Most people imagine democracy as a solid structure: courts, elections, legislatures, and a free press. These institutions feel permanent, like steel beams holding up a skyscraper. But history shows something different. Democracies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. They erode slowly through habits, attitudes, and confusion. This erosion is often invisible because daily life continues normally: people vote, news airs, and courts issue rulings. Yet beneath the surface, the civic foundation begins to crack. Understanding these cracks is essential for any society that hopes to remain free.

How Democracies Actually Erode: A Universal Pattern

Political scientists studying democratic decline across dozens of countries have found a remarkably consistent pattern, whether in Latin America, Eastern Europe, or Asia.

• Citizens lose trust in institutions. People begin to believe courts are biased, elections don't work, the media lies, and Congress only fights for seats. As I see it, distrust is the first ingredient of democratic erosion.
• Parties become enemies instead of competitors. Polarization transforms politics into warfare. Compromise becomes betrayal. Identity replaces policy.
• Leaders use fear instead of ideas. Demagoguery replaces reason. Leaders claim only they can fix it, that the system is rigged, and that citizens should fear the other side. Fear makes citizens surrender their own power.
• Institutions bend under pressure. Courts, legislatures, and agencies begin following party loyalty instead of constitutional duty.
• Citizens become confused or apathetic. Politics feels toxic and overwhelming. People withdraw. A strongman style emerges, not always a dictator, but often a charismatic figure promising order, justice, protection, or national rebirth.

This is how Venezuela drifted from a model South American democracy into a narco state.

The U.S. and Venezuela: A Difficult Parallel

Ironically, the United States seeks to "fix" Venezuela while suffering many of the same early-stage weaknesses. As I see it, institutions are weakening. Diplomacy by example has not worked, and military intervention becomes a tempting, though dangerous, shortcut.

Citizens and Leaders Shape Each Other

Democracy is not just a system of laws; it is a relationship. Citizens learn from leaders, people imitate the tone, fears, and priorities of leaders they trust. Responsible leaders produce responsible citizens; reckless leaders produce reckless citizens. Look around.

Leaders, in turn, learn from citizens. They watch for weaknesses: confusion, anger, apathy, misinformation, and lack of civic education. These weaknesses become openings for manipulation. This creates a feedback loop, citizens imitate leaders, leaders exploit citizens. Understanding this loop is essential to understanding democracy drift.

The Two-Party Trap: Clarity Lost to Competition

In many democracies, including the United States, two major parties dominate political life. This creates stability but also confusion and dangerous frustration.

Benefits: predictable elections, clear competition, organized governance. Reality: campaigns become battles, scandals are defended instead of corrected, and citizens vote for their "team," not for solutions. Parties prioritize defeating each other over governing. This dynamic mirrors the political dynamics of Venezuela up to 1990.

Warning Signs Visible in the United States

The U.S. is not collapsing, but several early warning signs are present:

1. Extreme polarization
2. Distrust in elections and courts
3. Media under pressure, legally free, but practically constrained
4. Party loyalty overriding institutional loyalty
5. Weak civic education, the largest vulnerability

Without strong civic education, emotion replaces reason, misinformation spreads, leaders gain excessive influence, institutions weaken, and democracy drifts.

Civic Education: The Most Powerful Defense Against Authoritarian Drift

Civic education is not memorizing facts; it is building mental strength. It teaches citizens how institutions work, how manipulation works, how to check sources, how to debate respectfully, how to protect their rights, and how to think beyond party identity.

Without it: confusion grows, fear replaces reason, leaders gain unchecked influence, institutions bend, and democracy drifts.

Desire or Disaster: Why Big Changes Are Rare

Democracies reform when citizens demand better institutions, or when a crisis forces change. Many countries, including the U.S., have frustration, confusion, polarization, distrust, and violence. But they lack a unified desire for reform, or awareness that disaster could force it. So the system drifts.

Democracy Depends on Citizens Who Understand Democracy

Democracy is not protected by politicians. It is protected by citizens who think clearly, recognize manipulation, demand accountability, resist fear-based rhetoric, and understand their own power. The seeds of authoritarian drift exist in many countries, including the United States. Whether they grow depends on education, awareness, and civic maturity.

Education Reform: The First Line of Defense

If education reform does not include moral and civic instruction from kindergarten through high school, voting becomes disconnected from democratic responsibility. Civic and moral education have faded from classrooms, replaced by fragmented lessons, test-driven curricula, and political battles. To reduce revolutions, wars, and deadly protests, leaders must treat education as seriously as jobs, the economy, the military, and wealth.

Why Civic Education Declined

Three forces weakened civic learning: standardized testing pushed civics aside; political polarization made curriculum choices contentious; and digital media replaced structured, factual instruction. The result is generations who know how to express opinions, but not how to evaluate them.

What Modern Civic Education Should Teach

1. Institutional literacy, understanding courts, elections, federalism, lawmaking, and rights.
2. Media and information literacy, source verification, misinformation patterns, emotional manipulation, algorithmic influence.
3. Emotional and moral reasoning, respectful debate, disagreement management, resistance to fear-based rhetoric, recognition of scapegoating, appreciation of compromise.
4. Historical awareness of democratic decline, case studies from Venezuela, South and Central America, Hungary, Turkey, Weimar Germany, Chile, and post-Soviet states. Not to create fear, but awareness.
5. Practical citizenship skills, attending local meetings, analyzing legislation, writing to representatives, evaluating claims, participating in community projects, and, no less important or timely, AI usage.

How Schools Can Reintroduce Civic and Moral Education Without Political Conflict

1. Focus on processes, not parties.
2. Use primary sources instead of commentary.
3. Teach multiple perspectives.
4. Train teachers in neutral facilitation.
5. Build community partnerships.
6. Integrate civics across all subjects.

Why Moral Education Must Return

Democracy is not only a system of laws, it is a system of values. Moral education should include lessons, with parent participation, on empathy, responsibility, honesty, fairness, respect, courage, and humility. Without moral education: fear replaces empathy, anger replaces reason, loyalty replaces accountability, and identity replaces citizenship.

Educated citizens are the strongest defense against democratic drift. Democracy survives not because institutions are strong, but because citizens are strong. And citizens become strong through education, not through optimism.

If this resonates with you, please share it. If not, improve it and share it. We do not want a government like Russia's, or a nation without government like Venezuela.

This is where populism becomes dangerous. It replaces careful thinking with simple answers, and complex problems with confident slogans. Over time, it stops sounding hopeful and starts sounding disrespectful, because it assumes people will accept certainty where honesty would admit limits.

If unrealistic promises have become a standard part of political campaigns, then responsibility shifts, at least in part, to the voter.

Voters can demand more by changing what they value at the ballot box:

• Promises alone should not determine a vote. Words are easy; governing is not.
• A candidate's record should match their rhetoric. If their past actions contradict their current message, that inconsistency matters.
• Transparency is essential. Candidates who do not clearly disclose their sources of income or financial interests leave important questions unanswered.
• Plans should accompany priorities. Speaking about the economy, jobs, taxes, or security is not enough. Serious proposals should include how they will be implemented, when they will begin, why they are feasible, and what they will cost.

Without these elements, proposals remain intentions, not policies.

Raising these expectations does not guarantee perfect outcomes. But it can change incentives. Candidates who know they will be judged on consistency, transparency, and realism are more likely to move beyond slogans.

Over time, this shift could strengthen trust, reduce frustration, and reinforce democratic systems, not by lowering expectations, but by making them more intelligent and more demanding.

The current situation in Venezuela resists simple explanations. It is not merely a political conflict, nor purely a humanitarian crisis. It is a convergence of internal collapse, external intervention, and natural disaster, forces that together create a reality that feels less like governance and more like drift.

A useful way to understand this complexity is through analogy. Venezuela resembles a sailboat that lost its engine decades ago. For years, it has drifted, its institutions weakened, its leadership contested, and its direction uncertain. Corruption, economic collapse, and political fragmentation eroded the mechanisms that normally guide a nation.

Then came intervention.

In January 2026, the United States carried out a military operation that captured Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the United States to face narcoterrorism charges. This was publicly announced and framed as a strategic necessity tied to national security.

Following that moment, President Donald Trump stated that the United States would "run the country" during a transition period, a declaration that immediately raised global concern and debate. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later emphasized that the United States intended to influence Venezuela's direction rather than formally govern it, highlighting a distinction between control and guidance that remains at the center of the discussion.

Yet beyond official statements, perception is shaped not only by what is declared, but by what appears to persist.

Even before the earthquakes, there were widespread perceptions and claims of continued U.S. presence, military assets, high-level coordination, and strategic positioning, often framed under the language of security cooperation or humanitarian readiness. After the disaster, that presence became easier to justify and more visible, as aid, logistics, and emergency response created a context in which external involvement could expand without formal redefinition.

This is where the analogy deepens.

The sailboat, already drifting, encounters a powerful ship. That ship offers help, but on its own terms. It has its own priorities: security, regional stability, control over resources such as oil, and the reduction of threats like drug trafficking. Its assistance may be real, even necessary, but it is not neutral.

Then a storm strikes.

Twin earthquakes devastate the already fragile vessel. Infrastructure collapses, thousands are lost, and the ability of the sailboat to recover on its own is further diminished. In this moment of extreme vulnerability, the larger ship does not simply accompany, it stabilizes, supports, and, at least in perception, begins to guide.

The question becomes unavoidable: where does assistance end and direction begin?

Some narratives suggest that external involvement now reaches deeply into Venezuela's political and economic structures, shaping leadership decisions and access to resources. Others argue that while influence is significant, there is no formal control, no occupation, and no imposed governance.

What complicates the picture is the gap between language and structure. Public statements may suggest decisive control, while official frameworks remain ambiguous. Humanitarian presence can coexist with strategic interests. Military capability may be visible without being openly defined as occupation. In such conditions, interpretation becomes almost inevitable.

Meanwhile, leadership inside Venezuela remains contested. Figures such as Delcy Rodríguez operate in a space where internal legitimacy, external pressure, and humanitarian urgency intersect. Decisions made in this environment may reflect both domestic realities and international expectations.

The earthquakes intensified everything: grief, anger, dependency, and uncertainty. They exposed not only physical vulnerability but also institutional fragility. In many cases, citizens themselves became the first responders, revealing both resilience and the limits of state capacity.

In this environment, the role of external power becomes even more consequential, not only in what it does, but in how it is perceived.

Is Venezuela being "towed," as in the analogy? Or is it still navigating, albeit under strong winds and external pressure? The answer remains uncertain.

What is clear is that Venezuela today sits at the intersection of internal collapse, external strategic intervention, and natural disaster. Each of these forces alone is powerful. Together, they create a situation that feels unprecedented.

The greatest risk may not be control itself, but the gradual loss of direction, the quiet shift from choosing a destination to adapting to forces that determine it. And in that sense, the most pressing question is not who holds power, but whether Venezuela can regain the ability to steer its own course.

Power and Destiny

Power, in its most visible form, often appears decisive, military strength, political declarations, economic leverage. Yet beneath that surface lies a quieter force: direction. Nations, like vessels, are not defined only by who commands them, but by where they are able to go.

Destiny is often misunderstood as something imposed, like the wind upon a sail. But the wind does not choose the destination, it only reveals the condition of the vessel. A ship with a strong structure and a functioning engine can use the wind, resist it, or redirect it. A ship already weakened may find the same wind determining its course.

In this sense, power does not always control destiny, it interacts with fragility.

When a nation loses its internal capacity, its ability to decide becomes vulnerable to those who can. External power may guide, stabilize, or even rescue, but it can also redefine direction, sometimes subtly, sometimes irreversibly.

The question, then, is not whether the wind exists, nor whether powerful ships intervene. Both are constants in history. The question is whether the vessel can rebuild its engine while still at sea. Because without it, even the most well-intentioned assistance risks becoming direction. And direction, once surrendered, is far more difficult to reclaim than stability itself.

AI is already very good at parts of coaching that are structured, repeatable, and information-based:

• Asking standard reflection questions
• Providing frameworks (SWOT, SMART goals, etc.)
• Tracking progress and accountability
• Offering 24/7 availability
• Analyzing patterns from journals or inputs
• Simulating conversations or role-play

For entry-level coaching or self-guided growth, AI can replace a big portion of the market.

What AI Cannot Truly Replace

This is where human coaches will still have a strong advantage.

1. Deep human perception. AI can analyze words, but it doesn't feel the person. A human coach can detect hesitation, contradictions, emotional undercurrents, and what is not being said. That subtle perception is often where real transformation begins.

2. Trust and human connection. Executives don't just need answers, they need a safe space, someone who understands power dynamics, someone who can challenge them credibly, and someone who can adjust to mood changes. Trust is not just logic, it's relational.

3. Moral and situational judgment. AI gives patterns. Humans give wisdom. Real-life executive decisions involve ethics, ambiguity, personal consequences, and organizational politics. These are not purely data problems.

4. Accountability with presence. There's a difference between "the system reminded me" and "someone I respect is expecting me to show up." That human presence creates pressure and commitment.

