Author: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform 4 FEB 2026
An analysis based on the historicity criteria of the LT method (telos, derivation, predictability, and behavioral coherence) applied to Venezuelan foreign policy does not reveal any “betrayal” or radical break in international relations following January 3, 2026. Instead, there is a clear continuity in ties with historic allies and a pragmatic evolution—stemming from the previous crisis—in the approach toward the United States.
1. Teleological and behavioral continuity with traditional allies (up to December 2025 – post-January 2026)
Venezuelan foreign policy maintains its core alliances with countries that have historically been its main partners. This is evidenced by concrete actions taken before and after the December 2025 turning point:
· With Iran: In December 2025, the foreign ministers of Venezuela and Iran reaffirmed their strategic alliance and bilateral cooperation against U.S. sanctions. There are no signs that this connection was disrupted after January 2026.
· With China: In December 2025, the foreign ministers of Venezuela and China discussed expanding their strategic alliance. The relationship with China, a pillar of Bolivarian foreign policy, remains unchanged.
· With Cuba: Immediately after the events of January 3, Cuba intervened in the UN Security Council to condemn the “military aggression of the U.S. against Venezuela.” This public and diplomatic support illustrates the persistence of the alliance.
· With Russia: Throughout 2025, meetings and talks took place between foreign ministers to enhance bilateral cooperation and mutual support. There are no factors suggesting any distancing afterward.
Historical Verdict: The telos (the goal of maintaining a block of allies against international pressure) and behavioral coherence (the public reiteration of these links) are constants. There is no abrupt variation that can be called a “betrayal” of these alliances.
2. Predictable and derived evolution regarding the United States (January 2026)
The only element that could be interpreted as new is the announcement on January 9, 2026, that Delcy Rodríguez’s Foreign Ministry was commencing a “diplomatic exploratory process” with the United States. However, this move does not represent an anti-historical break for the following reasons:
· Derivation from a critical material necessity: The Venezuelan economy has been in deep crisis for years, exacerbated by sanctions. Seeking a way out of this blockade is a state necessity arising from prolonged crisis, not a political whim.
· Logical predictability: Given the severity of the crisis, it was understandable and predictable that any government in Caracas, regardless of its ideology, would explore dialogue options to alleviate economic pressure. It is a conceivable outcome within a range of realistic options.
· Relative behavioral coherence: Even before January 3, Venezuelan diplomacy combined anti-imperialist rhetoric with practical gestures (like specific permits to Chevron). The announcement of a diplomatic process represents an institutional expansion of that pre-existing pragmatism, not its invention.
Definitive Conclusion
The narrative of “betrayal” in foreign policy lacks historical support. Facts demonstrate that:
1. There is no break with traditional allies (Cuba, Russia, China, Iran), but rather continuity.
2. The approach to the U.S. is a measure derived from a years-long structural crisis and, therefore, predictable within the logic of realpolitik.
3. The government’s behavioral coherence remains: it seeks the survival of the state by combining ideological alliances (that are preserved) with the necessary pragmatism (that intensifies).
Hence, labeling these actions as “betrayal” is akin to imposing an anti-historical narrative that ignores the telos of the Venezuelan crisis, the logical derivation of its responses, and the complexity of a foreign policy that has always merged ideological principles with practical necessities.