China is likely to thread the needle after US attack on Venezuela. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of emotionally loaded or evaluative wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment rather than neutrally describing events.

Examples include: - "Trump provided something of a blueprint for his view of the region when he released his National Security Strategy last month that espoused an aggressive 'Trump corollary' to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine" – the word "aggressive" is evaluative and not clearly attributed to a source. - "They will use this opportunity to contrast the US’ rogue behaviour with China’s" – "rogue behaviour" is a highly charged phrase; while it is in a quote, the article does not balance it with alternative characterizations. - "the authoritarian leadership in Moscow and Beijing does not have the tools or 'smart power' – including massive loans and major infrastructure deals – to convince countries to 'switch sides'" – "authoritarian leadership" is a political characterization that may be accurate but is not supported or contextualized here; "switch sides" is also a simplified, combative framing. - "long-suffering opposition" – this phrase is sympathetic and evaluative, not neutral description.

4 suggestions

Replace or qualify evaluative adjectives with more neutral terms or attribute them explicitly to sources. For example: "that espoused what critics describe as an aggressive 'Trump corollary'" or "that outlined a more assertive 'Trump corollary'".

When using charged phrases like "rogue behaviour", clearly attribute them and provide balancing perspectives. For example: "Glaser described US actions as 'rogue behaviour', a characterization US officials reject, arguing that..."

Instead of "authoritarian leadership in Moscow and Beijing", either provide a brief factual basis (e.g., referencing widely used political science classifications) or use more neutral wording such as "the governments in Moscow and Beijing" and, if relevant, add: "which many Western analysts classify as authoritarian."

Change "long-suffering opposition" to a more descriptive phrase such as "the opposition, which has faced years of political and economic turmoil" or "the opposition, which has long criticized the government over economic collapse and repression."

Unsubstantiated claims

Statements presented as fact without sufficient evidence or sourcing in the article.

Several assertions are made without clear sourcing or supporting data: - "Trump has 'updated' the doctrine with a call on global powers to view the Americas as Washington’s sphere of influence and that the US will back away from playing global policeman. This inferred that China had more leeway to exert influence over East Asia and that Europe – and potentially Russia – had more latitude to exert influence over Europe." The inference about increased leeway for China, Europe, and Russia is presented as a factual consequence rather than as an interpretation by specific analysts. - "The problem is that the authoritarian leadership in Moscow and Beijing does not have the tools or 'smart power' – including massive loans and major infrastructure deals – to convince countries to 'switch sides'" – this is a strong, comparative claim about capabilities that is not backed by data or multiple sources. - "The problem with Chinese influence in Latin America is that it’s primarily economic, and successful – so ousting it won’t be easy" – this is asserted without any figures or references to trade, investment, or diplomatic data.

3 suggestions

Explicitly attribute interpretive or predictive statements to named experts and signal them as opinions. For example: "Analysts interpret this as implying that China may have more leeway..." or "According to [analyst name], this could be read as..."

Provide at least brief supporting evidence or references for claims about capabilities and influence (e.g., data on Chinese loans, infrastructure projects, or US vs. Chinese investment in Latin America).

Qualify strong claims with appropriate hedging language. For example: "may not have the same range of tools or 'smart power'" instead of "does not have the tools"; "Chinese influence in Latin America is often described as primarily economic" instead of stating it as an unqualified fact.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex geopolitical dynamics to overly simple narratives or binary choices.

Examples include: - "Trump has 'updated' the doctrine with a call on global powers to view the Americas as Washington’s sphere of influence and that the US will back away from playing global policeman. This inferred that China had more leeway to exert influence over East Asia and that Europe – and potentially Russia – had more latitude to exert influence over Europe." This suggests a neat geographic division of spheres of influence that does not reflect the complexity and overlap of current global politics. - "to convince countries to 'switch sides'" – this frames Latin American states as simply choosing between US and Chinese/Russian "sides", ignoring their own agency, domestic politics, and multi-vector foreign policies. - "Beijing might even benefit under a new Venezuelan leadership, whether led by interim president Delcy Rodríguez or someone else" – this compresses a wide range of possible political outcomes into a single, largely economic lens (benefit vs. not), without acknowledging other dimensions (e.g., legal, security, humanitarian).