What Will Happen (Most Realistic Future)

Instead of replacement, expect three shifts:

1. AI + coach hybrid model. The strongest coaches will use AI to prepare sessions, analyze client patterns, and generate insights between sessions. This makes them more powerful, not obsolete.

2. Separation of the market. Low-cost, mass coaching will be dominated by AI, while high-value transformation coaching stays human-led, similar to how GPS didn't eliminate expert navigators in complex missions, and calculators didn't eliminate mathematicians.

3. Coaches who don't adapt will struggle. Coaches who only ask generic questions, follow scripts, or provide surface-level guidance are at risk.

Strategic Insight for Coaches

Given the model of text-based coaching and structured sessions, you are, in effect, what AI does well. That leaves two options: compete with AI, which is not an ideal long-term position, or differentiate from it, which is the stronger position. A certified coach can do that by emphasizing years of human experience, real-life cases, intuition and pattern recognition, emotional depth, and "I've seen this before" wisdom.

Final Perspective

AI will not replace executive coaches. But it will eliminate non-certified coaching. The future belongs to coaches who are more human, more insightful, more real, and strategically supported by AI.

Thirty years of disgraceful leadership have turned the richest country in South America, once a democracy, into the poorest narco-state, buried in debt.

Venezuela is adrift, like a boat that lost its engine far out at sea. It is getting help, but the helpers aren't showing much competence, let alone judgment. They've appointed figures from the same widely corrupt administration to manage what's left of the country, and they've refused to recognize a large group of legitimately elected officials, reportedly because those officials lean Liberal rather than align with Republican doctrine.

The situation grew even worse after a pair of violent earthquakes devastated large areas across the country, exposing the fragile state of emergency services, including hospitals, fire departments, and the limited capacity of the troops needed to rescue victims. International help did arrive within two days, but its effectiveness was compromised because hospitals, fire departments, and other institutions lacked ambulances, fire trucks, and other essential equipment. Meanwhile, the leader in charge blocked troops and civilians from reaching the disaster zones, reportedly fearing desertions, and fearing witnesses to secret stockpiles of drugs, gold, and cash hidden in the rubble.

The dead, injured, and unaccounted for now surpass 20,000, though few trust the official numbers.

In my opinion, many more lives could have been saved if the military operation that captured the dictator, who had installed himself as an illegitimate president, had also detained the handful of top generals and officers known to be criminals. Establishing a respected and competent leadership would have simply required recalling the legitimately elected president and vice president, along with the members of the supreme court and legislative chamber currently in exile.

If it looks too good to be true, what's in place now looks too bad to be right.

In today's rapidly evolving environment, the size of a business is no longer the determining factor of its success. What matters far more is how effectively an organization adapts to continuous change. Over the past few years, shifting economic conditions, political uncertainty, and accelerating technological advancements have created an increasingly complex landscape for businesses of all sizes.

Organizations that fail to anticipate and respond to these dynamics risk falling behind. A well-defined and realistic strategic plan is no longer optional, it is essential. Such a plan should not only address current operations but also incorporate emerging technologies, diversification strategies, and contingency measures. Preparing a "Plan B" for potential regulatory changes, geopolitical developments, or natural disruptions is a critical component of resilience.

Equally important is the prioritization within that strategy. Businesses must clearly identify what matters most and allocate resources accordingly. Among these priorities, workforce development stands out. Continuous training and coaching are vital to ensure employees can adapt to new tools, processes, and expectations. A skilled and agile workforce is often the most powerful competitive advantage an organization can cultivate.

One of the most transformative forces reshaping business today is artificial intelligence. AI is not a distant trend, it is actively redefining how companies operate. From automating routine tasks to enhancing decision-making through data analysis, AI is rapidly rendering traditional methodologies obsolete. Organizations that delay adopting these technologies may find themselves unable to compete effectively.

At the same time, the competitive landscape has intensified. Customers now have unprecedented access to information. Before making purchasing decisions, they can easily compare products and services based on quality, price, delivery times, and return policies. This transparency empowers consumers and raises expectations, requiring businesses to deliver not only value but also trust and consistency, whether operating locally or globally.

In such an environment, leadership must evolve as well. No leader or executive can be expected to master every emerging challenge alone. This is where coaching becomes increasingly valuable. Effective coaches do not claim to have all the answers; instead, they act as strategic partners, a "second brain", helping leaders think more clearly, challenge assumptions, and navigate complexity with greater confidence.

Ultimately, success in today's business world depends on adaptability, strategic foresight, and a commitment to continuous learning. Organizations that embrace change, invest in their people, and leverage new technologies will not only survive but thrive in this new era of uncertainty and opportunity.

In a world where leaders must navigate unpredictable markets, shifting technologies, geopolitical tensions, and even unpredictable weather activity, one truth remains constant: human communication is the engine that drives every decision, every relationship, and every outcome.

Yet communication is not just about speaking. It is the complex interplay of thoughts, words, intention, and meaning, and this is precisely where certified coaches become invaluable. They understand the architecture behind human expression and help leaders use it with clarity, precision, and purpose.

This blog explores why these four elements make coaching a strategic advantage for modern organizations.

The Power of Thoughts: The First Cause

Thoughts are the internal drivers behind everything a leader does. They shape perception, emotion, and behavior. They determine what we notice, what we ignore, and how we interpret events.

In leadership, thoughts act as filters:

• They determine whether a market shift is seen as a threat or an opportunity.
• They influence how a leader responds to conflict, pressure, or uncertainty.
• They shape expectations that guide behavior and decision-making.

Thoughts are not passive. They direct attention, fuel emotions, and set the stage for action.

Certified coaches help leaders examine these internal filters. They reveal blind spots, challenge assumptions, and strengthen cognitive patterns that support resilience and strategic clarity.

In volatile environments, war, economic instability, rapid technological change, this mental clarity becomes a competitive advantage.

The Power of Intention: The Direction Behind Action

If thoughts are the engine, intention is the steering wheel. Intention is the mental and emotional commitment to a desired outcome. It organizes thoughts, words, and actions toward a specific direction.

Intention:

• Sets priorities
• Shapes choices
• Focuses energy
• Creates consistency
• Aligns internal and external behavior

A leader's intention determines whether communication inspires or confuses, whether decisions unify or divide, and whether teams feel empowered or lost.

Certified coaches help leaders articulate and refine intention so that it becomes a stable internal compass, even when external conditions are chaotic. When markets shift or technology disrupts entire industries, intention keeps leaders grounded and purposeful.

