(MENAFN- The Rio Times) Latin America stands at a crossroads, fractured over how to confront Venezuela's slow-motion collapse. Colombia, bearing the brunt of a humanitarian exodus, has reached its breaking point.

President Gustavo Petro condemns Washington's hardline tactics, yet faces mounting domestic pressure for decisive action-any action.

Across the region, fatigue is setting in: more than half of Latin Americans now favor foreign intervention to remove Nicolás Maduro, an extraordinary shift in a hemisphere long scarred by U.S. overreach.

Brazil's President Lula da Silva tries to straddle both sides, calling for dialogue while achieving little. Meanwhile, Maduro's dwindling circle of allies-Mexico and Argentina among them-prefer silence to risking their fragile relationships with Washington.

But the divide runs deeper than diplomacy. Colombia, having absorbed over three million Venezuelans, is buckling under the strain of collapsing services, rising crime, and social tension.



Petro's defiance toward the U.S. plays well on the campaign trail, but it does little to ease the crisis at his doorstep. Brazil, once seen as a regional stabilizer, now finds itself marginalized as Washington ignores Lula's mediation efforts.

Even Mexico and Argentina, historically wary of U.S. interventionism, are choosing quiet pragmatism over principle, prioritizing trade and internal politics.

The paralysis reflects a wider fragmentation within Latin America's left. Petro and Lula decry U.S. aggression, but their citizens-exhausted by migration, inflation, and insecurity-are losing patience.

A recent poll showing 53% support for military intervention marks a stunning reversal in regional attitudes. The episode exposes a deeper truth: ideology falters when instability crosses borders.

Maduro, meanwhile, plays the familiar role of victim, railing against“imperialism” while leaning ever harder on foreign backers.

His nominal supporters, such as Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum and Argentina's Javier Milei, offer only symbolic gestures, careful not to endanger ties with the U.S. or international lenders.

The result is a hemisphere paralyzed by ambivalence-unable to craft a common response as Venezuela's collapse radiates outward. Washington, by contrast, has moved beyond patience.

With warships in the Caribbean, targeted strikes on traffickers, and covert operations reportedly underway, the U.S. is signaling that it will act with or without regional consensus.

The risks are profound: miscalculation could ignite a wider conflict, yet hesitation would only prolong the suffering of millions.

For Latin America, the Venezuela crisis has become an existential test-not of ideology, but of collective will. The question now is not whether Maduro falls, but whether his neighbors will shape what follows.

MENAFN03112025007421016031ID1110289116