Related videos:
The Cuban academic Jenny Pantoja Torres stated this Saturday that the capture of Nicolás Maduro does not automatically mean the liberation of Venezuela, and warned that a solution promoted by the United States could leave the country trapped in a new external dependency.
In a post on her Facebook account, Pantoja expressed a nuanced position regarding the events in the South American nation, following Maduro's capture by U.S. forces.
Although he expressed relief at the leader's departure from power, he believed that the method used lacks political legitimacy and poses significant risks for the country's future.
Pantoja stated that, although Maduro was an illegitimate president after disregarding the electoral victory of the opposition led by Edmundo González and María Corina Machado in July 2024, a transition imposed by another power does not constitute a desirable solution.
In his opinion, the best solution should always come from within, while also recognizing that the Venezuelan people had become trapped in a "dead end" after the closure of all institutional pathways.
The academic expanded her reflection to the Cuban case and warned that prolonged civic inaction leaves authoritarian societies vulnerable to falling "at the mercy of any of the major powers," whether it be the United States, Russia, or China.
In that regard, he identified the totalitarian system itself as one of the factors that most undermines national sovereignty by reducing citizens' capacity for action and opening the door to external solutions.
In his analysis, Pantoja also questioned whether Washington has a real commitment to the Venezuelan opposition, noting that he was not surprised by the signs that the administration of Donald Trump might disregard González and Machado in favor of a solution that serves its interests.
"Venezuelans still have a long way to go to achieve their true freedom," he stated, emphasizing that Maduro's capture does not necessarily equate to a structural change in power.
The reactions to his text reflected the deep division within the Cuban exile community and among Cuban citizens. While some agreed that foreign intervention could lead to new forms of authoritarianism or failed transitions, others argued that in contexts like Venezuela and Cuba, any "internal" solution would imply a massacre without guarantees of success, making it unavoidable to choose between morally imperfect options.
The debate takes place against the backdrop of a Venezuelan scenario marked by the appointment of Delcy Rodríguez as acting president by the Supreme Court of Justice, under supervision and explicit conditions from the United States, which reinforces doubts about the true nature of the ongoing transition and reignites fears of a reshuffling of power without an effective break from chavismo.
In recent hours, critical voices have also emerged from the Cuban intellectual and artistic community regarding the manner in which Maduro was removed from power.
The comedian Ulises Toirac, the writer Jorge Fernández Era, and the poet and improviser Alexis Díaz-Pimienta, among others, questioned whether the downfall of the Venezuelan leader occurred through foreign military action, warning that the method is as important as the outcome and that the intervention of an external power raises serious dilemmas regarding sovereignty, legitimacy, and dangerous precedents for societies like the Cuban one.
Filed under: