A series of publications depicts the United States not as a bystander, but as an active player that responds to international crises along several tracks at once: through aid deliveries, the deployment of military and administrative resources, and through diplomatic and political actions that can shift the balance of power. The focus is not only on the fact of response, but also on how external and regional media assess American capabilities, motives, and the degree of influence in situations affecting, in particular, Venezuela and Iran—along with broader geopolitical confrontations.
The material is based on publications from www.facebook.com (Venezuela).
The U.S. in the Venezuelan mirror: from Machado to the World Cup
In two different, but ideologically connected reactions, the United States is shown not as a neutral international player, but as a force whose signals and actions are immediately read through Venezuela’s political lens. In one case, it concerns a response to the opposition’s expectations surrounding María Corina Machado; in the other, a leftist anti-imperialist view of the World Cup in the United States, presented as a symptom of the American power crisis.
In the first text, published by El Comercio, the key phrase is attributed to Marco Rubio: “Venezuela tiene autoridades únicas interinas” and “el Dpto. de Estado no ha fijado ninguna posición con respecto a ella.” For a Venezuelan audience, this comes across as a cold shower: in this interpretation, the United States is not in a rush to confirm the opposition’s political expectations and does not provide it with the external legitimacy it is counting on. The author even uses the ironic expression “OTRA BUENA DOSIS DE UBICATEX” — “another dose of getting your senses back” — underscoring the disappointment of the Machado camp.
This storyline reads not merely as a dispute over who can speak on behalf of Venezuela, but as a question of the internal legitimacy of political actors. The emphasis is placed not on abstract diplomacy, but on the political effect of Rubio’s statement: the State Department does not take Machado’s side. For the opposition, this is especially painful, because international recognition remains one of the key resources in its strategy. Any ambiguity from Washington weakens its negotiating position and undermines hopes for external support. Against the backdrop of the Venezuelan opposition’s long-standing dependence on American pressure, this signal is perceived as yet another reminder that expectations of regime change do not always align with the United States’ cautious approach.
In the second piece, published by Politica Obrera, the United States is placed in a much harsher frame—as a power trying to restore its imperial status in the face of its own decline. Here, the World Cup in the United States is described not as a sporting celebration, but as “a boomerang for imperialism.” According to Joaquín Antúnez, the tournament reveals not strength, but the system’s contradictions: expensive tickets, half-empty stadiums, protests, and strikes.
Especially important for Venezuelan—and more broadly Latin American—readers is the text’s anti-imperialist tone. As the source reports, Eva Gutiérrez says that the U.S. is “trying to restore itself as an empire again,” but in reality it is in “complete degradation.” In this context, protests against ICE, brutal treatment of teams and migrants, and the general logic of repression and control are mentioned. For Venezuela, this is a sensitive issue, given the mass migration of Venezuelans and the ongoing conflict with the United States around migration policy.
The material also links the United States with Canada and Mexico, presenting the region as a space of crisis where even “progressive” governments are not freed from criticism. In this setting, a sporting event becomes a political symbol: in Latin America, football is not just sport—it is part of mass identity, so the idea that the World Cup in the U.S. turns into a failure is easily read as a symbolic defeat of the American project.
What unites both texts is the same thing: the United States is viewed through a Venezuelan framework in which diplomacy, sport, migration, and domestic politics turn out to be parts of one large conflict over power, legitimacy, and interference. In one case, Washington does not send the desired signal to the opposition; in the other, it is shown as a vulnerable power hiding a crisis behind a large-scale show. In both cases, the American position is read not neutrally, but as a political factor capable of either supporting or weakening opponents in Latin America.