The Power of Words: Turning Internal Reality into External Impact

Words are the tools that turn inner experience into shared reality. They:

• Express thoughts and intentions
• Shape relationships and social dynamics
• Reinforce or rewrite beliefs
• Influence group behavior and culture
• Create commitments and agreements

Words can clarify, motivate, soothe, or harm. They can build trust or destroy it. They can align teams or fracture them.

Leaders communicate in two primary ways:

• Telling words, expressing ideas, decisions, expectations
• Listening words, receiving meaning, emotion, and intention from others

The Power of Communication: The Bridge Between Minds

Communication is more than words. It is the transmission of meaning, emotion, and intention in a way others can understand and respond to.

Effective communication:

• Aligns understanding
• Builds trust
• Resolves conflict
• Coordinates action
• Influences decisions and behavior

In organizations, communication is how individual thoughts become shared reality. It is how strategy becomes execution. It is how culture becomes visible.

Certified coaches help leaders refine communication, so it becomes clear, consistent, emotionally intelligent, context-aware, and action-oriented.

This is especially critical when leaders face unpredictable variables, weather disruptions, supply chain failures, market volatility, or technological acceleration. In these moments, communication determines whether teams panic or mobilize.

Why Certified Coaches Are Powerful Resources for Modern Companies

When you combine the four forces, thoughts, intention, words, communication, you get the core of leadership effectiveness. Certified coaches specialize in this internal-to-external chain: Intention → Thought → Emotion → Word → Action → Outcome.

They help leaders:

• Think clearly under pressure
• Communicate with precision
• Align teams around shared meaning
• Navigate conflict with emotional intelligence
• Make decisions grounded in purpose rather than fear
• Adapt to rapid change without losing direction

In unpredictable environments, technical skills are not enough. Leaders need mental clarity, emotional regulation, strategic communication, and intentional action. Certified coaches provide exactly that.

They are not just "nice-to-have" resources. They are strategic partners who help leaders transform internal chaos into external stability, turning uncertainty into opportunity.

Final Thought

In a world where external variables are uncontrollable, the most powerful tools leaders have are internal: thoughts, intention, words, and communication.

Certified coaches help leaders master these tools, making them more resilient, more effective, and more capable of guiding their organizations through complexity.

When leaders communicate with clarity and intention, they don't just manage change, they shape it.

Focus on your thoughts and intentions, and visit www.focusonsolution.com or albacontreras@focusonsolution.com for exclusive executive coaching.

You know it all. You're never confused, never overwhelmed. You've never struggled, never needed help. You can fix everything, alone.

Think about it. There aren't many people in the world like that. Congratulations.

For the rest of us, here's a shorter list: the leaders who occasionally lose sleep, second-guess a decision, or wonder if they're missing something obvious. If that's closer to home, keep reading.

A Leader Needs a Coach When:

• They are going through difficult times and can no longer identify the root causes of problems.
• They need help organizing their thoughts and regaining clarity.
• They've experienced emotional or physical trauma that makes it harder to interpret events and respond effectively, or they're afraid of showing weakness.
• Their analytical capacity no longer aligns with their experience and skills.
• They feel overwhelmed by workload, or unable to clearly communicate expectations to their team, as a faster-changing world keeps compounding new contingencies.

None of these signs are rare. Most leaders will recognize at least one from the past year alone. What separates a temporary rough patch from a real problem is whether it gets acknowledged early enough to act on, or ignored until it quietly becomes the reason a decision, a team, or a reputation comes apart.

At that point, it's not a matter of strength, it's a matter of awareness, because when thoughts become disorganized, words lose precision, and leadership impact weakens.

This is where a coach becomes essential for the good of the organization.

A skilled coach does not give answers. They help leaders restructure thinking, regain perspective, and act with intention.

Great leaders are not those who avoid struggle. They are those who recognize when they need support, before challenges become consequences.

This is also where the earlier idea about thoughts, words, and communication comes full circle: a leader whose thinking is clear communicates with precision, and a team that receives precise communication trusts the direction it's given. Coaching doesn't replace a leader's judgment, it protects it.

Clarity can be restored.
Communication can be rebuilt.
Confidence can be regained, because the power of thought regains its full capacity.

Good News: If any part of this resonates, it may be the right moment to pause, reflect, and explore a different way forward. Sometimes, a single conversation can restore the clarity everything else depends on.

Visit www.coachself.net/Testimonials and www.focusonsolution.com.

For more than half a century, Venezuela's economic heartbeat has been tied to oil. Every major shift, good or bad, has echoed through the country's streets, homes, and wallets. When we compare different decades, the story becomes surprisingly clear: the country's oil revenue doesn't just depend on how much oil it produces, but on how the world values each barrel, and how a narco-state manages it.

Below is a simple, professional breakdown that anyone can follow.

Three Eras, Three Very Different Realities

1970-1980: High Production, Low Prices. Venezuela was a global oil powerhouse. Production averaged around 3 million barrels per day, but prices were extremely low, about $13.60 per barrel. The country relied on volume to generate revenue.

1980-1990: Declining Production, Rising Prices. Production slipped to around 2 million barrels per day, but global oil prices climbed sharply. Even with fewer barrels, revenue increased because each barrel was worth more.

2015-2020: Production Collapses, Price Is Up. This period saw the steepest decline in Venezuela's oil history, dropping below 1 million barrels per day. Yet global prices were far higher than in the 70s and 80s, keeping revenue from collapsing entirely.

Jan-Jun, current (U.S. Intervention): Production Picks Up, Strong Prices. Production stabilized around 900,000 barrels per day, and prices hovered near $78 per barrel. This combination produced $12.5-13 billion in just six months, matching public statements made by U.S. officials.

First Six-Month Oil Revenue Comparison

Even without being an economist, the pattern is easy to see:

• In the 70s, Venezuela made money through volume.
• In the 80s, it survived through price increases.
• In 2015-2020, it stayed afloat through modern oil prices, despite a historic production collapse.
• In Jan-Jun, strong prices turned modest production into $13 billion in half a year.

This is why oil revenue today can look "bigger," even though the country produces far less oil than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

In Summary

When you put all these decades side by side, the truth becomes unavoidable: Venezuela earns more oil revenue today than it did 30 years ago, but Venezuelans are poorer today than ever. Where is the money? $13 billion minus $206.7 million equals $12,793,300,000.

President Trump, in public statements (such as a rally in Pennsylvania in June 2026), claimed that the oil extracted and seized from Venezuela has paid back the total cost of the military operation at least 28 times over. Additionally, he stated that the U.S. has seized over $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues. Therefore, my takeaway is that he is charging $464,285,714 ($13B / 28) instead of $206.7 million for the military operation, more than double. According to a report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the specific direct ancillary costs of the extraction of the Operation Absolute Resolve were estimated at around $206.7 million.

