The US president said he needs “law and order” to take advantage of the Latin American country’s resources
President Donald Trump has outlined his vision for Venezuela following the US military intervention, stating the country must first be restored to “law and order” and economic discipline before any future elections can be considered.
In an interview with the New York Post on Sunday, Trump brushed aside concerns that the unprecedented military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro could draw Washington into a protracted quagmire akin to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Trump framed the intervention as an attempt to save “literally a third world country ready to fail” after decades of socialist rule.
“We should run the country properly,” Trump stated. “We should run the country with law and order. We should run the country where we can take advantage of the economics of what they have – which is valuable oil and valuable other things.”
On Sunday, Venezuela’s Supreme Court formally ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume the presidency to guarantee the “continuity of the State” and “defense of sovereignty.”
Rodriguez confirmed that she had spoken with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio but framed it as a defense of national dignity, stating Caracas is principally ready for “respectful relations” with Washington. She also said that Venezuela “will never return to being the colony of another empire” and “never return to being slaves.”
Trump warned Rodriguez she could be next after Nicolas Maduro, who is now in a New York jail after being abducted by US troops.
“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” he told The Atlantic in another phone interview, arguing that he will not stand for Rodriguez’s defiant rejection.
Trump made it clear that a new election in Venezuela is not a priority for him, saying the US is currently “dealing with the people that just got sworn in,” in apparent reference to Rodriguez.
“Don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I’ll give you an answer, and it’ll be very controversial… It means we’re in charge,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One late on Sunday.
Trump also refused to back any opposition figures, including Maria Corina Machado – a Nobel Peace Prize winner who had openly backed US military action against her own country.
The US action has drawn sharp rebukes from key powers in the Global South. China has condemned the operation as “hegemonic,” stating it seriously violates international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. Another BRICS member, Brazil, also condemned the US move, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stating Washington’s actions “cross an unacceptable line.” Russia, a major strategic partner of Caracas, expressed “firm solidarity” in a call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and acting President Rodriguez.
The world’s “lukewarm” reaction to Washington’s action is a sign of “regression at the civilizational level,” the former Ecuadorian president has told RT
Washington’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro set a “disastrous precedent” that can throw the world back into “barbarism,” former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa told RT. The hypocritical international reaction has allowed the US to get away with actions “impossible to accept in the 21st century,” the politician believes.
US special forces conducted airstrikes on the oil-rich South American country and captured Maduro and his wife in an early Saturday raid. They were then flown to the US and charged with drug trafficking – allegations that Maduro has long denied. The Venezuelan president had previously warned that Washington was seeking regime change to get its hands on his country’s natural resources.
“Imagine for a moment that… [Russian President Vladimir] Putin captured [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky,” Correa said. “Can you imagine what the world’s response would be? Nothing like the response the United States is getting.”
According to the former president, international reaction to the abduction has demonstrated nothing but “global hypocrisy” and double standards so far.
“This unprecedented, extraordinary event deserves a much stronger response from the international community,” Correa said, adding that Washington has trampled on international law and brought back the times when might makes right.
“What they’re saying is, either you do what I say or I’ll bomb you again,” Correa said. “It’s something extremely dangerous for the entire planet, not just for Venezuela, not just for Latin America.”
The US operation has been strongly condemned by BRICS members, including Russia, China, Brazil and Iran. Moscow called for Venezuela to be guaranteed the right to determine its own fate. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that Washington’s actions “cross an unacceptable line,” while Beijing called it a “hegemonic act.”
Reactions from the West have been much more muted. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged “restraint,” calling for adherence to the UN Charter. A follow-up joint statement signed by all EU members except Hungary neither condemned nor supported the move.
The test was conducted as a show of “deterrence” less than a day after the US raid on Venezuela
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un personally observed a missile drill designed to test the readiness of the country’s ‘war deterrent’ on Sunday – a move that came just hours after Pyongyang condemned recent US military intervention in Venezuela.
The drill, conducted early Sunday morning local time, involved a hypersonic missile launched from Pyongyang’s Ryokpho District. It traveled 1,000 kilometers before hitting a target in the Sea of Japan, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). State media framed the test as an operational evaluation of the country’s strategic weapons.
While not explicitly linking the test to Venezuela, Pyongyang closely juxtaposed the two events in its official messaging. Around the time of the launch, the Foreign Ministry sharply denounced America’s action in Venezuela as “the most serious form of encroachment on sovereignty” and proof of Washington’s “rogue and brutal nature.”
