I once wrote an article somehow denying what I am now saying. Back then, it looked different. Millions now go hungry. The whole situation is worse than before. The world must face six possible solutions: Venezuelan elites resign, the U.S. ends its blockade, every single country ostracizes Venezuela, the regime collapses from within, Washington launches an invasion, or mediation comes through the United Nations or BRICS.
Venezuela’s resistance against Western elites
Venezuela does not want to bow to super-rich Western elites. This is the root of the conflict. Caracas insisted on sovereignty. It nationalized oil, challenged multinational companies, and tried to stand outside the Washington order. For Washington, this was unacceptable.
History in Latin America shows what happens to countries that defy U.S. corporate and strategic interests. Guatemala in 1954 saw its democratic government overthrown after it threatened United Fruit. Chile in 1973 lost Allende when he nationalized copper. Nicaragua in the 1980s faced brutal Contra warfare for resisting U.S. dominance. Venezuela joined that list when it refused to surrender its oil and independence. For elites in Washington, sovereignty becomes a crime if it interferes with business and geopolitics.
The role of Venezuelan elites
But internal rot played its part. Hunger cannot be explained by foreign pressure alone. Venezuela’s elites built a system of corruption and clientelism long before the blockade. They wasted oil wealth during the boom years. They built patronage networks instead of infrastructure. They imported food rather than develop agriculture. And they relied on oil rents while ignoring diversification.
When oil revenues shrank, these elites tightened their grip instead of stepping aside. They enriched themselves with foreign exchange schemes, smuggling, and state contracts. They insulated themselves while the population collapsed into poverty. They turned politics into a family business and state offices into private cash machines. Ordinary people stood in line for bread while elites lived in guarded compounds. If these elites cared for the nation, they would resign or at least share power. But they defend their thrones while citizens starve.
The U.S. blockade and sanctions
The blockade poured salt into the wound. Washington claims it fights for democracy, but its policy is starvation. Food imports dropped. Medicines disappeared. Hospitals lacked antibiotics, bandages, and electricity for surgery. Hyperinflation destroyed wages. Families lost their savings overnight. Children left schools to search for food.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials spoke about democracy while calculating pressure points. Sanctions targeted oil exports, banking transactions, and even gold sales. The idea was simple: squeeze the regime until it implodes. But starvation is not a tool of democracy. It is war without bombs. Washington knew hunger destabilizes regimes and used that knowledge as a weapon.
Elites in Washington and Caracas insulated themselves. Politicians, military officers, and business tycoons did not go hungry. The poorest households paid the heaviest price. Venezuela’s economy shrank by half, while black markets thrived.
A dilemma: Internal vs external responsibility
The crisis is not one-sided. Venezuelan elites are guilty of corruption, abuse, and reckless governance. U.S. elites are guilty of sanctions, blockade, and economic war. Both forces together created the disaster.
To blame only Caracas is dishonest. To blame only Washington is blind. The truth lies in the vicious interaction. Mismanagement created weakness. Sanctions exploited it. Together they crushed ordinary Venezuelans. Hunger became both a domestic failure and an external weapon. The people are trapped in the crossfire of greed and empire.
Conclusion: Possible ways forward
Six real options stand before the world.
The first is internal. Venezuelan elites could resign or share power, creating space for political transition. It would be the cleanest solution, but history shows elites rarely give up power voluntarily.
The second is external. The U.S. could end the blockade and let food and medicine flow again. It could abandon sanctions as a weapon. But Washington almost never lifts pressure unless forced by major strategic shifts.
The third is global. Every country could ostracize Venezuela until the regime yields. That means no recognition, no trade, no finance, and no diplomatic cover. It would isolate Caracas completely. But such global unity is rare, and many states profit from Venezuela’s weakness through cheap oil or illicit trade.
The fourth is collapse from within. The regime could implode under its own contradictions. Hyperinflation, corruption, and social breakdown could trigger uncontrollable collapse. This option is possible but unpredictable. Collapse often brings chaos rather than order, and it could leave Venezuela in an even darker state.
The fifth is U.S. invasion. Washington could move from economic war to open war. It would topple the government quickly but unleash disaster. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya show what happens when the U.S. invades in the name of democracy. Occupation brings civil war, not stability.
The sixth is mediation. The United Nations or BRICS could step in as neutral arbiters. They could open humanitarian corridors and force dialogue. But history shows mediation rarely works when power players think they can outlast their enemies. Both Caracas and Washington still believe time favors them.
Leave a Reply