The Real Plan For Venezuela Is Hidden In Plain Sight | Prof. Michael Rossi

## Media Reactions: The West vs. The Global Majority The recent episode in Venezuela exposes a cleft in international discourse: Western media and political establishments frame decisive interventions as restorations of order and justice, while much of the non‑Western world reads the same events as naked coercion. The conversation with Prof. Michael Rossi makes plain that narratives matter—not only in shaping public perception but in legitimating power. In the West, the dominant storyline recycles familiar tropes: an autocratic leader has been removed, democracy is being rescued, and the operation is presented as lawful, even as ordinary policing. That line of argument is attractive because it simplifies moral calculus and reassures domestic audiences that foreign adventurism is principled. Yet the global majority hears the same facts differently. Statements of condemnation from China, Russia, Brazil and other countries within BRICS underscore a near‑universal suspicion among the non‑Western world: this was an extrajudicial seizure dressed up as law enforcement. The contrast between enthusiastic Western approbation and near‑universal outside condemnation reveals more than disagreement over tactics; it points to divergent memories of imperial practice. For many countries, the Venezuelan case slots neatly into a catalogue of historical grievances—instances where economic subordination and resource control were enforced under the flag of law, liberation, or anti‑communism. Labeling these differences as mere “interpretation” conceals how deeply legitimacy is contested and how fragile any consensus about the rules of international engagement has become. Prof. Michael Rossi’s point—that mainstream Western outlets will deploy a familiar script about a tyrant’s fall, amplifying celebratory footage and moral rhetoric—is worth underscoring. The performance of legality by Western leaders and media is not accidental; it functions to normalize a particular form of intervention that reconciles domestic audiences to external coercion. Meanwhile, voices from the Global South treat such normalization with skepticism, arguing that what is termed “law enforcement” in Washington looks a lot like state piracy to everyone else. ## Implications for BRICS & The "Rules-Based Order" The Venezuelan incident has implications that ripple far beyond bilateral U.S.–Venezuela relations. It is a stress test for the so‑called rules‑based international order, a phrase increasingly recognized as a rhetorical device rather than a universal legal standard. As discussed in the conversation, Western unity in applauding the action exposes the selectivity of this purported order. When rules are invoked, they are selectively applied: supporters will denounce violations when convenient but remain silent or celebratory when the violations align with strategic interests. For BRICS and allied states, the message is chilling. If a major power can publicly remove a head of state and secure rhetorical cover from allied capitals, then economic initiatives and diplomatic partnerships risk being subordinated to a hidden security calculus. The conversation suggests that smaller or mid‑sized states will draw two lessons: first, that economic integration without credible security guarantees leaves sovereign projects vulnerable; second, that existing economic groupings may require new political or even military instruments to defend members against coercion. That logic can drive BRICS toward more ambitious cooperation: not merely trade agreements but collective security arrangements and strategic hedging. This dynamic also exacerbates geopolitical fragmentation. The Western willingness to condone forceful regime change undermines confidence in multilateral institutions and fuels a centrifugal logic among rising powers. The more frequently the “rules‑based” rhetoric is exposed as inconsistent, the more attractive alternatives become—whether those alternatives are explicit blocs of counterbalancing powers or looser networks of states seeking to avoid entanglement in Western legal and moral claims. In short, the Venezuelan episode may accelerate an already unfolding realignment in global politics, making economic decoupling and strategic autonomy more salient for governments outside the Western orbit. ## The "Stolen Oil" Narrative & The Logic of Capitalism 00:39:50 Punishing Sovereignty: The Examples of Haiti & Cuba A recurring motif in discussions of Venezuela is the claim of “stolen oil”—the idea that resources have been illegally expropriated by a rogue leadership and must be reclaimed. Prof. Michael Rossi urges us to see this narrative as the tip of a deeper economic logic: capitalism, when backed by state power, has historically sought to restructure foreign economies so they are extractive and compliant. The rhetoric of reclaiming stolen assets conveniently masks an underlying intent to