Jean Paul Prates: "Trump wants a colony in Venezuela"

247 - The United States' intervention in Venezuela, which culminated in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and the installation of a provisional government, opened a new cycle of political instability and geopolitical tension in Latin America. In an interview with TV 247, former Petrobras president Jean Paul Prates analyzed the unfolding events and was direct in defining President Donald Trump's central objective: to impose a "submissive" government in Caracas, transforming Venezuela into a US "colony."

“They want a submissive government, right? They want a kind of colony,” Prates stated, arguing that the US offensive has nothing to do with democracy or human rights, but rather with long-term economic and strategic interests. According to him, Washington seeks to control not only Venezuelan oil production, but mainly the destination of these resources, preventing them from strengthening countries considered adversaries, such as China.

The intervention "trampled on international law."

Commenting on Maduro's kidnapping and his transfer to New York, Prates classified the action as an extreme violation of international norms. While recalling historical precedents—such as the case of Panama during the Noriega era—he emphasized that the Venezuelan episode is distinguished by occurring without the country being in open civil war or experiencing widespread military collapse.

“This situation with Maduro is already a brutal overstepping of the norm,” he said. “Trampling on the law… was not the right solution. If this becomes the norm, the world will become a mess.”

Prates highlighted that Latin America is often treated with "more disrespect" precisely because it is in the immediate sphere of influence of the US, which makes actions that would not be tolerated in other regions more frequent.

"American state" and strategic calculation behind Trump

The former president of Petrobras drew attention to the coexistence, in the US, of two power structures: the elected structure and the permanent "American state"—composed of technical personnel, military personnel, and intelligence services that transcend governments and maintain a stable geopolitical agenda.

According to him, even if Trump has his own impulses and aggressive rhetoric, the establishment intervened to organize an "interim government" and reduce the political fallout from the kidnapping, creating a narrative of transition and a minimal institutional appearance.

“He arrived at Mar-a-Lago… and said, ‘You’ve already made the biggest diplomatic mess possible. Now let’s clean up the mess,’” he recounted, suggesting that this group had advised Trump to engage in dialogue with the vice president and establish a provisional period to avoid an immediate civil war scenario.

The objective is not just oil, but to control the fate of the oil.

Prates explained that the central logic of the US would not be to extract more oil out of energy necessity — since the United States is self-sufficient and a major producer — but rather to politically control the fate of Venezuelan oil.

"Controlling oil doesn't mean producing more oil out of necessity. It means controlling the destination of that oil," he stated.

He cited as an example the intention to prevent long-term Chinese investments in Venezuela and to block contracts that guarantee energy supplies to Beijing, seen by Trump as a global competitor.

In this sense, Venezuela would become a direct battleground for the dispute between the United States and China, not only in energy but also in critical minerals.

Strategic minerals and long-term dispute with China

The interviewee pointed out that American interest goes beyond oil. According to him, Washington is focused on minerals such as columbite, cassiterite, manganese, and other resources critical to future production chains—fundamental in technology, electrification, and advanced industry.

Prates recalled that China has already indicated, during times of trade conflict, that it may restrict the supply of rare earth elements and strategic components, which Trump interpreted as a warning.

"We're talking about a horizon of 15, 20, 30 years... mineral concessions to secure these mines for the United States," he said.

In his assessment, Trump would be "taking care of the American future" by seeking to secure access to these resources in Venezuelan territory, while simultaneously hindering Chinese presence in the region.

"Showcase": The US may try to turn Venezuela into a showcase.

Despite condemning the intervention, Prates admitted that the US has the capacity to produce real economic effects in the short term, should they decide to use the country as a showcase.

"The United States is indeed capable of making what they called a showcase there," he stated.

He recalled that the history of American interventions is "terrible"—citing Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as examples of institutional chaos—but highlighted that Panama, despite all its problems, has often been used as a success story, with accelerated growth stemming from the stability associated with the Canal.

According to Prates, Trump may try to repeat this model in Venezuela, stimulating investments, partial infrastructure recovery, and the circulation of dollars to convince international public opinion that the intervention "improved the lives" of the population.

PDVSA in disrepair: refineries operating below capacity.

One of the central points of the interview was the technical diagnosis of the Venezuelan oil industry. Prates stated that PDVSA is dilapidated and has degraded assets, a result of sanctions, lack of investment, and the political use of oil revenues to fund social programs during critical times.

He cited, for example, the underutilization of refining capacity: the Paraguaná refinery, one of the largest in the world, is operating far below its potential.

“Less than half of the refining capacity is being used,” he said, highlighting that this prevents Venezuela from adding value to its derivatives (diesel, gasoline, naphtha, LPG) and keeps it dependent on a cycle of crude oil exports, without full industrial capacity.

Venezuelan production is "negligible" on the global stage.

Despite the claim of having the “world’s largest reserves,” Prates noted that Venezuela currently produces less than 1 million barrels per day, a number far below its estimated potential of 3 million. Even with such large reserves, its share of global production would be less than 1%.

"Venezuela, from the point of view of international production, is also insignificant," he stated.

He explained that this reinforces the strategic, rather than energy-related, nature of the offensive: the US doesn't need Venezuelan oil, but wants to prevent it from being used by competitors and, at the same time, dominate the continent's natural resource landscape.

Internal disputes within the opposition and a transition under supervision.

Prates also drew attention to the fragmentation of the Venezuelan opposition field, mentioning the presence of different leaders and groups, such as Juan Guaidó and Maria Corina Machado, without full unity.

He assessed that the US should conduct an electoral process under indirect influence to guarantee the victory of an aligned right wing, but warned that the outcome will depend on the conduct of the interim government and the balance between Chavista factions, the military, and social sectors that still recognize Hugo Chávez's legacy.

Petrobras and Brazil: caution in the short term.

When asked about the possibility of expanding Brazilian business in Venezuela, Prates stated that private sector activity could increase, but that Petrobras, being a large company with many priorities in Brazil, should remain cautious in the short term.

"I don't think Petrobras has much to do there right now. It's still very undefined," he said, stressing that this assessment could change in a year or two, depending on the political scenario.

The bigger picture: energy, electrification, and the future.

The interview also touched on the global reconfiguration of the energy sector. Prates described a polarization between countries that are betting on the longevity of oil—a group in which he would place Trump and his allies—and those that are accelerating electrification and diversification of sources, led by China.

He stated that the future tends to favor electrification, but acknowledged that oil and hydrocarbons will still play a relevant role for decades, in a gradual rather than abrupt process.

The interview raises a double warning: on the one hand, the risk of Venezuela becoming a laboratory for external control and domination of resources; on the other, evidence that the dispute over critical energy and minerals has become the central axis of new international tensions—and that Latin America is once again being treated as a strategic frontier in an increasingly competitive and aggressive world.