If Venezuela had to pay for the broader deployments and naval operations in the region between late 2025 and early 2026, the total military spending bill would be $4.7 billion. This bill would have made sense if Operation Absolute Resolve had removed hundreds of the narco-bandit militias and civilians barricaded in the Venezuelan government palace of Miraflores, with minimum damage and fatalities, and given passage to the elected president.

Mr. Trump said in an interview, answering a journalist's question, that he is running the country of Venezuela and that Marco Rubio was in charge. Why not declare a subsidy for food, medicine, and gas, with penalties for abusers who violate the rules, and pay for it with the net monthly revenue? $13.0 billion, minus $1.3 billion (10% commission), minus $206.7 million, equals $11.5 billion. Divided over 6 months, that's $1.9 billion per month to help. Use capital held in international banks for reconstruction.

WHERE IS THE MONEY?

Source: Rally in Pennsylvania, June 2026. TV news. Research assisted by artificial intelligence.

The figures above are estimates drawn from publicly reported statements, news coverage, and third-party research (including the Costs of War Project at Brown University). They are offered for discussion and analysis, not as verified government accounting, and may not reflect final or audited numbers.

The Venezuelan crisis exposes a painful contradiction: a population earning $4 a week, displaced by earthquakes, lacking housing, employment, and medical access, while billions of dollars in frozen assets sit untouchable because international bureaucracy cannot move.

My point is simple: how can people starve while money exists? How can aid be blocked by procedures when lives depend on it?

This blog organizes my questions and the structural analysis that follows, in a way that helps readers understand why Venezuela is trapped in a unique geopolitical paradox. (Please confirm political information with trusted sources.)

The Core Question

Why does a population living through hunger, homelessness, unemployment, and natural disasters still have to wait for international bureaucracy, especially when billions exist for food, medicine, and reconstruction?

This is not theory. This is lived reality.

The Paradox of "Illegitimate but Legally Recognized"

I challenge the idea that a government considered illegitimate by many can still be legally recognized enough to block or slow aid.

My point is: if a government did not come to power democratically, if it holds power through force, and it is rejected by large sectors of the population, why does international law still treat it as the official authority?

Structural analysis, from research: International law recognizes governments based on effective control, even if they lost elections, unless the UN authorizes intervention, the state collapses, or an elected government takes power internally. Otherwise, the existing government remains the legal channel for aid. This is the root of the paralysis.

My Argument About U.S. Actions

The U.S. did not declare an attack on the Venezuelan government. According to public statements, the justification was U.S. national security, specifically related to individuals accused of participating in the "Cartel de los Soles," which allegedly includes the de facto president of Venezuela as a figure implicated in acts of terrorism tied to that cartel.

So the operation was framed as law enforcement, not regime change.

Structural analysis, from research: This distinction matters. If the U.S. had admitted it removed a government, it would become responsible for reconstruction, security, humanitarian aid, and political transition. By framing the action as arresting criminals, the U.S. avoided those obligations. This left Venezuela in a legal limbo: a weakened government, no replacement authority, frozen assets, and no channels for aid.

My Proposal: Recognition Without Occupation

My proposal is simple: recognize the elected president and the Assembly members currently in asylum abroad.

This would restore institutional legitimacy, allow frozen funds to be released, enable humanitarian aid to flow, avoid violating sovereignty, and avoid occupation or regime change. If the new president could not stabilize the country, international assistance could then be requested legitimately.

Structural analysis, from research: Recognition alone is legally possible, but insufficient without territorial control (unless backed by an international presence), functioning ministries, security forces, and judicial authority. Without these, the recognized leadership cannot receive funds, administer aid, sign agreements, or rebuild institutions. This is why recognition alone does not solve the crisis.

My Curiosity About Frozen Funds

Billions of dollars exist for food and medicine, but they cannot be used. Wholesalers could be audited, banks could transfer funds, and compliance could be monitored with the American officers already in the country.

So why is the population starving?

Structural analysis, from research: Funds cannot move because aid cannot bypass the state, international law forbids sending billions directly to private entities, and banks must comply with sanctions. Without a recognized authority, transfers violate compliance rules. The elected leadership abroad lacks operational control and cannot legally administer funds. The existing government is not trusted, so international bodies cannot release funds through it.

My Latin American Perspective

Latin America does not believe in "only one way" to save lives. Rigid protocols created by outdated institutions do not fit our realities, and too often it takes war to change them.

Sovereignty should not be used as a shield when populations are starving. The world remains quiet because it fears unpredictable retaliation from the U.S. government.

Structural analysis, from research: This perspective reflects a long history of foreign interventions, authoritarian regimes, institutional fragility, and humanitarian emergencies. It highlights the gap between legal frameworks and human realities.

The Core Conclusion

Venezuela is trapped in a rare geopolitical condition:

• Not collapsed enough for international intervention.
• Not legitimate enough for international cooperation.
• Not stable enough to administer aid.
• Not recognized enough to receive frozen funds.
• Not chaotic enough to trigger emergency UN action.
• Not secure enough for private investment.

This creates a governance vacuum where human needs are immediate, but international systems are slow. And the population pays the price.

Final Reflection

Humanitarian urgency does not fit inside diplomatic protocols. Sovereignty can become a barrier to survival. And the Venezuelan crisis exposes the limits of the international system. Human rights are relative.

This blog is part of my broader work across politics, education, and coaching. My point is simple: the human mind does not separate these fields, they shape each other. When I studied the brain through neurofeedback, I learned firsthand how trauma, political environments, learning systems, and having a personal coach can transform cultures. Understanding human behavior requires understanding all of them together.

What happened on January 26 was not a favor, it was a project. Many Venezuelans believed January 26 was a gift, a rescue, or a humanitarian gesture.

But the reality, as many analysts argue, is different: it was a paid political project designed to use Venezuelan resources under external terms. This does not mean foreign nations controlling Venezuela outright. It means they influence, pressure, and negotiate based on their interests, not ours. Unless Venezuelans recognize this, the country will remain dependent, confused, and vulnerable.

What Comes Next: A New Structure of Control

If current trends continue, Venezuela may face stricter internal security forces, a national guard modeled after foreign systems, an IRS-style tax authority, more expensive education, an intimidated press, manipulated elections, and autocratic tendencies. These drastic changes would reshape Venezuelan culture and identity more profoundly than any earthquake. A lack of natural leadership and unity, combined with the absence of a coherent national plan, makes many Venezuelans doubt whether María Corina Machado has the power to steer the country away from a "State 51" trajectory toward a better course.