While overseeing the launch, Kim Jong-un called the exercise a “very important strategic task” to maintain and expand a “powerful and reliable nuclear deterrent.”
“Our activity is clearly aimed at gradually putting the nuclear war deterrent on a high-developed basis. Why it is necessary is exemplified by the recent geopolitical crisis and complicated international events,” he stated, according to KCNA.
Kim Jong-un praised the launch unit for “playing the prelude of the first combat drill in the new year” and extended New Year’s greetings to the country’s missile forces, calling them a “reliable shield for defending sovereignty and security.”
North Korea has long insisted that its weapons programs are needed for self-defense. They have recently focused on developing increasingly sophisticated hypersonic missiles. Pyongyang has accused the US, South Korea, and Japan of undermining regional security by conducting joint military exercises, calling them an attempt to create an “Asian version of NATO.”
A major blackout has hit five districts in southwestern Berlin, with the police treating the incident as arson
A group of self-described climate activists has claimed responsibility for a massive power outage that hit five districts in southwestern Berlin, saying the action targeted the fossil fuel industry and “the rich.”
Up to 50,000 households and 2,200 commercial entities were affected by the blackout in the early hours of Saturday, a spokesman for the local electricity provider, Stromnetz Berlin, told the Berliner Zeitung. “Full restoration of power supply” is expected no sooner than January 8, according to the company. The residents of the affected areas would have to remain without power in “freezing temperatures” ranging from -7C to -1C, the paper reported.
Police are treating the incident as a targeted arson attack, according to local media. The blackout was caused by a blaze that hit a power bridge over the Teltow Canal, which goes through the southern part of the city. Several nursing homes and elderly care centers had to be evacuated because of the incident, according to a local fire department. No casualties have been reported in connection to the incident.
Police also said they had received a letter signed by the “Volcano Group” on Saturday evening, in which the climate activists and anti-Fascists claimed responsibility for the incident. The group blamed the industrial extraction of natural resources for the “destruction” of Earth and that humanity “can no longer afford the rich.” The group then said they had “successfully sabotaged” a gas power plant, adding that their action was “socially beneficial” and targeted the fossil fuel industry.
The regional office of the German domestic security service was verifying the letter’s authenticity, according to the police.
According to the Berliner Zeitung, the group had carried out similar attacks in the past. They claimed responsibility for the sabotage of two power cables in southeastern Berlin in September. That attack also left around 50,000 households without power at the time.
Beijing has demanded that Washington release the South American country’s democratically elected president
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has slammed the US attack on Venezuela and capture of Nicolas Maduro, calling them “hegemonic.”
On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will “run” the oil-rich South American nation, shortly after US forces swept into the country and abducted Maduro and his wife.
“China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the US’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement later in the day.
“Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region,” it stated, demanding that Washington adhere to international law and the UN Charter.
The US regime-change operation came just hours after a Chinese delegation’s visit to key partner Venezuela, led by President Xi Jinping’s special envoy Qiu Xiaoqi. Beijing has not released a statement on the meeting, but Caracas said it served to strengthen a “multipolar world of development and peace” in the face of Western “unilateral coercive measures.”
China and the heavily sanctioned South American nation have maintained a major “all-weather strategic partnership” since 2023, and inked an investment deal in 2024.
Following the US attack, Beijing echoed Moscow and condemned the “forcible seizure” of Maduro and his wife, and demanded their release.
In the Venezuelan leader’s absence, the nation’s Supreme Court has granted Vice President Delcy Rodriguez presidential powers.
Just prior to the decision, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called Rodriguez to voice Moscow’s solidarity and support for the Venezuelan government’s defense of the country’s national interests and sovereignty. Both sides also expressed commitment to building on the bilateral strategic partnership agreement Moscow and Caracas signed last May.
Katie Miller posted a map of the Danish island overlaid with the US flag on X, captioned “soon” but offered no further explanation
A former US administration official and the wife of a senior aide to President Donald Trump has suggested that Washington will “soon” take over Greenland in a cryptic social media post.
In a post on X on Saturday, Katie Miller shared a map of Greenland overlaid with the American flag and captioned simply with the word “soon.” The post offered no explanation and was not accompanied by any official policy announcement from Washington.
Trump first proposed buying Greenland, an autonomous territory within Denmark, in 2019, a plan swiftly rejected by Copenhagen and Greenland’s authorities. Since returning to office last year, he has revived the idea, calling the island vital to US national security and hinting at the possible use of force. Denmark has responded by strengthening Arctic defenses and expanding military and civilian monitoring, viewing the pressure as a direct threat to its sovereignty.
Miller held senior communications roles during Trump’s first term, and briefly served in early 2025 as an adviser and spokesperson for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency before moving into private work and launching a conservative podcast. Though no longer in government, she remains closely connected to the administration through her husband, Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and one of his longest-serving and most influential aides. Her public remarks are often seen as reflecting views within Trump’s inner circle.
Miller’s post prompted a swift response from Denmark’s ambassador to the US, Jesper Moller Sorensen, who stressed on X that while Copenhagen considers Washington a “close ally,” it expects “full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Just a friendly reminder about the US and the Kingdom of Denmark: We are close allies and should continue to work together as such. US security is also Greenland’s and Denmark’s security. Greenland is already part of NATO. The Kingdom of Denmark and the United States work… https://t.co/CboKnlKgJL
Tensions over Greenland have continued to rise in recent weeks. In December, Trump reiterated the US “needs” the island for its Arctic position and resources, and appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who has openly backed incorporating Greenland into the US, as a special envoy to the territory, prompting Copenhagen to summon the US ambassador for an explanation.
Miller’s post came the same day the US launched a controversial military operation in Venezuela, abducting President Nicolas Maduro on drug trafficking charges that are rejected by Caracas as a pretext for regime change. Commenting on the escalation, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen urged Washington to pursue de-escalation and respect international law.
The military incursion and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro shows how normalized the outrageous has become
After five months – really two-and-a-half decades – of ever-escalating preparations by increasing diplomatic, economic, and clandestine warfare, the US has finally executed a full regime-change invasion in Venezuela. The final attack, focused on kidnapping the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from the capital Caracas, was short. But the campaign has certainly not been bloodless. While we know little about what exactly happened on the ground, Washington’s perfectly criminal strikes on alleged smuggling boats at sea which served as the core of the attack’s preparatory propaganda barrage, have already killed over 100 victims, not to speak of the overlooked victims of sanctions.
Then, what American officials have called a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela in the early hours of January 3 targeted not only Caracas but several locations throughout the country. For whatever reason, resistance to this “dark and deadly” (in President Donald Trump’s words) operation, seems to have been minimal. In view of the long and very visible military buildup, as well as psychological warfare campaign that preceded these night raids, it is hard to believe that they came as a surprise. Betrayal, subversion, and secret, nasty deals may well have played a role.
While such things will probably remain murky for a while – or forever – other, more important aspects of the US invasion of Venezuela are unambiguously clear: It is absolutely, irredeemably illegal, a massive and open breach of the UN Charter’s prohibition of wars of aggression. Even some of America’s most loyal ‘Atlanticist’ vassals in Europe have to admit that much, for instance, a recent op-ed in Germany’s ultra-mainstream Die Zeit newspaper.
Washington’s pretexts are, as so often, flimsy insults to everyone with half a brain. Venezuela and Maduro are not contributing anything significant – if anything at all – to America’s very own and never-ending drug problems, neither with regard to cocaine nor fentanyl. And Maduro’s election in 2024 may have been fair or not. The decisive, conclusive point is that such issues must be dealt with inside a sovereign country and can never justify military intervention from outside. Or who is going to be next? Germany for the extremely dubious way (polite expression) its mainstream parties have locked the New-Left BSW out of parliament in what may well amount to a cold coup?
It’s not hard to understand the real reasons for the American onslaught on Venezuela, partly because American officials, including Trump himself, have spoken openly about them. Venezuela has the single greatest national oil reserves in the world and, in addition, significant deposits of gold, rare earths, and other raw materials.
Trump has claimed that many of these riches somehow really belong to the US and its companies (same thing for him anyhow) and promised to reconquer them, which he is doing now. Greed, plain and simple, is a main driver of this dirty Blitzkrieg against a militarily de facto helpless victim. As Trump himself has admitted, this is about “a tremendous amount of wealth.”
