GenZedong

• The alleged “evidence”

No members of the U.S. military died in the operation that kidnapped Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores.

More than 150 US aircraft penetrated Venezuelan airspace without being shot down by the country's advanced air defenses, obtained from Russia.

The “peaceful” extraction of Maduro and Flores was only possible thanks to the “collaboration” of Maduro’s inner circle. There was no immediate military counteroffensive by the Venezuelans.

• The reality: resistance in the face of overwhelming military superiority

Much more is now known about the events of January 3rd than was initially known. Contrary to the narrative imposed by Western media and repeatedly and thoughtlessly disseminated by some on the left, there was resistance. Survivor testimonies and statements by President Trump himself confirm that the presidential security team, along with Venezuelan military units and a contingent of Cuban internationalist fighters, engaged the attacking forces in a firefight. Thirty-two Cuban fighters fell alongside more than 50 Venezuelan security forces and presidential guards, who defended the president with their lives.

First, U.S. electronic warfare systems completely disabled the country's air defenses and communications infrastructure. According to Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, the United States used Venezuela as a "laboratory" for previously unused weapons technologies. Padrino is known for being the military leader who consistently denounces U.S. efforts to corrupt and bribe the military to turn against Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution, as well as previous U.S. assassination attempts. He embodied the country's "civil-military union" that blocked years of regime change efforts under the motto "Always loyal, never traitors."

An official Venezuelan report on January 3 has not yet been released, as the country remains under military siege (more information on this will follow). However, unofficial reports from witnesses and survivors corroborate Padrino's account. They describe how, with all their communications and air defenses disabled and all electricity in the area cut off, Venezuelan military forces were attacked with drones and some type of sonic weapon that incapacitated the soldiers. They were instantly subjected to rapid and overwhelming fire that resulted in a one-sided massacre, even when they returned fire.

In his State of the Union address, Trump honored the pilot of the first Chinook helicopter that landed at the presidential complex, carrying the elite Delta Force units that later carried out the ground operation and kidnapped the president. The helicopter came under heavy fire, seriously wounding the pilot. The United States has also acknowledged that there were other American casualties, though no fatalities.

In preparation for this operation, it has been revealed that the raid was rehearsed at full scale in an exact replica of Nicolás Maduro's compound, built in Kentucky. For weeks, Delta Force commandos practiced “breaking through steel doors at increasingly faster speeds” and memorizing the layout of the corridors and secure rooms. Because Maduro was known to rotate between different locations, they only launched the operation after confirming he was in that specific place. Specialized night aviation was provided by a group known as the “Night Stalkers.”

However, the violence didn't end there. In leaked communications confirmed by multiple sources, Delcy Rodríguez revealed that, from the very first contact on January 3, the Trump administration issued an ultimatum. Rodríguez stated: “The threats began the moment they kidnapped the president. They gave Diosdado, Jorge, and me 15 minutes to respond, or they would kill us.” Any refusal to negotiate, she said, would result not only in kidnapping but also in the beheading and annihilation of the remaining leaders of the Venezuelan state. They were also told that the U.S. military would continue to surround the country. Every statement and every decision they made would be analyzed as a sign of submission or resistance, and their lives could be taken at any moment.

It was a negotiation at gunpoint, literally, and it's not over yet. The moment would require leadership capable of making the necessary retreat to save the revolution without fracturing its internal unity.

The United States failed on January 3rd because of the betrayal of Venezuelan leaders. It succeeded because, after more than 25 years of failed coup attempts, economic warfare, and destabilization campaigns, imperialism finally deployed its most powerful weapon: direct military intervention backed by a technological superiority that no independent country in the developing world can currently counter successfully.

• Analysis: The overwhelming hybrid warfare onslaught failed to overcome political realities

The United States achieved its objective of capturing Maduro, but failed to overthrow the government or the state. The remaining leaders—Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, and the core of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and the Bolivarian Armed Forces—acted immediately to stabilize the institutions and maintain continuity of command.

