Caracas from Washington’s Geopolitical perspective

Venezuela, the axis of control of the Caribbean and the key for US to Controlling Latin America
This research deals with the issue of the hostility that the United States of America has towards Venezuela, and its repeated attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian regime which came to power with the election of Hugo Chavez as president in 1999, and then the election of Nicholas Maduro after his death in 2013. This research considers that the American hostility to Venezuela is the result of the challenge posed by Venezuela, independent of the American hegemony of Washington, especially in terms of its hegemony over the Caribbean, which American geopolitical analysts consider as the main key to ensuring a smooth communication between the eastern bank of the United States and its West Bank. In addition to the fact that this region is the main key to the launch of the United States as a marine force as a result of this region being located at the intersection of maritime transport lines between the North and South Atlantic and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans via the Panama Canal.


The United States seems determined to overthrow the socialist Regime in Venezuela that was founded by late President Hugo Chavez and current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro opposed to its hegemony in Latin America. as a sign of this, American military planes transferred "humanitarian aid" from military bases in the United States and the Caribbean to the Colombian city of Cucuta, near the Venezuelan border, which the United States intended to make a starting point for its "humanitarian" operations against Venezuela. President Maduro has responded by closing the border with Colombia.
American economist Donald Luskin, the chief investment officer of Trend Macro Co, said in an interview with Fox News that Washington's efforts to topple the Venezuelan government are directed indirectly against Moscow after the great rapprochement between Russia and Venezuela. Luskin proposed "organizing a second Caribbean crisis to confront Russia," estimating that Moscow would be reluctant to support Caracas against Washington, which would give Washington a preference to impose its will and re-establish its absolute dominance over the Caribbean region, part of which was out of its fold after the arrival of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to power in The year 1999. 
He added, "It would be foolish to think that Washington is achieving its goals only with military force and sanctions". The United States is successfully playing on contradictions between other players and ultimately achieving its goals: Europeans are historically afraid of Russia, so they support anti-Russian sanctions and support the American position in Venezuela; East Asian countries fear China; and Latin American countries historically compete with each other, so they stand with the United States on the Venezuelan issue; And Latin American countries historically compete with each other, so they stand with the United States on the Venezuelan issue; while China is keen to continue to earn money in the largest Latin market, Beijing is trying to rotate the corners in its emerging problems with the United 
States for Caracas. 
Luskin said that Washington currently does not have a direct reason to use military force against Caracas, but it can create the conditions for a military invasion of Venezuela if it decides to take military action there. He believes that it is unlikely that Russia will reach the point of confrontation with the United States over Venezuela, as it did with Cuba in 1962. This indicates how far Washington can reach to re-establish its hegemony in the Caribbean. But the question remains, why? 

Historical backgrounds

In the early nineteenth century, the United States had become independent from Britain and began to look to the west for expansion into the Pacific Ocean. It had begun to aspire to extend its influence over the entire new world, that saw the northern and southern continents, as a broad area for US imperialist capitalism. This was expressed by the Monroe Doctrine that was launched in the year 1823. The document was written during the reign of President James Monroe and will be known by his name, "Monroe Doctrine," but it was written by his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams who later became President of the United States. The document stressed that the New World is no longer under European influence, indicating that:  
the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
The second major key, which contains a more complete statement of doctrine, is addressed to the "Allied Powers" in Europe (i.e. the Holy Alliance); it makes clear that the United States remains neutral with regards to the European colonies in the Americas but opposes the "interventions" that would create new colonies among in the newly independent Spanish American Republics: 
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different… It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course.” 
 This was a declaration by the United States that it regards all of Latin America as its sphere of influence. At the end of the nineteenth century, after American settlers took control of the entire American mainland between the East Coast and the West Coast, and after the French started to dig a canal in Panama connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, American military and strategic planners began looking at the Caribbean with a different eye. 
This is due to the fact that American capitalism viewed the Caribbean as a starting point for it to turn into a maritime power that would dominate maritime trade routes and guarantee the United States access to the global markets necessary for its vastly growing industries. American Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan expressed this explicitly in his book "The Influence of Sea Powers Upon History” written in 1890. In his summaries, Mahan points out that the United States must transform into a naval power.
Mahan also considered naval transport to be more effective than land transport, and for a huge continental country like the United States, the Panama Canal, which was then still a paper ink, is an essential part of American national security. Mahan has called for the United States to control the Panama Canal because it can thereby ensure better communications between the East Coast and the West Coast. Mahan also called for the transformation of the Caribbean into a backyard for the United States, for the above two reasons. 
He defended the expansion of the US Navy and the transformation of the United States into a naval power because that was the key to global domination. In his abovementioned book, he considered that historians paid little attention to the influence of sea power and sea power on historical events, and considered that control of the sea was a "major factor in world history." Neither historians Arnold Toynbee and writer Sir Edward Chrissy, both failed to see that the key to Hannibal's failure against Rome in the Second Punic War and Napoleon Bonaparte against Great Britain, was not the result of a military genius of the Roman general Sibiu, nor the British general, the Duke of Ellington. Rather, it was due to the Romans controlling navigation in the western Mediterranean, which eventually led to the defeat of Hannibal in Zama. It was also the British control of shipping that enabled Great Britain to resist Napoleon's attempts to subdue it. 
For Mahan, the control of sea lanes was directly linked to the control of maritime trade which was the most important source of wealth for countries. The sea is not hindered by crowds of people competing for land acquisition and blocking the free passage of goods and services. The sea "presents itself from a political and social point of view is the great highway; or perhaps better, than a wide shared set, which men may pass in all directions. Plus," travel and water traffic were always easier and cheaper by sea than by land. For him it was necessary for the United States, which had become a major economic power to extend its naval forces to protect its maritime trade. In his book, "America's Interest in Sea Power," he warned of the threat China posed, even when China was going through a "century of humiliation" in light of the hegemony of various European and American powers on it. He also argued the importance of Hawaii as a forward position in defending the American West Coast, and thus Western civilization against "Chinese barbarism." To this end, he said, Americans must assess the naval power to protect their markets abroad. They must control the Panama Canal, which connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, because it will increase commercial activity in the Caribbean, and it is leading with Hawaii to defend the American West Coast. In addition he assured the need for an alliance with Britain, on common value system with Europe, and alarmed of the danger posed by Japan and China on the United States and on European Civilization.
Therefore, Washington has come to view the region as part of its national security, on which the unity and future of the United States depend. Consequently, the United States launched a war against Spain in the Caribbean in 1898 that led to the loss of the Spanish crown of its last colonies in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. In 1903, the United States supported a separatist movement in Colombia, which led to the separation of Panama. After that, the United States imposed on the newly born republic the right to dig the canal to the engineers of the US Army, which began digging in 1904 and completed it in 1914. Washington also imposed on Panama granting it the privilege of controlling the canal for 100 years.

American hegemony in the Caribbean

For a century, the United States has shown its willingness to use all means to maintain its control in the Caribbean. This region is the point of intersection of maritime lanes linking northern and southern Atlantic Ocean, and between Africa and Europe on one side and the American continents on the other side. It is also the region that connects maritime transport routes between the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other side, through the Panama Canal. Venezuela is especially important because it is the gateway from which the Spaniards entered in the sixteenth century to expand their colonies in Latin America, and then Venezuela was the gateway of British imperialism to Latin America, and it also constituted the starting point for American influence in the South American continent. Because of the importance of the Caribbean to the United States, Washington had to tighten control over it. It turned Puerto Rico into an American colony and military base, and Puerto Ricans still demand their independence. The United States also treated Cuba as a half-colony. When the Cuban revolution, led by Fidel Castro, achieved victory, Washington sprung it with hostility and supported Cuban rebels from several Caribbean countries, and even planned to invade the island in 1961. 
In response, Castro requested the support of the Soviet Union, which deployed medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, which spurred Washington's anger, prompting it to threaten to wage a nuclear war against the Soviet Union itself. The young American president at the time, John Kennedy, lost his life for accepting a political settlement with Moscow in which he refrained from making additional efforts to overthrow Castro in exchange for the Soviets withdrawing their missiles from the island. A year after the agreement, the young president was assassinated in broad daylight in a public place at the sight of the whole world.
The decision-making circles in the deep state in the United States was accused of comiting the assassination including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and the military industrial complex. After that, Washington imposed a siege on Havana that amounted to a genocide, and its effects are still going on today. 
American hegemony policies in the Caribbean continued during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1981, the plane of Panamanian President Omar Torrijos went down, killing him and several of his aides. In 1977, Torrijos managed to force President Jimmy Carter to sign an agreement that would restore Panama to control its channel. The "unfortunate" incident took place a few weeks after the new American President, Ronald Reagan, took office in the White House. Reagan was known for his right-wing attitudes calling for zero tolerance in what the United States considers its vital interests.
At the same time, the United States was supporting the Contra gangs that said against the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. In late 1983, the United States supported a coup on the island of Granada, represented by the assassination of the National President of the Caribbean Island, Maurice Bishop, and then by invading the island that had begun to converge with Cu`ba. In 1989, Washington invaded Panama under the pretext of fighting drugs, canceled the Carter-Torrijos Agreement, and regained control of the Canal. During the nineties of the last century, the United States tightened the noose on Cuba, leading to the occurrence of a humanitarian emergency in which to force the Cubans to submit, but to no avail. 

Bolivar Vs North American hegemony

With regard to Venezuela, the American interest in this country is not only due to its wealth in oil and its possession of the largest reserves in the world, surpassing even Saudi Arabia. In the early nineteenth century, Venezuela formed the base from which Simon Bolivar launched his Movement for the Liberation of Latin America. Bolivar succeeded in liberating most of Latin America from the Spanish crown and forming a federal coalition that included Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and Panama. Bolívar had in mind the formation of a Latin American homeland that extends from Argentina in the south to Mexico in the north and forms a base for a new world governed by human values ​​and justice. But his project faced opposition from the Latin American oligarchy supported by the American oligarchy that had dominated in Washington immediately after the independence of the American colonies from Britain in 1779. This oligarchy was divided into liberals and conservatives alike and this was reflected in the accounts of the great novelist Gabriel García Márquez, such as “One Hundred Years of Solitude” and “the Autumn of the patriarch,” etc. This oligarchy entered into a conflict with the dreamer Bolivar and pushed for of Ecuador, Peru and Colombia leaving the federation formed by Bolivar. This oligarchy even attempted to assassinate Bolivar on several occasions. It is noted that the death of Bolívar when he was still 47 in 1830 coincided with the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine.
With the beginning of the twentieth century, Venezuela gained additional importance for the American oligarchy with the discovery of huge reserves of oil in this country. Consequently, the importance of Venezuela to Washington has become three-dimensional, the first it being an important riparian country of the Caribbean region vital to the American hegemony, a second being the gateway to Latin America from which Spain spread control in the sixteenth century of most of the South American continent, and as the starting point for any liberation movement Latin American against North American hegemony, and third is that Venezuela has become the main source of oil in the United States, especially after the depletion of most of the latter wells in the first half of the twentieth century. And Venezuelan oil became the mainstay of the American industry and its war machine during the First and Second World Wars, and also during the rest of the wars launched by the United States of America. The discovery of oil in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries in the 1930s and 1940s did not reduce the importance of Venezuelan oil to Washington. Arab oil represented a source of Washington's control of the world oil market, while Venezuelan oil remained the main source of consumption in the American market, by virtue of Venezuela’s proximity to the United States. 

