Operation Absolute Resolve and the Capture of President Nicolás Maduro: A Comprehensive Geostrategic Analysis

Executive Summary

On January 3, 2026, the United States executed Operation Absolute Resolve, a large-scale military intervention in Venezuela resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. This unprecedented action—the most significant U.S. military operation in Latin America since the 1989 Panama invasion—presents profound challenges to the international rules-based order and creates immediate policy dilemmas for G7 partners. This analysis examines the operation's strategic implications, legal foundations, regional ramifications, and policy scenarios facing Western democracies.

I. Historical Context: The Trajectory of U.S.-Venezuela Relations

A. Ideological Foundations of Conflict (1999-2026)

The current crisis represents the culmination of a twenty-seven-year trajectory of escalating hostility initiated with Hugo Chávez's inauguration in 1999. Three primary factors have driven this antagonism:

1. Ideological Divergence and the Bolivarian Revolution

Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution" fundamentally reoriented Venezuela from a reliable U.S. hemispheric partner to the vanguard of regional anti-imperialism. The 2002 coup attempt, which Chávez and later Maduro attributed to Washington orchestration, established a foundation of institutional distrust that permeated all subsequent bilateral relations. This ideological rupture extended beyond rhetoric to substantive policy realignments, including Venezuela's leadership role in ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) and active opposition to U.S.-backed trade agreements.

2. Energy Sovereignty and Resource Nationalism

The 2007 nationalization of oil assets, expelling ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, transformed Venezuela's energy sector from an integrated component of U.S. supply chains into a geopolitical instrument. Venezuela strategically leveraged its vast petroleum reserves to cultivate relationships with U.S. rivals—Russia, China, and Iran—creating alternative spheres of economic and political influence. This energy diplomacy provided the Maduro regime with crucial economic lifelines as Western sanctions intensified, particularly through Chinese infrastructure investments and Russian military cooperation.

3. The Criminalization Framework

Over the past decade, U.S. policy evolved from viewing Venezuela as merely a political adversary to framing it as a "narco-state" or "mafia state." The March 2020 indictments charging Maduro with narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and weapons charges provided the legal scaffolding for eventual military action. The disputed July 2024 presidential election, widely condemned by international observers as fraudulent, supplied additional moral and political justification. The Trump administration's designation of both the "Cartel of the Suns" and Tren de Aragua gang as terrorist organizations in late 2025 further criminalized the Venezuelan state apparatus.

B. Escalation Timeline (2025-2026)

August 2025: U.S. military buildup begins in the southern Caribbean with deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group.

September 2025: Operation Southern Spear launches, targeting alleged drug-trafficking vessels. Over 115 individuals killed in 35 maritime interdiction operations by early January 2026.

November 2025: U.S. formally designates the Cartel of the Suns as an international terrorist organization, directly implicating Maduro's government.

December 10-20, 2025: U.S. forces seize oil tankers Skipper and Centuries off Venezuelan waters; Trump announces naval quarantine of sanctioned vessels.

December 21, 2025: Iran-linked tanker Bella 1 evades U.S. Coast Guard interception, triggering week-long pursuit. Crew eventually paints Russian flag on vessel's hull.

December 29, 2025: CIA conducts first acknowledged land-based strike against Venezuelan dock facility allegedly used for narcotics operations.

January 2, 2026, 11:00 PM: President Trump authorizes Operation Absolute Resolve after months of planning and rehearsal.

January 3, 2026, 2:00 AM VET: U.S. forces launch coordinated air and ground assault on Caracas and surrounding military installations.

II. Operational Analysis: The Capture of Nicolás Maduro

A. Military Execution

Operation Absolute Resolve was executed as a high-intensity, precision decapitation strike employing approximately 150 aircraft drawn from the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The force package combined stealth, electronic warfare, strategic strike, rotary-wing insertion, and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, indicating a deliberately layered operational design.

Assets reportedly deployed included F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters to ensure air dominance and penetration; F/A-18 Hornet and EA-18G Growler platforms to suppress and degrade Venezuelan air defenses and communications; B-1 Lancer strategic bombers to deliver precision strikes against hardened or high-value targets; CH-47 Chinook and AH-64 Apache helicopters to support insertion, extraction, and close air support; and RQ-170 Sentinel and other unmanned aerial vehicles to provide real-time ISR and battle-damage assessment.

At least seven major explosions were reported across Caracas and adjacent strategic nodes, targeting both military and critical infrastructure installations. These included Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s largest military complex; La Guaira port, excluding petroleum infrastructure; multiple telecommunications hubs; the legislative assembly building; and several Bolivarian National Armed Forces (Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana - FANB) bases. The targeting pattern suggests an intent to temporarily disorient command, control, and communications rather than to initiate broad-based infrastructure destruction.

Elite Delta Force operators reportedly extracted Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores from their residence during the early morning hours. President Trump later stated that U.S. personnel sustained bullet and shrapnel wounds when rotary-wing aircraft encountered ground fire during extraction, though no fatalities were reported. The success of the mission—despite operating in the heart of the capital—points either to exceptional operational security and intelligence dominance, or to insider facilitation, particularly given the existence of a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s capture.

B. Strategic Characterization: Decapitation Without Regime Change

The operation constitutes a classic leadership decapitation strategy, removing the head of the executive while leaving the broader state and security apparatus largely intact. Unlike regime-change operations that dismantle institutions, this approach deliberately preserves structural continuity, producing a governance vacuum rather than systemic collapse. This outcome carries several critical strategic implications.

