On the night between January 2nd and 3rd the United States struck Venezuela and captured Maduro. The various reactions in the world and the possible international scenario
We all saw what happened in the early hours of January 3, when a swift and effective US military operation struck strategic targets in Caracas and other areas of Venezuela. And, above all, it led to capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by the Americansan event that immediately triggered an unprecedented diplomatic crisis in the region. The Venezuelan government has declared a state of emergency, denouncing a “very serious attack” and speaking openly about an attempted regime change. What could be the future geopolitical scenarios in such a delicate context? Let’s try to outline them together.
The Venezuelan framework
Let’s start with the comments of those directly involved. The Defense Minister Vladimir Padrinoappearing again in a video after hours of silence, rejected any rumor of internal collusion and called the attack American a “cowardly act” to force a change of government and “the greatest insult the country has ever suffered.” He also assures that the Venezuelan army remained loyal to Maduro and ready to resist Trump’s pressure.
Italy did not stand by and watch. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had a telephone conversation with Maria Corina Machado on January 4thleader of the Venezuelan opposition and founder of the Vente Venezuela movement, as well as winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. The meeting, as a statement from Palazzo Chigi explains, focused “on the prospects of a peaceful and democratic transition in Venezuela”.
The Italian prime minister sees in Machado a symbol of a democratic transition, also to anchor Western action to a face that represents a clear break with the dictatorship of Chávez first and then Maduro. Donald Trump, on the other hand, looks at the country above all from a strategic and energy perspective. For this reason, it could be given priority Delcy RodriguezMaduro’s deputy who has taken his place for the moment, perhaps perceived as more reliable (or rather, malleable) to guarantee stability and continuity in oil management. This divergence opens up political space in Venezuela: the opposition could strengthen if it manages to present itself united, but risks being marginalized if a technocratic solution supported by Washington prevails. In the coming months the comparison between these two visions will determine the face of the new Venezuela.
The Monroe Doctrine
This type of direct intervention by the United States in Latin America was not born in a vacuum, but has its roots in a geopolitical vision consolidated for over two centuries. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 established the principle according to which the entire Western hemisphere fell within Washington’s privileged sphere of influencein which no external power should have intervened. Originally presented as a barrier against the return of European colonialism, it already contained a fundamental premise: only the United States was entitled to determine the political order of the Americas.
As the decades passed, especially starting from the Roosevelt corollary and the period of imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century, this doctrine transformed from a defensive principle to an instrument of hegemony. The US began to view any instability, hostile government, or extra-continental alliance in Latin America as a direct threat to its national security. During the Cold War this logic became radicalized. Let’s think about when, in 1962, Khrushchev’s Soviet Union provoked the United States with nuclear warheads a few kilometers off the coast of Florida. The action against Venezuela is therefore part of a historical continuity: the belief, never really abandoned, that Washington has the right – and the duty – to intervene in that hemisphere to preserve its strategic primacy.
High risk geopolitical scenarios
The American operation does not only affect Venezuela, but the balance of power in the entire Western Hemisphere. What could happen now? The first scenario is that of a oil protectorate: Washington recycles the Chavista apparatus, reopens PDVSA to Western capital and gradually expels Russia and China, transforming the country into a formally sovereign but de facto guardian state. The second is a controlled democratic transitionwith figures like Machado offering moral cover to the West, but with the real risk of chaos, revenge and instability. The third, the most dangerous, is the anti-American resistance: army, rival powers and internal crisis could make Venezuela a kind of “Latin American Ukraine”. In all cases, what is at stake is not Caracas, but the reaffirmation of US supremacy in its “backyard”. A strong message to Russia and China. It remains to be seen where and how they will respond.
