other US State Department fronts have had major influence in Venezuelan and Latin American society for decades. It's the old capitalist myth of free speech - where said free speech is controlled by the ruling class.
I'm sorry but "authoritarian - technically true"? Besides the fact that there is nothing more "authoritarian" than the American executive using military force unilaterally to kidnap a sovereign country's president and wife, in what way is Venezuela's government authoritarian? Are we really accepting/taking for granted that Venezuela is a military dictatorship when those accusations come directly from the US State Department, and its funded opposition groups in the country? These same opposition groups that have been backed by the US for decades, and are responsible for trying to violently overthrow the government several times?!
We're just taking their word on that one now?
IDK but the last I read was that their electoral system was had some of the best verifiability and integrity in the world according to even US-aligned watchdogs... so, if we're ceding the authoritarian bit, why aren't we asking the State department to bomb Mexico and remove Lula from power for reforming their judiciary and enforcing legal judgements against their former presidents, respectively? We've heard both spectrum of US power accuse both of these as examples of authoritarianism too.
As an aside, too, I'm seeing a lot of people online drawing comparisons with Venezuela and Iraq, Maduro and Saddam. In some ways, yes, US behavior in these cases can be compared as it's all around based on lies and completely unjustifiable, in others: we would do well to remind people that Maduro and Saddam cannot be compared. Saddam being an actual murderous and genocidal gangster, etc. Oh, and the fact that Saddam was the US's guy for DECADES while he committed those crimes, with weapons WE gave him.
I've seen some people saying that "well in the end, we toppled Saddam and now Iraq is finally getting their free elections so, maybe in 30 years and a million-and-a-half dead later, Venezuelans will have the same? I hope this is not the narrative that prevails in the west, but it fits our useless, uneducated political moment for sure.
We have to remind people also that Trump literally said it's about seizing their resources- and the drug trafficking accusations is just entirely fabricated.
Authoritarian is a difficult word to talk around because all it really describes is the act of governing, so you can never really deny that a state is authoritarian. It's just a word with a negative vibe, like "regime".
i like the
phrasing of these as thought-terminating cliches. and unsurprisingly, one of their other examples of such a thought-terminating cliche is "hand-picked successor" as exemplified by amerikkkan coverage about nicolas maduro. this was an ep from several years ago.
I think it's "hand-picked" usually, if you want the exact phrasing for making it easier for libs to recognize and or look up the use of that term.
i think you're right
Ah you've had the same frustrating conversations I've had with European post-leftists.
They live in the type of place where each worker negotiations their own personal relationship with the state.
It's likely arguing back on social media will just get you banned. I've been banned on reddit several times already for debunking CIA propaganda.
Also Russia is called authoritarian but their elections had 3rd parties from around the world overseeing it. The US just makes shit up all the time.
This is true.
I just wanted to address what I thought was ceding the authoritarian bit to the pro-interventionists in OP's paragraphs above.
Yeah but you forget authoritarianism is only bad if you're on the bottom part of this chart:
Well, that's also true. I suppose I'd call it authoritarianism in response to US authoritarianism. The last reports of a robust electoral system were quite a while ago now. 2017 was independently verified and was the Guaido bullshit, 2021 was COVID, results were tight, but it was pretty well verified. 2025 however, it was a bit of a crapshoot, and numerous independent checkers were not allowed access, nor was normal protocol followed. Maduro has been getting more and more unpopular - even if it is largely the U.S's fault - and even usual bastions of left wing support have not been as supportive of him in the past year. I think there was meddling in the 2025 election, but I think it was a last ditch effort gaainst extreme U.S influence, and done under the noble cause of staying independent. I think it was a valid national security move, and as with many states at war, authoritarian decisions often have to be made. And as another commenter pointed out, that's the problem with authoritarian as a term - it pretty much just means the government doing stuff.
The big drama over authoritarianism in 2025 was that exit polls didn't match the results, that some observers weren't invited even though it was agreed beforehand, and that there was a supposed cyberattack which delayed the results. In the meantime, the opposition did their own surveys and of course found that Maduro lost by a landslide - which is probably not the truth either, so it was then up to Maduro to do a number of checks on the results and to find proof of the cyberattack. There are three electoral process validity checks that are usually done after the election - one of which would have proved the existence of the cyberattack, which this time were not done. If Maduro believed he won, he would've pursued those validity checks.
There was also the fact that Maria Cochado was banned from running due to her involvement in treasonous acts - which lots of people complained about - but my take there is that she's been a long time agitator and did support treason, so I don't care or find it surprising she was banned. She even signed the Carmona decree in 2002 dissolving Chavez's constituion during the coup against him, but she claims she thought it was just the building sign in sheet (lol). The fact that they ran her in the first place was basically a political stunt SO THAT she would get banned just before the election, making a big political spectacle. The same thing happened in the Guaido era when they considered running Leopoldo Lopez - who was a treasonous shit heel.
As for Lula, well, Lula didn't initially recognise Maduro's election win either, even if he did eventually and condemns the strikes now. Lula allows all sorts of independent observers, whereas Maduro was pretty cagey about it last time. The same went for Evo Morales - who was reinstated after being couped because of his strong ground support and MAS's ability to legitmately and openly win elections.
Time will tell as to Maduro's ground support. If the people support him we would see a repeat of 2002 with Chavez, but unfortunately I don't think that will be the case.
Totally agree on Saddam though - that was also frustrating me.