Locked in Stagnation, Surrounded by Risk: Expert Perspectives on Venezuela’s Trajectory
The Social Research Center’s survey, “The Situation in Venezuela and the Region: The Conflict with the United States and Probable Scenarios for Its Development,” offers one of the clearest assessments of Venezuela’s geopolitical reality. Across diverse sectors and backgrounds, the experts surveyed converge on a single theme: Venezuela is not collapsing, yet it is not stabilizing. It remains trapped in a tense stalemate shaped by political rigidity at home and sharpening risks around it.
This reality is captured in the blunt assessment by Abhinav, Vice President at NatWest Group, who states:
“Maduro’s regime isn’t going anywhere soon.”
But endurance does not equal security. The more the internal system freezes in place, the more pressures accumulate beyond Venezuela’s borders — pressures produced by U.S. hybrid strategies, territorial disputes, militarized signaling, and the constant risk of miscalculation. These risks, as highlighted by the experts themselves, could escalate into a confrontation faster than any political reform can take shape.
This article analyzes these insights, explaining why the government endures, where the immediate danger lies, and why the region must prepare for crises emerging not from deliberate action, but from unintended consequences of a stagnant geopolitical landscape.
This reality is captured in the blunt assessment by Abhinav, Vice President at NatWest Group, who states:
“Maduro’s regime isn’t going anywhere soon.”
But endurance does not equal security. The more the internal system freezes in place, the more pressures accumulate beyond Venezuela’s borders — pressures produced by U.S. hybrid strategies, territorial disputes, militarized signaling, and the constant risk of miscalculation. These risks, as highlighted by the experts themselves, could escalate into a confrontation faster than any political reform can take shape.
This article analyzes these insights, explaining why the government endures, where the immediate danger lies, and why the region must prepare for crises emerging not from deliberate action, but from unintended consequences of a stagnant geopolitical landscape.
Part I — Endurance Without Legitimacy
One of the strongest conclusions of the survey is that Venezuela’s political system has adapted to survive prolonged crisis. Experts consistently describe a state that maintains control through coercive institutions and political discipline rather than through legitimacy or performance.
Javier Lichtle, Strategy & Communications Director at Grupo Salinas, puts this plainly:
“Maduro maintains control, but without legitimacy.”
Political loyalty within the ruling structure, tight control of the security apparatus, and the absence of a unified opposition create an environment where collapse is unlikely, even amid economic deterioration and international pressure. Whereas democratic institutions have weakened, mechanisms of command and coercion have remained intact.
The result is a paradoxical form of resilience — one that prevents collapse but also prevents reform. This stagnation produces deeper external consequences, as emphasized by José Israel Suárez Marquez, Instructor at Universidad Privada Boliviana, who warns:
“Recent elections appeared rigged… and rising U.S. pressure leaves Venezuela more isolated.”
His insight reflects a trend identified across the survey: political decisions inside Venezuela are amplifying geopolitical tensions outside it.
Yet the experts do not dismiss the possibility of future shifts.
Abhishek Sarin, Manager at Blinkit, argues:
“Despite the grim outlook, change is still possible.”
However, the survey shows broad agreement that such change would come only from internal fractures — within the military, the ruling elite, or key institutional centers — not from external intervention.
Part II — Hybrid Pressure and the Geography of Escalation
The experts highlight that the United States is applying hybrid pressure, a mix of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military presence designed to influence Caracas without triggering direct conflict.
Raghu Chalamala, Vice President at Scapia, summarizes this approach:
“The U.S. wants Maduro out, but not through full war.”
This strategy relies on measured pressure rather than decisive action. But it also creates an environment in which communications are strained, military actors operate in overlapping spaces, and the margin for error becomes dangerously thin.
1. Maritime incidents: the most likely flashpoint
Across the survey, maritime confrontation emerges as the most probable scenario for unintentional escalation.
Abraham Ríos, Trilingual Agent at Keywords Studios, warns:
“There are high-probability incidents at sea — attacks, captures, or damage to U.S. interests.”
The U.S. maintains anti-drug and maritime interdiction operations near Venezuelan waters. Venezuela interprets these as threats to sovereignty. Meanwhile, non-state actors, commercial shipping, and foreign military assets all occupy the same maritime corridors.
As Angela Serrano, Pricing Specialist at LEMAN, notes:
“When anti-drug operations misfire, diplomacy breaks and the risk of escalation becomes real.”
