By Luis Manuel Aguana
I would like to approach this piece with the utmost care—not because I fear being misunderstood, but because of the implications I believe it carries. Opinions are emerging that suggest Venezuelans—specifically the opposition leadership centered around María Corina Machado (MCM)—might be undermining the U.S. plan for Venezuela. This could potentially reverse the progress achieved since the removal of Nicolás Maduro Moros and Cilia Flores on January 3, 2026.
Let us examine this closely; in my view, it is far from a trivial matter—it is, in fact, of critical importance to us all. It is no small thing to ask: What would happen if the U.S. government, frustrated by obstruction from opposition factions, decided to freeze or alter its strategy in Venezuela? The three-phase plan that the U.S. has pursued since January 3, 2026—coercing key regime figures to leverage control over oil assets and facilitate the dismantling of the regime—has yielded results. However, these outcomes have benefited the United States far more than they have advanced the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. But what if they were to simply say, "Well, since you clearly know better than we do, we’re stepping aside"? That, without a doubt, would be catastrophic.
It is a fact that, as part of the "Trump-Rubio" plan, the Minister of Defense—Padrino López, who held that post for over a decade while propping up the regime—has been removed, along with other key military figures. Furthermore, various paramilitary elements—such as the country’s largest armed *colectivos*—have been neutralized, preventing them from inciting further instability. Additionally, several undesirable individuals have been extradited—with others soon to follow—who will almost certainly cooperate with the U.S. justice system to strengthen the case against Maduro.
Furthermore, critical national laws have been amended and approved on an “express” basis to facilitate the transfer of Venezuelan resources to the United States—even though we all know that the regime had previously been handing these same resources over to Cuba for free, selling them to China, Iran, and Russia at below-market rates, or simply stealing them, thereby enriching many of those who still hold power in this country and others within the global socialist orbit.
The anti-American sentiment that has historically persisted in Venezuela—and across all our nations—continues to dominate political discourse. Yet, at this very moment, the only country that has extended a helping hand to help us escape the criminal chaos that has devastated Venezuela over the last 30 years is the one now shaping the future of the Venezuelan people. And therein, I believe, lies the crux of the matter.
Imagine we are in a hospital, shattered and bleeding after being run over by a semi-truck; miraculously, we are still alive—yet we express distrust toward the only qualified surgeon available to operate on us. That is the stark, unvarnished reality facing the Venezuelan people.
Either we trust in what this surgeon will do—even knowing that he might charge us for every step we take once we’ve recovered—or we fall into the hands of some incompetent butcher, or worse yet, back into the hands of the very people who ran us over in the first place. There are few other choices. The surgeon is not to blame, and we are the ones who must make a decision. It is natural—and valid—to have doubts, but we must acknowledge that we brought this situation upon ourselves.
Nevertheless, before any surgery, it is always possible to engage in a dialogue to explore the available options, without necessarily calling the surgeon’s competence into question. There are always alternatives, and through an honest conversation between doctor and patient, agreements can be reached. And that is precisely what is not happening here. However, they are not taking place because the person representing the patient failed to have the necessary conversation with the doctor during the five months following the removal of Maduro; consequently, the doctor—acting on his own judgment—decided on the course of action to save the patient’s life (and determining why that conversation did not occur is beyond the scope of this analysis). This is the situation as described by J.J. Rendón on the program *Arrímate al Mingo* on October 19, 2026:
“And, furthermore, there is a real power—the power currently under a system of oversight—and it is better to offer help and be proactive toward that power than to act as if you’ve been cast aside. ‘I’m on the outside; they won’t let me participate; they didn’t invite me.’ What do you think you are? Right now, you’re just another Venezuelan aspiring to the presidency. Period. Nobel Prize and all—that’s fine. But this whole idea that they’re obligated to call you or invite you—well, that’s something you should have earned. You had from January to May to forge that alliance. You didn’t do it; you didn’t consolidate it. You challenged the investments, you challenged the process, you tried to flex your muscles—it didn’t work, and they brought in Dinorah instead. So, what do you do now? ‘Oh, well, I’ll just sabotage Dinorah.’ Instead of grasping the message and saying, ‘Well, Dinorah, how can I help you?’…” (see in Spanish, MingoTeVe, Otro Nivel, JJ Rendón, “Procesos que no construyen institucionalidad primero fracasan”, in https://youtu.be/vcGb40ceUt4?t=2934).
Based on the core of this argument, we should all be asking Dinorah Figuera how we can help her resolve fundamental issues in her negotiations with the regime—given that both she and Delcy Rodríguez are part of the strategy employed by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio to address the situation in Venezuela. In this view, Dinorah Figuera acts as the true “representative” of Trump’s interests in Venezuela: an opposition coordinator who communicates with the U.S. administration and faithfully executes its strategy within the country. And no one else. Furthermore, all Venezuelans have a vested interest in resolving this situation as soon as possible.