The United States did not plan a wider occupation due to the anticipated resistance and armed mobilization of millions of Venezuelans. President Maduro's call to massively expand the Bolivarian militias led to more than eight million citizens taking up arms. This, combined with Venezuela's professional army, which has not fractured, created a scenario in which any ground invasion would degenerate into a protracted people's war, with unacceptable political and material costs for the United States. A strong base of support for Chavismo remains, which the Trump administration tacitly acknowledged when it said that one must be "realistic" and recognize that the Venezuelan right lacks the necessary support to govern the country.

Instead, the Trump administration executed a surgical strike of extraordinary precision, as a way to shift the balance of power and gain influence over the Venezuelan government, which had to accept that it could not be overthrown. However much Trump and Rubio boast about “regime change,” they cannot overcome this basic fact.

But when Delcy Rodríguez, now acting president, entered into dialogue with the Trump administration after the attack, many on the left reacted with confusion and dismay. Yes, Maduro and the leaders had promised a people's war and, if necessary, a Vietnam-style guerrilla struggle. But the fact was that the US commandos were gone; there were no occupying forces to fight. That should be understood as a sign of the revolution's enduring strength, not a weakness.

So how could the Bolivarian Revolution sit down at the table with the very forces that had just murdered its defenders and kidnapped its president? The answer lies in the material conditions for survival and a proper understanding of revolutionary strategy. The revolution's organized social base and military unity represented a kind of deterrent to foreign occupation, but that deterrent could not expel the enormous military forces that still surrounded it, imposing a total naval blockade on its oil while pointing advanced weaponry at its heads. On January 3, the government recognized the military reality and made the tactical decision to maintain control of the state institutions, to buy time and live to fight another day.

This decision has clearly required some concessions to the Empire, but this also requires closer examination. Just as the false accusations of treason from January 3rd are now easily refuted, so too are the accusations of treason in the two months since then.

• "The alleged “evidence”

Venezuela has effectively opened its vast oil reserves to foreign private exploitation and sale.

Venezuela has begun a process of “reconciliation” with the right-wing opposition, which includes the release of 2,500 prisoners convicted of treason and violence.

The US officials were greeted at Miraflores Palace with smiles and musical accompaniment, something normally reserved for allies and friends.

• The reality: a new force of power

Since January 3, the balance of power has shifted dramatically. The largest regional armada in U.S. Navy history has remained positioned off the coast of Venezuela.

No one is coming to Venezuela's aid. In fact, if we look at the region, we see that the right-wing governments of Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Bolivia are openly celebrating the attack. The progressive governments of Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico have limited themselves to issuing rhetorical condemnations. The strategic support of Russia and China, while significant in previous years, has proven insufficient to deter imperial aggression and has also been largely rhetorical. Each country has its own strategic military priorities. Direct intervention also raises the risk of a world war, and given their great distance, they would not have the military forces in the region to sustain such a conflict.

The agreements being forged between Caracas and Washington represent a bitter but necessary compromise. Under their terms, Venezuela has granted the United States significant control over its oil exports, reverting to a licensing model similar to that previously operated by Chevron and other companies before the tightening of the embargo. Having acquired their licenses, foreign oil companies will no longer have to cede a majority stake to the state, as was the case with the previous joint ventures; taxes will be reduced, and they will be able to sell their oil on the international market without having to sell it to the Venezuelan state-owned company PDVSA. Instead, the U.S. Department of Energy has begun marketing Venezuelan crude with the help of commodity traders and banks, and Washington has claimed the authority to determine which companies can participate in rebuilding the country's energy infrastructure. Under this agreement, for the first time in decades and without any say in the matter, Venezuelan oil is reportedly being transported by foreign tankers to Israel, a country with which it has no ties.

In return, Venezuela has gained access to its oil revenues through two overseas sovereign wealth funds effectively controlled by the United States. These funds, while subject to U.S. oversight, provide something the country has been denied for years under the sanctions regime: resources for investments in health, education, and infrastructure. The arrangement is exploitative and humiliating, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly described it as the United States “taking all the oil.” But it keeps the Venezuelan state afloat.