1. Power Structure Continuity

Despite Maduro’s removal, the regime’s core power brokers remain operational and embedded within state institutions. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López continues to command the loyalty structures of the FANB. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez promptly declared herself acting president and publicly demanded Maduro’s immediate release, signaling institutional defiance rather than acquiescence. Diosdado Cabello, as Minister of Interior, retains control over internal security and hardline enforcement mechanisms, while Jorge Rodríguez, as president of the National Assembly, continues to dominate legislative procedures and political messaging. Collectively, these actors preserve regime coherence in the absence of its central figure.

2. Institutional Ambiguity

The Venezuelan state apparatus demonstrated notable resilience. The National Defense Council convened within hours of the operation, and Vice President Rodríguez asserted continuity of constitutional governance. This rapid institutional response complicates U.S. transition objectives by blurring the legal and political status of authority within Venezuela. Rather than triggering immediate regime collapse, the operation has prolonged strategic ambiguity, delaying clarity over sovereignty, legitimacy, and succession.

3. FANB Cohesion Assessment

The ultimate strategic outcome hinges on the behavior of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces. Several factors weigh heavily on FANB cohesion. Senior officers retain substantial economic interests, controlling extensive commercial networks and state-linked enterprises. Many face direct exposure to U.S. indictments, increasing their incentive to resist a transition that could result in extradition or prosecution. Institutionally, the military continues to view itself as the historic guarantor of the Bolivarian Revolution, a self-image reinforced by decades of politicization. Moreover, perceptions of foreign aggression may strengthen nationalist solidarity rather than induce fragmentation.

Early indicators suggest that the FANB has not fractured in response to the operation. Defense Minister Padrino López publicly condemned the action and reaffirmed military loyalty to the constitutional order, signaling that—at least in the immediate aftermath—the decapitation strike has not translated into institutional defection or collapse.

III. Immediate Geopolitical Ramifications

A. Regional Stability Crisis

1. Migration Pressures

The immediate regional response underscores acute concern over renewed displacement. Colombian President Gustavo Petro ordered the deployment of security forces along the Venezuelan border in anticipation of a potential refugee surge. Colombia already hosts the largest Venezuelan diaspora, a burden that has strained social services, labor markets, and border security.

Since 2014, more than 7.7 million Venezuelans—approximately 20 percent of the national population—have fled the country, primarily to neighboring Latin American states. The removal of Nicolás Maduro, absent a rapid and credible stabilization framework, risks triggering a secondary migration wave, particularly if violence escalates or essential services deteriorate. Such an outcome would compound regional instability at a moment when host countries are already experiencing economic slowdown and domestic political pressure.

2. Internal Conflict Scenarios

Several plausible post-operation trajectories threaten Venezuela’s internal stability, each carrying distinct regional implications.

Scenario A: Civil Authority Collapse

In this pathway, competing power centers emerge between civilian Chavista factions—primarily aligned with Delcy Rodríguez—and the security apparatus dominated by Diosdado Cabello and Vladimir Padrino López. Pro-government colectivos resist any U.S.-backed transition, while opposition actors attempt to assert authority without reliable military backing. The result is fragmented governance, localized violence, and accelerated humanitarian deterioration.

Scenario B: Negotiated Transition

Under this scenario, FANB leadership engages Washington in immunity or security-guarantee negotiations. Edmundo González Urrutia returns from exile in Spain, and a transitional government is established under international supervision. While politically complex and slow-moving, this pathway offers the greatest potential for de-escalation and institutional continuity.

Scenario C: Protracted Resistance

Here, the FANB maintains cohesion and frames the operation as an act of imperial aggression. Venezuela becomes a theater for asymmetric and irregular warfare, with regional or extra-regional actors providing material or logistical support to resistance forces. This outcome would significantly raise the costs of U.S. involvement and destabilize neighboring states.

Scenario D: De Facto U.S. Administration

President Trump’s stated intention to “run the country” until a “proper transition” materializes into a prolonged occupation. U.S. administrators assume control over oil production and key governance functions, while Venezuelan sovereignty is effectively suspended. International legitimacy erodes sharply, and the intervention becomes a defining flashpoint in hemispheric politics.

B. Energy Market Implications

President Trump announced that U.S. companies would invest billions of dollars to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, presenting the intervention as a potential turning point for global energy markets. However, this optimistic narrative confronts substantial structural and temporal constraints.

Current Production Capacity

Venezuela currently produces approximately 1 million barrels per day, representing roughly 0.8 percent of global output. This figure contrasts sharply with peak production of 3.5 million barrels per day prior to 2013, despite the country possessing 303 billion barrels in proven reserves—the largest in the world.

Infrastructure Degradation

The state oil company PDVSA has acknowledged that much of its pipeline network has not been meaningfully modernized in over five decades. Estimated reconstruction costs exceed $58 billion, with credible assessments placing the timeline to restore peak production at five to ten years at minimum, even under optimal political and security conditions.

Market Response

Oil futures initially priced in a $8–12 per barrel geopolitical risk premium during the December escalation. Nevertheless, near-term supply disruptions remain limited due to Venezuela’s degraded output and the availability of compensatory production from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and U.S. shale producers.

Critical Dependencies

Venezuelan crude is predominantly heavy and sour, requiring specialized refining capacity. Historically, U.S. Gulf Coast refineries processed this crude for diesel, asphalt, and industrial fuels. Sanctions-era disruptions forced these refineries to pivot toward alternative heavy crude sources, notably from Canada and Mexico, reducing immediate U.S. dependence on Venezuelan supply and further delaying Venezuela’s market reintegration.

C. Opposition Dynamics

Despite Maduro’s removal, the Venezuelan opposition faces profound structural and political constraints that limit its ability to consolidate power.