However, unity alone is not enough. A national plan is missing. In my view, Venezuela needs a specific government proposal right now, regardless of external pressure or imposed conditions. That proposal must be communicated immediately, through radio broadcasting, social media, community networks, and diaspora channels. Every Venezuelan voice available should be expressed and heard. This is not campaigning.

I am talking about a massive national conscientization, an awakening of the population to defend its culture and worldview.

Elections Are Not a Magic Reset

Some Venezuelans believe that the U.S. elections in November 2026 or November 2028 will bring relief. Stop dreaming. Elections there can fix nothing here. Whoever lives in commotion and cannot respect their neighbors, whoever chooses war over diplomacy and divides their own country, cannot fix another's. Recent history shows that political shifts can even empower the same groups that caused the crisis.

A bad start can hide cracks that, with time, open a dam and flood the town below. Venezuela could slide into anarchy within four years, regardless of the presence of a superpower.

Speak up, stand up, wake up. Venezuela needs you urgently. If Venezuelans want freedom, they must free themselves from fear first. Write every day. Speak every day. Share your thoughts on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Email your neighbors and groups. Practice brainstorming about the future. Listen to messages that promote unity and awareness. Sharing this article helps.

Do not wait for others to do the work while you watch. Every Venezuelan who loves the country must stand up and speak up. We need to support the only candidate we have for president, María Corina Machado, and encourage her to walk the streets with all of us, demanding a coherent national plan right now.

Venezuela earns more money today than it did 90 years ago, yet Venezuelans are poorer, more vulnerable, and more dependent than ever.

This paradox will not resolve itself. It will not be solved by foreign governments. It will not be solved by temporary political arrangements. It will only be solved when Venezuelans awaken, organize, and reclaim their cultural identity and national destiny. What brought hope on January 26 will not bring justice beyond January 27.

Think About This

Based on estimates from various internet sources, Venezuela's oil revenue across these periods looked roughly like this:

Where is the money?

I have spent weeks looking at numbers, history, and reality, and I cannot ignore what they reveal. Venezuela earned more than $1.9 trillion ($1,900,000,000,000) in oil revenue between 1991 and 2014, according to the estimates I reviewed, more money than any generation before us could even imagine. And yet today, Venezuelans walk through streets where hope feels like a rumor. We are poorer, more vulnerable, and more dependent than ever.

Now Brent sits around $83.50 per barrel, and if production possibly rises from 1 million barrels per day to 2 million, national income could double or triple. On paper, it looks like salvation, the comeback story we have been waiting for.

But I must say this with all the urgency my heart can carry: what we enjoyed in the past will not be possible after the revolution. Even if oil income rises, Venezuela will not automatically rise with it. The country we are walking into is not the Venezuela of 1970, 1980, or 1990. It is a Venezuela carrying debt, rubble in mind from tragedy, institutional fragility, and political uncertainty. It is a Venezuela negotiating under pressure, not leading with confidence. It is a Venezuela whose cultural identity is being reshaped faster than its economy.

Let me repeat what I mean with a simple hypothesis, using real numbers: if Venezuela reaches 1.7 million barrels per day in 2030 at $83.50 per barrel, the country will generate more annual oil revenue than entire decades of the past, more than the boom years, more than the golden years, more than the years when we believed oil alone could save us.

But if our institutions remain weak, if corruption continues, if external influence grows, or if we become "State 51," and if Venezuelans stay silent, that money will not become prosperity. It will evaporate, just like the trillions before it.

This is why I speak with urgency: the revolution changed Venezuela forever. The next chapter will not resemble the past, even if the income does. The numbers may go up, but the reality of daily life may not.

The only force capable of turning increased oil revenue into national strength is Venezuelan consciousness: patriotism, awareness, organization, and cultural anchoring. Not waiting for elections to save us. Not waiting for foreign governments to fix it all. Not waiting for leaders to think for them.

I write this as my contribution, because I believe Venezuela still has a destiny worth fighting for. But destiny is not a gift; it is a decision. And if Venezuelans do not speak, do not unite, and do not reclaim their identity, then even a future of high oil prices and rising production will not bring the happiness we expect.

What brought hope on January 26 will not bring justice beyond January 27. The future will only change when we change.

Share this with everyone you know: www.coachself.net/My-thoughts#post-11

The information in this article comes from various digital sources. Although some details may not be exact, they remain close to verified data and are shared with the intention of raising awareness among Venezuelans.

There is something deeply painful about watching Venezuela go through another turning point in its history.

For generations, Venezuelans have lived with the promise that our enormous oil wealth would eventually translate into a better life. Instead, we have repeatedly watched that wealth become a source of political power, corruption, dependence and, ultimately, disappointment.

Venezuela did make progress during the dictator Pérez Jiménez . Then, beginning in 1958, we entered decades of democracy. But democracy by itself did not solve the country's problems.

Political parties multiplied, and politics became increasingly focused on winning elections and controlling the oil money. AD and COPEI alternated in power while education was neglected, public services deteriorated and very little was done to develop other productive like food production, truism, manufacturing and more sectors of the economy.

We became a country that depended too heavily on one thing: oil. We were very busy on voting days, so we let a minority of socialist to invade the pols.

And when oil prices were high, almost everyone benefited in one way or another. When prices fell, the weaknesses of the system became impossible to hide.

By the late 1990s, Venezuelans were tired. They wanted something different.

That is when Hugo Chávez arrived.

Many Venezuelans initially saw Chávez as the person who would finally break the old political system and give ordinary people a voice. But what followed was very different from what many had hoped for. Over the next fifteen years, the country's institutions were progressively dismantled, and Nicolás Maduro continued along the same path.

By the time that chapter ended in January 2026, the damage was enormous.

Six figures hyperinflation destroyed savings and purchasing power. Food and medicine became difficult to obtain. Hospitals and schools deteriorated. Government institutions lost much of their ability to function, all public services seemed victim of a war, And millions of Venezuelans left the country looking for opportunities and stability elsewhere.

Whatever political label we choose for that period, Venezuelans know the human cost. Families were separated. Parents watched their children leave. Professionals abandoned careers they had spent decades building. That is the Venezuela that exists today. And that is why what happens next matters so much.

Is history beginning to repeat itself?

Venezuela's weakness as a state has opened the door for the United States to become deeply involved in the country's affairs. This involvement may eventually last for decades.

This is what I and many Venezuelans cannot help thinking about Panama.

