Caracas Chronicles

In a time when U.S. destroyers park in the Caribbean and Maduro resorts to anti-aircraft cardboard decoys, it feels almost absurd that one of the most viral stories in Twitterzuela came not from explosions at sea but from a Bloomberg interview. In it, María Corina Machado gave a vague—and widely dissected—response to Mishal Husain about the Maduro regime’s alleged role in helping “rig” elections in the U.S. and other countries. For many, the takeaway was unmistakable: this was just another in a long line of not-so-subtle nods toward El Catire.

The critical question isn’t about what Machado meant, since ambiguity has been her strategy for quite some time now. The question is what this signaling reveals about her strategic assessment of Washington. She seems to be betting that the pro-opposition bipartisan consensus—which has anchored U.S. policy toward Venezuela—has fractured and that aligning with Trump’s narrative may now be the best bet.

The Americans have deployed a naval force that many defense analysts would have sworn, just a few years ago, could topple Maduro by its mere presence. Boats are being blasted out of the water and yet Maduro will not budge. All while the White House is getting pressure from all sides to either go big or go home. That certainly weighs on POTUS, who has demonstrated a tendency to prefer the fast easy wins over dragged out fights. 

Trump is not known for betting on what he perceives to be a losing horse. He could decide, at any moment, that Venezuela is no longer worth the geopolitical effort, and pivot to the next crusade, perhaps Christians in Nigeria, or white South Africans. Washington certainly will not indulge another three-year transitional government purgatory with no exit ramp. There will be no repeat of an interim government wandering the diplomatic wilderness while Maduro consolidates.

While Democrats try to pass an impossible bill to check potential actions in Venezuela, Machado is probably betting that bipartisanship, while admirable, is not useful at this stage.

So the walls are closing in on María Corina. The influence and prestige she has accumulated is real, especially now that she boasts of being a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But the window for leveraging it is narrowing by the day. This has to end, and it has to end decisively. Either she finds a way to force a historical rupture or risks watching the United States’ attention move elsewhere.

What about the Russians?

We now have a clearer sense of what Moscow is and more importantly, isn’t willing to do as the U.S. turns up the heat on Maduro. For all of Caracas’s appeals for protection from “Comrade Vlad,” the Kremlin’s response has been tepid at best: a half-hearted Foreign Ministry note promising to “assess any requests for support in due course.” Meaning: don’t expect S-400s missile-launchers over Caracas anytime soon.

Beyond a single cargo plane landing with a mysterious payload, Moscow’s backing remains minimal. Russia’s military is strained in Ukraine, its economy faces a severe sanctions regime, and Venezuela is not a prize worth bleeding for. If Putin did not come to Assad’s rescue in Syria, Maduro can forget about his shirtless knight in hairy armor.

Rather than firepower, which it cannot expend with, the Kremlin can support their Caribbean pals through the influence operations they are ohh, so very good at. Tucker Carlson has gone beyond simply questioning the strategic value of U.S. military engagement in Venezuela to defending Nicolás Maduro, nearly framing him as a bulwark of Western traditionalism simply because María Corina Machado has supported marriage equality. Ben Norton and the Russia Today ecosystem, after years of silence, have rediscovered Venezuela to decry imperialism and warn Americans about another “forever war.” And the usual cast of “peace activists” like Medea Benjamin and Roger Waters are again making noise, portraying Maduro’s military as the passive victim of the U.S. empire. 

A massive naval buildup that leads nowhere would also scar the Venezuelan opposition for a generation.

None of this saves the regime. But it buys doubt, and doubt buys time, which Maduro desperately needs and Machado desperately lacks. Russia is not riding to the rescue but they can certainly make the cost of decisive U.S. action feel higher. All in all, Maduro knows that despite Beijing’s silence he still has a friend in, or is at least useful to Putin. 

Swinging for the fences

It is a mistake to say Democrats have abandoned Venezuela, especially as some of the historic Latino support president Trump received last year seems to have swung Democrat this year. Support for the “Venezuelan people,” in principle, remains intact in Washington. However, Democrats have fallen victims to their aimless policy towards Venezuela. Years of “sweetheart deals” from the Biden White House achieved little beyond extending Maduro’s runway. Each failed negotiation cycle made one thing painfully clear to Machado’s movement: in Venezuela, Democrats are committed to containment, not a decisive outcome.

Now, as senior Democrats begin publicly questioning the legality of an undeclared policy aimed at regime change (trying to pass an impossible bill to check Trump’s range of action in Venezuela) Machado is probably betting that bipartisanship, while admirable, is not useful at this stage. That does not mean she has cut ties. Machado has continued meeting with Democratic congressional leaders as a hedge, a tacit acknowledgment that Venezuela could again become a bipartisan issue someday. But the immediate political reality is simple. Republicans alone currently control the levers that matter. Bipartisanship is not dead, but it seems for Machado it is a luxury she cannot prioritize heading into what she has described as the culmination of this process.

There is a reason Edmundo González has not been sworn in as “president.” Until he can safely step foot in Miraflores, that is to say until there is a path to power that does not lead him directly into El Helicoide, formalities are meaningless. The opposition learned from the Guaidó experiment that recognition without control can be a trap.

She is not simply betting Venezuela’s future on Trump, she is betting her existence.

A massive naval buildup that leads nowhere would also scar the Venezuelan opposition for a generation. Not to mention the more than likely move towards some sort of normalization in relations between Washington and Caracas. 

Still inside Venezuela, Maria Corina knows quite well the physical risks that failure entails: Maduro and Diosdado’s revenge would be spectacular. Prison would be on the cards and exile would be a very expensive bargaining chip and a massively demoralizing victory for chavismo. This is why Machado would be inclined to throw caution to the wind: the political cost of hesitation now exceeds the risk of action. She is not simply betting Venezuela’s future on Trump, she is betting her existence on the belief that this moment can still produce a significant strategic rupture within the ruling coalition. Which while admirable doesn’t make it any less risky. 

Not unlike Miguel Rojas at the final game of the World Series, Machado is taking a swing that stands to make history. If it connects, her movement will alter Venezuelan history for good. If it doesn’t, this moment risks joining the long list of failed attempts to remove Maduro. Venezuela is at the top of the ninth: one out, two strikes, three foul balls. The pitch is on its way, she swings, and now the entire country waits to see where the ball lands.