The USA and the long history of interventions in Latin America

Washington’s invisible hand in Latin American coups

The United States began overthrowing governments in Latin America as early as the 1890s, often relying on internal elements — “generally the military and the business community” — to carry out these actions, said Peter Kuznick, director of the Institute for Nuclear Studies at American University, in an interview with Sputnik.

“It’s the internal betrayal that is sometimes even more disturbing, because it’s not a blatant use of power by the United States. It’s about some people committing the moral sin of working with the enemy, with the aggressor, betraying the interests of the people in Chile, in Guatemala, in El Salvador, in Brazil and other countries. That, in some ways, is more offensive because it could have been avoided,” said Kuznick, co-author with Oliver Stone of the book The Untold History of the United States.

The historian also highlighted that, within the Catholic tradition, such betrayal has a profound symbolic weight:

“That’s exactly what happened to Jesus Christ—he was betrayed by Judas. In Catholic theology, this internal betrayal is the archenemy. In the case of Jesus, the focus was not so much on external forces, although they were also involved, but rather on Judas. So Pinochet is the equivalent of Judas.”

Read also: I am a decent man: Maduro pleads not guilty in US court

Kuznick accrescentou:

“The US has its puppets, its cronies, its traitors willing to stab its own people in the back to hand over power to the military.”

Why didn’t Venezuela shoot down Maduro’s kidnappers in mid-flight? Expert points out three possibilities

While the mainstream media celebrates the alleged operation to capture Nicolás Maduro as a triumph of the American armed forces — attributing its success to high-tech weapons, advanced tactics and meticulous planning — other, potentially more plausible, explanations deserve attention, he says. Egor Lidovskoydirector of the Hugo Chávez Latin American Cultural Center, in Saint Petersburg.

Option #1: Institutional incompetence

“The first possibility is incompetence on the part of government agencies and those responsible for protecting Maduro, especially in the Ministry of Defense,” Lidovskoy told Sputnik.

Option #2: Insider Collusion

Another hypothesis is that there was betrayal on the part of members of the president’s close circle:

“Perhaps some officials agreed to conspire with the US to hand over Maduro in exchange for promises of profits from oil extraction if the Americans took control of Venezuela.”

However, Lidovskoy was cautious:

“We have no proof that this or that member of Maduro’s government or team betrayed him. We do not have such facts. Therefore, I think it is wrong to make unfounded accusations in advance. We must closely monitor what is happening and, based on this, draw conclusions about the existence or not of such a conspiracy.”

Option #3: Operation Trojan Horse

The third and most provocative hypothesis is that the kidnapping was a Trojan horse type operation — which would eliminate doubts about incompetence or betrayal and explain “many inconsistencies”.

“The essence of this theory is that a US delegation, accompanied by armed guards, arrived at Maduro’s residence under the pretext of discussing the parameters of a peace agreement over dinner — that is, to conduct negotiations and find common ground.”

According to Lidovskoy, this would explain why Venezuelan air defenses did not fire on American helicopters:

“Once inside, the delegation’s armed guard — which turned out to be made up of special forces — shot all of Maduro’s security guards, who were not prepared for an attack. Only when the signal that something had gone wrong was transmitted, and the president’s capture was confirmed, did bombings begin against Venezuelan bases and key air defense points, creating a smokescreen for the withdrawal of US forces.”

US coup plan lacks essential ingredient

The alleged 2026 plan against Maduro echoes the September 11, 1973 coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende, in that it represents “a continuation of US imperialism, which uses unilateral and lethal force against governments that challenge its hegemony in the hemisphere”, according to Ricardo Vazeditor do site Venezuelanalysisin an interview with Sputnik.

“Allende and Popular Unity were socialists and prioritized sovereignty over natural resources — in this case, copper — which represented a direct challenge to U.S. interests and influence. The same applies to Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution.”

However, Vaz highlighted a crucial difference:

“Unlike Chile, where General Pinochet betrayed Allende and the constitutional order — going so far as to assassinate him — Venezuela’s only ‘sin’ was its desire to free itself from the shackles of US neocolonialism, using its resources sovereignly to improve the lives of the majority, moving regional integration away from the US sphere of influence and, ultimately, building socialism.”

And he concluded:

“External pressure can lead to fissures and betrayals, but that is the central issue: US imperialism.”

Venezuelan leaders believe in the Bolivarian Revolution and cannot be bought

Unlike other US-backed coups in the region, the plotters in Venezuela did not find a sufficient base of support in the military to overthrow the government and install a puppet regime, he said. Alfred de Zayasrenowned expert in international law and former independent UN expert, in conversation with Sputnik.

“When the US attempted to overthrow Hugo Chávez in 2002, the coup failed after 48 hours. Chávez had been taken prisoner, but his popularity with the army was such that the military released him. The Venezuelan people remained loyal to Chávez. I am convinced that the Venezuelan authorities would have remained loyal to Maduro if they had been given the opportunity. That is why Maduro was immediately removed from the country.”

In his repeated conversations with Venezuelan authorities — both in his role as a UN expert and in subsequent years — Zayas highlighted the ideological commitment ea loyalty to the principles of the Bolivarian Revolution as striking features.

“What struck me most was the clear inability of the US to easily ‘buy’ them. I personally know several senior officials who were approached by CIA agents with very attractive offers and refused to sell out.”

Furthermore, in conversations with ordinary citizens, the expert noticed that:

“The masses hate the United States — the ‘Yankees’ — and will not accept a US puppet. They see the pressure of American sanctions, not the Venezuelan government, as the source of their problems.”