This scenario is especially dangerous because it requires no political intent to ignite. A single mistaken maneuver, intercepted vessel, or misinterpreted warning shot could trigger a diplomatic crisis that spirals quickly.
2. The Essequibo dispute: unresolved and destabilizing
The territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region intensifies these risks. With newfound offshore oil reserves, both sides have elevated the strategic value of the territory.
Valeria Delgado Turanza, International Relations Specialist at Native Antarcticans Inc, emphasizes:
“The Essequibo’s mineral wealth raises the strategic stakes.”
The United States supports Guyana’s claims, while regional actors such as Brazil monitor the dispute closely. The involvement of great powers creates new layers of sensitivity around naval movements, political statements, and territorial markers.
Cristian Cataldo, Instructor at Universidad de Playa Ancha, highlights the regional implications:
“The military threat in the area will continue — even among countries that should be friendly.”
3. Militarization without communication
The survey reveals a dangerous imbalance: military presence in the region is increasing faster than crisis-management mechanisms. Maritime channels, border coordination, and diplomatic lines remain thin or ineffective, raising the risk that ordinary enforcement operations could spark unintended escalation.
Part III — Weak Diplomacy, Strong Pressures, and the Need for Regional Preparedness
The experts express skepticism about Venezuela’s diplomatic tools. Many highlight the ineffectiveness of its messaging abroad.
Abhinav, NatWest Group, comments:
“Moncada’s UN speeches achieve nothing.”
The gap between Venezuela’s diplomatic posture and regional realities leaves little room for conventional negotiation. Meanwhile, U.S. policy maintains pressure while avoiding commitments. This combination — rigid politics in Caracas, calibrated pressure from Washington, and limited regional dialogue — produces a fragile environment.
Experts stress three strategic needs:
1. Maritime de-confliction
Clear communication protocols between naval forces to prevent unintended confrontations.
2. Policy coordination among Guyana, Brazil, and Colombia
These states form the immediate perimeter around Venezuela. Without coordination, the risk of contradictory actions rises.
3. Contingency planning for internal instability
Should Venezuela experience sudden institutional fractures, neighboring states must be prepared for spillovers.
Andreas Bulo, Project Executive at Fundación Eurochile, warns:
“Pressure without a political plan deepens the crisis.”
His assessment underscores the danger of reactive strategies — a central theme echoed across the survey.
Conclusion
The Social Research Center’s survey makes one point unmistakably clear: while Venezuela’s internal crisis is prolonged and entrenched, the greatest risk lies outside its borders.
As José Israel Suárez Marquez cautions, “isolation will grow,” while Abraham Ríos warns that “maritime accidents are the real trigger.”
These insights reflect a stark truth: the next crisis may erupt not from political maneuvers in Caracas, but from an unintended encounter at sea or a misinterpreted move in the Essequibo dispute. With rising militarization, limited communication, and deepening mistrust, small incidents carry outsized consequences.
The region can no longer afford to simply monitor events. It must act — through diplomacy, coordinated planning, and crisis-prevention mechanisms — to prevent manageable tensions from escalating into a broader conflict.
Ultimately, Venezuela’s future may be shaped less by dramatic political turns than by the region’s ability to keep small sparks from becoming
One of the strongest conclusions of the survey is that Venezuela’s political system has adapted to survive prolonged crisis. Experts consistently describe a state that maintains control through coercive institutions and political discipline rather than through legitimacy or performance.
Javier Lichtle, Strategy & Communications Director at Grupo Salinas, puts this plainly:
“Maduro maintains control, but without legitimacy.”
Political loyalty within the ruling structure, tight control of the security apparatus, and the absence of a unified opposition create an environment where collapse is unlikely, even amid economic deterioration and international pressure. Whereas democratic institutions have weakened, mechanisms of command and coercion have remained intact.
The result is a paradoxical form of resilience — one that prevents collapse but also prevents reform. This stagnation produces deeper external consequences, as emphasized by José Israel Suárez Marquez, Instructor at Universidad Privada Boliviana, who warns:
“Recent elections appeared rigged… and rising U.S. pressure leaves Venezuela more isolated.”
His insight reflects a trend identified across the survey: political decisions inside Venezuela are amplifying geopolitical tensions outside it.
Yet the experts do not dismiss the possibility of future shifts.
Abhishek Sarin, Manager at Blinkit, argues:
“Despite the grim outlook, change is still possible.”
However, the survey shows broad agreement that such change would come only from internal fractures — within the military, the ruling elite, or key institutional centers — not from external intervention.