3 suggestions

Acknowledge the complexity of international relations by adding nuance. For example: "Some analysts interpret this as a partial return to sphere-of-influence thinking, though in practice global influence remains overlapping and contested."

Avoid binary "switch sides" framing; instead, describe specific policy alignments or areas of cooperation. For example: "to shift their diplomatic and economic alignments more toward Washington".

When discussing potential benefits for Beijing, note the uncertainties and multiple dimensions. For example: "Beijing could see some economic advantages under a new leadership, depending on how a future government handles existing contracts and debts."

Appeal to emotion

Use of emotionally charged descriptions that may influence readers’ feelings rather than inform them neutrally.

The description of the US raid is vivid and dramatic: - "in a daring predawn raid, US forces descended on ousted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and airlifted him shackled and blindfolded to New York" – words like "daring", "descended", and the focus on "shackled and blindfolded" create a cinematic, emotionally charged image. While some detail is legitimate, the tone leans toward dramatization. Additionally, "long-suffering opposition" is a sympathetic, emotive phrase rather than a neutral description.

3 suggestions

Remove or neutralize adjectives that add drama without informational value. For example: "In a predawn operation, US forces detained ousted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and transported him to New York, where he faces charges of..."

Retain necessary factual details (e.g., that he was detained and transported) but avoid unnecessary sensory or cinematic embellishments unless they are directly relevant and sourced.

Replace "long-suffering opposition" with a more factual description, such as "the opposition, which has faced years of political repression and economic crisis" and, if possible, support with brief evidence or references.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Relying heavily on one type of perspective or set of sources without adequately representing other key viewpoints.

The article relies almost entirely on Western think-tank and consultancy analysts (e.g., Bonnie Glaser, Jeremy Chan, Rafael Ch) and US/Western official documents. There are no direct quotes from Chinese officials, Venezuelan officials, US officials defending the operation, or Latin American leaders reacting to the raid. For example: - The characterization of US actions as "rogue behaviour" is presented via an analyst quote, but there is no balancing quote from US officials or legal experts explaining the US legal or political rationale. - China is described as "a law abiding state that never uses military force and doesn’t intervene in other countries’ internal affairs" via a quote, but the article does not juxtapose this with any critical or alternative views (e.g., references to South China Sea militarization or border clashes) that might complicate that self-presentation. - Latin American countries are mentioned as potentially alarmed, but no Latin American voices are quoted.

4 suggestions

Include at least brief responses or perspectives from US officials or legal experts on the justification for the operation against Maduro, or note that such responses were sought but not received.

Balance China’s self-presentation as "law abiding" and non-interventionist with either factual context or alternative expert views, clearly distinguishing between China’s narrative and external assessments.

Incorporate quotes or references from Latin American leaders, regional organizations, or local analysts to reflect how the region itself views both the US action and China’s role.

Explicitly signal when only one side’s narrative is available. For example: "Chinese officials have portrayed their role as strictly non-interventionist; critics, however, point to..."

Narrative fallacy

Imposing a coherent, story-like structure on complex events, suggesting clear intentions and outcomes that may be more uncertain.

The article tends to frame events as parts of a clear, strategic narrative: - "Trump provided something of a blueprint for his view of the region..." followed by the idea of an "updated" Monroe Doctrine and implied geographic division of influence. - "Trump is likely to think that the action against Maduro will signal resolve to the rest of the world and oust Russia and China from LatAm" – this ascribes a unified, strategic intention and expected outcome to a single action, without acknowledging internal US policy debates or the possibility of unintended consequences. - "Beijing might even benefit under a new Venezuelan leadership" – this fits events into a neat story of China’s long game, downplaying uncertainty.

3 suggestions

Use more cautious language about motives and outcomes, and clearly attribute interpretations to specific analysts. For example: "Some analysts argue that Trump may see the action as a way to signal resolve..."

Acknowledge uncertainty and alternative scenarios. For example: "Whether this will in fact reduce Russian and Chinese influence in Latin America remains unclear, as both countries retain significant economic ties to the region."

Avoid implying that complex geopolitical shifts follow a single, coherent script; instead, present them as contested and evolving, with multiple possible trajectories.