Is this a denial of Venezuela's sovereignty over its oil decisions? To some extent, yes. But the fundamental features of the agreement align with Venezuela's long-term desire to rebuild its oil exports to the United States and resemble what Maduro himself reportedly offered in negotiations with the Trump administration. This includes an offer to reopen US oil exploration and ownership in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. This also corresponds with information from Brazilian journalist Breno Altman. Based on conversations with Maduro's son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, Altman reported: “[Maduro] is informed, and his message is always one of support for the acting president, Delcy Rodríguez.”

The fact is that Venezuela's oil infrastructure was built primarily to supply the US market, and the refining infrastructure of the southern United States was largely built to process Venezuelan crude. From a purely economic standpoint, these countries remain natural trading partners despite ideological differences. Even under Chávez, the United States purchased 60% of Venezuela's oil exports for much of his presidency, constituting the bulk of the country's revenue. Even the expropriation of foreign-owned oil projects in Venezuela was adopted by Chávez not primarily as a matter of principle, but as a reaction to sabotage attempts and deteriorating relations with companies that rejected his terms and left the country.

In essence, the United States was already crushing Venezuela’s oil industry with devastating effects. First, oil companies blocked the sale of unique parts and technologies to maintain their neglected infrastructure. Then came a decade of financial and trade sanctions, the freezing of their offshore accounts (some of which remain, ridiculously, in the hands of Juan Guaidó), and finally, a literal oil blockade. The Venezuelan economy as a whole was severely impacted by this loss of revenue, with rampant inflation, a shortage of foreign currency, and the collapse of other industries. This is the real cause of emigration from Venezuela. Injecting billions of dollars of revenue into the Venezuelan economy, even under these unjust conditions of siege, will undoubtedly lead to an improvement in living conditions. Millions of people are expected to participate in Venezuela’s popular consultation on March 8, voting to select 36,000 community initiatives, ranging from the renovation of public services to economic projects, for government funding.

The agreement with the Trump administration has also led Venezuela to grant amnesty to more than 5,000 people and release thousands of prisoners. This includes approximately 800 people convicted of various crimes related to attempts to overthrow the government, including acts of violence. Those convicted of murder and “serious human rights violations” or “crimes against humanity” will not be released. This amnesty, denounced in some circles as the release of “political prisoners,” is better understood as a strategic decompression. It further eliminates a pretext for humanitarian intervention, isolates the most intransigent sectors of the far-right opposition, and demonstrates that the Bolivarian state retains the authority to define the approach to its own judicial processes. We can assume that the Venezuelan government also hopes this will lead to recognition from other governments in the region and the world. Since the 2024 elections, the Government has been unable to maintain normal political and trade relations with most of the governments in the region, except for Cuba, Nicaragua and some small Caribbean nations.

• Negotiations at gunpoint: Brest-Litovsk in the Caribbean

Here, the history of the Russian Revolution offers an indispensable lesson. In 1918, the young Soviet Republic faced the advance of the German imperial army with a shattered force incapable of mounting effective resistance. Vladimir Lenin, against the objections of the so-called “left communists,” who demanded a “revolutionary war” to defend the entire territory, led the fledgling revolutionary state to sign the humiliating Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This agreement ceded vast territories, including all of Ukraine and forty percent of Russia’s industrial base, to German imperialism. It was, by any measure, a massive defeat.

Lenin's critics labeled this a betrayal of the revolution and, in particular, of all the workers, peasants, and oppressed nationalities of the ceded territories who had fought and sacrificed everything in 1917, only to return to capitalism with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

However, Lenin understood what his critics failed to grasp: the goal was not to die with dignity, but to preserve the political instrument of the revolution. As the late Commander Hugo Chávez reflected after the failed 1992 rebellion: “Today we must retreat in order to advance tomorrow.” The treaty provided the necessary breathing room to consolidate the Soviet state, build the Red Army, and ultimately defeat not only the German Empire, but also the combined forces of counterrevolution and foreign intervention. History proves that those who denounced Lenin as a traitor in 1918 were wrong. All the ceded territories returned to the USSR a few years later.