The United States built the Panama Canal between 1904 and 1914 by force. The history surrounding the creation of the Canal Zone is complicated, but one lesson is difficult to ignore: when a weaker country is dealing with a much stronger power, the terms of the agreement matter enormously.

The Hay-Herrán Treaty initially proposed a long-term arrangement involving Colombia and the United States. Colombia rejected it. Soon afterward, Panama declared independence from Colombia, again the U.S. intervenes and stop Colombia from being an obstacle.

The new Panamanian government had no choice, sold part of the territory and signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, giving the United States control of a ten-mile-wide Canal Zone. The canal became enormously valuable for the world.

Looking at that history today, it is understandable that Venezuelans would ask a simple question:

Could something similar happen with our oil?

According to recent reports, Washington has been discussing a direct ownership stake in more than a dozen Venezuelan oil fields. Some reports have put the reserves involved at more than 90 billion barrels and have discussed the possibility of extremely long-term control. Now we hear about 65 billion barrels

Whether every detail of those reports eventually becomes reality remains to be seen. But the concern is no longer imaginary.

Recent statements about Venezuela's oil have made this discussion even more confusing for ordinary people. There is a huge difference between saying that Venezuela has 65 billion barrels of oil reserves and saying that Venezuela has given the United States 65 billion barrels of oil. These are not the same thing.

Oil reserves are resources that remain underground. They must be developed, extracted, processed and sold. The economic value depends on the terms under which that happens.

So, when political language makes it sound as if billions of barrels have simply been handed over, all Venezuelans have every right to stop it by getting out of the house and demand:

What exactly was agreed?

• Who owns the oil?
• Who controls production?
• Who pays for the enormous investment required?
• How much does Venezuela receive?
• How long does the agreement last?
• And, perhaps most importantly: Who made the decision, and did Venezuelans have a meaningful voice in it?

These are not anti-American questions. They are Venezuelan questions.

There is another way to look at this

But I don't believe Venezuelans should look at this moment only with fear. There may also be an opportunity here.

Venezuela desperately needs investment, technology, competent management and strong institutions. We cannot rebuild a country with devastated oil industry with political slogans. We need serious partners and serious contracts.

The question is not necessarily whether Venezuela should only work with the United States.

The question is: Under What Conditions?

A strong international partner could help Venezuela protect its oil wealth from another generation of irresponsible politicians. But the agreement must be transparent.

It must provide Venezuela with a fair share of the benefits, if not better not worse than those agreements existing before the nationalization of the industry.

It must protect the country's long-term interests. And there must be guarantees that the wealth created today does not simply disappear into somebody else's pockets tomorrow.

Perhaps Venezuela should look at countries such as Norway for inspiration. Norway oild industry started in 1971 and did not simply spend its oil money as quickly as it arrived. It created institutions and a national wealth fund designed to preserve part of that wealth for future generations.

Venezuela could do something similar.

Imagine what it would mean if future oil revenues would allow the government to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, provide all social services, and hosing , a strong miliary and top notch education with well paid teachers and professors in the next 5 years.

Imagine if the next increase in the price of oil did not produce another round of political spending, corruption and dependence, but instead strengthened a national fund belonging to Venezuelans.

We have already lost too much

This is why I believe Venezuelans should pay very close attention to the terms of whatever agreements are made today. Equal or Better

We have already lived through too many cycles. Oil prices rise. Politicians promise prosperity. Money pours into the country. Institutions stat weakening. The money disappears. Oil prices fall. Ordinary people pay the price.

We cannot afford to repeat that cycle a third time.

A fair agreement with a powerful partner could be part of Venezuela's recovery.

An unfair agreement could simply create another chapter in our long history of losing control over our own wealth. The difference will be in the details. The contracts. The transparency. The profit-sharing. The protections for Venezuela.

And above all, the voice of Venezuelans themselves.

Our country has suffered enough for incompetent politicians to make decisions behind closed doors and ask the people to live with the consequences afterward.

Venezuela does not need another savior.It needs institutions strong enough to protect its people. It needs leaders who understand that the oil belongs to the country, not to a political party, not to a government, and not to a foreign power.

If this difficult moment can finally lead Venezuela toward that kind of future, then perhaps something good can still come from all the suffering we have endured.

The real challenge is not simply recovering Venezuela's oil.

It is making sure that this time, the wealth created from it belongs to the future of Venezuela rebuilding its economy and opens its doors to new opportunities, we also have the opportunity to rebuild something less visible but equally important: a culture of honesty, respect, responsibility, and trust. Economic prosperity can change a country’s circumstances, but civic values can determine how long that prosperity lasts.

This is a personal, opinion-driven reflection on Venezuelan history and current geopolitics, not a neutral news analysis. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. Some may see greater U.S. involvement as a way to stabilize Venezuela and protect its resources from another generation of political mismanagement. Others may see it as a foreign power gaining excessive control over Venezuela's most valuable resource. Both concerns deserve to be heard.

What matters most is that Venezuelans do not simply watch history happen to them again. We should understand what is happening, ask difficult questions, and work toward making sure that whatever comes next serves the Venezuelan people and future generations.

What also matters is making sure that this time, as Venezuela rebuilds its economy and opens its doors to new opportunities, we also take the opportunity to rebuild something less visible but equally important: a culture of honesty, respect, responsibility, and trust. Economic prosperity can change a country’s circumstances, but civic values can determine how long that prosperity lasts.

I have written several blogs about Venezuela, but I have seen very little reaction. I also see surprisingly little reaction to everything that is happening between the United States and Venezuela.

Perhaps Venezuelans are skeptical after so many years of promises, disappointments and confusion. Perhaps people are simply tired. Or perhaps many are waiting for María Corina Machado to return and somehow solve everything.

But Venezuela cannot simply wait.

That is why I decided to record this analysis. Not because I pretend to know what will happen, but because I believe we need to look carefully at what is happening and ask ourselves:

What should we expect next?

Yes, there is still a path to democracy and progress in Venezuela, but it is far from guaranteed.

The first thing that has changed dramatically is that Maduro is no longer governing Venezuela. Since his capture by U.S. forces in January, Delcy Rodríguez has been running the country and cooperating increasingly with Washington.

At the same time, much of the old political structure remains in place.

That means Venezuela has experienced a change at the top without yet experiencing a complete democratic transition.

This is probably the central contradiction of Venezuela today: the United States appears willing to work with people who belonged to the Maduro system in order to obtain stability and rapidly rebuild the oil industry, while the democratic opposition is asking why elections and institutional reform are not proceeding at the same speed.

U.S. officials have indicated that they do not yet consider conditions suitable for elections. María Corina Machado, meanwhile, argues that investment itself will ultimately require a legitimate democratic government.