Time of Chavez

Despite Venezuela’s oil wealth, the vast majority of its people lived in poverty as a result of the monopoly of the country's wealth by the Venezuelan oligarchy. This remained the case until Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in February 1999. Chavez was from a modest family and joined the Venezuelan army as an officer in the 1970s. This army was one of the few channels in which the poor in Venezuela could improve their economic and social status. But by virtue of the structure of the army, most of its rank and file came from poor families, its officers and soldiers felt the pain and suffering of most of the Venezuelan people. Therefore, this army was vulnerable to leftist influences, and Chavez joined one of its branches and sought to stage a coup in 1992, but he failed to do so and was arrested and imprisoned. However, as a result of the pressure of the socialist movement in the country, Chavez was released to head the opposition movement and win the elections in February 1999. The first step by Chavez after he became president was to tighten Venezuela’s relations with Cuba, as he regarded its leader Fidel Castro as his idol. Chavez has spoken out against his anti-imperialist policies, and in favor of liberation movements in the world, including the Palestinian cause. The first action he undertook internally was to nationalize the Venezuelan oil and distribute its revenues to the people, which led to an economic boom in the country as a result of the high oil prices at the beginning of the new millennium which reached $ 150 a barrel. All this led the Venezuelan oligarchy, which lost its privileges, and the United States, to declare hostility to Chavez and Venezuela. They reached the point of attempting a coup against him in 2002, but the army thwarted the coup. Chavez opposed Washington’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, supported the Palestinian resistance, and the Lebanese resistance against the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 2006. He repeatedly condemned Israeli aggressions on the Gaza Strip. As a result of the geopolitical historical role in Venezuela, Chavez’s challenge to the United States has encouraged leftist movements in Latin America, that managed to gain power in a number of countries including Brazil with the arrival of Lula da Silva to power, Kirchner in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, And Korea in Ecuador. And it seemed as if Latin America was just around the corner to get detached from American hegemony.
The rise of Chavez has coincided with the rise of Eurasian powers, China, Russia and Iran, as powers that are challenging American hegemony in the world.
These forces began to join forces starting in 1996 when the late Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani announced the launch of the Silk Road project to establish a partnership between Iran and China. This was followed by the establishment of the Shanghai Group 5 in 1997, which included Russia, China and three countries in Central Asia. In June 2001, Kazakhstan joined the group that turned into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The United States considered that the organization was directed against it, especially since it refused Washington's accession to it in 2006. It was clear that these Eurasian powers were joining together to confront American unilateralism in the world. Washington responded to the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization by invading Afghanistan after five months, under the pretext of responding to the September 11 attacks by al Qaeda against the two world trade towers in New York. Afghanistan had authorized the United States to become close to Central Asia, the soft national security zone for China, Russia and Iran. Historically, invasions that controlled the Asian countries mentioned above were launched from this region. Washington followed this by invading Iraq in the year 2003 to control the entire Middle East region and prevent Russia and Iran from reaching the eastern Mediterranean region or the Indian Ocean and thus access to shipping routes and international trade.

Breaking the Yankee hegemony

In response, China and Russia set up a parallel and complementary organization to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, which also included India, South Africa and Brazil. Moscow and Beijing were thus emulating the Magellan Way, which circled around the world from the southern hemisphere. This had great implications for the relocation of the world center of gravity for the first time in five centuries from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and the southern hemisphere. And Brazil, under Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, was the biggest threat to North American hegemony in the western hemisphere. Brazil, with its size, wealth and human mass, was destined to become a major power in Latin America. its aspirations for a global role began to emerge with its attention directed towards the Caribbean, which constitutes an important marine transportation hub. Close relations with Venezuela were established under Chavez and later Maduro, and billions of dollars were invested in the development of the port of Mariel in Cuba. All of this threatened the United States monopoly over the hegemony of the Caribbean, especially in light of China digging a channel in Nicaragua linking the Caribbean and the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, which could cause the Panama Canal to become obsolete and make maritime transport in the Caribbean controlled by Brazil and China. In 2014, the BRICS Summit was held in Brazil, and the Development Bank, which was to be a substitute for the US-dominated World Bank, was launched, threatening its monopoly on the global financial level.
It was here that Washington began to move, and in 2016 it managed to support a coup against Dilma Rousseff, which was a fatal blow to the BRICS. One year earlier, it supported Mauricio Macri's accession to power in Argentina. It also supported Lenin Moreno, who came to power in Ecuador in 2017 and turned against his friend, Rafael Correa, socialist policies. But Washington's concern about the Latin American rebellion would not have subsided as long as Venezuela was still out of the American grip. Therefore, it continued its support for opponents of President Chavez and then President Maduro, and imposed severe economic sanctions on Venezuela that led to a crisis that exploded in the country 4 years ago. 

