Colombia's Petro Taunts Trump Over Maduro, Claims US "Lost" Venezuela

A Shift in Regional Rhetoric

In a bold rhetorical move that underscores the shifting geopolitical landscape of South America, Colombian President Gustavo Petro has publicly taunted former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the failed attempts to oust Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Petro, Colombia's first leftist leader, argued that the "maximum pressure" campaign led by the Trump administration was not only a strategic blunder but resulted in the United States effectively "losing" Venezuela to adversarial global interests. During a recent address, Petro emphasized that the era of interventionist diplomacy has yielded nothing but instability and economic hardship for the region.

The "Failed Experiment" of Juan Guaidó

Central to Petro's critique was the 2019 decision by the Trump administration and dozens of allies to recognize Juan Guaidó, then-head of the National Assembly, as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela. Petro described this move as a "failed experiment" that ignored the political realities on the ground in Caracas. By creating a parallel government that lacked actual control over the military or state institutions, Petro argues the U.S. undermined the possibility of a negotiated settlement.

• Petro claimed that the recognition of Guaidó was a "diplomatic fantasy" that lacked a roadmap for actual transition.
• He noted that the strategy left the U.S. with no leverage once the interim government's momentum stalled.
• The Colombian leader suggested that the policy only served to entrench Maduro by allowing him to frame the opposition as foreign puppets.

Sanctions and the Migration Crisis

Petro did not stop at political recognition; he also took aim at the broad economic sanctions imposed by the United States. He argued that these isolation tactics were counterproductive, failing to trigger a military coup while devastating the Venezuelan working class. According to Petro, the primary export of the U.S. sanctions regime has been the millions of refugees who have fled across the border into Colombia. He suggested that the U.S. bears significant responsibility for the regional migration crisis, as the economic collapse of Venezuela was accelerated by the "strangulation" of its oil industry.

A Radical Departure in Diplomacy

Since taking office in 2022, Petro has moved aggressively to dismantle the policies of his predecessor, Iván Duque, who was a staunch ally of Donald Trump’s Venezuela strategy. Petro has reopened the 1,400-mile border, restored full diplomatic relations with Maduro, and positioned Colombia as a mediator rather than an antagonist. This shift represents a fundamental realignment in South American politics, where the "Lima Group"—a coalition of nations once dedicated to isolating Maduro—has effectively dissolved. Petro argues that engagement, however difficult, is the only pragmatic way to address human rights and democratic standards in Venezuela.

The Geopolitical Vacuum

By claiming the U.S. "lost" Venezuela, Petro pointed to the increased presence of extra-hemispheric powers in the region. He argued that when the U.S. withdrew from diplomatic engagement and imposed sanctions, it created a vacuum that was quickly filled by Russia, China, and Iran. This, Petro suggests, has made the Venezuelan problem a global security issue rather than a regional one. "They tried to lock the door from the outside," Petro remarked, "only to find that Maduro found new windows to open with the rest of the world."

Conclusion: A Warning to Washington

As the U.S. heads toward another election cycle where Venezuela remains a hot-button issue, Petro’s remarks serve as a warning against returning to the policies of the past. His taunts toward Trump reflect a broader sentiment among several Latin American leaders who are increasingly wary of Washington's "big stick" diplomacy. For Petro, the path forward involves recognizing the sovereignty of neighboring states and seeking collaborative solutions to economic and social crises, rather than pursuing regime change through external pressure. Whether Washington listens or doubles down on previous strategies remains a defining question for the future of the Western Hemisphere.