But greed isn’t all. There also are geopolitics. Like Washington’s recent electoral interference in Argentina and Honduras, the ongoing pressure on Brazil (currently receding a little, but who knows for how long), Colombia (which Trump threatens with a fate similar to Venezuela), Nicaragua, and Cuba. Add in the shameless pardoning of a real drug-kingpin-politician from Honduras, the assault on Venezuela is also an application of what has been termed the “Donroe Doctrine.” The meaning of the latter is, in essence, simple: it’s the bad old Monroe Doctrine – going back over 200 years now – but even worse.
Marco Rubio, former Trump disparager and now obsequious consigliere and enforcer (as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, a combination not seen since the evil days of Henry Kissinger, war-criminal-extraordinaire) made a point of underlining the threat against Cuba in particular. Apart from Trump, US foreign policy is in the hands of an absolutely ruthless man with a personal axe to grind in the Caribbean, and Latin America in general, and ambitions to be Trump’s successor as president.
As just spelled out in the new US National Security Strategy, Washington will focus special attention on its long-suffering southern neighbors and victims. A “Trump Corollary,” deliberately echoing President Theodore Roosevelt’s old imperialist “corollary,” aims to cement US domination by all means and secure the American empire’s ‘backyard’ ever more tightly by installing and propping up puppets and suppressing resistance.
Last but not least, the US will also escalate the old policy of depriving Latin American countries of their own foreign policy – yet another essential element of sovereignty – by punishing them for building relationships with ‘outsiders,’ most of all now China, but also Russia. That was one of Venezuela’s many ‘sins,’ and no one in the region will have missed the vicious lesson that Washington has just meted out.
Trump cannot imagine failure. He has declared that “American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again. Won’t happen.” But, of course, in reality, failure is a real possibility for him no less than for other hubristic mortals. In the long or not-so-long run, his violent hyper-imperialist strategy may well fail. It may even provoke a devastating backlash. Yet, as so often with the US, its fiascos leave its victims in ruins too.
Meanwhile, even the reliable US imperialism booster Hal Brands has warned that Trump’s methods may backfire in setting a precedent, for instance, in how China may one day decide to deal with Taiwan. The comparison is deeply, demagogically flawed, since Beijing has a plausible claim to Taiwan, while Washington has none to Venezuela or to snatching Maduro and his wife, as Brands embarrassingly tries to pretend.
And to be honest, even if Brands has failed to notice from his Henry Kissinger Chair perch, the US has long delivered one precedent after the other for breaking all laws, all rules, and all basic moral norms, such as in co-perpetrating the Gaza Genocide with Israel. But the onslaught on Venezuela does add yet another facet to American lawlessness.
Ironically, some wanna-be-friends of Washington will never grasp the absolute selfishness and immorality of American policy. Two such comically maladjusted figures are Vladimir Zelensky of Ukraine and Maria Corina Machado from Venezuela.
Zelensky used to post about “spotting” Russian operatives in Venezuela, trying to ingratiate himself by making a personal contribution to the US siege of the country. By now, as an obstreperous and increasingly useless ‘client,’ he may well be a target of American regime change himself. Machado, who has bent over backwards indecently to impress on the Americans just how ready she is to obey them and sell out her country and its resources, has just been discarded like a used doormat by Trump. In his triumphalist press conference, the American president mentioned her in passing – as someone who does not have what it takes to lead Venezuela. So much for the wages of treason and sucking-up. Stop pitching, Maria, you’ve just been fired. Jolani made the underling cut, you didn’t.
Ironically, Machado’s scandalous receiving of the Nobel Peace Prize may have served her badly in the end. Trump is a jealous man, and it is certain that he felt the prize should have gone to him instead. And, in a way, he even has a point. While he doesn’t deserve it at all, one really cannot argue that Machado deserved it more. The Nobel Peace Prize has long been a sick joke. But its use as part of an invasion-preparation campaign still stands out as particularly heinous. Time to do away with this disgraceful farce.
In general, the American president’s press conference was a genuine Trump performance, with his usual grandiloquence on full display. Taking personal credit for the “spectacular” assault on Venezuela, he praised it as “one of the most stunning, effective, and powerful displays of American military might and competence” and a feat the equal of which has not been seen since World War Two. Trump was too busy boasting to notice that his own revelations about the operation implied a less heroic scenario: “overwhelming” US force was used, and not a single American soldier or even “piece of equipment” was lost. Whatever this was, it was not a great – or fair – fight.
The US president mostly confirmed what we know already – The US wants basically all of Venezuela’s stuff, but oil is at the top of the wish list. Washington feels that it should “run” the country until a “leadership transition” can be engineered, that is the installation of a puppet regime, obviously. In other words, a frank application of might-is-right, with only minimal rhetorical fluff about how ordinary Venezuelans will benefit and “also be taken care of.” If that sounds unintentionally ominous, that’s because it is. And all of it under the shadow of the same US armada that has just assaulted the country and is on stand-by to do so again, whenever Washington feels like it. Gangster politics 101.
In its own way, the president’s presser did represent something important about this war. Namely, how strangely normal the absolutely anomalous has become. What Washington has just done is a horror of criminality, greed, and arrogance. But it is also what was to be expected. The same is true for the ludicrously hypocritical reactions from its NATO-EU vassals who feel the best they can do is “observe.” Good luck with that!
In a more normal – if far from perfect – world, everyone would finally understand that the single most dangerous rogue state in the world, by far, is the US. That is true whether measured in capability or as sheer moral insanity, corruption, and brutality. In a more normal world, even the worst antagonists would find a way to cooperate to contain and deter this geopolitical Godzilla-on-speed. But, as of now, such a world is not yet emerging. Multipolarity alone will not be enough.
Miguel De Bruycker has warned of American dominance over tech in the region
Fully storing data within the EU is impossible because American technology companies dominate the space, Miguel De Bruycker, director of the Centre for Cybersecurity Belgium (CCB), has told the Financial Times. The official also noted that EU regulation on artificial intelligence (AI) was blocking innovation within the bloc.
Following the implementation of mandatory rules for general-purpose AI last year, the EU faced a swift domestic backlash over concerns that high compliance costs were undermining innovation and investment. The internal pressure was compounded by sharp criticism from the US government and major technology companies, which labelled the regulations as protectionist measures designed to unfairly target American firms.
“We’ve lost the whole cloud. We have lost the internet, let’s be honest,” De Bruycker said earlier this week in an interview with the newspaper. “If I want my information 100% in the EU, keep on dreaming,” he added. “You’re setting an objective that is not realistic.”
He added that it was currently impossible to store data fully in Europe because US companies dominate digital infrastructure and essential online services.
“In cyberspace, everything is commercial. Everything is privately owned,” De Bruycker said, stressing that EU’s cyber defenses depend on cooperation from private companies, most of which are American.
Under the EU’s AI Act, binding rules for general-purpose AI models took effect on August 2, 2025. The rules require developers placing such models on the EU market to meet transparency and documentation obligations and comply with copyright requirements, with stricter duties applying to the most powerful systems classified as posing systemic risks. Oversight of the rules is carried out by the EU AI Office.
Brussels was, however, forced to backpedal in late 2025 by introducing a Digital Simplification Package. The initiative, introduced in response to sharp domestic criticism led by national champions such as France’s Mistral AI and Germany’s Aleph Alpha, is aimed at easing the regulatory burden on European startups. Regulators offered extended grace periods for compliance and launched the Apply AI Alliance to provide technical support.
De Bruycker, however, suggested that Brussels should back private initiatives to boost cloud computing and digital identification. He called for an approach mirroring the creation of Airbus, which was jointly supported by member states, urging a similar effort at EU level in the cyber domain.
“Instead of putting that focus on how can we stop the US ‘hyperscalers’, maybe we put our energy in . . . building up something by ourselves,” the CCB chief said.
As Washington seizes Maduro, Russian analysts warn of a bold show of force aimed at Latin America and global stability
Washington has sharply escalated its military campaign against Caracas, carrying out an operation on January 3 during which US special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and removed them from the country. The US government has charged Maduro with drug trafficking and terrorism and intends to try him in New York.
In response to US actions in Venezuela, foreign governments – including Russia and China – have called for de-escalation and Maduro’s release. Diplomatic activity has also intensified in Caracas and other Latin American capitals, highlighting deep disagreements over the legitimacy of the intervention.
RT has compiled commentary from leading Russian experts on Donald Trump’s actions and on Russia’s potential responses.
Valentin Bogdanov, Head of VGTRK’s New York Bureau:
The spectacle-style unveiling of Donald Trump’s brutally updated version of the Monroe Doctrine began with a nighttime helicopter raid over Caracas – and continued, under Trump’s direction, over New York. The entire, meticulously documented saga of transporting Venezuela’s captured president to the United States, filmed at the most humiliating stages of his detention, seemed designed to convince a target audience that clearly extends beyond Latin America that Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ never really happened. If anything, this is not the first quarter of the 21st century, but very much the first quarter of the 19th – the era when the doctrine itself was proclaimed. No liberal sentimentality. Just raw power.