American pressure on Maduro

The United States supported opponents of President Nicholas Maduro in 2015. As a result, the Venezuelan authorities arrested Antonio Ledezma and tightened the procedures for obtaining a visa for American tourists. The United States has thus invoked to impose additional sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials, accusing them of violating human rights. And pressure continued on Maduro through the Organization of American States (OAS). On January 12, 2016, the Secretary-General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, threatened to resort to the Inter-American Democratic Charter and to interfere with military force against Venezuela under the pretext of preventing Maduro from the Venezuelan parliament from convening. On May 17, 2016, Maduro accused Almagro of being a CIA agent, and Almagro replied accusing Maduro of being a traitor. American pressure on Venezuela intensified after Donald Trump's arrival at the White House in early 2017. Trump accused Maduro of being a dictator. And it came to Trump to discuss the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela against Maduro during the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly. According to the American CNN, Trump asked his advisors about the possibility of military action to topple Maduro, and he even discussed the idea with the leaders of Latin American countries, but this matter was rejected by all who consulted them. After that, the United States supported the President of the House of Representatives, Juan Guaido, who declared himself President of Venezuela and won the recognition of the United States, but failed to obtain international recognition of his rule. On April 30, 2019, the United States supported a coup attempt led by Guaido. The plan was for the opposition forces to occupy the Carlota Air Force Base, and for the United States to transfer mercenaries from Blackwater dressed in Venezuelan army uniforms to the base so that they could take control of the country. However, the attempt failed.

Venezuela’s relations with Russia

In the face of American pressure, Venezuela has started since the time of President Hugo Chavez to support its relations with Eurasian countries, especially Russia. Caracas has started purchasing arms from Moscow since 2005. Chavez visited Moscow in July and September 2008, and the Russians responded by the visit of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin to Caracas weeks later to discuss an extensive agenda that included 46 agreements in all fields. In September 2009, Russia provided Venezuela with a $ 2 billion loan to buy weapons. In October 2010, Chavez visited Russia, where he signed an agreement to build the first $ 1.6 billion nuclear reactor in Venezuela, to be paid with Venezuelan oil assets, which would not put burdens on the Venezuelan economy. This was followed by a visit by the Russian Prime Minister to Venezuela in October 2011, where an agreement was signed to sell Russian weapons to Venezuela worth 4 billion dollars, which then made Russia the largest arms exporter to Venezuela, and it was agreed that payment would also be made through Russian investment contracts in Venezuelan oil fields This does not put pressure on the Venezuelan economy. The Russian-Venezuelan relationship continued to tighten up after Chavez's death in March 2013 and the election of Maduro as his successor. In July 2017, in an article published in the Russian Military Industrial Courier, a magazine popular among military officers of the Russian armed forces, and in the event of a Venezuelan civil war, the Russian government magazine recommended providing military intelligence to the Venezuelan government, and assisting volunteer forces such as “Colectivos,” to support the anti-American regime. In May 2018, Maduro was re-elected President of Venezuela. Faced with the US refusal to acknowledge the results, Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick to congratulate Maduro on his re-election. In response to the American threats, and in a symbolic step, in January 2019, Russia sent two strategic Tu-154 bombers to Caracas to participate in a military parade there for the first time in the history of the two countries. After that, Russia refused to recognize Guaido as president of Venezuela, and continued its support for Maduro, and Moscow and Beijing used veto power in February 2019 against a US draft resolution before the Security Council calling for not to recognize the results of the Venezuelan elections that Maduro won.

Crushing "rebel" countries

At the same time, the United States was seeking to subdue the regimes fighting against its hegemony, including Cuba. Under Trump, the United States increased its sanctions against this country, which has been under siege for six decades. In response, Havana stepped up her anti-imperialist rhetoric. On May 1, 2019, on the occasion of Labor Day, millions of Cubans demonstrated in the Revolution Square in Havana, raising slogans denouncing US President Donald Trump and his country's hostile policy towards Cuba and its efforts to overthrow the socialist regime in Venezuela, which is allied to Havana. Cuban President Miguel Diaz Canel tweeted, saying: "We will respond with firmness, strength and our usual revolutionary spirit to the provocations, lies and rumors that you cast against us, you Yankee imperialists." Referring to the United States of America. The annual marches across the country provided an opportunity to publicly protest a US attack against socialist regimes in Latin America launched by former US National Security Adviser John Bolton in late 2018. This was followed by a series of new sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua and the emergence of a shortage of basic commodities in Al Jazeera.
The Trump administration and the Canadian government, imposed sanctions on Nicaragua where the Sandinistas regained power in 2007, benefiting from the rise of the left in a large number of Latin American countries. President Daniel Ortega succeeded in the presidential elections after he was ousted in 1991 in the elections that took place at the time, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Ortega had begun rapprochement with China, which began digging a canal in the country linking the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean and the Atlantic Ocean as a substitute for the US-controlled Panama Canal. In response, the Trump administration began funding anti-Ortega groups who launched Washington-funded demonstrations to topple the Sandinistas. When the demonstrations were unsuccessful, Washington and Ottawa imposed sanctions on Nicaraguan government officials on the pretext of the government cracking down on protesters. The list of officials sanctioned included the President of the National Assembly Gustavo Porras, Director of the Orlando Institute of Communications Jose Castillo, Minister of Health Sonia Castro, Minister of Transport Oscar Mojica and Rosario Murillo, Vice President and Wife of President Daniel Ortega, and their son Loriento Ortega and the current National Police Chief Francisco Diaz. In Bolivia, Washington succeeded in toppling President Evo Morales, who was the first indigenous president to be elected President of Bolivia in 2006. On November 10, President Evo Morales resigned from his post in Bolivia, due to the anti-revolutionary coup backed by Washington. After part of the police forces joined the militias hostile to him, the heads of the armed forces advised him to resign. Morales made the move as the best bad option after consulting with the Bolivian Workers' Union (COB) and other supporters of his government. President Morales took refuge in Mexico at a time when the revolutionaries launched a campaign of repression and arrests against his supporters. 


in conclusion, the beginnings of the United States as an imperialist power have been associated since the first half of the nineteenth century with controlling Venezuela and preventing its emergence as a dominant power in the Caribbean and Latin America. Then, at the end of the nineteenth century, with the discovery of oil, Venezuela became of particular importance to the United States after it became the main source of imported oil for consumption in the United States. And Venezuela remained under American domination throughout the twentieth century until President Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1999. As a result of the liberation policy adopted by Chavez, this has given great impetus to the anti-imperialist powers in Latin America, leading to the election of Lula da Silva as President of Brazil. In 2002, Nestor Kirchner as president of Argentina in 2003 and then his wife Cristina after his death in 2007, Evo Morales as president of Bolivia in 2006, and Rafael Correa as president of Ecuador in 2007. It seemed as if the United States was about to lose all its influence in Latin America Of. However, Chavez’s death in 2013, and the troubles Venezuela faced as a result of the drop in international oil prices and US economic pressure, have left Chavez, President Maduro, in a position of retreat in the face of the escalation of the American-backed opposition against him. This led to a reversal of the revolution's path that led to the election of Washington-backed right-wing Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president in 2015, a constitutional coup against Dilma Rousseff, Lula da Silva's successor in 2016 in Brazil, and a political coup led by Lenin Moreno following the approach of Rafael Correa His term ended in 2017, and finally with the coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia.
However, Maduro's steadfastness in Venezuela against his American-backed opponents led to signs of the left's resurgence in Latin America. While Lula da Silva has returned to the battlefields of Brazil, the left has returned to power in Argentina with the election of Alberto Fernandez, who is backed by Cristina Kirchner's center-left, as president. In Mexico, anti-Washington Andreas Manuel Obrador had previously won the presidency. In Colombia, Chile and Ecuador, which are loyal to Washington, huge demonstrations led by the anti-imperialist current broke out in late 2019. All this warns that the conflict is still going on for Latin America to escape Washington’s sphere of influence as a result of Venezuela’s resistance to North American attempts to overthrow its anti-imperialist regime, which is based on Simon Bolivar is his symbol. And if Venezuela manages to completely escape this hegemony, it will give impetus to the movements aiming to get out from under the American cloak, in a way that weakens the United States not only in Latin America, but also in the Caribbean, which contributes to weakening its future grip on marine transportation routes in the ocean. Atlantic and worldwide.