Even so, this was not the end of retreats and concessions. Faced with famine conditions caused primarily by the civil war, Lenin contributed to humanitarian aid efforts by American capitalist charities, developed relations with the countries that had just invaded the Soviet Union, and re-established deep economic and commercial ties with German imperialism. Abandoning “war communism,” he guided the state toward the mass reintroduction of capitalist property relations and invited foreign companies. This laid the groundwork, for example, for the Soviet state to sign agreements with the Ford Motor Company (headed by the fascist sympathizer Henry Ford) to establish a factory.

What the government, through Delcy Rodríguez, is doing today must be viewed from this perspective. Seated across from US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, receiving CIA Director John Ratcliffe at Miraflores Palace, this is not an act of capitulation, but rather an act of survival under extreme coercion. Whether she smiles or exchanges the same ceremonial welcome offered to other state visitors is irrelevant. The objective is to relinquish what can be temporarily sacrificed—control of oil, access to the market, even 800 people convicted of violent crimes—in order to preserve what cannot be replaced: the revolutionary state, the party, and the lives of its leading figures, who have played an indispensable role in the cohesion of the Bolivarian project as a whole. With that foundation preserved, a retreat now can become a step forward in the future.

• The alleged “evidence”

When US and Israeli forces attacked Iran on February 28, 2026, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry issued a carefully worded statement that, in addition to condemning the aggression, also condemned the “undue” reprisals carried out by Iran against the Gulf States that host US bases. The statement was later deleted.

Delcy Rodríguez issued a statement expressing her “solidarity” with Qatar following a phone call with its emir, a close ally of the United States. No statement of solidarity was issued with Iran.

• The reality: Venezuela remains under pressure and wants to preserve its relationship with Qatar.

This criticism overlooks the fact that the relationship with Qatar has played a particularly important role for Venezuela in recent years. In fact, Qatar has hosted Venezuela's sovereign wealth funds and, therefore, controls Venezuela's access to its own oil revenues there. Qatar also mediated and hosted the latest rounds of negotiations between the United States and Venezuela. Venezuela had publicly thanked Qatar, in particular, for its role in the release of political prisoner Alex Saab from US prisons.

More than anything, this criticism overlooks the fact that Venezuela remains under the direct threat of annihilation by the United States. Every word and every statement continues to be subject to the strictest scrutiny, given what is at stake. CIA Director Ratcliffe has personally warned Venezuelan officials that any agreement will be ruled out if it serves as a “safe haven” for US adversaries. In such a situation, diplomacy is not a genuine profession of faith, but rather an instrument for preserving sovereign existence.

Formal relations between Caracas and Tehran remain intact, but proclaiming solidarity with Iran against the United States in this massive war would not only sever a relationship with Qatar that has become quite important, but would also provide Washington with a pretext for a second series of far more devastating attacks.

Much of the “betrayal” narrative has focused on the figure of interim president Delcy Rodríguez. This lacks real evidence, appears entirely fabricated, and is a classic tactic of US military strategy and psychological operations.

The revolutionary credentials of the Rodríguez family are etched in struggle and blood. Delcy's father and her brother Jorge's father (the president of the National Assembly) was Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, leader of the Socialist League, a Marxist-Leninist organization that received training in Cuba. He was tortured and murdered by the Punto Fijo regime in 1976, in close coordination with the CIA, when Delcy was seven years old. Both Delcy and her brother Jorge emerged from this tradition of clandestine and mass struggle for socialism. President Maduro himself was a member of the same organization. After Delcy Rodríguez returned to Venezuela from studying abroad, she joined the Chavista movement and the government alongside her brother, and they both became Maduro's principal advisors and his most trusted negotiators and representatives on the most sensitive domestic and international affairs. She declared that building the Bolivarian Revolution would be revenge for her father's murder, a form of justice. To suggest that there was betrayal between them or a capitulation born of cowardice or opportunism is to ignore four decades of shared political training and sacrifice.

In his first statement on January 3, Trump suggested that Delcy Rodríguez had expressed her willingness to cooperate with the United States and meet its demands. Some on the left believed him, interpreting this as a sign of capitulation. His press conference that same day reaffirmed Venezuela's sovereignty and its own demands of the United States, including the release of President Maduro. The following day, after chairing a meeting of the party and state leadership, in which the unity of the military was also reaffirmed, he issued a statement calling on the United States government to cooperate with Venezuela for peace and development, but within the framework of sovereignty and equality.

