ADVERTISEMENT
According to Trump, allowing major U.S. oil companies to operate in Venezuela would accelerate reconstruction, create economic growth, and generate revenue that could benefit the Venezuelan population.
Trump presented this approach as a pragmatic solution rather than an ideological one. He argued that private-sector expertise and capital were essential to restoring production capacity and modernizing facilities.
At the same time, Trump made clear that security considerations would remain paramount. He warned that the United States was prepared to take additional military action if threats emerged during the transition period.
This assertion appeared aimed at deterring resistance from remaining Maduro loyalists or armed groups that might challenge U.S. control or disrupt oil operations.
When asked specifically about China’s concerns regarding access to oil, Trump sought to reassure international audiences that the United States did not intend to monopolize resources or exclude other nations entirely.
His reference to a positive personal relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping was intended to signal that major global powers could coexist economically within the new framework he described.
Analysts note that such arrangements typically require extensive negotiations, treaties, or multilateral agreements, none of which were outlined in his public remarks.
Trump also addressed internal Venezuelan dynamics, particularly the question of loyalty within the country’s political and military institutions.
According to Trump, those who continued to support Maduro would face severe consequences, while those who cooperated with the transition could secure a more favorable future.
This messaging appeared designed to encourage defections and reduce resistance, a strategy often used during periods of political upheaval. However, without independent confirmation, the extent of any such shifts in loyalty remains unclear.
Continue reading…