Analysis of: Colombia sends armed forces to Venezuela border amid concern over refugee ‘influx’
The Guardian | January 3, 2026
The US military intervention in Venezuela represents a stark reassertion of imperial power in Latin America, revealing the persistent tensions between national sovereignty and great-power resource interests. Colombia's deployment of armed forces to its border—ostensibly for humanitarian reasons—demonstrates how working-class populations become displaced pawns in conflicts driven by elite interests. The anticipated refugee crisis will burden Colombian workers while the material wealth that motivated intervention remains contested among ruling classes. The international response reveals a fragmented global order split along predictable lines. Russia, Iran, and Cuba condemn the action as sovereignty violation, while Argentina's far-right government celebrates. European powers call for 'restraint' while protecting their own citizens abroad—a position that prioritizes stability for capital flows over any principled stance. This division exposes how 'international law' functions primarily as rhetorical cover for competing imperial interests rather than genuine protection for affected populations. Most revealing is the expert analysis suggesting regime change may occur without democratic transition, and that sustained US engagement would be required afterward. This acknowledges that intervention serves geopolitical objectives rather than Venezuelan popular interests. The contradiction between stated humanitarian goals and actual imperial practice—military strikes on a sovereign nation to impose political outcomes—represents the fundamental dynamic of capitalist international relations, where democratic rhetoric masks resource competition and spheres-of-influence maintenance.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Venezuelan state leadership (Maduro government), US ruling class and military-industrial complex, Colombian state apparatus, Venezuelan working class and potential refugees, Latin American regional bourgeoisie (varied alignments), European financial and industrial interests, Russian and Iranian state capitals
Beneficiaries: US military contractors and defense industry, US energy corporations seeking Venezuelan oil access, Right-wing Latin American governments aligned with US interests, Potential post-Maduro comprador bourgeoisie
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan working class facing bombing and displacement, Colombian workers who will bear refugee burden, Venezuelan state employees and military personnel, Regional stability and working-class solidarity movements
The power dynamics reveal classic imperial-peripheral relations, with the US exercising military dominance over a resource-rich nation while regional powers like Colombia serve as buffer states managing human consequences. The split international response shows competing imperial blocs (US-aligned vs Russia-China-Iran) vying for influence, with Latin American nations forced to choose sides. Notably, left-leaning Colombia condemns the action while right-wing Argentina celebrates, demonstrating how local ruling classes align with different imperial centers based on ideological and material interests.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuela's massive petroleum reserves (largest proven reserves globally), US sanctions and economic warfare preceding military action, Cuba's economic embargo and regional economic isolation tactics, European economic interests including Italian diaspora presence, Regional trade disruption and capital flight risks
Venezuela's nationalized oil industry under Maduro represents a challenge to transnational capital's access to petroleum resources. The intervention aims to restructure these production relations, potentially opening Venezuelan oil to private international exploitation. The refugee crisis will create a reserve army of labor in Colombia, depressing wages and weakening worker bargaining power regionally. Military engagement itself represents massive capital transfer to defense contractors.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan petroleum reserves, Regional geopolitical influence and military basing rights, Control over Caribbean trade routes, Mineral resources including gold and coltan, Agricultural land and food production capacity
Historical Context
Precedents: 1954 Guatemala coup against Arbenz, 1973 Chile coup against Allende, 1989 Panama invasion, 2003 Iraq invasion, 2011 Libya intervention, 2002 Venezuela coup attempt against Chávez, Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary
This intervention continues a two-century pattern of US military action to maintain hemispheric dominance and protect capital access to Latin American resources. The Cold War framework—still visible in Cuba's involvement and Russia's objection—persists despite its official end. The pattern of destabilization through sanctions followed by military intervention mirrors Iraq and Libya, suggesting a standardized imperial playbook. The expert's acknowledgment that democracy may not follow regime change echoes outcomes in previous interventions where client states replaced targeted governments.
Contradictions
Primary: The US claims to support democracy and oppose dictatorship while conducting military strikes that bypass international law and democratic accountability—including opposition from its own citizens and potential War Powers Act constraints.
Secondary: Colombia's left-leaning government must manage humanitarian consequences of US actions it explicitly condemns, European powers call for 'international law' while maintaining alliances with the violating power, Argentina celebrates 'liberty' achieved through authoritarian military force, Regime change may not produce democracy, undermining stated justification
These contradictions will likely intensify. Sustained US engagement requirements conflict with domestic opposition, potentially leading to either escalation or abandonment. Colombia may face internal tensions between humanitarian obligations and economic pressures from the US. A non-democratic successor regime would validate critics and potentially spark renewed resistance, continuing the cycle of intervention and instability that has characterized US-Latin American relations.
Global Interconnections
This intervention exemplifies the broader crisis of US hegemony in a multipolar world. Russia, Iran, and implicitly China's opposition reflects the emerging counter-hegemonic bloc challenging unilateral US action. The European ambivalence—calling for law while maintaining alliance—shows the contradictions facing junior imperial partners dependent on US security architecture but threatened by its instability. The immediate regional impact connects to global migration patterns, energy markets, and the ongoing realignment of international institutions. The conflict also reveals how domestic political economy shapes international action. Trump's intervention serves both material interests (oil access) and ideological functions (anti-socialist symbolism), while domestic opposition and War Powers constraints show the limits of executive military action. The international working class faces consequences—Venezuelan displacement, Colombian burden, energy market disruptions—while having no voice in decisions made by competing ruling classes.
Conclusion
The Venezuela intervention crystallizes the contradictions of contemporary imperialism: military force deployed for 'democracy' against popular will, international law invoked by its violators, and humanitarian rhetoric masking resource competition. For working-class movements globally, this demonstrates that sovereignty and self-determination remain contested terrain in capitalist international relations. The refugee crisis, economic disruption, and regional destabilization will be borne by workers while benefits accrue to military contractors and potential oil concessionaires. Solidarity with Venezuelan workers—distinct from support for any government—and opposition to imperial intervention represent the class-conscious response, while the fractured international response reveals opportunities for building counter-hegemonic alliances against unilateral military action.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 90%