What could happen to the oil industry?

This may be the area where change happens fastest.

Chevron has announced plans for roughly $7 billion of investment and hopes to approximately double its Venezuelan production over five years. Eni is expanding as well, and other international companies are entering or negotiating projects.

Venezuela is currently producing only a fraction of what its enormous petroleum resources could potentially support.

So I think a substantial Venezuelan oil recovery is now quite possible.

But there is a dangerous distinction between rebuilding oil production and rebuilding Venezuela.

New arrangements involving Venezuelan oil and American interests could bring badly needed investment, technology, employment and production.

That could be very good news.

But without independent courts, transparent contracts, competitive bidding and accountable government, Venezuela could simply create a new distribution of oil power rather than a new republic.

Venezuela could therefore experience a strange situation in which oil production, foreign investment and government revenues improve before democratic institutions do.

That is the part I would watch most carefully.

What happens if María Corina Machado returns?

Her return could become one of the most important political events since Maduro's removal.

Machado has considerable international visibility and has said she intends eventually to return to Venezuela. She has also taken a clear position: Venezuela needs American and international investment, but lasting investment requires democracy and legal security.

But I believe there is something else Venezuelans have the right to expect from her now.

María Corina has appeared too passive during an extraordinarily important moment.

During the campaign, she communicated directly and forcefully with Venezuelans. Today people need that clarity again. They need to know her plan: What happens when she returns? What transition does she propose? What does she expect from the United States? What will she accept, and what will she not accept?

And I believe she needs to speak more categorically with President Trump.

That does not mean confronting the United States. Venezuela needs a strong relationship with the United States. But a Venezuelan leader must also be capable of firmly defending Venezuela's sovereignty and interests when dealing with the President of the most powerful country in the world.

Machado should be a partner of Washington when the interests of both countries coincide—but she must ultimately represent Venezuela.

If she returns, I see three possibilities.

The best case is that she returns under political guarantees, mobilizes the opposition peacefully and becomes part of a negotiated transition leading to elections. She would not necessarily have to become president herself. Her greater historical role might be helping create an electoral system in which Venezuelans can freely choose who governs them.

A second possibility is more complicated. The existing government could allow Machado to return but restrict her political activity. That would provide the appearance of political opening without surrendering actual control.

The dangerous possibility is that Machado returns without reliable guarantees and is arrested, prevented from organizing or becomes the target of violence.

For that reason, I would not interpret Machado's return alone as proof that democracy has arrived.

The real test would be whether she—and everyone else—can organize, campaign, speak, travel and compete electorally without fear.

Can Venezuela still become democratic?

Yes.

In fact, I think Venezuela has a better opportunity today than it has had for many years—but also a real possibility of wasting it.

The most plausible democratic transition is probably not an overnight destruction of everything associated with Chavismo. That could create another crisis.

A more realistic transition would preserve necessary state institutions while progressively replacing political control with constitutional institutions.

That means political prisoners must be released. Opposition parties must be allowed to function. Venezuela needs an independent electoral authority, credible voter rolls, international observation, freedom of the press, judicial guarantees and military acceptance of civilian constitutional authority.

And eventually there must be a genuinely competitive presidential election.

Most importantly, Chavistas themselves must have the right to participate politically if they respect democratic rules.

Democracy cannot mean replacing one group that excludes its opponents with another group that does exactly the same thing.

What worries me most

The biggest risk today may no longer be Maduro.

It may be the temptation to postpone democracy because the oil deals are working.

Washington wants stability, oil production and strategic influence.

The Venezuelan government wants international legitimacy, investment and the removal of sanctions.

Oil companies want predictable contracts.

All three can obtain some of what they want without an immediate election.

That creates a dangerous incentive to say:

Democracy can wait.

And history tells us that temporary political arrangements have a tendency to become permanent when the people benefiting from them acquire money and power.

That is why Venezuelans should be asking difficult questions about every important agreement involving their natural resources.

Who received the concessions?

How were they selected?

What does Venezuela receive?

Who controls the revenue?

And will a future democratically elected government be legally bound by agreements negotiated during this interim period?

What should we expect?

Over the next few years, one very plausible outcome is a hybrid transition.

Oil production and foreign investment could rise considerably. Sanctions could continue to be reduced. Relations with Washington could normalize. The economy could begin recovering. Some political prisoners could be released and political space could widen.

But the transition to fully competitive elections could proceed much more slowly.

That could eventually become democracy.

Or it could become something very different:

a more prosperous authoritarian government friendly to Washington.

That distinction is enormously important.

For Venezuela, success therefore should not be measured simply by whether petroleum production returns to two or three million barrels a day.

It should be measured by whether oil wealth finally becomes a foundation for institutions, education, infrastructure, private enterprise and individual opportunity rather than another source of political power.

Venezuela has an extraordinary opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the United States.

The United States needs a stable and friendly Venezuela, its strategic position and access to important resources.

Venezuela needs investment, technology, markets and a strong relationship with the most powerful country in the world.

Those interests can complement each other.

But a good relationship with the United States should be a means of strengthening Venezuela—not a substitute for Venezuelans governing Venezuela through democratic institutions.

And perhaps that is the most important question Venezuelans should be asking today.

Not simply: What is Trump going to do?

Not: When is María Corina coming back?

But: What are we Venezuelans going to do with this extraordinary opportunity to finally rebuild our country?

And what can an ordinary citizen do?

We do not have to be presidents, politicians or oil executives to participate.

We can start by getting informed and asking questions instead of simply forwarding rumors. Ask political leaders—government and opposition alike—to explain their plans. Ask what is being negotiated with foreign governments and oil companies. Ask where the money will go. Demand transparency, peaceful political participation, independent institutions and elections in which every Venezuelan can vote without fear.

Those inside Venezuela and the millions living abroad can also talk to each other again—not as Chavistas and anti-Chavistas first, but as Venezuelans who will eventually have to rebuild the same country.

Disagree, certainly. Debate strongly. But reject political violence, revenge and the idea that half of Venezuela must defeat or eliminate the other half for the country to move forward.

And above all, do not wait for one person to save Venezuela.

Not Trump.

Not María Corina.

Not Delcy Rodríguez.

Not the United States.

A leader can open a door. Another country can help. Foreign investment can provide resources.

But citizens build a democracy.

So read. Ask questions. Discuss. Organize peacefully. Demand answers from every side. Defend your right to choose your government—and defend that same right for the Venezuelan who disagrees with you.

Because perhaps Venezuela's greatest opportunity today is not simply the possibility of changing its government.

It is the possibility of changing the way Venezuelans participate in their country.