Leadership Fragmentation

María Corina Machado remains the most popular opposition figure domestically but is currently in hiding within Venezuela. President Trump publicly stated that she lacks sufficient “support or respect” to govern, signaling U.S. skepticism regarding her viability.
Edmundo González Urrutia, exiled in Spain and recognized by several governments as the legitimate winner of the 2024 election, suffers from limited domestic organizational capacity.
Juan Guaidó, interim president from 2019 to 2023, retains little political credibility following multiple failed transition efforts.

Institutional Weakness

The opposition controls virtually no state institutions, lacks coercive capacity, and possesses limited administrative infrastructure. Absent cooperation from the FANB or substantial international governance support, opposition actors remain unable to assert effective authority across Venezuelan territory. This structural weakness severely constrains post-Maduro transition prospects and reinforces the likelihood of prolonged instability..

IV. The "Trump Doctrine": Redefining Hemispheric Order

A. Articulation of New Strategic Framework

The operation operationalizes what administration officials have termed the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in the 2025 National Security Strategy. This framework advances several revolutionary propositions:

1. Conditional Sovereignty

The doctrine asserts that state sovereignty is conditional upon leadership compliance with U.S.-defined standards regarding:

Counter-narcotics cooperation
Migration control
Democratic governance norms
Protection of U.S. economic interests

This represents a fundamental departure from Westphalian principles of absolute sovereignty, establishing a hierarchy of legitimacy determined unilaterally by the United States.

2. Criminal Law Enforcement as Warfare Justification

By framing Maduro's government as the "Cartel of the Suns"—a criminal enterprise rather than a political entity—the administration circumvents traditional constraints on military force against sovereign states. This "mafia state" framing transforms counter-narcotics operations into legitimate military objectives, blurring distinctions between law enforcement and warfare.

3. Hemispheric Priority Zone

Trump stated the U.S. would maintain presence in Venezuela and was prepared to stage "a second and much larger attack if we need to do so", signaling the Western Hemisphere as a zone of exclusive U.S. influence. This geographic prioritization implies potential withdrawal from security commitments in Europe, Middle East, and Indo-Pacific theaters.

B. Legal Architecture: The SDNY Prosecution Strategy

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Maduro and Flores face trial in the Southern District of New York on charges including:

Conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism
Cocaine importation conspiracy (allegedly 250 metric tons annually)
Possession of weapons and destructive devices
Conspiracy to use and carry machine guns and destructive devices

The prosecution strategy employs three principal legal mechanisms:

1. Non-Recognition Doctrine

Following the precedent established in United States v. Noriega (1990), the DOJ argues Maduro lacks sovereign immunity because the United States does not recognize him as Venezuela's legitimate president. The Executive Branch's recognition authority, prosecutors contend, determines immunity eligibility—making immunity a privilege rather than an inherent right.

This argument faces significant challenges:

Recognition is typically extended to states, not individual leaders
Non-recognition does not eliminate customary international law protections
Precedent involves post-facto legitimacy determinations, not prospective military action

2. Act of State Doctrine Circumvention

By characterizing Venezuelan government operations as "private criminal enterprise" rather than "official acts of state," prosecutors seek to bypass the act of state doctrine, which typically shields foreign governmental actions from U.S. judicial scrutiny. The indictment portrays cocaine trafficking as undertaken for personal enrichment rather than governmental purposes.

3. Effects Doctrine for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

The prosecution invokes the "effects doctrine," arguing that while alleged crimes occurred in Venezuela, intended effects—specifically, drug epidemic impacts and threats to U.S. communities—occurred on American soil, granting federal courts jurisdiction. This expansive interpretation of territorial jurisdiction could theoretically encompass nearly any foreign action with downstream U.S. consequences.

V. International Legal Assessment

A. United Nations Charter Violations

The operation appears to violate multiple UN Charter provisions:

Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Article 51: Permits use of force only in self-defense against armed attack until Security Council action is taken. The U.S. has not claimed self-defense, nor has Venezuela conducted armed attacks against U.S. territory.

Chapter VII Authority: The Security Council alone may authorize military force for international peace and security threats. No such authorization exists for Venezuelan operations.

B. Customary International Law Principles

The operation contravenes established customary international law:

1. Prohibition on Use of Force (Jus ad Bellum)

The International Court of Justice has consistently held that use of force is permissible only in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Counter-narcotics objectives, humanitarian concerns, and democracy promotion do not constitute legal justifications under contemporary international law.

2. Head of State Immunity

Customary international law recognizes absolute immunity for sitting heads of state from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The International Court of Justice affirmed this principle in Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), holding that even allegations of grave crimes do not eliminate immunity ratione personae while officials hold office.

3. Prohibition on Intervention

The principle of non-intervention, affirmed in Nicaragua v. United States (1986), prohibits states from intervening in matters within domestic jurisdiction of other states. Regime change operations constitute quintessential violations of this principle.

C. Precedential Implications

The operation establishes several dangerous precedents:

1. Unilateral Military Enforcement of Domestic Law

If accepted, the operation legitimizes any state's use of military force to enforce its domestic criminal law against foreign officials, potentially including:

Russian operations against Ukrainian leaders for alleged "war crimes"
Chinese actions against Taiwanese officials for "separatism"
Iranian strikes against opposition leaders for "terrorism"

2. Erosion of Head of State Immunity

The successful capture and prosecution of a sitting head of state undermines diplomatic immunity structures protecting international engagement. Leaders may become increasingly reluctant to travel internationally or engage in diplomatic negotiations if subject to forcible apprehension.