Setting aside the role that María Corina Machado (MCM) ought to be playing—whether inside or outside Venezuela—I believe we should all push for the removal of those who have destroyed the country. If Dinorah Figuera is the designated representative—regardless of our dissatisfaction with how she was appointed—she serves as the conduit for U.S. decisions within any agreements reached with the Delcy Rodríguez-aligned regime.
But make no mistake: supporting Dinorah Figuera does not mean the U.S. will significantly alter the plan they have already devised for Venezuelans—a plan that remains unknown to us and which, in our view, could be flawed. Just because a plan originates from the U.S. does not mean it is free from errors in its implementation—starting with the person tasked with executing it. Nevertheless, viewed in this light, Dinorah Figuera offers a potential opening to present our own perspectives, which could help correct the implementation of the plan—whatever that plan may be—to resolve the Venezuelan crisis.
If the U.S.’s true intention is to leave the interim status of the Delcy Rodríguez-aligned regime undefined—without establishing the foundational legitimacy required for elections—then it is to Dinorah Figuera that these concerns should be directed, accompanied by clear, actionable proposals for a solution. In our view, it is a grave error for the Delcy Rodríguez regime to oversee the electoral process aimed at restoring Venezuelan democracy; hence our proposal for a transition led by individuals within the executive branch who possess the legitimacy and credibility required to carry out such a process. We believe this must be rectified as soon as possible.
But if the US insists on continuing to support Delcy Rodríguez, then they must propose ways—and communicate them to the country—to guarantee that, regardless of who is in power, Venezuelans will have an electoral process free from the doubts, traumas, and fraud produced by the automated electoral system implemented in Venezuela starting in 2004.
So, if the question is, “Dinorah, how can I help you?” I would say that the first thing would be to tell Dinorah Figuera that they should refrain from appointing new members to the National Electoral Council (CNE) WITHOUT FIRST CHANGING the current Venezuelan electoral system. That it negotiate IN ADVANCE the appointment of a Technical Commission aimed at changing the Venezuelan technical-electoral system in accordance with the Ruling of Nullity of the Venezuelan Electoral System, File No. SE-2018-001, dated June 13, 2018, with the opinion of Magistrate Domingo Javier Salgado Rodríguez (see in Spanish, TSJ declares the use of automated voting for elections in Venezuela null and void, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2018/06/tribunal-supremo-de-justicia-declara.html).
The appointed electoral commission should provide Venezuelans with answers regarding when it would be feasible to hold elections with guarantees of transparency, proceeding to coordinate what is necessary to implement the proposed changes to the legal, organizational, and procedural framework to ensure genuine elections in Venezuela.
Regarding the specific proposals concerning the technical system to be implemented, special mention should be made of the most recent chapter in the Sovereign Elections 202X series entitled “The Protocol for Venezuela to Vote Again” (see Chapter 7, Elections 202X, in https://youtu.be/DwJvAGg-flg?si=L55-wwgea5xE3orc), where we present our proposals for a new technical-electoral system for Venezuela.
All the ideas presented in the *Elecciones Soberanas 202X* (Sovereign Elections 202X) series—available on the *Sin Filtros* YouTube channel, hosted by journalist Maibort Petit—are part of that “how can I help you?” sentiment we have expressed repeatedly over the years. It goes without saying that those of us who developed these proposals have offered them precisely with the intention of collaborating with anyone interested in ensuring that free, fair, and verifiable elections take place in Venezuela.
Our approach is rooted in the premise of trust—much like the trust a patient places in their doctor—specifically the belief that the Trump administration genuinely desires a democratic transition in Venezuela before the end of President Trump’s term. It is therefore vital that Trump’s envoy, Dinorah Figuera, understands the critical importance of reforming the electoral system; without such reform, no change is possible. It would be akin to a surgeon attempting an operation without observing basic hygiene protocols or lacking the necessary instruments. If a doctor operates under such conditions, the patient will collapse—regardless of how much trust they may have placed in the physician.
Consequently, simply asking, “Dinorah, how can I help you?” is insufficient if the fundamental conditions are not in place. She must also be willing to accept help and recognize that others genuinely wish to assist her. This brings us to a different issue: if she refuses help due to interests that do not align with those of the Venezuelan people, then even if the patient survives the surgery, they will inevitably perish shortly thereafter. At the very least, we must ensure that everything required is available before the procedure begins, thereby improving the chances of survival during the postoperative period. It is precisely for this reason that citizens exert pressure on these key actors.
Finally, it must be noted that—regardless of the situation we Venezuelans have created for ourselves by allowing another nation to ultimately dictate our destiny—this does not preclude us from voicing our collective discontent and our urgent demand for an immediate solution, even if such a solution might be unattainable for reasons beyond our understanding. Venezuelans do not need to be scolded—based on the assumption by some that “we don’t understand”—; rather, we need empathy regarding our extremely grave problems, and better explanations than those we have received from everyone who has sought to govern us over nearly 30 years of destruction. We need sound guidance and better leadership—people capable of navigating us through this disaster at the lowest possible cost. Do we have that? I believe not. Therefore, let each person contribute according to their own means…
Caracas, October 22, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario