By: Ricardo Abud
History is often unforgiving to those who confuse rhetoric with power. For years, the leadership of the so-called Bolivarian Revolution spoke of independence, sovereignty, multipolarity, and resistance to imperialism.
However, when the facts are examined from a geopolitical perspective, an uncomfortable question arises: did they truly understand the world they were facing?
The answer appears to be negative.
As the international system transitioned from US unipolar hegemony to an increasingly multipolar configuration, Venezuela possessed an extraordinary asset: a privileged geographic position, the largest oil reserves on the planet, and growing relations with two emerging powers, Russia and China. The combination of these factors offered a historic opportunity to alter the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere.
However, that opportunity was wasted.
Venezuelan leaders seemed to assume that denouncing US hegemony was enough to weaken it. But hegemonies are not overthrown through rhetoric. They are challenged through concrete power structures: military alliances, technological agreements, alternative financial systems, and credible deterrent capabilities.
While Washington spent decades developing a global network of military bases and strategic alliances, Caracas limited its relations with Moscow and Beijing primarily to arms purchases, energy agreements, and economic projects. There was cooperation, but a security architecture capable of truly altering U.S. strategic calculations was never built.
The contradiction is evident. There was constant talk of a multipolar world, but the conditions were not created for that multipolarity to have a concrete expression in the Caribbean and South America.
History demonstrates that great powers respect anything that might impose costs. US doctrine has systematically rejected the military presence of rival powers in the Western Hemisphere since the 19th century. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to contemporary tensions with Russia and China, the strategic logic has remained virtually unchanged: Washington considers the region a fundamental part of its sphere of influence.
Precisely for this reason, a genuine long-term strategy would have required building permanent mechanisms for military cooperation with Russia and China. Not as a symbolic gesture or an ideological provocation, but as a balancing instrument.
From this perspective, the installation of shared military infrastructure, logistics centers, advanced air defense systems, naval facilities, and strategic presence agreements would have radically transformed the risk assessment of any external actor interested in intervening directly in Venezuela.
International politics does not operate on the basis of moral pronouncements. It operates on the basis of power dynamics.
The events of January 3, 2026, starkly illustrate this reality. Various international sources reported that US forces carried out a military operation that culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his removal from Venezuelan territory.
Beyond the legal or political interpretations of that episode, the fundamental fact was that the United States deemed it feasible to carry out a massive operation on Venezuelan territory. Various reports described an action planned over months, supported by attacks against military infrastructure and overwhelming operational capacity.
From a geopolitical perspective, the relevant question is not only why it happened, but why it was considered possible.
If Venezuela had developed a deep military alliance with Russia and China over the years; if there had been a permanent presence of military personnel from those powers; if integrated strategic systems had been deployed in the country; if any aggression had automatically implied the risk of a larger-scale international confrontation, it is legitimate to argue that Washington's strategic calculations would have been different.
It cannot be stated with certainty that US action would have been impossible. History does not allow for experiments. But it can be argued that the political, military, and diplomatic costs would have increased significantly.
The essence of deterrence lies precisely in that: preventing an adversary from considering a certain action acceptable.
The fundamental problem is that the Bolivarian leadership never seemed to fully grasp this logic. It confused economic alliances with strategic alliances. It confused political affinities with security commitments. It confused diplomatic friendship with the effective guarantee of protection.
China invested billions of dollars in Venezuela. Russia provided weaponry and political support. But neither power developed a presence capable of decisively altering the regional military balance. Even after the events of January 2026, both powers condemned the US operation, calling it a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but the condemnation came after the fact.
The lesson is as old as international politics: influence without the ability to respond has limits.
The end result is paradoxical. A project presented as the great alternative to the hemispheric order constructed by the United States ended up demonstrating the persistence of that very same order. For decades, the end of the "backyard" was proclaimed. However, when the decisive moment arrived, it became clear that the fundamental power structures in the region had barely changed.
Perhaps the greatest failure of the Bolivarian Revolution was not economic, institutional, or ideological. Perhaps it was geopolitical.
He failed to understand that the 21st century would not be defined by revolutionary rhetoric, but by competition between great powers. He failed to grasp that multipolarity had to be built through institutions, capabilities, and lasting alliances. He failed to perceive that international power rewards foresight and punishes improvisation.
Today, the world is immersed in a growing rivalry between the United States, China, and Russia. Tensions are mounting from Eastern Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The stability mechanisms inherited from the postwar era are showing signs of strain. Mistrust among the great powers increases every year.
In that context, Venezuela appears as a case study on the consequences of not understanding the deep dynamics of history in time.
The tragedy lies not only in having lost a strategic opportunity. The tragedy lies in having believed that the opportunity could wait indefinitely.
History proved otherwise. And when reality finally came knocking, it was too late to build the instruments of power that were never created. As the great powers approach an increasingly dangerous confrontation, humanity is once again witnessing how geopolitical miscalculations can push the world toward scenarios many believed belonged to the past. Because when the balance of power disappears, peace does not necessarily follow. Often, something far more unsettling emerges: the possibility of a global crisis spiraling out of control.
){kind=link}
0 Comentarios