Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was extracted from his capital Caracas to the US in a violent incursion in the early hours of January 3. (NOTE: This image is an AI expansion of the original handout image) Image:Handout: US President Donald Trump via Truth Social In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States executed a military operation that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Caracas and transported them to New York to face charges in a federal court. According to multiple reports, the raid — codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve — involved bombardment of Venezuelan infrastructure and a special-forces assault on Maduro’s compound on Venezuelan territory.
Maduro appeared in a Manhattan federal courtroom, shackled and escorted by US agents, and proclaimed that he had been “kidnapped” and remained the legitimate president of Venezuela. At least 57 people were reported killed including Venezuelan and Cuban military and security personnel. The imagery of Maduro being paraded in the streets and presented before the world as a fait accompli, evoked parallels with the staged photographs of Saddam Hussein’s capture during the Iraq War and the display of Muammar Gaddafi’s body after the Libyan intervention.
In each case, pictures served as political signals of dominance and regime end, rather than evidence of decisive military victory. What has become clear in the days following the raid is that this military action was neither exceptional nor unforeseen. It followed a long pattern of US interventions in Latin America aimed at ensuring control over resources and maintaining regional influence.
[paywall]
What distinguishes Operation Absolute Resolve is how easily it succeeded in a state that had formally retained significant military infrastructure — infrastructure that, according to reports, never responded. This inertia of Venezuela’s defences points to a deeper breakdown in internal coherence and collective political will. The Venezuelan state had publicly touted its Russian‑supplied air‑defence systems as a deterrent against foreign aggression.
Yet during the operation, those systems remained inactive. They were not physically destroyed or targeted in advance. Nor were they deployed in defence.
US forces appear to have used electronic suppression and jamming technologies to neutralise radar and communications infrastructure, but no reports suggest that Venezuela’s air-defence network was forcibly taken out. The more plausible explanation is political rather than technical: that key military actors either stood down, failed to issue authorisation, or had already shifted allegiance. A growing narrative within regional and international media suggests that Maduro was betrayed from within, that loyalist units were isolated, and that their coordinates were leaked, leading to targeted airstrikes that decimated protective forces while others stood aside.
In this version of events, Maduro was not seized in a pitched battle, but handed over. Whatever the precise mechanics, the result was the same: in that moment, the shield of sovereignty collapsed — not through overwhelming external force, but through internal disintegration. International responses were swift in condemnation but limited in force.
Russia and China — which have consistently criticised unilateral military interventions and framed themselves as advocates for international law — publicly denounced the US action as a violation of sovereignty and the United Nations Charter. At an emergency UN Security Council meeting, both Moscow and Beijing joined other states in condemning what was described as a “crime of aggression” and a dangerous precedent. Russia’s critique was rooted in its commitment to legal norms and the rule of law, emphasising respect for state sovereignty and the right of self-determination.
Russian authorities also expressed support for Venezuela’s interim leadership and reiterated their opposition to external interference in internal affairs. At the same time, Russia’s strategic focus remains heavily occupied by its ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the broader project of military reform. The Kremlin has made clear that it is not in a position to intervene directly in every geopolitical flashpoint, particularly where internal divisions within an allied state undermine the feasibility of external defence.
China’s condemnation was similarly grounded in legal and diplomatic language. Beijing described the US action as a “blatant use of force” that jeopardised regional peace and violated international law. China has emphasised infrastructure development, trade partnerships, and long-term economic cooperation in its foreign policy rather than military intervention, and its response reflects that orientation.
[/paywall]
