The US-Venezuela Conflict Under the Quid Pro Quo Doctrine

 

 By: Sociologist Kelly J. Pottella G.

The conflict between the United States (US) and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, far from being a stagnant ideological rivalry, is being reconfigured as a case study in coercive geopolitics, characterized by a transactional and personalistic foreign policy. Under the doctrine of quid pro quo (conditional exchange), the deployment of pressure has diverged between the rhetoric of "regime change" and the pragmatic objective of securing immediate energy and commercial interests. This approach exposes profound structural flaws and moral dilemmas in Washington's strategy. The recent electoral defeat of Miami-based administration-backed candidate Emilio González to Democrat Eileen Higgins, who assumes the role of mayor, introduces a variable of internal political instability that accelerates the urgency to close the coercion cycle before a potential transition in US foreign policy.

The Instrumental Use of Force

Washington's policy manifests through an explicit show of force, justified by the narrative of fighting drug trafficking and the designation of the Venezuelan government as a "narco-terrorist cartel" (OTE). This legal and discursive instrumentalism lays the foundation for coercive actions, such as the strategic positioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford nuclear aircraft carrier and the execution of "Operation Southern Spear." The declared objective of former envoy Elliott Abrams—that the mission would only cease "when the Maduro government is gone"—turns the deployment into a direct tool of political coercion. From the perspective of the Venezuelan capital, this intensification of naval operations is labeled a "Multiform War" and a blatant violation of sovereignty, seeking not only deterrence but strategic exhaustion.

The Failed Hypothesis of 'Maximum Pressure'

The hypothesis of a military invasion or a spontaneous collapse of the Venezuelan government has been refuted by evidence. Statements by the US Department of War denying "plans for military invasion of Venezuela" and the analysis of military infeasibility suggest that force is used as a tactical mechanism of coercion for negotiation. The ultimate failure of "maximum pressure" in the energy sector was confirmed by the "respectful and cordial" phone conversation between Trump and Maduro and the subsequent agreement between Chevron Corp. and PDVSA to resume crude extraction and purchase. These facts confirm that the imperative of securing the energy supply prevails over ideological commitment. From the Venezuelan government's perspective, its survival is due to a unified resistance and the success of its multipolar alliances (Russia, China), allowing it to convert the blockade and military deployment into a political "bluff."

Human Cost and Opositional Fissures

The human cost of this strategy is severe. The intensification of attacks against vessels in the Caribbean, with at least 83 deaths since September, has been denounced by the Venezuelan National Assembly as "extrajudicial executions" and "war crimes." This reality fuels, from the popular perspective, the narrative of confrontation and defensive solidarity, interpreting the military deployment as an attempt to strip the people of their dignity.

Simultaneously, the opposition leadership, which supported this policy, has been exposed by corruption and frivolity, with accusations of "pirate loot" in the administration of assets like CITGO and Monómeros, an act qualified as a "vulgar dispossession" of a national asset. The recent awarding of a peace prize to María Corina Machado, an opposition leader, introduces new complexity. For the opposition, this award validates their international legitimacy. For the Venezuelan executive, it is interpreted as an act of geopolitical interference to delegitimize dialogue. The interpretation of this strategic event is that it complicates the Realpolitik desired by the US, as the negotiation for oil must coexist with the international recognition of a polarizing political figure, reinforcing the deeply fractured and external nature of the Venezuelan opposition leadership.

The 'Personnel Doctrine' and the Path to Institutional Autonomy

Trump's analytical deficit lies in his "Personnel Doctrine," which ignores the deep internal defensive solidity and social roots of a government that capitalizes on the dignification of historically excluded masses. By not being willing to provide the three institutional pillars for a sustainable transition (security umbrella, economic restructuring, and political moderation), coercion only increases the risk of uncertainty.

The fact that external coercion has been condemned to failure and moral reproach, while the conflict heads toward an accelerated negotiation of energy and political terms, leads us to the following reasoning: The electoral defeat of the governing party in the US amplifies the outgoing administration's need to close the quid pro quo of oil and security before the transfer of power, which could change the terms of de-escalation.

The path to overcoming the crisis requires a slow and structural internal process, so that society, through effort and maturity, can build the institutions that Washington has been reluctant to finance or guarantee. From the perspective of Cultural Resilience, the only way to secure the future is for society, prioritizing peace and dialogue over the military boot, to build its own institutional autonomy.