control the terms of resource exploitation and to re‑integrate a target economy into favorable global circuits. There is an historical pattern to this: punitive measures against states that assert sovereignty often extend beyond the immediate episode and linger for generations. Haiti and Cuba offer stark precedents. Both nations paid dearly for asserting independence from dominant economic powers—the former with crippling debt and international isolation, the latter with an embargo and persistent attempts at economic strangulation. The lesson the Global North has often taught through such examples is simple and brutal: defiance of major economic actors invites prolonged punishment. In Venezuela, the “stolen oil” frame performs ideological work. It moralizes the takeover of assets and legitimates external control by casting it as rectifying theft. At the same time, it sanitizes the historical reality that many nationalizations and redistributions are responses to long patterns of foreign domination and unequal exchange. Prof. Rossi points to the broader capitalist rhythm: when national resources are perceived as misaligned with global capitalist needs, external actors move to reimpose profitable arrangements, whether through sanctions, covert actions, or direct intervention. The moral vocabulary—law, democracy, human rights—becomes a mechanism to align public sentiment with structural economic aims. This is why punitive precedents matter. They are not isolated incidents but forming forces in international relations: they teach other governments what defiance costs and thereby influence the strategic calculations of both states and corporations. The pattern is self‑perpetuating: punishment deters sovereignty, deterring sovereignty preserves favorable conditions for capital, and preserving those conditions reinforces the international structures that allow punishment in the first place. ## Do Overthrows Actually Work? (The Capitalist Perspective) If the objective is to resecure an economy for global capital, do overthrows and engineered regime changes reliably achieve that end? The conversation offers a cautionary answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no—and the mixed record is instructive. The United States and other powers have a long history of successfully installing compliant regimes, but those successes often come with long-term political instability, social backlash, and eventual delegitimization of the imposed order. Prof. Michael Rossi reminds us that statecraft often succeeds at what it defines narrowly as success—removing an unwanted leader and installing a friend—but fails catastrophically when broader social and political dynamics are considered. “Phase one” operations—decapitations or managed transitions—can be executed, yet “phase two” (creating legitimate, durable governance) is frequently neglected. Absent organic legitimacy, puppet regimes become lightning rods for insurgency and unrest, which then invite the next cycle of intervention or authoritarian consolidation. From a capitalist vantage p

The Real Plan For Venezuela Is Hidden In Plain Sight | Prof. Michael Rossi Is the "Rules-Based International Order" just a diplomatic mask for modern-day piracy? Why is Western capitalism incapable of trading with sovereign nations without trying to own them? And if a country refuses to hand over its resources, is it destined to be punished for centuries like Haiti? I explore these uncomfortable realities with Michael Rossi. As a political scientist at Rutgers University, Michael helps me strip away the mainstream narrative to reveal the raw geopolitical mechanics at play, connecting the historical DNA of past US interventions to the aggressive moves we are witnessing right now. Links: Michael's YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MichaelRossiPoliSci Michael's X (Twitter): https://x.com/rossisci Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack. com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s /academic) Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction & The Official Narrative 00:04:16 Historical Context: America's Century of Regime Change 00:11:04 Media Reactions: The West vs. The Global Majority 00:17:52 Implications for BRICS & The "Rules-Based Order" 00:29:41 The "Stolen Oil" Narrative & The Logic of Capitalism 00: 39:50 Punishing Sovereignty: The Examples of Haiti & Cuba 00:41:40 Do Overthrows Actually Work? (The Capitalist Perspective) 00:47:45 Conclusion #Pascal Hello everybody, we’re back with Michael Rossi of Rutgers University to discuss the hot topic of the weekend — the Venezuela intervention, war, regime change operation, oil grab, kidnapping, whatever word you want to use. Um, Michael, welcome back. #Michael Rossi Pascal, New Year. What we choose to make it happy is up to us. But I’m just acknowledging that, given everything else, New Year, Pascal — for yours and mine — it’s not a happy one. #Pascal It's a very sad way to start the new