Maduro’s humiliatingly sagging tracksuit pants – the first photo of him under arrest, taken aboard the amphibious assault ship ‘Iwo Jima’. The shackles and chains binding the Venezuelan president’s legs on the tarmac at Stewart Air National Guard Base, as he is escorted from a Boeing arriving from Guantánamo to a hangar. DEA agents clustering together for a group photo: the detainee in handcuffs, the officers looming like bounty hunters celebrating another trophy. Maduro, notably, did not break. His mocking ‘Happy New Year!’ uttered en route to the DEA’s New York headquarters will likely be quoted for years. These are indeed new times – above all for Donald Trump.
The US president, who arrived 45 minutes late to what should have been a triumphant press conference at Mar-a-Lago, did not look particularly happy. The reason is obvious. Capturing Maduro is one thing; capturing Venezuela is quite another. Judging by who remains in power in Caracas, Trump’s original plan is far from being realized. Whose efforts ensured that outcome remains an open question. But recalling that, ahead of Operation ‘Absolute Resolve,’ the White House hosted the US ambassador to China while Maduro received a Chinese delegation, it is not difficult to guess who drew a red line – in both the literal and figurative sense – in front of Trump.
Hence the bravado, the ultimatums, and the immediately declared limits of what is possible. The first to be tossed into the spam folder was opposition figure María Corina Machado, whom Trump dismissed as lacking leadership qualities. His promise to assume transitional control over Venezuela, meanwhile, almost instantly collided with his own bargaining with the country’s new/old authorities. The United States, Trump said in an interview, would refrain from deploying troops on Venezuelan soil if the newly sworn-in Vice President Rodríguez does what Washington wants. What Trump wants is simple: oil – and as much of it as possible. Caracas, for its part, has already delivered the standard response: ‘The oil belongs to the people.’
Of course, there is also the stick. Trump is already threatening a second wave of strikes. But he has inadvertently revealed his greatest fear: a ground operation – the dreaded boots on the ground. That is something today’s Trump-era America could not sustain under any circumstances, even in its own backyard. And that is precisely why what happened on the night of January 2–3 is less a tectonic shift in geopolitics – Washington has manhandled Latin America plenty over the past two centuries – than a significant domestic political milestone.
The principal beneficiary here is not so much Trump as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose diplomatic cover for the Caracas operation adds substantial momentum to a potential 2028 presidential run, fueled by Spanish-speaking voters – a demographic that continues to grow. Venezuelans and Hondurans, Mexicans and Cubans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans – the backbone of the Republican Party’s emerging electorate – have little interest in Ukraine or globalist ambitions. One cannot say that this is a bad thing.
Valentin Bogdanov, Head of VGTRK’s New York Bureau.
Anastasia Gafarova, political analyst and deputy director of the Center for Political Information:
Donald Trump has no intention of launching a prolonged ground operation in Venezuela. The US will act quickly and aim for maximum effect. Venezuela, with its impenetrable jungles and a well-developed guerrilla movement, inevitably evokes uncomfortable Vietnam-style analogies, which is precisely why the US administration wants to get in and out of this situation as fast as possible, with clear results. And the result is obvious: the overthrow of the so-called Maduro regime.
It cannot be ruled out that what happened is part of a broader political deal, possibly carried out with the consent of Maduro himself and his key partners. Alternatively, it may be the result of betrayal within the Venezuelan president’s inner circle.
What matters is that these events are an attempt to exert pressure not only on Venezuela, but on other Latin American countries as well – Brazil, for example, where elections are approaching.
Anastasia Gafarova, political analyst and deputy director of the Center for Political Information.
Maxim Suchkov, Director of the Institute for International Studies at MGIMO University:
Starting a war in a midterm election year is a risky undertaking, but not a reckless one. It is risky because there is always the possibility of getting bogged down. It is not reckless because, both politically and militarily, a US operation against Venezuela appears carefully thought through.
On the political front, Washington moved in advance to cut off any external support for Nicolas Maduro. Talks with Russia over Ukraine have entered a decisive phase, with the assumption that Moscow would be unwilling to openly clash with Washington under such circumstances. At the same time, the US has held intensive, confidential talks with China in recent days, clearly delineating what it considers its sphere of influence.
