News on Venezuela frequently appeared here since the 00s so I've followed it earlier than those on the First World. Its collapse wasn't a sudden event because of low oil prices or sanctions, ever since the first years of Chavéz in power there were voices warning that the system he created was doomed to implode. And what makes it sad is that there was no need to build that system in the first place, and the catastrophe was completely preventable. Venezuela was once in line with the rest of the continent. All countries were in their mediocrity, full of flaws but following a standard of normality, some doing better than others. They proceeded to get mostly mediocre leaders and normality remained, with some advancement across the board.
What Venezuela got wasn't mediocrity, the middle of the distribution, but the left end of the distribution of administrative competency -an uniquely inept ruling clique producing a situation far worse than the rest of the continent. If it had gotten mediocre, average leadership it'd be in a similar position to the rest of the continent -normality, not collapse.
And this is also why I'm optimistic about toppling Maduro. Statistically he's already an improbably failed ruler. It is unlikely that any successor will be even worse than him; probably it'd be mediocre. And Venezuela needs mediocrity, because it means converging with Colombia, Peru, Brazil, etc. all of whom are full of issues but in a much better position. Guaidó has already proved himself mediocre. Under his rule the tendency would be to approach the South American average. And that'd be a good thing, because the average South American country isn't under hyperinflation, starvation and mass emigration; Venezuela's natural tendency is to converge to that, and only the rotten ruling caste stops it.