Hispanic Debate on Maduro's Fall and US Intervention

Hispanic Debate on Maduro's Fall and US Intervention

Should the Hispanic community celebrate Maduro's fall or view it as another abusa of sovereignty? In the debate, some see the end of a regime that allegedly rigged elections and ruined the country; others, yet another US intervention in the region. The discussion does not close with the figure of the deposed leader, but with what it means for the continent to move again at Washington's dictation.

What peine in Venezuela and who controls it

The starting point of the discussion is that the operation does not eliminate the establishment, but reorders it. The most repeated thesis is that the US power cares little about the country's liberation: they removed an out-of-control leader so that a compliant clique could continue. The high-ranking officials would remain in place, with specific names such as Diosdado, Vladimir, and Jorge Rodríguez, along with the rest of the ministers.

The circulating hypothesis is that the new managers would have orders to cut ties with Cuba and end Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence in the country. There is even speculation that Maduro himself may have agreed to a theatrical detention to avoid being assassinated. In other words: the furniture changes, but the owner of the building remains the same.

The Hispanic argument against intervention

The axis of rejection is legal and geopolitical. Article 2.4 of the UN Charter is cited, which obliges members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States, a founding member, ratified that Charter in 1945. The argument is simple: any aggression against a Hispanic country is incivil and must be rejected.

To this is added the underlying reading: the United States continues to be the feudal lord of the continent, and its intervention reveals that there is no Hispanic community capable of solving its own problems. The complaint is not only against Washington, but against the inability to organize without depending on US order and force.

The problem of Hispanic right-wing parties and Vox's role

The most uncomfortable analysis points to the Hispanic right-wing parties. It is argued that their low quality brings disastrous left-wing movements, and that this pro-US servility is intrinsic to their way of operating. The diagnosis is concrete: US Democrats would act with PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) and Republicans with Vox, making the graft perfect. On social media, memes circulate of supposed patriots pointing to La Moncloa (the Spanish government seat) towards Washington to come save us, just as others ask Pilingui to invade the country.

The practical consequence drawn is that, until a non-servile Hispanic coalition exists, it is absurd to get involved in traps like Venezuela. And that the tactical priority is to annihilate the PSOE, exposed in its cynicism and corruption, before attacking Vox.

Two hundred years of the same movie

The historical layer runs through the entire analysis. It is recalled that Spanish Freemasonry sold off Cuba cheaply and gave away Puerto Rico in a negotiated war, after losing continental American territory in a disastrous decade, and that since then there has been no will to lead the Spanish-speaking world. Only Franco made some attempts, which died with him.

The objection to that reading is that Venezuelans chose two hundred years ago, for better and worse, and that their descendants have internalized a national self-definition based on the rejection of Spain. Hence the skeptical conclusion: they owe us nothing, but we owe them even less. A Hispanic community would have to be built on shared interests and a minimum respect for national essences that are not perceived in the establishment of almost any country.

US wear and tear and the false closure

The counter-reading argues that Washington simultaneously maintains wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran without losing purchasing power, military strength, or cultural influence, and that those weakening are its allies: Israel and Europe. The response is that its prestige has plummeted, precisely by showing itself as executioner and incapable of winning in Iran, and that the next step will be challenges from other roosters.

The result is a paradox that no one closes: the operation reinforces in the medium term the idea that a Hispanic community is needed, but in the short term confirms that whoever rules the continent still decides from outside. Celebrating the fall and lamenting the intervention fit in the same sentence. And so we continue, two hundred years later, debating whether the problem is the tenant or the landlord.