Russia and China’s information operations in Venezuela have been extensively discussed and documented. Their media strategy has involved forming partnerships with ideologically aligned national and regional outlets such as TeleSUR, promoting revisionism and multipolarity through anti-Western narratives (often tapping into anti-colonial sentiments), and helping to suppress dissenting voices.
From its inception during the marea rosa (“pink tide” or “turn to the left”) in 2005, TeleSUR, a state-backed television network currently supported by the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, was envisioned as a pan-Latin American and ideological alternative to major networks like CNN en Español, offering a regional perspective on global affairs. As Venezuela deepened its ties with Russia and China over the following decades and the Venezuelan government became TeleSUR’s primary financial backer, the network evolved into a strategic amplifier of Venezuela and its allies’ preferred geopolitical narratives. Today, its editorial stance excludes pluralistic viewpoints and is closely aligned with Venezuelan state interests while silencing criticism of the authoritarian regimes it seeks to whitewash, such as those in Cuba and Nicaragua. From its headquarters in Caracas, TeleSUR now serves as a vehicle for advancing the influence of Venezuela and its regional and “international patrons”—including Russia, China, and what some describe as the wider “Axis of Upheaval”—across most of Latin America, a worrying development at a time when the United States has significantly drawn back its support for public diplomacy and information integrity initiatives in the region.
Rule 1: Bash the West, Praise the Axis, and Launder Their Propaganda
TeleSUR systematically frames the United States and its European allies as aggressors or destabilizing forces, citing economic sanctions, military expansionism, political interventions, and historical exploitation as evidence of ongoing neo-imperialism. A sentiment analysis of almost 15,000 TeleSUR articles in Spanish from January 2023 to December 2024 reveals a consistent pattern: over 93% of articles flagged as negative (indicating critical discussions or controversies) explicitly mention Western countries or their leaders, reinforcing the notion of illegitimate interference in Latin America. By contrast, China and Russia’s actions, including China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s militarized diplomacy, are seldom scrutinized. Russia’s military operations in Africa, for example, appear in just 25 articles in our dataset, with most of those articles portraying the Wagner Group, the Russian state-funded paramilitary group founded by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin, as a counterterrorist force, while accusing Ukraine of supporting terrorists. In many cases in which sentiment analysis determined articles about Russia or China were negative, those articles were, in fact, critiquing Western criticisms of those countries and their role in a variety of geopolitical conflicts. Iran and its proxies are also often portrayed as anti-American freedom fighters, while accusations of Israeli neocolonialism mask Russia’s and China’s own influencing and controlling strategies.
TeleSUR’s editorial bias extends to its portrayal of world leaders and their countries. Sentiment analysis of the dataset shows that Western entities and figures like former US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron received overwhelmingly negative mentions. In contrast, leaders from Venezuela, Russia, and China received mostly positive mentions. Russia is depicted as a strong ally and is frequently mentioned in the context of diplomatic ties, economic cooperation, and international alliances such as BRICS. The portrayal of Russia avoids heavy criticism, even when addressing the war in Ukraine, and instead emphasizes aid, condolences, and solidarity. China is similarly framed as a key economic partner and diplomatic vigilante, particularly within the multipolar world order and BRICS discussions, framing China’s infrastructure projects in Latin America as altruistic while ignoring their environmental and economic consequences, such as debt dependency. Similarly, TeleSUR often depicts Venezuela’s other sponsors and regional allies in a positive light: it highlights, for example, Cuba’s defiance of US policies and praises Nicaragua’s resistance to Western pressure, while downplaying domestic repression in both countries.
Since 2019, and especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Spanish-language media environment, and TeleSUR in particular, has increasingly echoed the Kremlin’s rhetoric, adopting terms like “special military operation”, advancing narratives of a multipolar world and portraying NATO expansion as a global threat. Additionally, TeleSUR has broadened its global partnerships, forging a notable alliance, alongside state-owned Venezuelan Television (VTV), with TV BRICS, a Russian media agency founded in 2017. Through this collaboration, the three networks engage in content sharing, enabling VTV and TeleSUR to feature TV BRICS programming while reciprocally sharing their own material.
As documented in a recent ASD report, TeleSUR, beyond merely criticizing the West and praising its patrons, also repackages articles directly from Russian and Chinese state media, such as RT, Sputnik, Xinhua, and CGTN, presenting them as independent journalism. Approximately 12–16% of TeleSUR English content is derived from Chinese sources, primarily Xinhua, while roughly 20% of its Spanish-language reporting traces back to Russian outlets such as RT, Sputnik, and TASS. Additionally, the outlet has republished 83 near-verbatim articles in English and Spanish from Chinese state media and more than 70 articles from TV BRICS. This strategic alignment enables Moscow and Beijing to advance their geopolitical goals while leveraging TeleSUR’s credibility in parts of Latin America.
According to Mariví Marín, founder and executive director of a key factchecking organization in Venezuela, ProBox Digital Observatory, a recent case in point was the false information campaign surrounding the detention last January of María Corina Machado, leader of the Venezuelan opposition, which highlighted how Venezuela’s government employs a structured system to create and spread false narratives through Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s spokespeople, state-run media, international media, and seemingly independent but government-aligned outlets. RT en Español, for example, denied the arrest, framing it as an opposition-led strategy, while Sputnik asserted that there was an absence of substantial evidence of her arrest despite the existence of testimonies and video footage. She was indeed arrested for several hours. Similarly, Marín and her team studied other state-backed media coverage and found that ideologically aligned outlets like Iran’s HispanTV and Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen Español also promoted the official narrative, characterizing the incident as a media operation against Maduro’s government. Marín argues that Chinese networks, including Xinhua and CGTN, generally adopt a more cautious approach in their coverage of Venezuela, prioritizing ideological alignment while refraining from overtly false claims.
Rule 2: Use Anti-Colonial Discourse to Mask Neo-Imperialism
Anti-colonial narratives, woven throughout Russia’s and China’s messaging, are a core tenet of TeleSUR’s information strategy, with Western “imperialism” or “colonialism” referenced 346 times in the dataset. While the United States is frequently mentioned in relation to economic policies affecting the region and contemporary geopolitical tensions, European “colonialism” is discussed more often in a historical context, with references to colonial legacies, resource extraction, and social inequalities. Spain, for instance, is mentioned 731 times in the dataset; of those mentions, at least 80 instances relate to Spain’s colonial past in Latin America, with predominantly negative framing especially around key events, such as Spain’s national day in October, which Maduro calls “genocide day”. Maduro also describes Venezuela as bulwark of sorts against the imperial ambitions of the West, linking his government to the fight against “Nazism-Zionism-fascism” and stating, “532 years ago, the fight against colonialism and slavery began, leaving behind a legacy of Nazism and fascism”. Other countries in the region that are aligned with the West are often portrayed as perpetuating structures of the “Old World”. By focusing on demands for historical reparations and condemning foreign interference, TeleSUR conveniently ignores the economic collapse, government corruption, and political repression that Venezuelans face today. It also ignores the hawkish ambitions of its allies. By painting a glowing picture of blocs like BRICS and alliances such as ALBA-TCP, it portrays them as alternatives to “neoliberalism” and Western dominance while glossing over their more troubling aspects—particularly what some have termed Russia and China’s growing neo-colonial influence in Latin America and Africa. This narrative helps prop up Maduro’s regime, masking the fact that Russia and China have used their foothold in the region to advance their geopolitical agendas, from exploiting resources to backing authoritarian governments.
The overlap between anti-colonial and anti-Western rhetoric and foreign information laundering is especially evident in TeleSUR’s treatment of Western humanitarian efforts. Now-suspended US foreign aid programs were routinely criticized as inefficient or as veiled attempts to exert control, while Russian initiatives were portrayed as altruistic and effective endeavors. By amplifying these narratives, TeleSUR not only challenges Western influence but also obscures the exploitative practices of its allies. This pattern has led many of TeleSUR’s former partner countries, including Argentina and Ecuador, to sever ties with the network due to concerns over its lack of journalistic integrity and excessive political bias.
As previously mentioned, Venezuela’s anticolonial messaging mirrors that of Russia’s and China’s government officials and state-backed media, which they weaponize to weaken Western influence in the region and mask their own ambitions. Using ASD’s Hamilton 2.0 Dashboard to analyze state-backed messaging during the studied period, it is clear that Russia is far more active than China in framing Latin America as a frontline in the global anti-neocolonial resistance and part of the BRICS-led, multipolar future. Multiple speeches by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Maria Zakharova speak of Western “neocolonialism” and reference Cuba as a victim of colonial aggression and economic strangulation. The United States is the main target, with Russia accusing Washington of maintaining imperialist control over Latin America through sanctions, economic coercion, regime change efforts, and the use of soft power and “colonial administrations”. Pro-US governments in Latin America, such as Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, or the Dominican Republic are often labelled “puppets” and compared unfavorably with the government of Ukraine.
Chinese messengers mention Latin America less frequently than Russian ones but symbolically include the region within its anti-colonial messaging and references to alliances in the so-called “Global South”. China pushes narratives related to the historical experience of colonialism and ongoing neocolonialism to legitimize its rise and its model of governance, while Russia’s tone is more ideological, emotional, aggressive, and existential, often involving narratives of war, regime change, or moral decline.
Conversely, TeleSUR only mentions Chechnya or Xinjiang (and the Uyghur issue) as misunderstood regions often used by the West as part of alleged information campaigns against China and Russia. Rather than engage critically with the complex human rights concerns surrounding these regions, TeleSUR tends to echo the framing preferred by Moscow and Beijing, casting any scrutiny of their domestic policies as colonial meddling or ideological warfare. This selective reporting serves a dual purpose: reinforcing the anti-Western posture that underpins TeleSUR’s editorial line and normalizing the actions of authoritarian allies under the guise of sovereign resistance to imperialism.