year. So, Michael, happy New Year to you, too. Thank you very much. Polemics out of the way. We still don't know exactly what went down in Venezuela. At the moment, as we speak, it's your late evening — around 11 p.m. in New York on the East Coast. Thank you for making the time. What have you learned in the United States today from the Trump news conference and what’s come out so far? #Michael Rossi -- 1 of 14 -- Well, one thing I’ve learned is that the narrative the Trump regime is using is being widely disseminated among many Republicans, including a lot of the fragmenting MAGA offshoots, as well as much of the leadership within the Democratic Party. We also have to acknowledge that much of the leadership in Europe — including the EU and many national heads of state — are applauding this. They’re applauding it. They’re effectively walking in lockstep with the Trump administration, saying that Maduro was a tyrant, an autocrat, a corrupt dictator who has finally met karma and is now going to face justice. And we can only hope that the Venezuelan people and the Venezuelan state, you know, enjoy the freedom and democracy they’ve been denied ever since it was taken from them by Hugo Chávez. I mean, that narrative is much more appealing than empirical evidence, right? We’ve had a country like mine — this isn’t the first time we’ve engaged in effectively decapitating the leadership of a Latin American nation, nor will it be the last. And let’s be equally honest here: I think your viewers and my viewers will agree this has little to do with democracy and even less to do with drugs. This has everything to do with controlling a country’s economy, its national resources, and hopefully putting a compliant puppet leader in power to reinstate the relationship Venezuela had with the United States prior to 1998 — effectively running the country as a rentier state, largely controlled, if not completely dictated, by Washington. #Pascal I just had a discussion with Ron Aledo, a former CIA analyst and someone who’s worked in the security services for quite a while. His analysis was, look, obviously it’s about regime change. There’s going to be a plan A and a plan B. Plan A would be a managed transition — basically to the vice president or whoever else has been bought off, although of course we have no proof that anyone has been bought off. But he said that’s just what the CIA does. So, optimally, this would be a smooth transition into a post-Maduro government, still with the Maduro government in place at first, then changing heads bit by bit, changing the electoral commission, and so on — making sure that within a couple of months you get the proper puppet government in place, the way they wish for it. If that doesn't work, plan B will probably be a military coup against Maduro’s loyalists. Either way, what you're saying is that the end goal is obviously to have someone loyal in Venezuela — just a proper regime change. Now, since we can’t speculate too much about what went down, because we just don’t have enough information, let’s talk about what we do know from U.S. history. You pointed out to me this brilliant book by Stephen Kinzer, right? Because we have a lot of academic research on that kind of operation. #Michael Rossi I love doing this. You know, this is sort of like— I don’t know if you... Put it in the middle, please, because we’re going to— So, there was a show on PBS, public broadcasting, back when I was -- 2 of 14 -- growing up, called *Reading Rainbow*. It was a fantastic show. It was basically a way of getting kids to, you know, learn how to appreciate books and whatever. This is academic *Reading Rainbow*. I just want to recommend to both our audiences Stephen Kinzer’s *Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq*. It’s not an academic book in the sense of being overly jargonistic, but it’s quite informative, right? It's largely written by journalists and such, but it shows a very predictable pattern that we also see in Venezuela. I think both of our viewers will find this book interesting—highly informative and incredibly timely, especially when it comes to the narrative being pushed by the Trump government: that Venezuela was this horrible dictatorship engaging in all kinds of egregious human rights abuses. Oh, and of course, the audacity to nationalize their oil industry, to engage in all kinds of autocratic, communist activities. And of course, you know, thank God for Trump and the United States for restoring democracy, freedom, liberty, and whatever other buzzwords Latin America supposedly needs. #Pascal Yeah, empty tropes, yes. But give me the gist of the book—the number of overthrows and regime changes, the ones that were successful and the ones that weren’t. Because there’s still a danger that Venezuela might not go that way. I mean, we have resistance groups and guerrilla fighting popping up in the end. #Michael Rossi Of course, of course, of course. So, you know, I’ll preface this by saying