On the night of January 3, the US conducted an unprecedented military operation on Venezuelan territory, as a result of which American special forces captured the country’s incumbent president, Nicolás Maduro, and took him to the US, where he is to stand trial on charges of narco-terrorism and participation in an international drug trafficking network.
What prompted President Trump’s decision to carry out the operation? In official statements, the US leadership has positioned the operation as legitimate and necessary, as Maduro is accused of many years of involvement in international drug trafficking and of sponsoring criminal groups that pose a threat to US national security. Washington has announced that there is an arrest warrant and that Maduro must be brought to justice in the US court system.
However, behind these official statements lies a broader political context. Analysts see the operation as a manifestation of a new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, aimed at restoring American influence in Latin America and demonstrating a determination to strengthen the image of the US as a guarantor of order and security in its “backyard.”
Within American society, the reaction to the operation has been far from unanimous. Polls show deep divisions between its supporters and opponents. A significant portion of the US population considers the operation justified as a fight against crime, but many criticize it as a violation of international law and an uncontrollable escalation of military force.
The world also reacted to the events in Venezuela with deep division. Russia and China issued sharp condemnations. Against the backdrop of statements from Moscow and Beijing, Europe’s criticism appears moderate. France officially called the operation a violation of international law, reminding everyone that only the people of a country can decide their own fate without outside pressure. Some European leaders, including the Spanish prime minister, emphasized the danger of undermining international norms and the dangerous precedent that could affect the stability of the collective security system.
In Latin America itself, the reaction was mixed. Some right-wing governments welcomed the removal of the “dictator,” while others, especially Cuba, condemned the operation as an act of American imperialism and a threat to regional independence.
This polarity of assessments only underscores the tension in the modern world between protecting sovereignty and attempts to deal with transnational threats, with each side interpreting US actions through the prism of its own interests.
How might relations between the US and Venezuela develop? In the short term, the White House has announced that the US does not intend to manage Venezuela “on a day-to-day basis” in order to promote democratic reforms, but at the same time intends to exercise control over its major resources, especially oil production. However, the Americans currently have no clear, coordinated plan for restoring stability in the country after the operation.
In Venezuela itself, the situation has sharply deteriorated since the capture of Nicolas Maduro. The authorities declared a state of emergency throughout the country, officially calling the US actions “an act of military aggression” and “the kidnapping of a legally elected president.” Representatives of the government and the ruling Socialist Party stated that Maduro remains the legitimate head of state and that his removal to the US is a gross violation of international law. The military and political leadership called for mobilization and promised to “defend the sovereignty and independence of the country,” while tightening control over the media, strategic facilities, and transportation infrastructure.
The reaction of Venezuelan society was deeply polarized. Spontaneous demonstrations and rallies took place in Caracas and a number of other large cities, with some citizens chanting slogans against foreign intervention, viewing what had happened as an affront to national dignity, while others expressed cautious hope for political change after years of crisis. There were no mass celebrations. An atmosphere of uncertainty and fear of possible violence and economic consequences prevented many from speaking out openly.
At the same time, the risk of internal conflict remains. Maduro’s supporters, as well as some army and security forces, remain active and declare their readiness to resist. With the central government weakened, this could lead to a prolonged political vacuum, an increase in street violence, and the growing influence of armed and criminal groups, making the internal situation in Venezuela one of the key factors of instability in the region.
The operation in Venezuela has also been a test for the global order, demonstrating the superpower’s willingness to engage in direct military intervention to combat crime, without the sanction of the UN or intergovernmental organizations.
At the same time, the operation contributes to deepening geopolitical divisions. A few countries in the Global South, perceiving what has happened as a manifestation of neo-imperialism, are objectively moving closer to Russia and China, which intensifies the confrontation with the West.
Finally, the economic dimension of the crisis cannot be ignored. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, and any sudden political changes in the country will inevitably affect global energy markets.
Undoubtedly, the US military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro was the biggest international political event of early 2026. It was an episode that divided the world into supporters of a tough approach to regimes that Washington considers a threat and those who see this as a violation of international norms and a dangerous precedent for sovereign states. The consequences of this operation will continue to be felt for a long time to come, both in future relations between the US and Venezuela and in the state of world politics, especially in the context of European diplomacy and the global security system.