US Prioritizes Oil and Stability Over Ideology in Venezuela

The Trump administration's decision to back Delcy Rodríguez, a Maduro loyalist, over opposition leader María Corina Machado in Venezuela reveals a stark transactionalism that prioritizes immediate resource control and stability over democratic ideals. This conversation exposes the hidden consequence of aligning with established, even repressive, figures to secure economic interests, potentially sacrificing long-term geopolitical leverage and democratic aspirations. Business leaders, strategists, and those interested in the complex interplay of international relations and resource economics will find value in understanding how deeply entrenched power structures can be courted for pragmatic, albeit morally ambiguous, gains. The advantage lies in recognizing that political capital can be devalued when immediate economic imperatives, like oil access and migrant control, take precedence.

The Uncomfortable Alliance: How Transactional Politics Reshaped Venezuela's Future

The ousting of Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela was not the clear-cut victory for democracy that many had hoped for. Instead, the situation devolved into a complex geopolitical maneuver where the Trump administration, driven by a desire for Venezuelan oil and a need to curb migration, opted to support Delcy Rodríguez, a key figure within the very regime it had sought to dismantle. This decision, seemingly counterintuitive, highlights a profound shift in foreign policy, prioritizing immediate economic and security interests over ideological alignment. As Anatoly Kurmanaev explains, the administration’s choice of Rodríguez over the popular opposition leader María Corina Machado was a calculated move, one that traded the promise of political liberation for the certainty of economic partnership and a degree of stability.

The Paradox of Pragmatism: Why Delcy Over Machado?

María Corina Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and a vocal critic of the Maduro regime, represented the ideological antithesis of the current Venezuelan government. Her consistent stance against negotiation with Maduro, her unwavering commitment to democratic principles, and her impeccable conservative credentials made her a natural ally for many within the traditional Republican agenda. However, her very consistency, a trait that had galvanized the Venezuelan populace, became a liability in the transactional landscape of the Trump administration.

Kurmanaev points out that Machado's gravest mistake was her inability to adapt to a political environment characterized by ideological agnosticism and daily shifts in policy. When the Trump administration, through its envoy Richard Grenell, sought to negotiate the release of American detainees and explore economic deals, Machado’s purist approach proved to be a roadblock. Her refusal to engage in any form of negotiation with Maduro's officials clashed directly with the administration's transactional mindset.

"This consistency is what brought her to the cusp of gaining power in Venezuela during the last elections... But in the current transactional Washington of today, this has become a liability. She has not been able to adjust to a very transactional approach to politics that we see in Washington an ideologically agnostic approach to Washington where beliefs and policies are ditched adjusts them on a daily basis to suit the whims of people taking power."

-- Anatoly Kurmanaev

This inflexibility led to a gradual souring of relations. The Trump administration began to doubt the accuracy of the intelligence and assumptions provided by Machado's camp, viewing them as outdated and ineffective. Despite Machado's efforts to ingratiate herself with the administration, including dedicating her Nobel Prize to Trump, her strategy of appealing to a single individual proved insufficient. Trump himself reportedly stated that Machado lacked the necessary support to govern, a sentiment Kurmanaev suggests stems from her alienation of Venezuela's economic elites and her failure to gain the support of the armed forces--groups crucial for any transition of power. Ironically, in her attempt to align with Trump, Machado adopted his talking points, branding the Venezuelan government as a "narco cartel." This alienated the very elites and military officials whose support she needed to persuade the Trump administration of her viability.

The Technocrat's Rise: Delcy's Economic Gambit

In contrast, Delcy Rodríguez, despite her Marxist roots and her deep ties to the Maduro regime, presented herself as a capable economic manager. The Trump administration saw in her a pragmatic partner who could ensure the flow of Venezuelan oil and maintain a degree of stability, thereby mitigating the migrant crisis. Rodríguez, daughter of a Marxist guerrilla, had undergone a significant ideological transformation, steering Venezuela towards a radically capitalist economy with minimal regulation.

