12 February 2019 (German)
Even in Venezuela, regime change is not about the oil.
In our 2018 analysis on “The Logic of Imperial Wars” it was shown that US interventions of the last several decades were not “about the oil”: this is obviously true for Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Yemen (all of which own no oil), but also for Iraq, Libya and Syria. Indeed, in the case of Syria the “pipeline theory” was ultimately based on a single false report.
The oil narrative is now reappearing again in Venezuela’s case, as Venezuela owns the largest conventional oil reserves in the world. But the attempted regime change in Venezuela is not about oil either.
As a matter of fact, the US has already been the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil for years. And if the US wanted to physically “control” the oil, why is it that of all countries in South America, Venezuela (together with Bolivia) is the last one to be geopolitically independent of the US?
It is because the logic works just the other way round: Venezuela is independent because of its oil, and this independence is a problem from a US geopolitical point of view. On the one hand Venezuela is a political, economic and military gateway for Russia and China, on the other hand Venezuela supports additional „enemy states“ such as, notably, Cuba and Nicaragua.
It’s a geostrategic “masterstroke”: a regime change in Venezuela could neutralize this entire Russian-Chinese “Latino network” in one fell swoop, ideally without firing a shot.
John Bolton: Supporters and opponents of regime change in Venezuela (28 January 2019)
Proponents of the oil narrative often cite as “evidence” a FOX Business News interview about the situation in Venezuela with US National Security Advisor John Bolton. However, regarding oil Bolton merely stated that “socialist dictator” Maduro had allowed the oil industry to collapse, while the “new president”, backed by US industry, would boost investments again. A trivial statement.