This statement echoed all the declarations made by Maduro in the past and throughout the years of tensions with the United States. Maduro himself has consistently called for diplomacy and direct, high-level negotiations to avoid a full-blown war, and he has already offered comprehensive economic agreements with the United States for Venezuela's oil and mineral resources. Undoubtedly, any such agreement would have been contingent upon reducing and minimizing strategic alliances with so-called "adversaries of the United States," including Iran, Russia, and China. We can assume that each of these countries would understand this, given that they have clearly made similar difficult tactical decisions in recent history for the sake of self-preservation and national interests. Nevertheless, Delcy Rodríguez has repeatedly stated that Venezuela will continue to develop relations with the people of all countries.

If Delcy Rodríguez’s Venezuelan government were to sign a similar agreement to the one Maduro offered, but with Maduro now kidnapped, it wouldn’t constitute treason. Of course, this raises the question of why Trump decided to kidnap Maduro, but this has more to do with maintaining his “tough guy” image than with any substantive political difference. In the weeks leading up to January 3, certain segments of the mainstream media specifically mocked Trump, labeling him a “loser” if he reached an agreement that left Maduro in power. He needed a trophy and wanted to appear as the strongman who could dictate terms to anyone. Trump proclaims victory, saying, “We are in charge.” He does this primarily for domestic political reasons. But that doesn’t make it real. Incapable of carrying out actual regime change, he is essentially using words to falsely declare that “the regime has changed.”

For her part, Delcy Rodríguez has stated that the return of Maduro and Flores remains the central objective of the negotiations with the United States.

An unintended but significant consequence of these negotiations has been a major political setback for the long-backed US opposition, which has been used to deprive Venezuela of normal international relations. María Corina Machado, who for years called for foreign military intervention and the imposition of the sanctions that devastated the Venezuelan people, has been relegated to the sidelines since January 3. She has gained nothing from an administration that now deals directly with the Miraflores government.

By establishing direct relations between states based on the only commodity that US imperialism truly values—oil—the Bolivarian leadership has outmaneuvered the opposition. The United States, in its brutal pragmatism, has chosen to negotiate with the only force that actually controls the territory and resources, rather than with exiled figures who wield no real power. In their hasty retreat, Rubio and Trump even went so far as to publicly discredit the opposition figure they themselves had chosen, thus de facto recognizing the Bolivarian state as the sole governing entity. Full normalization of relations and recognition of the Venezuelan government are still a long way off and may require further tactical retreats and concessions, but if they occur, they will be considered a strategic victory for the Bolivarian project.

For leftist forces outside Venezuela, the current moment demands clarity on what solidarity means. It does not mean endorsing or defending each and every statement made by the Venezuelan government, given the situation in which it currently operates. But neither does it mean demanding that Venezuelan leaders commit suicide in a gesture of revolutionary purity or honor. It does not mean echoing US propaganda about “divisions” and “traitors” without evidence. It does not mean measuring every tactical decision against an abstract standard that no revolutionary project in history has ever met.

Solidarity means understanding that Delcy Rodríguez, sitting across from the representatives of an empire that has long targeted her own family, is engaged in the most difficult kind of revolutionary work: surviving under extreme pressure, with the future of 30 million people at stake. Her goal is to preserve a project that has transformed the Venezuelan state, restored Venezuela's independence, instituted impressive social reforms, created a communal sector, and withstood a sustained imperial economic, military, and political attack in a context of global isolation and an era of counterrevolution. Participating in revolutionary martyrdom in this context would achieve nothing but lead to the liquidation of the Venezuelan left and set back the Venezuelan revolution for generations.

The revolution is not over. It has temporarily retreated, regrouped, and is fighting by other means. The respite gained through these negotiations, however costly, provides the conditions for future progress.

Nicolás Maduro remains the legitimate president of Venezuela, even though he is unjustly imprisoned, denied even the possibility of paying his legal fees. The oil flowing north under this agreement is not tribute, but ransom, paid to guarantee the lives of the Venezuelan people and the continuity of the socialist state. When the balance of power shifts—and it will—Venezuela will fight to recover what imperialism has temporarily taken.