Militarily, Donald Trump is clearly betting on a blitzkrieg.
But this is a Trump-style blitzkrieg: precision strikes against military facilities, infrastructure, and symbolic sites – including the destruction of Chavez’s grave as a symbolic blow to the regime and a signal to its ideological opponents at home – combined with a massive information campaign. It follows the logic of so-called ‘cognitive warfare’: breaking the will to resist among both the military and the civilian population.
Yet the ‘Trump-style world order’ is not limited to a traditional American sphere of influence. In Venezuela’s case, it is also a powerful instrument for managing the global oil market. And that goes well beyond Latin America, directly affecting Russian interests.
Maxim Suchkov, Director of the Institute for International Studies at MGIMO University.
Dmitry Rozental, Director of the Institute of Latin America at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
I don’t think Donald Trump initially planned to attack Venezuela. What we are seeing now is driven primarily by domestic political considerations. Trump needed to mobilize his electoral base and secure additional support from the Venezuelan and Cuban diasporas, which are deeply hostile to left-wing regimes, including the government in Venezuela. But as the situation evolved and tensions mounted, Trump said and did so much that, at a certain point, he could no longer pull back.
Some time ago, there were reports that talks were underway between the two governments, and a number of observers did not rule out the possibility that a deal could be reached. Apparently, that did not happen. The actions by US military and special forces on January 3 mark a new phase of escalation, one in which the stakes are now significantly higher.
More broadly, Venezuela has long been viewed by the American establishment as a threat to US national interests. For Washington, full control over the Western Hemisphere is essential, and the presence of openly antagonistic states in the region is unacceptable. Venezuela also holds vast oil reserves and, more generally, considerable strategic potential. Unsurprisingly, successive US administrations – Republican and Democratic alike – have sought to weaken Venezuela’s position and push for a more pro-American political order. That said, Venezuela was never a top priority for the US, and Trump’s decision was shaped to a large extent by domestic political pressures at home.
As for Russia, its options in this situation are fairly limited. Moscow will undoubtedly provide political and moral support to the Venezuelan leadership and take all necessary steps on international platforms. Beyond that, for a number of reasons, it is difficult to say what more can be done at this stage.
Dmitry Rozental, Director of the Institute of Latin America at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs:
Donald Trump has chosen to make it unmistakably clear that, for him, the Monroe Doctrine is not just a slogan tucked into the National Security Strategy, but a guide to action. Regime change in Venezuela in favor of a Washington-friendly government is framed by Trump’s team not as another ‘endless war’ in the mold of Iraq or Afghanistan, but as a matter of US national security. It is no coincidence that the pretext being advanced involves allegations – by all appearances entirely fabricated – of Caracas’ involvement in drug trafficking and the funneling of migrant flows toward the US. The overthrow of Maduro is meant to send a message to all of Latin America about who is in charge of the region and how one is expected to behave.
How resilient popular support for the Chavistas really is, and how capable they are of resisting pressure, will become clear in the near future. The same goes for the level of risk Trump is prepared to accept. A ground operation would carry the danger of casualties and entanglement – precisely what runs counter to the president’s stated instincts. That said, if reports about Maduro being removed from the country are true, Trump can already declare a sweeping victory, regardless of what happens next inside Venezuela.
For Russia, this is an awkward situation. Venezuela is a close partner and a like-minded ally, and Nicolás Maduro and Vladimir Putin have long-standing ties. US actions can provoke nothing but outrage in Moscow. At the same time, providing any meaningful assistance to a country so distant and embedded in an entirely different geopolitical environment is simply not feasible. That is partly a matter of technical and logistical constraints, but there is also a political dimension. Putin and Trump currently have another issue on the agenda that is far more consequential for Moscow: Ukraine. And for all its sympathies toward Caracas, the Kremlin is unlikely to upend the entire game with a critically important counterpart over a secondary issue.
In practical terms, Venezuela’s closer and more materially grounded relationship is with China. Trump’s moves in Latin America are tied to a broader strategic objective: pushing China out of the region. Beijing, however, is also unlikely to take any concrete action in this situation.
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs.
Timofey Bordachev, professor at the Higher School of Economics:
This fixation on the so-called Monroe Doctrine is, of course, appealing to many people, since it points to a relatively familiar historical analogy and, in doing so, relieves them of the need to think too hard. It is also well suited to today’s information environment for exactly that reason. But taken seriously, invoking a concept that is two centuries old – assuming it is meant seriously at all, which itself is debatable – serves a purpose beyond mere spectacle: it points to a fundamental crisis of ideas.
