America
Coup d’état plan in Venezuela orchestrated with the US support
Atilio Boron is an Argentine sociologist, political scientist, professor and writer. PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, who closely follows the political and geopolitical realities of Latin America and the world. On July 29, one day after the presidential elections were held in Venezuela, I met with Boron, in the lobby of the Gran Meliá hotel in Caracas, where part of the more than 1,000 international and national observers were staying. The electoral observers were invited by different institutions of the Venezuelan State to participate in the democratic event of the year in the Caribbean country.
By the time I conducted the interview, on Monday afternoon, a good part of the streets of the Venezuelan capital were filled with demonstrators, most of them protesting peacefully, demonstrating their disapproval of the result of the electoral elections on the 28th of July, when the majority of Venezuelans who exercised their right to vote elected the current president Nicolás Maduro for a new term (2025-2031).
However, in parallel, a group of masked people moving in blocks of several dozen motorcycles began to violently take control of the city. Literally, Caracas began to burn and other cities in the country joined the protests, which had stopped being democratic and peaceful and turned into a civic Coup d’état with mercenaries paid by the Venezuelan and international extremist right.
In this context of growing tension and uncertainty, we interviewed the Argentine intellectual, who was also in Caracas as an international observer of the Venezuela election process. Days later I met again with Atilio Boron to complete the interview that was initially truncated. These are some of his impressions about what is happening in Venezuela today, a country under siege and at war, according to our interviewee.
Please, could you give us a balance of what happened in Venezuela the day after the re-election of Nicolás Maduro?
The balance I can give you is that the Carter Center, a renowned American institute, has been in Venezuela for more than two weeks, carrying out an evaluation of the Venezuelan electoral system. The Carter Center has said that the Venezuelan electoral process has the necessary conditions of reliability, transparency and honesty, and that they have not detected anything that has caught their attention, that is, they have not found any flaw in the system that, as of there, allows the popular will to be distorted or twisted. This is what this expert institute in electoral processes has declared about the presidential elections in Venezuela.
On the other hand, we have seen how, in front of more than 1,000 national and international observers – and after a demonstration of unquestionable force of the majority will of the Venezuelan population that achieved the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro with more than 6 million votes – violent and undemocratic sectors of the Venezuelan opposition are plotting an attempted coup d’état, something they have been announcing for some time.
The most fascist and retrograde expression of the Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado and company, has not only instigated, provoked, promoted, but has financed violent groups that live outside the law to generate chaos on the streets. They take advantage of the other part of the population that – after years of US blockade and suffocation – has suffered and endured needs of all kinds. This part of the population, whose electoral choice was not Nicolás Maduro, is exercising its legal and legitimate right to protest, and for the most part it is doing so peacefully.
However, the leaders of the opposition that came in second place in this electoral race, that is, that is called to be the majority opposition force to the Chavista government, launched a coup plan to ignore the Venezuelan electoral authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE), and to ignore the popular will. Are these the political actors who claim to be the democratic opposition to the government? It is nonsense to think that they really want the best for the Venezuelan people. They have always played at destabilization and unconstitutionally overthrowing the Chavista governments, once again they have demonstrated it, their plan is different.
In conclusion, an international operation was mounted to ignore the victory of Nicolás Maduro. I have been in the profession for almost half a century and I would dare to say that I have never seen such a coordinated and systematic effort by the right and the international extreme right, supported by the hegemonic media in Latin America and the world. But no one has been able to prove fraud, because there has been no fraud. The Venezuelan opposition obtained a non-negligible proportion of votes, 5 million votes is an important number, but it is located in the historical statistics of votes, both those obtained by Chavismo and by the opposition, represented by 9 presidential candidates who faced each other Nicolás Maduro, although the most prominent opposition figure was Edmundo González, of the Venezuelan extreme right.
Do you consider that what we are seeing in the streets is spontaneous?
Not at all, it is absolutely planned, as I said it is a coup plan, orchestrated and with US support, as is usually the custom and as history has painfully demonstrated in Latin America and other regions of the world. Edmundo González, the buffoon candidate, and María Corina Machado had claimed fraud long before the presidential elections were held in Venezuela. They prepared the ground to make an indisputable fact questionable: the strength of democracy in Venezuela and the anti-fraud protection of the Venezuelan electoral system.
As I said, the Carter Center, which we cannot say is a Chavista institute, has also said that the Venezuelan electoral process is one of the most complete and secure in the world. There is no way for the results to be manipulated in favor of one candidate or another, since it has countless security locks. Well, but the opposition continued to support that idea, the idea of fraud, to reach this moment with arguments – most of them unfounded – that could light up the streets and give the image they were looking for, Venezuela in flames rejecting Nicolás Maduro. The objective is to erase from the mind the legacy of Chávez, of the Bolivarian Revolution and hand the country over to imperial and corporate interests.