it’s still very early to talk about what will happen in Venezuela. You’re absolutely correct. What we know right now on the ground is that Maduro and his wife have been kidnapped—they’ve been taken out of the country. There’s no regime change in Venezuela yet, right? The vice president is now asserting power, claiming that everything is stabilized and that they’ll resist U.S. influence as much as possible. The first option you mentioned is a transitional period until there are elections. This is exactly what the CIA would like to see happen. This is what we would call the orderly transition. The idea is to make it as clear as possible that there’ s no overt U.S. influence within Latin American politics. And when we talk about this book here, we’ re mentioning that the first attempt at regime change took place in Hawaii in the late 19th century— which, you know, ended up becoming a U.S. state. But it also includes regime changes in the Philippines, Guatemala, Panama, and Honduras; failed attempts in Venezuela, obviously under Chávez; and also attempts in Afghanistan, in Iran under Mossadegh, and of course, Iraq. So the United States is very good at getting rid of unwanted leaders of countries. They never think about phase two, which is who to replace them with. Ideally, they’d like some kind of compliant, pro- Washington puppet—who, oftentimes, is seen by the population of these countries as exactly that, -- 3 of 14 -- right? A compliant puppet, somebody who takes orders from another country. This leads to instability. It leads to all kinds of sociopolitical unrest, which then necessitates some kind of military takeover. The military usually gravitates toward something right of center, or even far right of center. The political right is always going to be pro-capitalist, pro-corporatist. And as long as the country is anything other than some incarnation of Marxist leftism—nationalizing the industries—these are considered compliant governments. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is that human rights, political rights, and civil liberties are completely scuttled in favor of Marxism. Whatever United Fruit Company, whatever national oil company, you know, takes precedence over this. This has, as I said, nothing to do with democracy or human rights. So, to reiterate what your previous guest said, there will in all likelihood be—unless Trump does something wrong—you know, it’s only Saturday. It’s only Saturday. We don’t know yet what’s happening. But unless there’s some kind of attempt to remove the other elements of the Maduro government, there will be very clear initiatives to change the perception of that government. There might be some backhanded attempts to either put María Corina Machado in power, or some kind of Juan Guaidó—some dime-a-dozen CIA, Nobel Prize–winning operative. And if the elections go in a way the U.S. doesn’t want, sure, absolutely. The Monroe Doctrine is very popular, not just among the MAGA Republicans, but also among many Democrats. I need to emphasize again that Trump did what he did and is getting praise from many Democratic leaders as well. #Pascal How about mainstream TV right now—like CNN and MSNBC? Is the general tone there, “risky, but well done”? Or is it more like, “oh, what an outrageous infringement on international law and a breach of the UN Charter”? No? No. #Michael Rossi Mainstream media is going to run with a narrative that’s been pretty familiar since Chávez came to power, right? And that is that Venezuela has been run by a left-wing dictator who has suspended constitutional rule of law in favor of a single-party state. There will be continuous footage of émigrés celebrating in the streets of some random city in Florida—people who are happy, right, that the government has been overthrown. And, you know, I’m not going to get into the specifics of Venezuelan politics or who’s right here. But look, at the end of the day, this took place outside of electoral procedure, outside of any form of international law, outside of constitutional procedure. This was effectively a decapitation of a leadership while the government in Venezuela, that leadership, is still in power. This is nothing more than an attempt to show once again, according to Trump, that might makes right. #Pascal -- 4 of 14 -- Yeah. And, you know, finding people who celebrate the overthrow of a political leader is not difficult. Just imagine if Donald Trump were shot right now—who would die? You’d have a good number of people who would celebrate. You’d have a good number. Then you’d have others who’d be outraged and would call to take up guns and shoot the people who celebrate, and so on and so forth. That’s exactly what you’d probably expect in Venezuela: some people being very happy that Chávez is gone, and others outraged, and so on. The global majority—I wonder what this will do. I mean, the Europeans, being Europeans, of course, the problem if you’re a satellite state, or in a satellite existence, is