Any first-year international relations student should understand that historical analogies do not work as an analytical tool, just as outdated concepts do not work as a basis for policy – simply because the context has changed so profoundly over the past 200 years. In other words, an intellectual crisis is one of the defining features of contemporary world politics. And it is hardly surprising that, when expressed through the American lens, this crisis takes on its most dramatic and theatrical forms.
Timofey Bordachev, professor at the Higher School of Economics.
Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club:
Both sanctions and the use of military force are tools of foreign policy. They can be used in combination – and more often than not, they are. Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and so on.
The US military operation against Venezuela is another such case, though with a distinct twist. The overthrow of a sitting government and the seizure of a country’s president are far rarer phenomena.
This episode highlights the growing vulnerability of political systems in a region that is geographically distant from other centers of power.
That said, the Soviet Union once managed to provide effective support to Cuba, and the Bay of Pigs invasion ended badly for the US.
In other cases, circumstances proved decisive. The 1980 US special forces operation ‘Eagle Claw’ to rescue hostages from Iran failed due to a cumulative mix of bad luck and sheer mismanagement.
This time, everything went smoothly for the United States. Trump took a risk – and, for the moment, won.
In a significant number of capitals, officials will now be asking themselves whether he might be willing to take the same risk with them.
It appears that delegations will start heading to Beijing and Moscow. Risks need to be controlled – or, if one prefers the term, mitigated.
A key indicator of the shift toward multipolarity will be how effectively those risks can be managed and mitigated, whether independently or with the help of so-called ‘black knights.’
Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club.
Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of the Federation Council:
There is no doubt that Venezuela posed no threat to the United States – military, humanitarian, criminal, or narcotics-related. The latter is confirmed by a specialized UN agency. That means the current military operation, like the actions taken against Venezuela over recent days and weeks, has no substantive justification whatsoever.
In a striking irony, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2025 for calls to bomb Venezuela. Should the actual bombing of Venezuela now be seen as a step toward the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize as well?
Order must be based on international law, not on so-called ‘rules.’ International law has clearly been violated. An order imposed in this manner must not prevail.
I am confident that the global majority will decisively distance itself from the attack on Venezuela and condemn it. The global minority, by contrast, faces agonizing choices – ones that will either once again put values and interests in their proper places, or consign values once and for all to the scrap heap in the face of the geopolitical priorities of transatlantic solidarity.
Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of the Federation Council.
Decades of anti-imperialism would fuel resistance to any American attempt to establish control over the country, Daniel Shaw has told RT
Any prolonged US effort to control Venezuela would likely face fierce resistance similar to what Washington encountered during the Vietnam or Iraq wars, Daniel Shaw, a professor of Latin American Studies at City University of New York, has told RT.
In an interview aired on Sunday, the scholar suggested that Venezuelans would not accept foreign rule following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during an unprecedented US raid on Caracas.
“This is going to spill open into a type of Vietnamese resistance or Iraqi resistance,” Shaw said.
Shaw said that on top of Maduro’s “anti-imperialist leadership,” Venezuela’s policies had been shaped by nearly three decades of what he described as political training in “chavismo,” referring to the socialist policies of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
“The Venezuelan people … are never going to allow for the US to take them over,” he said.
Asked about the most feasible scenario if the US remains in charge for an extended period, Shaw framed the potential confrontation as a “David versus Goliath” struggle, adding that protests and demonstrations were likely and raised the prospect of “pockets of guerrilla resistance over time,” while acknowledging Venezuela was militarily outmatched.
He also acknowledged that international condemnation and declarations of solidarity – including from Russia and several regional powers – would be unlikely on their own to alter the situation. “If there’s no resistance from within the US military, it would be very difficult to imagine that the Venezuelan people could defeat what looks like a US colonial occupation,” he added.
US President Donald Trump has said Washington would temporarily “run” Venezuela following Maduro’s kidnapping, prompting backlash from Caracas. Washington has so far refrained from a large-scale invasion of the country, but maintains a significant military presence in the Caribbean.
The US wars in Vietnam and Iraq became cautionary tales against open-ended foreign interventions after dragging on for years, killing thousands of US troops, consuming trillions of dollars, and ending without a clear outcome.