Do you think Western sanctions have had an impact on these socio-economic problems?
I say that the opposition has spread mostly unfounded arguments, because in Venezuela there are real economic and social problems, low salaries, lack of certain goods and services in an important part of Venezuelan society. In this regard, I believe that President Nicolás Maduro was wrong when he said that this was a fight between good and evil. I believe that the Venezuelan president should have called, or summoned, spoken to that sector that negatively affects him in Venezuelan society, but it is a democratic sector and has suffered the effects of the United States economic sanctions. If this sector does not feel included, or feels attacked by the current government, it may take an attitude of not wanting to dialogue and this can have many consequences such as, for example, the increase in Venezuelan migration to other countries and regions of the world, as has already happened.
However, I want to reaffirm that what María Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó, Leopoldo López and other Venezuelan opposition figures have done, calling for military intervention and increasing economic sanctions against their own country, in the United States or in any other country of the world, the world would have very serious criminal consequences.
Regarding Venezuelan immigration, it is known that an uncertain number of several million Venezuelans had to migrate to many parts of the world. How have the country’s socio economic problems affected support for Maduro?
I think migration in Venezuela is a drama. Whether there are three, four or five, no matter how many millions have emigrated, is a drama because people do not want to leave their countries. There are other places where there may be less attachment, but Venezuelans have an enormous attachment to their country and their way of life and, therefore, all those people who are abroad are suffering just as their families are.
Let’s imagine that outside of Venezuela there is the minimum number, 3 million Venezuelans, there are 3 million families with people abroad and that obviously must have affected the electoral result, especially if they have not known how to transfer or communicate that the well-being they are experiencing Venezuela is going to continue. And I believe that one of the opposition’s desires has been precisely to try to stop this economic well-being that had already brought back 150,000 people in the Return to the Homeland Mission, a public policy that was responsible for the return of emigrants.
In a short horizon, 150,000 people have returned to Venezuela, a significant number, and it is given in the moment of economic recovery that the country was experiencing. I assume that, if this growth continues, some speak of figures of 7% of the GDP, I believe that the probability that more Venezuelans will return is very high and there also the Maduro Government will have to show that those who expelled that enormous number of Venezuelans were the US government with their sanctions and that those who returned them, the Venezuelans, to the country have been the Bolivarian government, because if they are not able to make that understood as well, I believe that this vote can become a rebound effect.
Do you think that if the opposition came to power, it would expel the Chavistas from the State, in line with Western and pro-Western demands?
I believe that the arrival of the opposition to power would be a catastrophe, because the Venezuelan opposition does not defend liberal principles, they do not respect those who do not think like them, they have a patrimonial conception of Power and State, they believe that Power belongs only to them and I think that they would govern as owners of a farm.
And that is what also makes many leaders say that the opposition cannot win unless it assumes its democratic principles, because it is going to set everyone on fire. That is why even people like Javier Milei have said be careful, be careful because what María Corina Machado implies is crazy, not only for Venezuela, but it is crazy for the entire region.
If it turns out that the opposition won the elections, well, everyone would have to accept it. But of course, since it is not the case that on top of that a person who promises revenge, fire and ashes, on top of that, does not want to recognize the winning result of Nicolás Maduro, these are all elements outside the slightest logic of common sense.
Is Maduro still a popular leader for the Venezuelan people?
Nicolás Maduro is in communion with those 6 million people who voted for him last Sunday, July 28. There is credibility, there is a people absolutely in communion, even those who may have voted for Nicolás Maduro without agreeing with the policy. I think that when they voted for him, they trusted that he was better than the opposition and, therefore, they gave him a vote of confidence.
If this is added to the people who have already recovered levels of proximity, trust, and sympathy, such as those that Commander Chávez had at some point, I believe that it is also a positive element so that in the coming years a new direction that really makes this claim of a new Venezuela very anchored in the 21st century true.
Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon chief, announced that all restrictions on the production of unmanned aerial vehicles have been lifted.
Hegseth’s memorandum comes in response to US President Donald Trump’s June 2025 presidential decree supporting the American drone industry.
In a video accompanying the memorandum, Hegseth said, “While our enemies are producing millions of cheap drones, the global production of military-purpose drones has rapidly increased in the last three years. Therefore, the US must keep pace with and surpass the capabilities of its enemies.”
With his announcement, Hegseth set three goals. First, the Pentagon aims to strengthen the emerging US drone production base by approving military purchases of necessary American-made products.
The second goal is to rapidly advance US combat capabilities to the highest standards of quality, equipping combat units with low-cost drones produced by leading engineers and artificial intelligence experts.
Finally, Hegseth stated his commitment to training US soldiers for the way they are expected to fight. The Pentagon plans to ensure that relevant drone training, including simulations of modern drone warfare, is incorporated into all combat training.