3. Might-Makes-Right International Order

Brazilian President Lula stated the action evoked "the worst moments of interference" in Latin America, referencing Cold War-era U.S. interventionism. The operation signals that powerful states can disregard international law when interests align, fundamentally challenging post-1945 multilateral order.

VI. Global Reactions: The Fracturing of International Consensus

A. Latin American Responses

Regional reactions reflect deep ideological and historical fault lines:

Strong Condemnation (Left-Leaning Governments):

Brazilian President Lula condemned the strikes as crossing "an unacceptable line," stating they represent "a grave affront to Venezuela's sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community". Lula called for vigorous UN response while offering Brazilian mediation services.

Colombian President Petro condemned the operation, writing "The Government of Colombia rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America," and asserted "Internal conflicts between peoples are resolved by those same peoples in peace". Colombia simultaneously deployed military forces to the Venezuelan border, anticipating refugee flows.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the military intervention, citing UN Charter Article 2 prohibiting use of force against territorial integrity of states. Mexico offered mediation services while emphatically rejecting unilateral military action.

Measured Criticism:

Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned U.S. actions, stating "Chile reaffirms its commitment to basic principles of International Law, such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and the territorial integrity of States". However, incoming President-elect José Antonio Kast welcomed Maduro's removal, reflecting Chile's political divisions.

Enthusiastic Support:

Argentine President Javier Milei praised Trump, declaring "Freedom advances, long live freedom, damn it," his trademark slogan. Milei has positioned himself as Trump's strongest Latin American ally, having collaborated on efforts to secure release of political prisoners held in Argentine embassy in Caracas.

B. European Union and G7 Responses

European reactions reveal profound discomfort with operational legality despite agreement on Maduro's illegitimacy:

EU Institutional Position:

EU High Representative Kaja Kallas stated "The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected". This formulation acknowledges Venezuelan governance crisis while refusing to endorse military intervention as resolution mechanism.

France:

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated "The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law. France reiterates that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside". France's position reflects concern about Security Council permanent members violating core Charter principles, potentially including French and British interventions.

Germany:

Prominent CDU member Roderich Kiesewetter called the U.S. attack a "coup," stating "With President Trump, the U.S. are abandoning the rules-based order that has shaped us since 1945". German official statements emphasized monitoring citizen safety while avoiding direct condemnation of Washington.

United Kingdom:

Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated Britain was not involved in operations and wanted to establish facts before firm statements, while emphasizing "we should all uphold international law". UK response reflects desire to maintain special relationship with Washington while preserving international law commitments.

Spain:

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote "Spain did not recognize the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence". Spain, hosting exiled opposition leader González, faces particular pressure to support democratic transition while condemning intervention methods.

C. Adversarial Reactions

Russia:

Russia's Foreign Ministry called the operation "an act of armed aggression against Venezuela," expressing "deep concern" but offering diplomatic mediation. Moscow's measured response reflects preoccupation with Ukraine conflict and reluctance to escalate tensions with Washington over peripheral interests.

China:

China's Foreign Ministry stated it was "deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the U.S. against a sovereign country," calling it "hegemonic behaviour" that "seriously violates international law" and "threatens peace and security in Latin America". Chinese condemnation serves dual purposes: defending sovereignty principles Beijing invokes regarding Taiwan while protecting substantial Venezuelan investment interests.

Iran:

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared the U.S. is "arrogantly trying to impose something on the country, on the officials, on the government, and on the nation" of Venezuela. Iran's response comes amid intensifying domestic protests and U.S. threats of military action, making Venezuelan events particularly resonant.

D. United Nations Response

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep alarm, stating the action "sets a dangerous precedent" and emphasizing "the importance of full respect—by all—of international law, including the UN Charter". Venezuela has called for emergency Security Council meeting, though U.S. veto power will block substantive Council action. The General Assembly may consider resolution condemning intervention, potentially isolating Washington diplomatically.

VII. Energy Security Analysis: The Oil Dimension

A. Venezuelan Petroleum Endowment

Venezuela possesses proven reserves of 303 billion barrels—approximately 20% of global reserves and the largest national endowment worldwide. However, this resource potential vastly exceeds actual production capacity:

Historical Production Trajectory:

1998 (Pre-Chávez): 3.5 million barrels/day
2013 (Maduro assumes power): 2.5 million barrels/day
2026 (Current): ~1.0 million barrels/day

This 70% production decline reflects:

Underinvestment in maintenance and technology
Skilled workforce emigration
Corruption and mismanagement
International sanctions limiting technology access
Criminalization of state oil company operations

B. Infrastructure Requirements

PDVSA reports its pipelines haven't been updated in 50 years, with estimated reconstruction costs of $58 billion to return to peak production levels. Specific infrastructure challenges include:

Upstream (Extraction):

Aging wellheads requiring replacement
Deteriorated pumping stations
Corroded gathering systems
Limited enhanced oil recovery capabilities

Midstream (Processing):

Obsolete upgraders for heavy crude processing
Insufficient storage capacity
Degraded pipeline networks
Limited water treatment facilities

Downstream (Export):

Port infrastructure damage (La Guaira reportedly severely damaged in operation)
Inadequate tanker loading facilities
Limited refined product capacity

C. Market Integration Scenarios

Scenario 1: Rapid Reconstruction (Optimistic)

Assumes rapid FANB accommodation, minimal civil conflict
Major oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips) resume operations within 6-12 months
Production increases 500,000 barrels/day within 2 years
Reaches 2.0 million barrels/day within 5 years
Market Impact: Modest downward pressure on oil prices ($5-8/barrel reduction)