It's not about dying for the revolution, but about living and making the revolution.

There is constant, pervasive propaganda throughout the imperialist establishment against the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, against its leadership – Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro and the PSUV – and, ultimately, against the Venezuelan people.

Media, academia, thinktanks and governments all generate and spread a trove of vitriolic stories – some based in half-truths, some based entirely in deranged self-contradictory fantasy. These stories rely on their audience lacking historical knowledge and the capacity for critical thinking.

As world events pick up pace, so does the propaganda from the ruling class. But hardship and oppression mean that more workers are beginning to understand that the ruling class does not act in their interests, and as a result they are questioning the official narrative more often.

On 11 February 2026 (broadcast on 26 February), not six weeks after the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Combatant Cilia Flores, Dr Vanessa Neumann participated with Mehdi Hassan on Al Jazeera’s Head to Head debating programme. Ms Neumann had previously been the ‘ambassador’ in the UK for Juan Guaidó, the regime-change figurehead chosen by the imperialists and comprador bourgeois of Venezuela. She has also expressed her approval of the USA’s presidential kidnapping, despite its being in violation of both international and Venezuelan law and, in her own admission, not having changed the Bolivarian government of Venezuela.

Disappointingly, although not surprisingly, Mehdi Hassan and the panel of ‘experts’ all spoke from the shared understanding that Venezuela currently lacks ‘democracy’, although they differed on ideas of how to ‘restore’ it. In this way, they aligned themselves with Dr Neumann’s argument that Venezuela needs regime change and differed only on the details of how this should be achieved.

The extremist opposition that Neumann has been involved with has been increasingly divided and has further alienated ordinary Venezuelans, since its leaders openly celebrate sanctions that are hurting the general population, advocate for foreign military intervention against their own country, and reveal themselves as nothing more than servants for their imperialist masters in the USA.

This article is the first in a series examining the Venezuelan opposition. Who are they, what do they want, and what would their success (an increasingly unlikely prospect) mean for Venezuela? Dr Neumann provides a useful case study in beginning to understand their background, organisation and views.

The Neumann family

Despite Dr Vanessa Neumann’s insistence that “stories of oppression by a white oligarchy have been greatly exaggerated” and that there is no racial component to poverty and oppression in Venezuela (one simply has to compare a photo of the wealthy Venezuelans and the opposition politicians to judge whether or not this is true), her family’s Venezuelan saga has its origins just two generations ago in Europe. (The essay: Not noble, not savage, Varsity magazine, 23 October 2009)

Her grandfather, Hans Neumann, was the son of wealthy German-jewish industrialist Otto Neumann, who built a successful paint business in Czechoslovakia during its independence after WW1. Along with his brother Lothar, Hans was sent to study chemical engineering at the University of Prague. The rise of fascist Germany and the annexation of Czechoslovakia forced the Neumanns into hiding, and 25 out of 34 of the family were murdered by the Nazis.

Hans survived by assuming a false identity and working in a paint factory that was crucial for the Nazi war effort, the education provided by his wealthy family helping him to escape the fate of many working-class jews.

After returning to Czechoslovakia, he and his brother began rebuilding the family businesses, but they decided to flee to Venezuela in 1948 when it became clear that a people’s government, led by communists, was going be established. Dr Vanessa Neumann claims her grandfather fled fascism in Europe, but in reality he fled the prospect of being deprived of the wealth and power derived from his business ownership and of being reduced to the status of an ordinary member of society.

The Neumann brothers arrived in Venezuela in 1949, and did very well under the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez, which lasted from 1950-58. Hans Neumann’s eulogy on the Mustique Island website paints a relatively positive picture of dictator Pérez Jiménez, praising the architecture of public works while only dryly noting that the corrupt junta took a cut from every project.

In fact, the eulogy even identifies the Neumann brothers with the dictatorship via its modernist design and architecture, saying they “exemplified this, they were a new breed of industrialist on the Venezuelan scene”. There is no mention of the secret police, suppression of political opponents, closure of universities, silencing of the press, and rampant inflation. (Marcos Pérez Jiménez biography, Britannica.com)

(In fact, modernism itself was the desperate response of imperialism to socialism, attempting to prove that the moribund system was still dynamic and developing. Modernist art, particularly abstract expressionism, was promoted by the CIA as part of its culture war against the Soviet Union.)

