By Maaike Matelski, Eva van Roekel and Htet Hlaing Win – On 3 January 2026, the United States carried out a military intervention on Venezuelan soil, abducting President Maduro and bringing him to the US to stand trial on drug-related charges. The invasion was widely condemned as violating international law and as an example of the imperialist mindset of US President Trump. Yet there were also celebrations among Venezuelan dissidents in exile, who had escaped Venezuela’s repressive environment and saw the forceful removal of Maduro as a possible way out for the country and its people. Inside Venezuela, both celebration and condemnation were largely muted, giving way instead to an atmosphere of suspended anticipation, as people grappled with uncertainty about what kind of future might now unfold in the absence of Maduro.
The invasion prompted widespread online reactions both across Latin America and the Caribbean and in other parts of the world, including Southeast Asia. Dissidents from Myanmar, facing repression for many decades and increasingly since the military coup of February 2021, wrote provocative statements on social media such as “Mr. Trump please also raid Myanmar” and “Hey Trump we have rare earth with genocidal regime.” While such social media comments should probably be taken with a pinch of salt, they do reveal a broader pattern: the tendency to reduce complex matters of human rights and global power relations to a simple depiction of good and evil.
Both Myanmar and Venezuela have historically been underreported in international media, at least until recently. Despite their sizable populations and geopolitical importance, neither Myanmar nor Venezuela feature regularly in European reporting. This may partly be a matter of proximity but also opportunity to report, as repressive leaders in Myanmar and Venezuela have heavily restricted access to internet and international journalism in an attempt to quell dissent. When the countries do receive international attention, the everyday dilemmas which ordinary people experience tend to be reduced to a simple narrative of good against evil.
This depiction is partly due to historical political relations. Myanmar suffered under a repressive self-proclaimed socialist military government for 26 years, whereas a new political era between 2010-2020 led to economic prosperity in parts of the country, and consequently a predominantly positive perception of neoliberalism. The fact that China, a nominally communist state, supported the military led to further disillusionment with left-wing ideologies. In Venezuela, the political project known as chavismo emerged after Hugo Chávez’s election in 1999, with “21st-century socialism” as its flagship left-wing ideology. Fuelled by oil revenues and expanded state control over key industries, it profoundly reshaped Venezuela’s political and economic landscape over the past two decades. Over time, this model became increasingly centralized, marked by growing political repression and the steady erosion of democratic institutions. Authoritarian tendencies deepened, leaving chavismo as the dominant force in Venezuelan politics, with little room for meaningful opposition.
While in Myanmar the conflict environment is reduced to an armed opposition versus a ruthless military, the Venezuelan situation risks being reduced to a pro-Trump or pro-Maduro camp. What is lost in this back-and-forth of ideological conflicts are the voices of ordinary people, whose perceived needs are internationally utilized to support one particular narrative. We argue that the voices of ordinary people should be uncovered to determine how these momentous events affect their everyday lives, including through social media.
From Yangon to Caracas: Myanmar’s Digital Responses to Venezuela’s Invasion
When news about the invasion of Venezuela reached Myanmar online audiences, the US embassy in Yangon (in response to its statement on Myanmar’s independence day) received close to 5000 Facebook comments overnight, with over 90% asking for a similar intervention in Myanmar. Since then, we have conducted a brief online study of the many social media reactions from people in Myanmar to the events unfolding in Venezuela in January. Reports that China criticized the US government for acting as ‘world’s judge’ have received particular cynical reactions from Myanmar dissidents, stating that the US actions are justified because the United Nations has remained inactive. While Myanmar opposition groups such as the All-Burma Federation of Students’ Union published statements condemning the US invasion of Venezuela, others reacted critically asking why they never speak out on far-reaching Chinese interference in Myanmar’s economy and armed conflict. Another comment stated that it is still better to live under the US than in China’s sphere of influence.
The comment “hey Trump we have rare earth with genocidal regime” refers to the fact that Myanmar’s natural resources are currently being exploited largely by China, which needs the minerals from northern Myanmar for its defence and renewable energy industries. The profits of this rare earth mining flow directly to the Myanmar military and a number of other armed groups, while the population suffers the impact on its health and natural environment. Myanmar activists have emphasized the presence of rare earth minerals in an attempt to persuade the US to intervene in the country’s ongoing conflicts. Social media comments further point towards Myanmar military leader’s Min Aung Hlaing’s perceived involvement in the illegal drugs trade and the booming online scam business in Southeast Asia; despite the transnational impact of these activities, no meaningful international intervention has taken place beyond the countries directly bordering on Myanmar.
If US intervention in Venezuela is seen as a combination of interest in natural resources (mainly oil) and professed concern about the freedom of the Venezuelan people, why would the US not intervene in a similar manner in Myanmar? This is not an uncommon question among Myanmar people. Following the 2021 coup, activists in Myanmar appealed in vain for the international community to invoke the Responsibility to Protect doctrine to free them from military rule and its violent repression. The answer to the question lies in the different geopolitical positions of the two countries, and the inconsistent policy (to say the least) of the US administration when it comes to international human rights protection. In the beginning of 2025, the US government announced a sudden halt to all USAID and affiliated development and humanitarian assistance programs, leaving countless refugees and dissidents from Myanmar and Venezuela without financial support overnight. Later in 2025, the US ended its protection for Myanmar and Venezuelan refugees and stopped the processing of new visa applications, although this is now being challenged in US courts.
It is obvious that the US is acting out of self-interest and does not have the interests of local populations at heart when it invades a country like Venezuela. However, this does not mean that such interventions may not be welcomed by sections of the population who have suffered repression and international neglect for decades, as the reactions on social media from Myanmar attest. We argue for more international coverage on, and solidarity with, populations living under repression in undemocratic environments such as Myanmar and Venezuela, even if they are not invaded or oppressed by western forces. Populations may equally suffer from selective international involvement and economic or political self-interest of other countries, as is the case for China, Russia and other global actors in Myanmar and Venezuela. Only a receptive and open-minded perspective can help to explain the broad variety in reactions to events like the US invasion in Venezuela, and their reach across the globe, inspiring responses as far away as Myanmar. People living under repressed circumstances may not have the luxury of choosing which sphere of influence they are subjected to, but they do consistently express desires for political freedom, economic well-being and self-governance of natural resources, notably on social media.
This text appeared in longer form on the weblog of the LSE Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre.
Maaike Matelski and Eva van Roekel are staff members of the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Htet Hlaing Win is a Myanmar researcher, columnist and student at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and junior researcher in the Ethnographic Impact for Social Justice project.
Feature picture by Zack Tu Nan: https://www.pexels.com/photo/protester-with-free-myanmar-sign-in-urban-setting-32335009/