This economic re-engineering, initiated around 2019 when U.S. sanctions crippled the oil industry, began to yield results by 2021. Inflation subsided, businesses reopened, and oil production saw a gradual increase. While these reforms did not bring widespread wealth, they did staunch the economic bleeding and provided a modicum of stability. This pragmatic approach resonated with Venezuela's economic elites, who saw in Rodríguez a protector of their investments, a stark contrast to Machado's message of radical overhaul.

"Delcy has turned Venezuela into a radically capitalist society where there's practically no regulation but there are practically no rules that money is the only variable that governs society and governs the interaction between the state and its citizens."

-- Anatoly Kurmanaev

The administration became convinced that to stabilize the country, maintain oil flow, and prevent a mass exodus of migrants, working with those already in power, like Rodríguez, was the most expedient path. This led to the ironic situation where the White House opted to ally with a figure deeply embedded in a repressive regime, prioritizing tangible economic outcomes over the promise of political liberation.

Maduro's Dancing Demise and Delcy's Diplomatic Tightrope

The exclusion of Maduro himself from any potential deal, despite his apparent willingness to negotiate, remains a point of intrigue. Kurmanaev speculates that the prolonged campaign to brand Maduro as a "narco terrorist" and the perceived personal affront of his public displays, such as dancing on television, may have hardened Trump's stance beyond the point of no return. This seemingly trivial act, a public performance of defiance, may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back," signaling to Trump that Maduro was not taking his ultimatums seriously.

For Delcy Rodríguez, the transition to a U.S.-backed interim leader presented a delicate balancing act. She had to appease the domestic audience, particularly the loyalists within the regime who had suffered humiliation and losses during the operation against Maduro, by asserting Venezuelan sovereignty. Simultaneously, she had to meet the demands of the Trump administration, which threatened her with the same fate as Maduro if she did not comply. Her initial aggressive remarks against the U.S. quickly softened, evolving into calls for cooperation and joint business ventures. This remarkable pivot, from denouncing the very government that had destabilized her capital to welcoming their investments, exposed the hollowness of the Chavista movement's nationalist rhetoric.

"To me the events of the past few days expose the hollowness of the nationalist rhetoric behind the Chavista movement... first it lost the popular support then it lost the socialist credentials now it loses nationalism and what is left... survival."

-- Anatoly Kurmanaev

Actionable Takeaways: Navigating the New Reality

The complex situation in Venezuela, as detailed in this conversation, offers several critical lessons for navigating international relations, political strategy, and economic policy.

• Immediate Actions:

  • Acknowledge the Transactional Nature of Geopolitics: Recognize that immediate economic or security interests can override ideological purity in foreign policy decisions.
  • Monitor Resource-Rich Nations: Pay close attention to countries with critical resources (like oil) where geopolitical maneuvering often centers on access and control.
  • Understand Elite Influence: Appreciate how economic elites can wield significant influence in shaping political outcomes, even when they lack broad popular support.
  • Differentiate Public vs. Private Stance: Observe how leaders adapt their public rhetoric to appease domestic audiences while privately engaging in pragmatic, often contradictory, international dealings.

• Longer-Term Investments:

  • Map Consequence Chains: Always analyze the downstream effects of political and economic decisions, understanding that short-term gains can lead to long-term complications.
  • Invest in Deep Contextual Understanding: Move beyond surface-level news to understand the historical, economic, and ideological underpinnings of complex geopolitical situations.
  • Build Resilient Alliances: Focus on fostering relationships based on shared values and long-term vision, rather than solely on immediate transactional benefits, to ensure durability.
  • Anticipate Systemic Responses: Consider how political systems and key actors within them will adapt and react to external pressures and internal shifts, creating feedback loops that shape future events. This pays off in 12-18 months by providing a more nuanced understanding of international dynamics.
  • Champion Durable Principles: While pragmatism has its place, understand that consistently upholding democratic principles and human rights can build a stronger foundation for long-term stability and influence, even if it requires patience. This creates a competitive advantage over time as it builds trust and legitimacy.