The Counter-Narrative: Caracas’s Defense and Accusations of Imperialism Amidst US Pressure

As the United States government, under the Trump administration, intensifies its campaign against the leadership of Nicolás Maduro—characterized by a significant naval buildup in the Caribbean and the recent designation of the Cartel de los Soles as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)—Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has publicly declared his readiness for dialogue. On November 18, 2025, Maduro signaled an openness to “face to face” discussions with U.S. representatives, hours after President Trump indicated that such discussions might be forthcoming, even while refusing to rule out the potential deployment of U.S. ground forces. This tense pivot from military posturing to potential talks forms the backdrop for an entrenched and sophisticated defense strategy by Caracas, one rooted in a powerful counter-narrative of sovereignty defense against perceived American imperialism.

Denial of Illicit Leadership and Counter-Accusations Regarding Oil Interests

The foundational pillar of the Venezuelan government’s defense is the categorical denial of the U.S. allegations that President Maduro heads a transnational criminal enterprise, specifically the Cartel de los Soles. The administration refutes the legitimacy of the narco-trafficking charges entirely, framing the escalating U.S. military and sanctions campaign as a transparent geopolitical maneuver.

This official narrative posits the entire naval deployment, including the arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group—the largest U.S. military presence in the region since 1989—not as a counter-narcotics effort, but as a pretext for illicit resource acquisition. Caracas consistently asserts that the true objective behind the pressure and the August 2025 launch of “Operation Southern Spear,” which has conducted deadly strikes on dozens of vessels, is to secure control over Venezuela’s immense petroleum reserves, a historical flashpoint in regional geopolitics.

In a direct appeal contrasting with Washington’s rhetoric, Maduro has explicitly warned the American populace against foreign military entanglement, asking, “No more endless wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan”. This framing seeks to position Venezuela not as a rogue state, but as a victim of renewed U.S. interventionism, aiming to secure international sympathy from the global south.

Mobilization of Civilian Allegiance in the Face of Perceived Threat

In a visible projection of unity against the backdrop of U.S. military signaling, the Venezuelan government has moved to consolidate domestic support through mass mobilization exercises. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced a “higher phase” of the “Independence Plan 200,” involving nearly 200,000 troops on maximum operational readiness across all branches, including land, air, sea, and missile forces.

This military readiness is paralleled by civilian calls to action. High-ranking officials, such as Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, have overseen ceremonies where civilians publicly pledge allegiance and are integrated into civil defense structures. These rallies are explicitly framed as necessary preparation against what the government terms an “imperialist threat” and potential invasion orchestrated by the U.S. and its allies. This domestic rallying effort serves a dual function: projecting an image of national cohesion to the world and operationalizing civilian defense structures for potential large-scale conflict or internal unrest.

Internal Political Fractures and the Legitimization Crisis

The current high-stakes external pressure campaign is inextricably linked to a pre-existing, deep-seated crisis of domestic political legitimacy for the incumbent administration, a situation aggravated by recent electoral controversy and the subsequent suppression of the political opposition.

The Contested Electoral Mandate of the Preceding Year

The presidential term that commenced in January 2025 followed a July 2024 election cycle that was widely discredited by international observers and numerous governments, including the United States. Reports from the time indicated that precinct-level tallies suggested a decisive victory for the main opposition candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, a result that the incumbent authority ultimately maintained control over. This alleged electoral invalidation forms a core, publicly recognized justification for the intensity of the external pressure currently being exerted by Washington.

The Status and Plight of Prominent Opposition Voices

Challenging the incumbent authority has carried severe repercussions for key opposition figures. Following the disputed 2024 election, the Attorney General issued high-profile arrest warrants, forcing the leading opposition contender, Maria Corina Machado, into exile. Machado, who has since been recognized internationally for her struggle, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2025. Another prominent opposition figure remains in hiding within the country, unable to operate freely. As of late 2025, human rights monitoring groups document hundreds of individuals detained as political prisoners, illustrating the restrictive control over the civil and political sphere. This severe suppression of internal political avenues for transition leads some domestic factions to view the external pressure as a potentially necessary, though perilous, catalyst for change.

