What happened

U.S. President Donald Trump said in a post on the Truth Social platform that he canceled a planned "second wave" of strikes on Venezuela. According to him, the decision was made because of the alleged "good cooperation" from Caracas, in particular the release of a large number of political prisoners and a willingness to restore oil and gas infrastructure.

"Thanks to that cooperation I canceled the previously expected second wave of attacks... However, all ships will remain in place for security purposes"

— Donald Trump, President of the United States

Details and contradictions

The post also contains claims about the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and his wife on drug-trafficking charges and a trial on January 5, where, according to Trump, Maduro did not admit guilt. These statements from Trump should be viewed as the official position of the U.S., but they require independent verification from international media and legal sources.

In addition, the original post refers to the intention of major oil companies to invest about $100 billion and to the alleged U.S. daily earnings from oil of $4 billion. These are sizable sums that automatically affect market behavior and political calculations, regardless of the extent to which these figures are ultimately confirmed.

Why this matters

Energy component. Calling off the strike together with a signal about potential investments and cooperation from Venezuela may ease short-term pressure on oil markets. However, the presence of ships ("tankers") on site leaves Washington with a lever of influence — and at the same time a risk of escalation.

Geopolitical component. This combination of military-diplomatic pressure and an offer of economic benefit is a classic tool for extracting concessions from regimes. For allies and partners, it is a test: whether the administration is willing to move from threats to practical deals, and how durable those deals will be.

Social proof and assessments

Analysts monitoring the region point to two interconnected logics — security (maintaining a military presence as a guarantee) and economic (opening access to resources and capital). For investors, even a hint of large investments makes the region more attractive, but institutional uncertainty keeps risk elevated.

What next

Key will be verification of the claims: whether mass releases of political prisoners actually took place, what the legal basis is for particular arrests, and whether negotiating agreements with energy companies are confirmed. For Ukraine, these events matter as a marker of the U.S. readiness to combine diplomacy, force, and energy interests — a model that could be applied in other regions.

For now we have statements and signaling: it is important to look not at loud words but at the paperwork — signed contracts, verified legal documents, and confirmed transactions. Whether the diplomatic maneuver will turn into long-term stability is a question for Washington’s next steps and for international institutions.