As with any new technology, the most significant issue in lifting these restrictions and implementing new training programs is funding. Hegseth’s memorandum addressed this, stating that the investment methods outlined in Trump’s presidential decree are being examined.
Reiterating its commitment to a more active stance on defense, the memorandum concluded with the statement that “the department is taking off its bureaucratic gloves.”
US President Donald Trump said he will make an “important announcement” about Russia next week, signaling that the US will sell more weapons, including Patriot missile systems, to its allies for delivery to Ukraine.
In an interview with NBC, the US President reiterated his criticism of his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, and stated that the new weapons would be sent through NATO allies rather than directly from the US.
“I am disappointed in Russia, but we will see what happens in the next few weeks… I will make an important announcement about Russia on Monday,” Trump said.
Earlier this week, Trump had expressed that he was “not happy” with the Russian leader for failing to end the war.
The US president announced a new agreement to send weapons to Ukraine through purchases made by NATO allies.
“We are sending the weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying 100% for these weapons. The weapons sent go to NATO, and NATO will give these weapons [to Ukraine], and NATO will pay for them. We will send the Patriot missiles to NATO, and NATO will distribute them,” he added.
NATO does not make bulk arms purchases, but some members of the alliance have indicated they are prepared to buy more weapons on behalf of Ukraine. Germany has offered to purchase two Patriot systems from the US to provide to Kyiv.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said he had reached an agreement with Germany and Norway to purchase three Patriot air defense systems from the US to protect Ukraine from Russian attacks.
Last week, Russia carried out some of the most intense bombardments of the war, including missile and drone attacks that lasted for approximately 10 hours from Wednesday night to Thursday.
“Russia wants to launch 1,000 drones a day at Ukraine soon,” Zelenskyy said in Rome on Thursday, where he met with European leaders.
The Ukrainian leader stated that the joint production of interceptor drones capable of shooting down Russia’s Iranian-designed kamikaze UAVs is a solution he is discussing with Western allies. “If our partners agree to everything I have shared and the necessary funds are allocated, we can achieve this,” he said.
Zelenskyy noted that there are currently four Ukrainian companies and one US-Ukrainian company producing drones, and they now need to increase production.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would continue to send weapons to Ukraine, reversing a Pentagon decision to halt the delivery of some critical weapons.
In the NBC interview, Trump also stated his support for Republican Lindsey Graham’s bill to impose new sanctions on Russia, describing it as a law that “allows the president to do what he wants.”
“This bill passed by the Senate, as you know, respectfully allows the president to do whatever he wants. In other words, it’s my option. A very important and very tough sanctions law will be passed, but it is up to the president whether to implement it or not,” Trump stated.
The US government has reportedly used the pro-Israel Canary Mission website in its deportation activities.
It has been revealed that the US administration relied heavily on a pro-Israel website named Canary Mission to identify pro-Palestinian academics for deportation.
According to records, to support Donald Trump’s deportation initiative, the Department of Homeland Security established a “tiger team” of intelligence analysts who compiled files on approximately 100 foreign students and academics involved in pro-Palestinian activities.
Deposition records released this week in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s targeting of pro-Palestinian academics show that more than 75 of these individuals were identified by Canary Mission, a mysterious website.
The federal judge currently overseeing the case has publicly released the deposition transcripts, which contain hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from administration officials regarding the efforts to deport individuals from campuses.
Some details from the transcripts emerged in open court on Wednesday as administration officials began to be called to the witness stand.
In response to a query from POLITICO, Canary Mission claimed it has had “no contact with this administration or the previous one.”
Immigration lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists had already suspected that immigration officials were taking names of academics from the Canary Mission site and attempting to revoke their visas with very little independent investigation. However, the deposition transcripts reveal for the first time the extensive degree to which Trump officials relied on this site. Peter Hatch, a Department of Homeland Security official who testified in court on Wednesday, acknowledged the site’s importance to the Trump administration’s efforts but stated that all information taken from the site was independently verified.
Canary Mission states that its purpose is to expose “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments” on university campuses. It publishes photos and social media profiles of pro-Palestinian academics and documents their protest activities.
Critics allege that the group employs McCarthy-like tactics by labeling pro-Palestinian activists as anti-Semitic based on weak or irrelevant evidence. Canary Mission does not disclose its funders or details about who manages it.
The group stated, “We document individuals and groups that promote hatred of the US, Israel, and Jews. We investigate hate crimes across the entire political spectrum, including far-right, far-left, and anti-Israel activists.”
The released court records also reveal for the first time the deep involvement of the Trump administration, particularly Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller, in efforts to cancel the visas of pro-Palestinian academics studying and teaching at American universities.