Scenario 2: Protracted Reconstruction (Moderate)

Extended political uncertainty delays major investments
Security concerns limit expatriate workforce deployment
Production increases 200,000 barrels/day within 2 years
Reaches 1.5 million barrels/day within 7-10 years
Market Impact: Minimal near-term effect, modest long-term supply addition

Scenario 3: Failed State (Pessimistic)

Internal conflict disrupts existing production
Sabotage by pro-Maduro forces damages infrastructure
Production declines below 500,000 barrels/day
International companies refuse operations due to security/legal risks
Market Impact: Short-term price spike ($15-25/barrel), compensated by other producers

D. Geopolitical Energy Implications

1. Chinese Investment Exposure

China has invested an estimated $50-60 billion in Venezuelan oil sector since 2007, primarily through:

Oil-for-loan agreements (Venezuela owes $15-20 billion)
Joint venture operations in Orinoco Belt
Equipment and technology transfers
Refinery construction projects

U.S. control of Venezuelan oil sector threatens Chinese energy security investments and loan recovery, potentially escalating U.S.-China tensions over Latin American influence.

2. Russian Military Presence

Russia maintains military cooperation agreements with Venezuela, including:

Periodic deployment of strategic bombers to Venezuelan bases
Naval port visits by Russian warships
Military equipment sales and training programs
Joint military exercises

U.S. administration of Venezuela would presumably terminate these arrangements, eliminating Russian military presence in Western Hemisphere.

3. OPEC+ Dynamics

Venezuela remains OPEC member despite production collapse. U.S. control over Venezuelan production policy could:

Undermine OPEC production coordination
Reduce Saudi/Russian influence over global supply management
Alter geopolitical balance within organization
Potentially trigger Venezuelan OPEC withdrawal

VIII. Scenario Analysis: Pathways Forward

A. Scenario Matrix: Strategic Pathways and Probabilities

Four plausible pathways emerge from the current Venezuelan crisis, each defined by the interaction between the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB), opposition cohesion, international responses, oil sector trajectories, and humanitarian consequences.

A rapid democratic transition, assessed at a 15 percent probability, would involve a relatively swift accommodation by FANB leadership, high opposition cohesion, and reluctant international acceptance of a U.S.-facilitated political exit. Under this scenario, oil production would recover rapidly, humanitarian impacts would be comparatively limited, and regional tensions would ease—though at the cost of quietly setting aside certain international legal violations through transitional justice mechanisms.

A negotiated settlement, carrying a 30 percent probability, reflects a more incremental and politically complex pathway. Here, the FANB would engage in conditional cooperation, the opposition would remain moderately cohesive, and the international community—primarily through the United Nations and regional intermediaries—would facilitate a compromise-based transition. Oil production would recover gradually, humanitarian pressures would remain significant but manageable, and Venezuela would likely emerge with a hybrid political system rather than a clean democratic rupture.

The most likely outcome, with an estimated 35 percent probability, is the emergence of a de facto U.S. protectorate. In this scenario, FANB resistance remains passive, opposition forces prove fragmented and administratively weak, and international condemnation remains largely rhetorical. Oil production would recover slowly under U.S. or U.S.-aligned management, but humanitarian impacts would be severe, and Venezuela’s sovereignty would be functionally subordinated to U.S. strategic control.

Finally, a civil conflict and state collapse scenario, assessed at 20 percent probability, would be driven by FANB fragmentation, armed resistance by colectivos and pro-regime militias, and competing external interventions. Oil production would collapse entirely, humanitarian suffering would reach catastrophic levels, and regional instability would intensify—likely compelling multilateral intervention and leaving the United States trapped in a prolonged strategic quagmire.

B. Detailed Scenario Analysis

G7 European members face an acute policy dilemma: how to maintain alliance cohesion with Washington while upholding commitment to international legal order. This tension manifests across multiple dimensions:

1. Values vs. Interests Calculation

European nations have consistently condemned Maduro's authoritarian governance and election fraud. The disputed July 2024 election prompted EU to refuse recognizing Maduro's claimed victory. However, agreement on ends (Maduro's illegitimacy) does not extend to means (unilateral military intervention).

This creates uncomfortable position where European capitals:

Agree with U.S. assessment of Maduro's illegitimacy
Support Venezuelan democratic opposition
Cannot endorse violation of fundamental international law principles
Risk alienating Washington through criticism of operational methods

2. Precedent Concerns

European leaders recognize that acquiescence to Venezuelan intervention establishes precedents applicable to European security environment:

Russia-Ukraine Parallel: Moscow consistently frames Ukrainian government as illegitimate "Nazi regime" justifying military intervention—precisely the legitimacy-based justification Washington now employs
NATO Unity Implications: European criticism of U.S. unilateralism may embolden Trump administration to question NATO Article 5 commitments or pursue European force withdrawal
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Acceptance of U.S. extraterritorial criminal enforcement could legitimize similar claims by adversarial powers

3. Economic Considerations

European energy security interests add complexity:

Venezuelan oil could provide diversification from Middle Eastern and Russian sources
U.S. control of Venezuelan production may preference American companies over European competitors
Reconstruction contracts worth tens of billions may favor U.S. firms
European companies (Repsol, Eni, Total) have existing Venezuelan investments at risk

B. Strategic Options for G7 ResponseOption 1: Collective Condemnation (Principled Stance)

Description: G7 issues joint statement condemning military intervention as violation of UN Charter while acknowledging Venezuelan governance crisis requires resolution.