Hans Neumann would grow his paint business into the Corimon conglomerate (the first Venezuelan company to be listed on the New York stock exchange), go on to own newspapers such as The Daily Journal, and to buy the Caribbean island of Mustique – an exclusive resort for the rich and powerful. It is into this dynasty that Vanessa Neumann was born.

A regime-change career

Vanessa Neumann may have been born in Venezuela, but she was bred in the United States, her family having moved her there when she was ten. She would spend 11 years at New York City’s Columbia university, which culminated in a dissertation justifying regime change in which she claimed that “majority rule can become counterproductive by delegitimising [that] democracy”. [The Autonomy and Legitimacy of States: A Critical Approach to Foreign Intervention, 2004]

She would go on to work for her grandfather’s newspapers, including Tal Cual, a paper he founded specifically to spread propaganda against President Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Aside from some stints as a lobbyist for the arms and oil industries, she spent many years working for various thinktanks. (Meet the Venezuelan coup regime’s ‘UK ambassador,’ a pampered US heiress who threatens journalists by Ben Norton, The Grayzone, 9 July 2020)

Among these was six months spent working at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), funded by arms firms, oil companies, multinational corporations and the British government, among others. It was here Neumann began to create stories accusing the Venezuelan government of drug trafficking.

She was also a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) from 2011 until recently, where she published articles accusing the PSUV and the Bolivarian armed forces (FANB) of corruption and drug trafficking. The FPRI is an American thinktank founded by a US diplomat, Robert Strausz-Hupé, in the 1950s – a man who believed that the USA and the CIA’s notorious John Foster Dulles were not anticommunist enough!

These lies regarding Venezuelan state involvement in drug trafficking were not enough on their own, so Dr Neumann set about creating a narrative that could help sell the idea that US military intervention in Venezuela was a matter of national security, linking it to the ‘war on terror’, which was US imperialism’s replacement for the cold war as a justification for launching regime-change operations and aggressive wars across the middle east, north Africa and Asia throughout the 2000s and 2010s.

It was at these institutes, funded by imperialist governments, arms and oil companies, and staunch anticommunists, that she began concocting stories about “narcoterrorism” – the very stories that have recently been used by US media and government officials to claim that Venezuela is a threat, and to try to justify the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and National Deputy Cilia Flores.

Tales of narcoterrorism

In one sensational article from 2011, published by the FPRI, Dr Neumann claimed that Venezuela was a “nexus of narcoterrorism”, accusing the country of working with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda (apparently without irony, since those two organisations operate on opposite sides of the middle-eastern struggle against imperialism!), of hosting “terrorist training camps” and of running the drug trade with government and army support. (The new nexus of narcoterrorism: Hezbollah and Venezuela, 3 December 2011)

As so often with imperialist narratives, every accusation is in fact a confession. We know that the imperialists routinely make use of terrorist proxy armies and are the world’s principal drug-runners. There is no evidence that any anti-imperialist country is involved in such activities, however, so what were Ms Neumann’s sources for this information?

Articles published in the New York Times, an unspecified documentary, and the United Nations office on drugs and crime (UNODC) World Drug Report 2011.

The UNODC report noted that Venezuela accounted for the majority of cocaine seized in Europe between 2005-09, however this statistic relied both on the ability of reporting nations to seize the cocaine and on their successfully determining its country of origin. The report also showed that the amount seized had significantly decreased from 9.4 metric tons (mt) in 2006 to 6.6 mt in 2009. Compared to the 65 mt seized in Ecuador that year, or the 253 mt seized in Columbia, it pales into insignificance.

Bolivarian Venezuela has consistently acted to stop the production (of which there was very little in the first place), distribution and trafficking of cocaine in and through the country, and this effort is reflected both in recent UN and other reports on drug trafficking, as well as by the people of Venezuela, whose working-class residents report that they have, with assistance from the government, successfully cleared out drug dealers from their neighbourhoods.