Geopolitical Undercurrents: International Alliances Complicating US Aims

The situation is far from a purely bilateral confrontation; it is deeply woven into the strategic fabric of global powers actively working to counterbalance U.S. influence in Latin America. These alliances offer a crucial layer of insulation and support for the regime, significantly complicating any purely unilateral U.S. policy approach.

Enduring External Support Networks for the Incumbent Regime

The government in Caracas maintains relationships vital for its continued survival and circumvention of international isolation. Russia has sustained its long-standing support, having previously deployed military personnel and continuing to provide assistance in navigating sanctions targeting the petroleum sector. Furthermore, the regime has deepened its dependence on military and intelligence cooperation with Cuba. Analysts suggest that Cuban entities provide essential internal security support, embedding advisors within intelligence networks to bolster the leadership’s grip on power and guard against potential coups amidst domestic crises and economic strangulation. While Russia’s means may be stretched by the conflict in Ukraine, its symbolic support remains a factor, despite assessments that its role in Venezuela is an “economy of force mission”.

Broader Regional Security Implications of Intervention

The evolving military posture of the United States raises significant apprehension among neighboring states and regional bodies concerning broader instability. The shift in U.S. policy—moving from sustained economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation toward direct military operations and covert interference, including CIA activities authorized in October 2025—is being monitored closely. Policy analysts note that such interventionist foreign policy generates widespread questions about the future of national sovereignty across Latin America, raising fears of a cascade effect of instability given the historical precedent of past U.S. military involvement in the region. The potential repercussions of any miscalculation in this highly charged environment are feared to extend well beyond the immediate borders of the involved nations.

Analysis of Strategic Contradictions and Potential Endgames

As U.S. pressure reaches new heights, the overall strategy appears to employ a deliberate tension between maximalist military threat and managed diplomatic openings. Deciphering the true objectives requires assessing these mixed signals against the durability of the Venezuelan resistance.

Rejection of Transitional Arrangements and the Push for Immediate Exit

Reports from mid-October 2025 detailed that Venezuelan officials had floated a proposal aimed at easing the mounting U.S. pressure. This alleged plan suggested a negotiated, gradual exit for President Maduro over a three-year period, culminating in his resignation in 2028 and the transfer of authority to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who would complete the term but not seek re-election. Crucially, this pathway was reportedly rejected by the White House, which maintained its view of the regime as illegitimate and alleged to be a narco-terrorist state. This rejection signaled a clear strategic preference by the administration for an immediate and decisive removal from power rather than a protracted political transition, deeming any scenario allowing the current leadership extended influence an unacceptable failure. It is important to note, however, that Vice President Rodríguez publicly denied the existence of any such negotiation.

Skepticism Surrounding the Cartel Designation and Legal Authority

A critical component in understanding the standoff is the legal and intellectual foundation underpinning the U.S. campaign. While the administration aggressively pursues its aims by labeling the leadership as heads of the Cartel de los Soles, many legal specialists and informed observers express profound skepticism. These experts question whether the alleged Cartel de los Soles organization possesses the clear command structure of established criminal syndicates in the hemisphere.

Furthermore, this skepticism extends to the operational premise: reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and even the DEA itself have reportedly characterized Venezuela as a marginal player in international drug trafficking, directly contradicting the narrative used to justify the strikes. While the U.S. designated the Tren de Aragua as an FTO in February 2025 and the Cartel de los Soles in July/November 2025 [cite: 4, 5 from search 2], the legality of using lethal military force against suspected smuggling vessels without clear evidence of armed conflict or provable narcotics loads has been robustly challenged by international bodies, including concerns from France and the UK regarding compliance with international law. This dichotomy between the perceived necessity for regime removal and the contested international legality of the means employed forms the ultimate uncertainty in this volatile international crisis as of late 2025.