Rule 3: Ensure the Financing of TeleSUR and Choke Critical Voices
TeleSUR lacks transparency regarding its detailed ownership and financial disclosures. This opacity makes it challenging to ascertain the exact proportions of funding each contributing country provides to the network or to identify any additional funding sources. The network continues to rely on financial backing from the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua (Argentina, Uruguay, and Ecuador contributed in some way at the network’s inception, only to abandon the project years later). Due to the direct link between these governments and the network, in January 2025, the US Department of State blocked TeleSUR’s signal from all television sets installed in the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. TeleSUR’s collaborations with international state media outlets have expanded its content reach, but there is no concrete evidence indicating that TeleSUR receives direct financial support from Russia or China. From what is publicly available, these partnerships are centered around content sharing and co-production rather than direct financial assistance, although the latter cannot be entirely ruled out.
Despite its overt ideological leanings, TeleSUR enjoys a level of legitimacy among its audience, one that VTV does not. “It is perceived by some as a somewhat independent international broadcaster rather than state-controlled”, Victor Amaya, a Caracas-based Venezuelan journalist at TalCual, explains. “Unlike VTV, TeleSUR is broadcast on international channels, which makes it harder for audiences to recognize its biases and it gives it a certain prestige.”
Despite the inherent challenges of producing credible journalism for state-controlled outlets, operating as an independent journalist in Venezuela is fraught with difficulties. Many alternative media outlets rely on international cooperation programs for funding, making them vulnerable to external financial pressures. The US Agency for International Development (usually shortened as USAID), the US State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy have experienced severe funding reductions, which will inevitably impact the sustainability of these platforms. Monetization remains a persistent obstacle. Local advertising is virtually nonexistent, as businesses are reluctant to associate with media outlets that the government deems hostile. Subscription-based revenue models are similarly unfeasible due to restrictions on payment systems. As a result, many independent journalists from outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Nacional, La Patilla, or TalCual rely on social media for income, finding that advertising on platforms like Instagram is often more profitable than publishing through their own websites. This challenge will most likely be exacerbated by the Meta’s potential withdrawal of support for fact-checking initiatives outside the United States, further undermining efforts to combat the spread of foreign information manipulation and interference while the distribution network led by TeleSUR and its allies continues to expand unchecked. In addition to financial constraints, independent journalists in Venezuela also face physical threats and the ever-present risk of being shut down by government censors. More than 400 media outlets have been shut down due to censorship, leaving an estimated 21% of the population—millions of people—without access to local media in their regions, forcing them to rely on state-run media. Amaya described this as a form of “informational desertification”, where large segments of the population receive news exclusively from pro-government sources. Alternative digital platforms have emerged as vital sources of independent journalism, but they face significant challenges. The Venezuelan government systematically blocks access to certain news sites through the state’s media control agency, CONATEL. More than 1,000 websites, including at least 60 news outlets, have been restricted just in 2024. The situation is even more dire outside Caracas, where logistical barriers, including fuel shortages, make on-the-ground reporting exceedingly difficult. “Maduro’s strategy is one of ‘communication hegemony’”, Amaya asserts, underscoring the government’s efforts to dominate the information landscape, often with the help of its allies.
According to Mariví Marín, Iran has collaborated with Venezuela in developing advanced monitoring and censorship technologies for digital platforms. It is widely believed that the Venezuelan government has adopted Iranian techniques to restrict access to social media at politically sensitive moment, while the Venezuelan Homeland ID system, created by the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE, enables the government to monitor and manage its population.
Conclusion
TeleSUR has become a central node in a sophisticated web of international information warfare, where ideology, censorship, and geopolitical ambition converge. Originally conceived as a regional alternative to Western media dominance, the network has evolved into a strategic communication tool that amplifies the interests of authoritarian regimes and sanitizes their abuses under the veneer of anti-colonial solidarity. Its alliances with Russia and China, though officially limited to content-sharing, serve broader strategic purposes, helping these powers expand their influence across Latin America by proxy. At the same time, Venezuela’s crackdown on press freedom and its coordinated influence efforts are not just domestic strategies of regime survival. They are also deeply embedded in a wider axis of authoritarian cooperation. As independent media struggles to survive amid financial hardship, repression, and digital censorship, TeleSUR and its partners continue to reshape the region’s information ecosystem: one article, one broadcast, and one “revolutionary” narrative at a time. Unless democracies reinvest in information integrity and regional media resilience, the vacuum left by their retreat will increasingly be filled by state-sponsored propaganda masquerading as journalism, with long-term consequences for the health of democracy in Latin America and beyond.
Peter Benzoni made significant research contributions to this report.
The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the author alone.