Part II — Hybrid Pressure and the Geography of Escalation
The experts highlight that the United States is applying hybrid pressure, a mix of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military presence designed to influence Caracas without triggering direct conflict.
Raghu Chalamala, Vice President at Scapia, summarizes this approach:
“The U.S. wants Maduro out, but not through full war.”
This strategy relies on measured pressure rather than decisive action. But it also creates an environment in which communications are strained, military actors operate in overlapping spaces, and the margin for error becomes dangerously thin.
1. Maritime incidents: the most likely flashpoint
Across the survey, maritime confrontation emerges as the most probable scenario for unintentional escalation.
Abraham Ríos, Trilingual Agent at Keywords Studios, warns:
“There are high-probability incidents at sea — attacks, captures, or damage to U.S. interests.”
The U.S. maintains anti-drug and maritime interdiction operations near Venezuelan waters. Venezuela interprets these as threats to sovereignty. Meanwhile, non-state actors, commercial shipping, and foreign military assets all occupy the same maritime corridors.
As Angela Serrano, Pricing Specialist at LEMAN, notes:
“When anti-drug operations misfire, diplomacy breaks and the risk of escalation becomes real.”
This scenario is especially dangerous because it requires no political intent to ignite. A single mistaken maneuver, intercepted vessel, or misinterpreted warning shot could trigger a diplomatic crisis that spirals quickly.
2. The Essequibo dispute: unresolved and destabilizing
The territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region intensifies these risks. With newfound offshore oil reserves, both sides have elevated the strategic value of the territory.
Valeria Delgado Turanza, International Relations Specialist at Native Antarcticans Inc, emphasizes:
“The Essequibo’s mineral wealth raises the strategic stakes.”
The United States supports Guyana’s claims, while regional actors such as Brazil monitor the dispute closely. The involvement of great powers creates new layers of sensitivity around naval movements, political statements, and territorial markers.
Cristian Cataldo, Instructor at Universidad de Playa Ancha, highlights the regional implications:
“The military threat in the area will continue — even among countries that should be friendly.”
3. Militarization without communication
The survey reveals a dangerous imbalance: military presence in the region is increasing faster than crisis-management mechanisms. Maritime channels, border coordination, and diplomatic lines remain thin or ineffective, raising the risk that ordinary enforcement operations could spark unintended escalation.
Part III — Weak Diplomacy, Strong Pressures, and the Need for Regional Preparedness
The experts express skepticism about Venezuela’s diplomatic tools. Many highlight the ineffectiveness of its messaging abroad.
Abhinav, NatWest Group, comments:
“Moncada’s UN speeches achieve nothing.”
The gap between Venezuela’s diplomatic posture and regional realities leaves little room for conventional negotiation. Meanwhile, U.S. policy maintains pressure while avoiding commitments. This combination — rigid politics in Caracas, calibrated pressure from Washington, and limited regional dialogue — produces a fragile environment.
Experts stress three strategic needs:
1. Maritime de-confliction
Clear communication protocols between naval forces to prevent unintended confrontations.
2. Policy coordination among Guyana, Brazil, and Colombia
These states form the immediate perimeter around Venezuela. Without coordination, the risk of contradictory actions rises.
3. Contingency planning for internal instability
Should Venezuela experience sudden institutional fractures, neighboring states must be prepared for spillovers.
Andreas Bulo, Project Executive at Fundación Eurochile, warns:
“Pressure without a political plan deepens the crisis.”
His assessment underscores the danger of reactive strategies — a central theme echoed across the survey.
Conclusion
The Social Research Center’s survey makes one point unmistakably clear: while Venezuela’s internal crisis is prolonged and entrenched, the greatest risk lies outside its borders.
As José Israel Suárez Marquez cautions, “isolation will grow,” while Abraham Ríos warns that “maritime accidents are the real trigger.”
These insights reflect a stark truth: the next crisis may erupt not from political maneuvers in Caracas, but from an unintended encounter at sea or a misinterpreted move in the Essequibo dispute. With rising militarization, limited communication, and deepening mistrust, small incidents carry outsized consequences.
The region can no longer afford to simply monitor events. It must act — through diplomacy, coordinated planning, and crisis-prevention mechanisms — to prevent manageable tensions from escalating into a broader conflict.
Ultimately, Venezuela’s future may be shaped less by dramatic political turns than by the region’s ability to keep small sparks from becoming
Shadows of the Conquistadors: The Private Armies of Latin America