Advantages:

Preserves international legal principles
Demonstrates G7 commitment to rules-based order
Provides moral leadership to global community
Establishes clear red lines regarding unilateral force

Disadvantages:

Potentially damages transatlantic relations at critical juncture
Undermines alliance unity visible to adversaries
May embolden authoritarian regimes to resist U.S. pressure
Provides propaganda victory to Russia, China, Iran

Implementation Requirements:

Unanimous G7 agreement on language
Coordination with broader UN membership
Complementary proposal for multilateral Venezuelan resolution mechanism
Private diplomatic engagement with Washington to manage alliance damage

Option 2: Qualified Acceptance (Pragmatic Stance)

Description: G7 refrains from condemning intervention, emphasizes support for Venezuelan democratic transition, calls for rapid handover to legitimate Venezuelan authorities.

Advantages:

Maintains alliance cohesion with United States
Avoids direct confrontation with Trump administration
Provides operational flexibility for transition support
Allows European participation in reconstruction efforts

Disadvantages:

Abandons international legal principles for expediency
Establishes dangerous precedent for future interventions
Undermines G7 credibility as defender of rules-based order
May encourage further U.S. unilateral actions

Implementation Requirements:

Coordinated G7 messaging emphasizing transition support
Robust monitoring of human rights and democratic process
Substantial financial commitments to reconstruction
Clear timeline expectations for U.S. withdrawal

Option 3: Conditional Engagement (Hybrid Approach)

Description: G7 expresses reservations about intervention methods while committing to support for legitimate democratic transition process. Conditions continued support on adherence to democratic principles and phased transition timeline.

Advantages:

Balances principled concerns with practical alliance management
Provides leverage over transition process implementation
Maintains G7 unity while preserving legal concerns
Creates framework for multilateral involvement

Disadvantages:

May satisfy neither principled nor pragmatic constituencies
Risks appearing inconsistent or hypocritical
Provides limited actual leverage over U.S. actions
Could be exploited by adversaries as Western weakness

Implementation Requirements:

Detailed conditions for G7 support (democratic timeline, human rights protections, multilateral transition process)
Coordination mechanism for monitoring compliance
Financial commitments contingent on condition fulfillment
Regular G7 reviews of Venezuelan situation

Option 4: Active Mediation (Leadership Stance)

Description: G7 proposes and actively facilitates multilateral transition mechanism under UN or OAS auspices, offering substantial reconstruction financing in exchange for international supervision.

Advantages:

Transforms crisis into opportunity for constructive engagement
Provides face-saving mechanism for all parties
Demonstrates G7 problem-solving capacity
Could establish model for future intervention resolution

Disadvantages:

Requires U.S. acceptance of multilateral constraints
May be rejected by all Venezuelan factions
Demands substantial G7 financial and political commitments
Timeline uncertainty could prolong crisis

Implementation Requirements:

Major diplomatic initiative requiring G7 unity and resources
$20-30 billion reconstruction fund
UN Security Council resolution (requiring Russian/Chinese acquiescence)
Detailed transition roadmap with buy-in from Venezuelan stakeholders
Long-term G7 commitment (5-10 years)

C. Sector-Specific Policy Considerations

1. Energy Policy Coordination

G7 should develop coordinated approach to Venezuelan oil sector reconstruction:

Immediate Actions:

Assess global oil market stability and strategic reserve utilization needs
Coordinate with OPEC+ to prevent market disruption
Evaluate energy security implications of U.S.-controlled Venezuelan production

Medium-Term Strategy:

Negotiate framework for international company participation in reconstruction
Establish transparency standards for Venezuelan oil revenue management
Ensure European energy company equitable access to opportunities

Long-Term Planning:

Integrate Venezuelan production into diversified energy security strategy
Support transition to sustainable energy sources in Venezuela
Address climate implications of major fossil fuel production expansion

2. Migration and Humanitarian Response

Potential migration crisis requires coordinated G7 response:

Immediate Measures:

Increase humanitarian assistance to Colombia, Brazil, other receiving countries
Coordinate with UNHCR for potential emergency response
Establish monitoring systems for displacement patterns

Contingency Planning:

Develop refugee resettlement frameworks if crisis escalates
Coordinate with Latin American partners on regional response
Prepare humanitarian corridors and assistance programs

3. Reconstruction Financing Architecture

If transition proceeds, massive reconstruction needs will require coordinated financing:

Institutional Framework:

Establish multilateral reconstruction fund (Venezuela Recovery Fund)
Coordinate World Bank, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank engagement
Ensure conditionality requirements include democratic governance, anti-corruption measures

Resource Commitments:

G7 collective commitment of $15-25 billion over 5 years
Private sector investment mobilization through risk guarantees
Debt relief coordination for Venezuelan obligations

4. Rule of Law and Accountability

G7 must address accountability for crimes committed during Maduro era and intervention:

Justice Mechanisms:

Support for Venezuelan truth and reconciliation process
Coordination with International Criminal Court on jurisdiction issues
Establishment of hybrid tribunal for serious international crimes

Immunity and Amnesty:

Framework for transitional justice balancing accountability and stability
Clear limitations on immunity for grave international crimes
Support for Venezuelan judicial system reconstruction

X. The "Putinization" Question: Comparative Analysis

A. Conceptual Framework

Critics characterize Operation Absolute Resolve as "Putinization" of U.S. foreign policy—employing military force unilaterally to resolve internal political disputes of neighboring states based on legitimacy claims. This comparison warrants careful examination:

Similarities to Russian Actions in Ukraine:

Legitimacy-Based Justification: Both interventions claim to address illegitimate governance (Maduro's election fraud vs. alleged Ukrainian "Nazi regime")
Unilateral Action: Both bypass multilateral institutions (UN Security Council) in favor of unilateral military force
Sphere of Influence Logic: Both assert special rights within claimed spheres (Western Hemisphere vs. former Soviet space)
Criminal Framing: Both employ criminal law rhetoric (narco-terrorism vs. genocide accusations) to justify military action
Fait Accompli Strategy: Both present international community with completed military facts requiring accommodation

Critical Differences:

Scale of Force: Venezuelan operation more limited than Russian full-scale invasion; decapitation vs. occupation strategy
Territorial Ambitions: U.S. claims no annexation intent; Russia has annexed Ukrainian territories
Nature of Threat: Narcotic trafficking presents genuine (if exaggerated) U.S. security concern; Ukrainian "threat" to Russia partially fabricated
Regime Character: Maduro's authoritarian governance and election fraud internationally recognized; Ukraine's democratic credentials well-established
International Consensus: Broader (though not universal) agreement on Maduro's illegitimacy; near-universal recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty
Historical Context: U.S. intervention follows decade of sanctions escalation; Russian invasion followed eight years of hybrid warfare

B. Implications for International Order

The critical question is not whether U.S. and Russian actions are identical (they are not), but whether they contribute to similar erosion of international legal constraints:

Precedential Impact:

If legitimacy determinations justify military intervention, any powerful state can invoke similar logic:

China regarding Taiwan ("rebel province" requiring reunification)
Turkey regarding Kurdish-administered Syria (terrorism justification)
India regarding Pakistan (terrorism sponsorship claims)
Saudi Arabia regarding Yemen (Iranian proxy threat)

Multilateral Institution Undermining:

Both U.S. and Russian unilateralism demonstrate major powers' willingness to bypass Security Council when interests dictate, fundamentally questioning whether UN Charter constraints remain operative.

"Rules-Based Order" Coherence:

G7 cannot credibly champion "rules-based international order" while accepting selective application based on alignment with Western interests. This inconsistency provides propaganda ammunition to authoritarian challengers.

C. Implications for European Security

Venezuelan intervention carries direct implications for European security environment:

Reduced U.S. Commitment Credibility:

If Western Hemisphere constitutes priority zone, European security may receive reduced attention
Trump administration statements suggest potential NATO commitment reconsideration
Hemispheric focus could reduce U.S. capacity for European reinforcement

Legitimacy-Based Aggression Normalization:

Russian claims of Ukrainian illegitimacy gain implicit Western validation
Precedent strengthens Russian arguments for special sphere rights
European protests of Russian actions may carry reduced force

Alliance Cohesion Challenges:

Transatlantic divergence on international law principles weakens alliance unity
European criticism of U.S. actions may provoke Trump administration retaliation
Shared values foundation of alliance relationship potentially undermined

XI. China's Strategic Calculus

A. Economic Exposure

China faces significant economic losses from Venezuelan intervention:

Direct Investment:

Estimated $50-60 billion in Venezuelan oil sector investments since 2007
Outstanding loans of $15-20 billion, primarily oil-backed
Joint venture operations in Orinoco Belt heavy oil projects
Equipment, technology, and infrastructure investments

Oil Supply Agreements:

Long-term contracts for Venezuelan crude delivery
Specialized refining capacity built for Venezuelan heavy crude
Strategic reserve diversification strategy disrupted

Debt Recovery:

U.S. administration of Venezuelan oil sector threatens Chinese loan repayment
Restructuring under U.S. oversight likely to disadvantage Chinese creditors
Potential total loss of principal and accumulated interest

B. Strategic Implications

Beyond immediate economic concerns, Venezuelan intervention affects broader Chinese strategic interests:

Belt and Road Initiative:

Venezuela serves as showcase for BRI Latin American expansion
Intervention demonstrates vulnerability of Chinese overseas investments
May discourage BRI participation by other Latin American nations

Sovereignty Principle:

China consistently invokes sovereignty in Taiwan, South China Sea contexts
U.S. violation of Venezuelan sovereignty undermines Chinese arguments
Creates precedent potentially applicable to Chinese territorial claims

Great Power Competition:

Demonstrates U.S. willingness to employ military force in sphere competition
Suggests potential for military action against Chinese interests elsewhere
May accelerate Chinese military modernization and assertiveness

C. Response Options

China faces constrained response options:

Diplomatic Opposition:

Strong rhetorical condemnation provides domestic nationalist satisfaction
UN Security Council resolution (blocked by U.S. veto) demonstrates principled opposition
General Assembly resolution organizing anti-intervention coalition

Economic Retaliation:

Limited economic leverage given trade interdependence
Potential targeted sanctions against companies involved in Venezuelan operations
Debt restructuring resistance, complicating Venezuelan recovery

Security Assistance:

Covert support to anti-U.S. factions (weapons, intelligence, financing)
Diplomatic support for Venezuelan resistance
Military cooperation with other Latin American states concerned about U.S. interventionism

Strategic Hedging:

Accelerated diversification of oil supplies
Reduced exposure to politically vulnerable BRI projects
Enhanced military capabilities for overseas interest protection

XII. Strategic Conclusion

Operation Absolute Resolve represents an inflection point for the international order. The capture of a sitting head of state through unilateral military action constitutes the most significant challenge to post-1945 multilateral norms since the 2003 Iraq invasion—and arguably surpasses that precedent given the explicit rejection of even coalition-building pretense.

A. Fundamental Questions for G7

The Venezuelan intervention forces G7 members to confront several uncomfortable questions:

1. What constitutes legitimate grounds for military intervention?

If narcotics trafficking and election fraud justify intervention, the threshold for military force has been dramatically lowered. Dozens of states could theoretically meet these criteria. The international community must either accept this expanded intervention doctrine or firmly reject it—inconsistent application will further erode normative constraints.

