There is something totally new, and something incredibly ancient, about the decisive attack from Trump’s USA to Maduro’s Venezuela, with the immediate removal of the Venezuelan president. There are long-term continuities with the twentieth century, whose end was told when it was still far away, at least on the calendars, and short-term similarities with the history of recent years, those of the war in Ukraine and the devastation of Gaza. As we follow the evolution of the news of an attack that will in any case make history, it may be useful to put Trump’s Venezuelan campaign in geographical, strategic and historical perspective, to understand its scope: that of a real turning point for the world of today and tomorrow.

The “fake” retreat

For decades now, analysts around the world have agreed on one point: the USA is progressively “withdrawing” from the world, or at least wants to do so. Perhaps if there hadn’t been September 11th, the process would have even started earlier, even with George W. Bush, who also had an administration full of theorists and practitioners of interventionist neoconservatism, partly in the name of democracy, and much in the name of business. History is not made with ifs and buts, we don’t know how it would have gone. What is certain is that the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown US public opinion and the ruling class high costs and not always appreciable returns. It is probably in those years, with those wars of “liberation” which then resulted in military occupations led by US troops, that the myth of Western solidarity so dear to the American twentieth century began to break down. It is perhaps there that, well before Trump – today an interventionist in Venezuela, yesterday today and tomorrow an isolationist throughout the world – put it at the center of his geopolitical strategy, the issue of the imbalance of NATO costs and burdens towards Washington, and above all of the USA towards the rest of the world, began to be seen as a problem, especially for Washington and for those who elect the occupants of the White House, Congress and Senate. Naturally, in a circle in which it is difficult to recognize cause and effect, the narratives that had supported that widespread and invasive global presence were also exhausted: the time of the great ideological battles of the twentieth century was over, the self-heroic memory of the world’s liberators and democratisers was over, the fear of the Soviet Union was over, why give blood and money for distant and harmless places for US territory?

The Obama administrations, immediately blessed with a Nobel Peace Prize for the détente intentions essentially shown towards Iran and for a generic and in hindsight ineffective push against nuclear rearmament, had to face multiple crises in this context, for example that generated by the advance of ISIS, intertwined with the bloody and forgotten Syrian civil war, especially in the Middle Eastern quadrant, which did not allow for rapid disengagement, and which however paradoxically confirmed the hypothesis that the USA felt and actually was too exposed in the area. A rising feeling in the belly of America, which was already given full voice by the first Trump – who in his first administration decided on the total withdrawal from Afghanistan, then implemented by Biden and which led to the immediate return of the Taliban to power – and then, above all, the second. It will be said, with many reasons, that the egotic isolationism of Trumpian America has no relation to its dating affinity with Putin, nor to the long state of exception granted to Israel, and always protected in every international and diplomatic forum. It is true. Equally true is that the certainty of US isolation in international settings, the disinterest in any issue that is not perceived as being of direct economic or national security interest, has left Putin and Netanyahu calm in their plans. Not surprisingly, Trump imposed the his “peace” to his ally Bibi after he had thought badly of annoying even Qatar, a historic friend and financier of Hamas, but no less important for the strategic and economic heart of Trumpian America. Which, having imposed the tariffs swallowed by the world (excluding China, Europe instead in the front row) without saying a word, continues to have only one objective: its own interests, America firstt, as he says.

Trump in Venezuela, the means change, not the objectives

And in fact, it would be as easy as it is wrong to think of this attack as if it were in contradiction with what has been said so far. Ultimately, the goal of Trump’s policy is not isolationism, but “American well-being”, whatever that may be, and whatever the cost. Isolationism is a means, not the end. The war for princes around the world costs too much, and the returns are not immediate? We retreat. A group of rebels somewhere in Africa kills thousands of innocent people but far from American interests? Who cares. Another group of rebels doesn’t kill anyone but puts US energy and economic resources at risk? Fighters are immediately sent to clean up. Let’s simplify, but not too much. Thus, while we get rid of, perhaps by negotiating directly with him or with parts of his elite, a bloodthirsty and corrupt ruler like Maduro, and naturally suddenly the human rights violated in Venezuela are at the center of the discussion like the importance of Venezuela in drug trafficking, we have a clear idea of ​​what we are talking about: the first oil reserves in the world, larger even than those of our Saudi friends, and the largest holder of natural gas in South America. Today, both due to technological delays and sanctions, that heritage cannot support America’s monstrous energy needs, which will become even greater as artificial intelligence and automation continue to grow. A real shame, which also risks generating new flare-ups of inflation, public enemy number one in view of the next elections. A real sin that Trump wanted to remedy in his own way, by invading Venezuela and laying the foundations for new relationships, for the birth of a friendly government.

The twentieth century returns

Naturally, a look at the courses and appeals cannot help but remind us that the intrusive, at times proprietary, dimension of the USA in South America does not begin today. But precisely, we should go back to the twentieth century of Pinochet and Videla. A time that seemed over and certainly is. Instead, this is a new time, a new code of international relations, and it is Trump himself who sanctions it with his ways. To those who believed that American hegemony would no longer be exercised by force, he simply said that they were wrong: only that this new America exercises force when it feels like it, autonomously, without even informing its own parliament, let alone international bodies. And if the concept wasn’t clear enough, let’s reiterate it: there is only one interest that the head of the superpower recognizes, that of his own. Not of his people as a whole, but of his part, perhaps betting that that part can become bigger, of course, but certainly not feeling like the “president of everyone”. The rest of the world doesn’t notice, at least until it’s a potential problem of its own. America First: It seemed like the new global guerrilla disorder, and maybe it was. But first of all, and without a shadow of a doubt, it was a piece of the electoral campaign for the Midterm elections next November, 2026. Ah, of course, happy new year everyone again.