Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—On Thursday, October 8, in Mexico, a United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) delegation confronted former Colombian President Gustavo Petro over statements accusing Venezuela of abandoning the Cuban combatants who defended President Nicolás Maduro during the January 3 US military assault.“You did not even ask Venezuela. What a despicable thing to say now,” PSUV Deputy Tania Díaz told Petro. “I know you were aware of the operation. You were aware of the military operation against Venezuela and remained silent. Tell the truth.”During his intervention, Petro claimed that the Cuban combatants had fought alone until their ammunition ran out. He also asserted that one Cuban survivor had recovered the bodies of his 32 fallen compatriots without Venezuelan assistance, presenting their sacrifice as evidence that Venezuela had abandoned them during the attack that culminated in the kidnapping of President Maduro and First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores.Petro is upset about being called a traitor. Here, he's doubling down (and contradicting himself) by calling Venezuela an "oil left" while criticizing it for "giving away its oil." He said nothing about the accusation that he knew about Jan 3 in advance. https://t.co/qlmkR9gHyT https://t.co/TmKV1gSVwG— The Assembly Media (@AssemblyMediaV) October 9, 2026Petro also accused Venezuela of giving away its petroleum to Washington and supported Trump’s boast that Venezuelan oil had become US spoils. He contrasted this supposed surrender with Hugo Chávez’s legacy, prompting PSUV Deputy Jesús Faría to interrupt him and demand that he tell the truth.Confrontation over sovereignty and electoral recognitionAs the Assembly Media reported, the exchange occurred during the 30th International Seminar, “Political Parties and a New Society,” organized by Mexico’s Workers’ Party (PT). Deputy Díaz challenged Petro both over his alleged advance knowledge of the US assault and his refusal to recognize President Maduro’s victory following Venezuela’s July 2024 presidential election.The delegation also compared Petro’s conduct to that of Francisco de Paula Santander, invoking his betrayal of Simón Bolívar’s project of regional unity. Faría rejected Petro’s accusations as lies, while Díaz’s confrontation exposed the anger among Venezuelan delegates at hearing their country blamed for the consequences of a foreign imperialist military attack.In a second post, The Assembly Media reported that Petro responded to being called a traitor by doubling down: he characterized Venezuela as an “oil left” while simultaneously criticizing it for “giving away its oil.” The outlet described the argument as contradictory and noted that Petro did not address Díaz’s accusation of advance knowledge of January 3.Orinoco Tribune editor Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza points to a view held by many Chavistas that Petro and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva helped politically facilitate Washington’s aggression through their wavering positions and refusal to recognize President Maduro’s victory in the July 28, 2024, election. Both withheld recognition of the result proclaimed by Venezuela’s electoral authorities. In this Chavista assessment, their conduct strengthened Washington’s campaign to delegitimize the Venezuelan president and weakened regional solidarity, helping create the political conditions for the subsequent attack and kidnapping.An old testimony presented with an accusation against VenezuelaPetro’s remarks followed the renewed circulation of testimony by Cuban combatant Yohandri Varona Torres, a survivor of the US attack. Resumen Latinoamericano republished the account on October 6, emphasizing his observation that the attackers appeared to know the defenders’ positions.The testimony was given during a January 16 tribute in Camagüey, following ceremonies honoring the fallen. It was already circulating in January, including in Cubainformación’s January 18 coverage and a Canal Abierto article published later that month. Therefore, its October recirculation did not constitute a new account of the attack.Varona Torres described the attackers’ overwhelming firepower, their targeting of guard posts and sleeping quarters, and the survivors’ efforts to recover their comrades’ bodies. His testimony did not identify a Venezuelan betrayer or establish that Venezuelan forces collectively abandoned the Cuban defenders.Felipe’s accusation of collective abandonmentHowever, on Thursday, Cuban writer and communicator María Teresa Felipe nevertheless introduced the testimony in a post with a sweeping accusation: “The Venezuelans left the Cubans alone, and that deserves neither forgetting nor forgiveness!” Her opening assigned collective responsibility to Venezuelans before presenting an account of a US attack against both countries’ combatants.Felipe emphasized the survivor’s statement that there had been no assistance in recovering the bodies. However, his reference to receiving no help with that specific task does not establish that Venezuelans refused to fight, that every unit abandoned its position, or that Venezuela betrayed Cuba. Her categorical introduction converted a description of one group’s ordeal into an indictment of an entire people.The post also highlighted the attackers’ apparent knowledge of the compound’s layout. That observation raises questions about US intelligence and operational preparation. It does not, by itself, establish Venezuelan treason. Rodríguez-Espinoza considers the combination of collective blame and a demand for permanent condemnation poisonous chauvinism: it turns the grief of Cuban families against another people whose service members were also killed by US imperialism.Solidarity under imperialist attackVenezuela and Cuba signed their Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement on October 30, 2000. The agreement established a framework for energy supplies and cooperation in areas including healthcare, education, technology, sports, security, and beyond, sustaining their relationship for more than two decades.Before the January assault, US forces seized the Skipper, which carried Venezuelan crude, and Trump ordered a blockade of tankers covered by US sanctions entering or leaving Venezuela. The seizures and threats disrupted shipments to Cuba and other destinations. Venezuela condemned the seizure as international piracy.For Rodríguez-Espinoza, these attacks on Venezuelan energy cooperation are essential to understanding Washington’s aggression: Venezuela was targeted for sustaining Cuba against the US blockade, among other reasons. The Bolivarian Revolution maintained that solidarity despite sanctions, domestic hardship, and the economic costs of cooperation—costs, he argues, Venezuela accepted because internationalism cannot be reduced to commercial advantage. In his assessment, condemning Caracas while overlooking the US military obstruction of oil supplies erases over two decades of Venezuelan solidarity precisely when both peoples need it most.Colombia’s President Petro Says Meeting with Delcy Rodríguez Will Focus on Border SecurityRodríguez-Espinoza also stresses that US forces killed 47 Venezuelan service members alongside the 32 Cuban combatants. Those deaths contradict the sweeping portrayal of Venezuelans as having simply abandoned the fight. Washington’s vast financial, intelligence, surveillance, and technological resources must also be considered before precise targeting is presented as proof of treason. He argues that socialist internationalism requires honoring both peoples’ fallen, investigating specific responsibilities through evidence, and directing condemnation at the imperial power that carried out the massacre. Turning their shared sacrifice into nationalist resentment divides the victims and politically benefits their aggressor. Special for Orinoco Tribune by staffOT/JRE/SF