2. How can the "rules-based order" survive selective application?

The core legitimacy of international law rests on universal application. If powerful states apply legal constraints to adversaries while exempting themselves and allies, the distinction between rules-based order and might-makes-right system collapses. G7 credibility as champion of international law requires either consistent application or honest acknowledgment of power-based realism.

3. Can transatlantic unity survive fundamental values divergence?

The Atlantic alliance historically rested on shared commitment to democratic values and international law. If these foundations erode—with U.S. pursuing unilateral power projection while Europe clings to multilateral constraints—what cohesive basis remains? Economic and security interests alone may prove insufficient for sustained cooperation.

4. What role should regime legitimacy play in international relations?

The intervention assumes external powers can legitimately determine whether a government merits sovereign protections. This principle, if accepted, grants great powers enormous latitude for interference in smaller states' affairs. While democratic governance represents a universally desirable goal, external military enforcement remains highly problematic under international law.

B. The G7's Strategic Dilemma

G7 members face a multi-dimensional strategic dilemma with no comfortable resolution:

Principled Opposition Path:

Upholds international legal commitments
Maintains moral authority and normative credibility
Potentially damages alliance with United States
May prove ineffective in shaping outcomes

Pragmatic Acceptance Path:

Maintains transatlantic unity
Provides influence over transition process
Abandons international law principles
Establishes dangerous precedent

Conditional Engagement Path:

Balances competing concerns
Provides leverage over implementation
Risks satisfying neither principle nor pragmatism
May prove unstable middle ground

Active Mediation Path:

Offers constructive problem-solving
Could establish positive precedent
Requires substantial commitments and U.S. cooperation
Timeline and success uncertain

C. Recommended G7 Approach: Principled Pragmatism

This analysis recommends a Conditional Engagement approach, modified to emphasize concrete conditionality:

Core Elements:

1. Clear Normative Statement G7 should unambiguously state that unilateral military intervention violates international law, while acknowledging Venezuelan governance crisis required resolution. This preserves normative principles without rupturing alliance.

2. Conditional Support Framework G7 commits substantial assistance ($25-30 billion) contingent on adherence to:

Democratic transition timeline (12-18 months to elections)
Human rights protections and monitoring
Multilateral oversight mechanism
Venezuelan self-determination respect
Security sector reform
Transitional justice process

3. Active Diplomatic Engagement Rather than passive criticism, G7 actively facilitates:

Negotiations among Venezuelan stakeholders
Regional power inclusion (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico)
UN and OAS institutional involvement
International legal framework development

4. Long-Term Institutional Strengthening Use Venezuelan crisis as catalyst for:

UN Security Council reform discussion
International law development
Preventive diplomacy capacity building
Democratic governance support enhancement

D. Historical Perspective and Final Assessment

History suggests unilateral military interventions rarely achieve intended outcomes. The 2003 Iraq invasion, 1983 Grenada operation, 1989 Panama invasion, and numerous other cases demonstrate that tactical military success does not ensure strategic political success. Venezuela's complex social fabric, deep economic crisis, and polarized political environment create substantial obstacles to imposed transition.

The operation succeeds only if it triggers rapid FANB accommodation and smooth opposition transition—the 15% probability scenario. More likely outcomes involve protracted U.S. presence (35%), negotiated compromise (30%), or conflict escalation (20%). In three of four scenarios, Venezuelan suffering continues and potentially intensifies.

For G7 partners, the fundamental challenge is navigating between alliance maintenance and principled opposition to international law violations. The recommended approach acknowledges this tension while creating framework for constructive engagement. Success requires sustained G7 unity, substantial resource commitments, and willingness to impose meaningful conditions on support.

The Venezuelan intervention may be remembered as either the beginning of a new era of great power unilateralism—accelerating international system fragmentation—or as a crisis that catalyzed multilateral institution strengthening. The G7's response will significantly influence which trajectory prevails.

XIII. Concluding Policy Recommendations Summary

For Immediate Implementation:

Unified G7 Statement acknowledging crisis while expressing international law concerns (Week 1)
High-Level Diplomatic Mission to Washington communicating G7 position and offering assistance (Week 1-2)
Humanitarian Assessment and contingency planning for migration crisis (Weeks 2-4)
Energy Market Coordination with IEA and OPEC+ (Ongoing)

For Short-Term Implementation:

Multilateral Transition Framework proposal incorporating political, security, justice, and economic dimensions (Months 1-3)
Venezuela Recovery Fund establishment with $25-30 billion capitalization (Months 2-4)
Legal Framework Development on sovereignty, intervention, and accountability questions (Months 1-6)
Regional Engagement Strategy institutionalizing G7-Latin America dialogue (Months 3-6)

For Medium-Term Implementation:

Transition Monitoring Mechanism with regular G7 leadership reporting (Months 3-12)
International Law Commission Engagement on contemporary sovereignty challenges (Months 6-18)
Energy Security Integration of Venezuelan resources into diversified strategy (Months 6-24)

For Long-Term Implementation:

UN Security Council Reform initiative (Years 1-5)
Preventive Diplomacy Framework development (Years 1-3)
Democratic Governance Support expansion globally (Ongoing)
Alliance Architecture Review addressing transatlantic values divergence (Years 1-2)

This analysis reflects assessments as of January 3, 2026, based on available information. The situation remains highly fluid, and updates will be provided as circumstances evolve.

Translate

Saturday, 3 January 2026