"The U.S. May Not Invade, But It Will Continue Trying to Undermine Venezuela From Within” — Jeewantha Jayatissa, Secretary Bolivarian Solidarity of Sri Lanka

Nov 16, 2025 at 10:46 AM

|

Lanka Leader

The Bolivarian Solidarity of Sri Lanka warns that although the United States has not launched a direct military attack on Venezuela, its intelligence agencies continue to pursue long-term strategies aimed at destabilizing Venezuelan society. According to the organization’s Secretary, Mr. Jeewantha Jayatissa, the U.S. accusation of drug trafficking against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is a fabricated pretext designed to justify foreign intervention. He further argues that growing political resistance within the United States reflects the will of the American people, making a direct U.S. attack on Venezuela unlikely under current conditions.

Presented below is the full conversation that Lanka Leader held with Mr. Jeewantha Jayatissa on these developments.

Q: On November 6, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have required congressional approval before taking military action against Venezuela. As a result, the U.S. President can now authorize a strike without Congress. How do you interpret this development?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
Yes, that is correct — President Donald Trump can now take military action against Venezuela without the approval of Congress. But we must pay close attention to the context of the bill’s defeat.

The U.S. Senate has 100 members. This bill received 49 votes in support — including votes from two Republican senators aligned with President Trump. So although the bill was defeated, it was a respectable and narrow loss. Had it passed the Senate and moved to the full Congress, it is very likely that it would have gained stronger bipartisan support. In such a case, the President would not have been able to take unilateral military action.

The near-passage of the bill indicates a growing sentiment within the U.S. that intervening abroad is not the priority of the American public, especially in the midst of their own domestic crises.

Even Trump’s recent attack on New York Mayor Sohran Mamdani — calling him a “communist lunatic” — did not have the desired impact among New Yorkers. This shows that Americans are increasingly rejecting war rhetoric, including military aggression toward Venezuela.

Q: Washington frequently labels President Nicolás Maduro as a drug trafficker and claims U.S. military patrols near Venezuela reduce drug flows into the U.S. Does this give the U.S. a legitimate right to act?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
Any country — including the United States — has the sovereign right to prevent drug inflows. But Washington is abusing that principle to build a false justification for intervention.

Even U.S. government data contradicts its own accusations.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) assessed in 2025 that the Venezuelan government is not among the leaders or sponsors of drug networks threatening U.S. territory.

The UN’s 2025 World Drug Report also highlights that the U.S. is the largest drug market in the region — perhaps the world — and hosts the most extensive trafficking and money-laundering networks. These networks operate with near impunity across the U.S. economy.

Moreover, the report stresses that the U.S. arms industry — operating globally without proper oversight — fuels the strength of criminal organizations across Latin America.

So instead of addressing the real root of the drug crisis within its own borders, the U.S. is trying to “start a fire where there is no fire” in Venezuela — while ignoring the flames inside its own house. Western media, by repeating these unverified claims, has helped distort global opinion.

Q: You seem to suggest that the U.S. plays a negative role throughout Latin America. Does Washington not engage in any constructive initiatives in the region?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
To be direct — no.
U.S. foreign policy has long been based on weakening and exploiting other countries. The sanctions on Cuba are a clear example. Despite more than 30 years of overwhelming global votes at the UN General Assembly demanding they be lifted — with 165 countries supporting Cuba in 2025 — the U.S. still refuses to end them.

Cuba has no major natural resources nor a threatening military. Yet the U.S. punishes it endlessly. This alone exposes Washington’s hypocrisy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world briefly became unipolar, and thinkers like Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history.” The U.S., behaving like an unchallenged empire, pushed countries to either submit or be destroyed — the opposite of Lenin’s theory that imperialist octopuses must be cut, not empowered.

Q: So is Venezuela one of the countries that challenged the “end of history” theory? What evidence supports this?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
Venezuela is certainly one of them — but not the only one. Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Iraq all challenged this theory. But unlike Iraq and Libya — which were destroyed — Cuba survived through creativity, resilience, and unity.

Venezuela’s challenge began with Hugo Chávez, whose influence extended far beyond traditional armed struggle. Chávez built a new political path that inspired global South nations.

His electoral victories — 1998, 2000, 2006, and 2012 — demonstrated massive public support for his anti-imperialist vision.

Q: Did this resistance movement end with Chávez’s death?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
Not at all. Chávez laid a foundation strong enough to continue long after him.

Even Fidel Castro once told Bolivia’s Evo Morales that he should learn not from Castro — but from Chávez. That shows Chávez’s importance in shaping the new global political landscape.

He strengthened military and economic ties with Russia, signing dozens of cooperative agreements and engaging in joint military exercises. He also significantly advanced relations with China — far more deeply than any previous Venezuelan leader.

This diplomatic strategy directly opposed the unipolar world envisioned by Fukuyama and Washington.

Q: Venezuela experienced severe hardship under President Maduro. How do you view the crisis period that followed Chávez’s death?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
Maduro inherited massive challenges. The U.S. poured resources into destabilizing Venezuelan society, using figures like María Corina Machado to trigger violent unrest. Inflation soared between 2016 and 2017, and ordinary people suffered deeply.

But the United Socialist Party and Maduro’s leadership managed to reorganize society and overcome the crisis. It was an extremely difficult period, but they prevailed.

Q: With the U.S. accusing Maduro of drug trafficking, isn’t a U.S. military attack now likely?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
The accusations are fabricated. They are part of a broader strategy to justify an invasion. Even the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado — a far-right figure openly calling for foreign intervention — fits a wider geopolitical agenda.

Yet Maduro is not a weak or isolated leader. He fully understands Venezuela’s historical mission. The country holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world and vast natural wealth. He knows he must protect these resources for future generations.

Maduro has built strong diplomatic and economic alliances with Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, Cuba, and others. Russian lawmakers have even passed legislation promising to defend Venezuela amid U.S. military threats. China, meanwhile, remains deeply tied to Venezuela through massive investments, energy cooperation, and infrastructure projects — without engaging in asset-seizure or debt-trap tactics.

Maduro has skillfully managed both China and Russia, ensuring Venezuela's strategic security on multiple fronts.

Q: So will the United States attack Venezuelan territory?

Jeewantha Jayatissa:
From a logical standpoint, the U.S. is unlikely to launch a direct attack under current circumstances. But an empire in decline can behave unpredictably. If Washington ever attempted such a reckless action, it would suffer a defeat worse than what it faced in Ukraine.

However, even without a military strike, the U.S. has never abandoned its long-term strategy of destabilizing Venezuelan society from within through intelligence operations, sanctions, and information warfare.

Its aim is not necessarily invasion — but internal collapse.