The UNODC and other organisations that monitor drug trafficking identify Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Brazil as the most significant nations exporting drugs both to the USA and the rest of the world. Not only is Venezuela not a notable producer of cocaine, it is not a significant transit country for the trafficking of cocaine and has been actively working to stamp the trade out.

And what of the link to ‘terrorism’? This is both a trick of circular referencing, beloved of imperialist propagandists, and of designating all opponents of US imperialism as ‘terrorists’. The original source came from the US DEA, or other US government agencies, and has since been repeatedly recycled through academia and thinktanks. At each stage the stories have grown in scope and scale, eventually becoming tabloid-worthy tales of Hezbollah digging tunnels under the US border with the drug cartels! (Hezbollah’s drug empire in South America by Brian McDonald, The Times of Israel, 25 November 2025)

Neumann’s only direct ‘proof’ in the FPRI article of Hezbollah involvement in the drug trade in Venezuela came from the ‘confession’ of drug lord Walid Makled, who was arrested in Colombia when he fled Venezuela after his entire operation had been taken down. Who was it taken down by? The Venezuelan government!

Neither drug busts nor arrests for corruption by the Venezuelan government are ever considered as evidence of intolerance of these crimes by propagandists like Neumann, but inversely (and perversely!) serve as ‘evidence’ of their complicity in them!

Neumann also either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the differences between organisations such as Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda, the former an anti-imperialist force, the latter a tool of imperialism. Venezuela’s links with anti-imperialist allies across the world such as Iran becomes muddled, obfuscated and reduced to the blanket charge of ‘narcoterrorism’ by Neumann.

In the same article, in an incredible display of racism, she implied that all six million muslims in Latin America are a latent terrorist force!

Lapdog of US imperialism

The Neumann family likes to emphasise their charitable enterprises as evidence of their concern for the plight of impoverished Venezuelans, but the real purpose of these activities is to provide a moralistic comfort blanket for their class, to serve as a tool for propaganda, and to provide a mechanism for cultivating talented members of the working class as their local agents.

While the Neumanns built a business empire during military dictatorships and liberal bourgeois democracies alike (under which poverty, repression and corruption were constant features), the share of Venezuelan wealth for the bottom 50 percent of the population remained steady at around 2.8 percent. It was only after the Bolivarian Revolution was launched in 1999 that their share began to increase, steadily growing to 3.6 percent by 2023, despite crippling sanctions and economic sabotage.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of Venezuela’s population has lost 4.6 percent of its share of the national wealth since 1990, dropping to 30.6 percent. The top 10 percent, holding 68.5 percent of the wealth of the nation in 1990, has similarly dropped a few points to 65.6 percent. (Venezuela profile, World Inequality Database, 2024)

But what truly scares the Neumanns and other Venezuelan bourgeois is the thought of forever losing the source of their fantastic wealth: the ability to exploit the resources and people of Venezuela. The communal constitution, the people’s militias and the shift of power away from the old bourgeois state into the hands of the workers is terrifying them because they know a time is coming when they will not simply be able to rig an election or stage a coup to regain power.

They will have to fight the people of Venezuela, who have been building their own homes, planting their own food, running industries by themselves and learning how to manage a country – all in the face of severe economic sanctions and extreme military pressure.

It is a fight they could never win, and given their dwindling strength and resources they have transformed themselves into cringingly servile lapdogs of US imperialism, begging for sanctions and war against the Venezuelan people. In the case of Dr Neumann, with her long record of providing moral arguments for regime change based on phony propaganda about ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, she has to remain embarrassingly tight-lipped or unconvincingly feign ignorance when asked about the naked aggression of US imperialism and President Trump’s newly-announced “Donroe” doctrine.

Unfortunately for her, the time for such liberal obfuscations of imperialism is long over. Every piece of her propaganda has been exposed, the class nature of the struggle between Venezuela and the USA, and between Venezuelan workers and the opposition, is clear.

Future articles in this series will reveal the dealings of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and its link to every major corruption case in Venezuela, as well as its links to all the leaders of the political opposition, including Juan Guaidó and María Machado.