John Armstrong, the acting head of the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that he had “at least a dozen” meetings with White House officials about the student deportation campaign and that Miller participated in inter-agency conference calls on the subject “at least once a week.”
According to Armstrong, the conference calls with Miller lasted between approximately 15 minutes and an hour and included other officials from the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The extent to which the White House was involved in selecting specific students remains unclear, as the White House has invoked executive privilege to conceal the details of Miller’s conversations with agency officials.
Detailed testimonies regarding the administration’s attempt to deport pro-Palestinian academics emerged in over 1,000 pages of documents and deposition transcripts released to the public this week as a lawsuit against this policy began in a Boston federal court.
US District Judge William Young is presiding over the case and will decide whether the Trump administration violated the First Amendment of the Constitution by targeting academics for their speech and political views.
The foreign academics were legally living and studying at American universities on student visas or green cards. However, the administration sought to revoke their legal status and force them to leave the country. Courts have so far intervened to prevent the immediate deportation of Khalil, Ozturk, and others.
Hatch provided new information regarding the role of external groups in targeting academics.
Called as a witness in the ongoing trial on Wednesday, Hatch confirmed that Canary Mission played a key role in intelligence work related to deportations.
Hatch said, “Most, if not almost all, of the names came from that website, but we were also getting names and tips from many different websites. We received information about the same protesters from many sources, but Canary Mission provided the most comprehensive information. The lists were coming from all directions.”
Hatch added that he believed his team was told to review the Canary Mission website and was verbally informed that it contained reports on more than 5,000 people.
The Department of Homeland Security official claimed, “This shows why we needed a tiger team. A normal unit, department, or group of analysts working within a regular organizational structure could not handle this workload.”
Hatch said that analysts assigned to the “counter-terrorism intelligence” unit, among others, were reassigned to the “tiger team.”
Hatch also emphasized that all information his analysts obtained from the Canary Mission site had to be verified before being included in official reports.
The official claimed, “Canary Mission is not part of the US government. This is not information that we would consider a reliable source. We do not work with the people who created this website. I do not know who created the website.”
In his testimony, Hatch stated that he believed “more than 75%” of the names in the reports prepared by the “tiger team” came from Canary Mission, and the others came from a group called Betar US, which uses the slogan “Jews stand up” and publishes profiles of pro-Palestinian activists on its website.
In February, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) added Betar to its list of extremist groups, alleging that the organization “openly embraces Islamophobia and harasses Muslims online and in person.”
Betar did not respond to a request for comment. However, a few days after Trump’s return to the White House in January, Betar announced in comments on X and to news organizations that it had provided a “deportation list” to Trump administration officials.
Administration officials called to give sworn testimony before the trial struggled to provide precise definitions of what type of advocacy or activism would be considered antisemitism or support for Hamas, which the US designates as a terrorist organization.
Both justifications were primary reasons for the deportation campaign and the efforts to deny visas to foreigners wishing to study or continue their education in the US.
In his testimony, Armstrong said that the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” frequently chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies, could lead to the denial of a US visa because it calls for the destruction of Israel.
The State Department official said, “I think it could, because by definition, that means the elimination of Israel and the Israeli people.”
Armstrong added that calls for corporate divestment from Israel, an arms embargo on Israel, or an end to military aid to Israel could also be problematic, and that describing the country as an “apartheid state” would “probably” be considered anti-Israel activity.
On the other hand, Armstrong said that calling for a ceasefire in Gaza would not be considered a negative factor in a visa application.
“The President has called for a ceasefire. So no,” said Armstrong, who is scheduled to testify in court on Friday.
When asked what types of “anti-Americanisms” could lead to a visa denial under Trump’s new policy, Armstrong replied, “It would be a general condemnation: All Americans are fat and evil. It wouldn’t be saying, ‘I hate hot dogs.'”
Pentagon removes all bureaucratic hurdles for drone production
EU launches €10 billion investment initiative for Ukraine’s reconstruction
BCG executives depart amid crisis over Gaza ‘depopulation’ project
Frontex reports a 20% drop in illegal EU entries in the first half of 2025
Trump to send more weapons to Ukraine via NATO allies
-
Europe2 weeks agoNew MI6 chief’s grandfather was a Nazi collaborator known as ‘The Butcher’
-
Middle East3 days agoIsrael details plan for ‘humanitarian zone’ in Rafah, called a ‘concentration camp’ by critics
-
Asia2 weeks agoChinese navy chief and top nuclear scientist expelled from legislature
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS proposes $30 billion deal to Iran for halting uranium enrichment
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoArmenia signals potential complete withdrawal from CSTO
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina, US reach agreement on export controls
-
Diplomacy4 days agoIran must reverse religious fatwa to develop nuclear weapons, says McGovern
-
Diplomacy4 days agoBlackRock halts work on Ukraine reconstruction fund amid Trump uncertainty
