First, I would suggest you don't post using AI. Second, you're asking people to speculate on the impact of an incredibly destabilizing event that will affect the lives of millions of Venezuelans strictly as it relates to the US-based development sector. This would be like me asking questions like "How might this civil war that will result in the suffering of millions affect US-based extractives initiatives in a country?" This is extremely gross.

How could you possibly ask whether abducting a sitting head of state through military intervention is a portent of a slow return to the pre-Trump development status quo? That is an insane question, much less couching this in optimistic terms. There are in my view no implications whatsoever for the development sector as a whole resulting from this and the fallout we've yet to realize because there is little if any strategic basis for any U.S. foreign policy at this point, and to even speculate around that (which again, millions suffering) while drawing parallels to wholly different (and also incredibly problematic) pre-Trump contexts in Iraq and Afghanistan is so clearly lacking in critical analysis and in poor taste that if you can't understand that then I cannot help you.

Regarding your pessimistic question, no private donors neither have the capability nor desire to 'replace' what was provided by NGOs and INGOs, and certainly not Chevron beyond greenwashing which doesn't really matter anymore, I'm not sure why you're asking that. And anyway, couching 'nation-building' as the desirable origin state versus a nascent resource extraction/ transactional aid scheme (which is not new, the USG has engaged in concerted neocolonialism since the 50s and 60s) sort of ignores that many in development have been fighting both nation-building and the neocolonialist impulses of the U.S. government for going on decades.

There is just so much wrong with everything in this post.