Brazil, Colombia And Mexico Play Good Cop In The US Coup Attempt Against Venezuela

This duality of roles — good cop versus bad cop — serves to create a pincer attack that complicates the narrative surrounding Venezuela, ultimately attempting to guide the country to capitulate.

Since July 28 Venezuela has been amidst a Hybrid War coup attempt orchestrated by the US leveraging the country's pro-US opposition as proxies internally while externally deploying LAC States to collaborate in the regime change plot. The article will focus on how Brazil, Colombia and Mexico have positioned themselves in the Hybrid War against the Bolivarian South American state, portraying a façade of support for the Venezuelan people while aligning with the interests of external powers that seek the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro. This article explains how the second phase of the US hybrid coup attempt against Venezuela should be understood as a sort of pincer attack to neutralize Venezuela utilizing two groups of nations, one being the “good cops” and other the “bad cops”. 

Hybrid warfare is often manifested in a synchronized combination of diplomatic pressure, massive disinformation campaigns, economic sanctions, terrorism, and the use of various opposition groups as proxies, some NGO leaders, some in the media and others recruited as street thugs to destabilize a government. The coup attempt and info war campaign against Venezuela's government in the middle of its electoral process started when María Corina Machado Parisca and Edmundo González Urrutia, the leaders of the opposition called the elections a fraud citing documents facilitated by the CIA-linked company. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition has not presented evidence. 

On August 3 Secretary of State Blinken acknowledged Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of the elections by US own decree. Shortly after President Maduro declared that BRICS nations will be favored for oil and gas agreements if the US continues its Hybrid War campaign against Venezuela. And just like that after Maduros warning the State Department Spokesman Miller clarified promptly that the US did not recognize anyone as interim President.

The initial attempt to overthrow the government was thwarted when law enforcement apprehended the hired aggressors tasked with assaulting civilians and damaging infrastructure. However, it is characteristic of Hybrid Warfare coups to unfold in several phases, complete with backup strategies. Should the principal effort to destabilize the government through misinformation-driven protests not succeed, alternative tactics may continue to exert pressure. These second and possibly third phases of the hybrid coup are meant to stall official government tasks, stall the truth from coming out, and give time to the US proxies to organize events where they use violence against state personnel and infrastructure hoping that the Venezuelan government hurts or kills the criminals so it can be weaponized by both the good cop and bad cop factions of LACs governments.

President Maduro appealed to the Supreme Court to see the fraud claim channeled via the legal institutions. Yet the opposition leaders failed to show up or provide material evidence for their claim in the allocated forum, they did publish dubious minutes on the Internet but did not bring a single document to the Court. Moreover, the president of the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), Caryslia Rodríguez Rodríguez, informed of the beginning of an expert appraisal of the electoral material in the hands of the National Electoral Council used in the presidential elections of July 28.

Good Cop, Bad Cop Dynamics

As I predicted in a prior article titled “Categorizing LACs' Loyalties In The Midst Of The Hybrid War Coup Attempt In Venezuela” Brazil, Colombia and Mexico has them playing the role of the good cop, while the rest of the first joint statement play the role of the bad cop. Various regional actors notably, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico played a significant role in this scenario as the moderate “good cops” in contrast to the more aggressive stance of the United States, Canada, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Chile which are the “bad cops” utilizing coercive measures and sanctions to push for regime change. Despite their differing methods, and parts to play, the ultimate goal of both good cops and bad cops is the same: to guide Venezuela towards a political transition that favors the opposition. This dual approach aims to create an environment where Maduro is left vulnerable, leading to potential compromise. 

Lula as leader of the good cop faction has rejected the decision of the Venezuelan people and its electoral institutions and does not recognize Maduro as President of Venezuela. Many in the Alt media believe Brazil was subjected to very strong pressure from the US, to have succumbed to this. But the truth is the Portuguese-speaking nation under Bolsonaro and Lula da Silva had been moving towards this for a while now, differing greatly from Dilma Rousseff's way of governing becoming defacto a US asset of smart power in the region against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba the sovereign LAC states which resist US neo-colonization the most.

Brazil: The Poisonous Carrot in the Regional Strategy

The Brazilian president has not acknowledged Maduro’s victory opting instead to network intensely with Colombia's Petro on the Venezuelan question, jointly making ambiguous remarks trying to cover his tracks, advocating for non-interference in other nations' affairs, yet in the same breath, proposing the formation of a coalition government or the holding of new elections to pressure Maduro into resignation.

Lula which represents the B in BRICS has been preprogramming audiences against Maduro for the last months before the Venezuelan elections. On July 22  Lula was quoted saying “Maduro needs to learn that when you win, you stay. When you lose, you leave", while on the surface the sentence seems logical and good, it's intended to preprogram the reader against Maduro. This approach allows Brazil to present itself as a stabilizing force in the region, while simultaneously aligning with the broader objectives of the United States intending to gaslight the Venezuelan government into a compromise to effectively decapitate it.

By leveraging the hybrid warfare tactics employed by the United States against Venezuela, Brazil has found a way to subtly advance its own agenda within the region. This approach enables Brazil to engage in its own form of hybrid warfare, utilizing the infowar campaigns against Venezuela to further its strategic interests while avoiding overt confrontation with either side. Brazil has shown it is incapable of being a true multipolar superstar as it has failed the most basic tests of multipolar diplomacy, that of not supporting a multilateral campaign to destabilize and weaken another state, as is presently the case with Venezuela being targeted.

Colombia: The Proxy Regional Collaborator 

Gustavo Petro, on August 15, wrote on platform X that the responsibility lies with Nicolás Maduro to devise a political strategy for Venezuela and advocated for the removal of all sanctions imposed on Venezuela, a comprehensive amnesty both domestically and internationally, full assurances for political activities, a new provisional shared government, and the organization of new, transparent elections.

Gustavo Petro – and Lula da Silva's – proposal also assumes that fraud was committed in the elections of July 28 which was all part of the plan as they have been programming both international audiences and their populations to harbor prejudices against Maduro and Chavistas. The efforts of these two presidents to undermine the Chavista movement and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela strategically align with US interests by leveraging claims of electoral fraud, crafting biased narratives, utilizing international platforms, portraying the regime as a threat, and swaying the political landscape of other nations.

Mexico: The Diplomatic Balancer

Mexico’s involvement is somewhat less pronounced than that of Brazil and Colombia, but it remains significant. López Obrador said that he has not spoken with the president of Brazil, since the conversation he and the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, had on August 1 on the subject, further distancing Mexico from Colombia and Brazil which have eagerly played their assigned roles. Mexico has proposed the need for negotiations between the Venezuelan government and the opposition, while this may seem like a humanitarian effort, it also plays into the broader strategy of weakening Maduro’s position without overtly aligning with U.S. interventionist policies yet still operating within such a framework.

In his morning briefings, AMLO questioned the statements and actions of the OAS because of the pronouncement in favor of a candidate emphasizing that Mexico is waiting for the Venezuelan authority to announce the results. In a recent statement, Mexican President AMLO emphasized the importance of judicial autonomy and the principle of non-intervention, suggesting that it is not wise for external parties to comment on matters that are fundamental for the Venezuelan people to determine. He advocated for a wait-and-see approach, deferring to the decisions of the court, thereby upholding respect for Venezuela's sovereignty and legal processes.

The actions of these three states put the multipolar architecture of the Americas at risk by siding with the United States against Venezuela. This duality of roles — good cop versus bad cop — serves to create a pincer attack that complicates the narrative surrounding Venezuela, ultimately attempting to guide the country to capitulate.