Venezuelan security forces on a heavily armored vehicle.Image: keystone
analysis
According to Donald Trump, US special forces have arrested Venezuela’s ruler Nicolás Maduro and taken him out of the country. The operation marks one of the most drastic U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades. But while some military experts speak of a strategically successful coup, others warn of long-term consequences – for Venezuela, the region and Trump himself.
Jan 3, 2026, 12:39 p.mJan 3, 2026, 1:03 p.m
The Swiss military expert Albert Stahel classifies the operation as a targeted power operation. From his perspective, Washington pursued two central goals: eliminating the political leadership core around Maduro and securing strategically crucial resources, above all the Venezuelan oil industry.
The military implementation was designed to quickly create facts without becoming entangled in an all-out war. Attacks on military bases such as Fuerte Tiuna as well as on ports and communications infrastructure suggested that the US was primarily concerned with control of key points – not a full-scale occupation of the country.
Stahel sees this as a classic example of modern power projection: limited deployment of elite troops, focus on economically and politically crucial centers, rapid exfiltration. In this sense, the operation was successful from a military perspective.
Return to harsh power politics
Ideologically, Stahel classifies the operation as a return to the Monroe Doctrine – the US foreign policy that has defined Latin America as Washington’s zone of influence since the 19th century. The Venezuela operation is an example of a world order in which major powers are once again openly exercising power without primarily being bound by multilateral rules.
For Stahel it is clear: the time for restraint is over. The Venezuela case shows that military strength is once again seen as a legitimate means of asserting geopolitical interests.
The opposite position: A success with an open outcome
Julian Heissler’s assessment from the German Wirtschaftswoche, for example, is much more skeptical. He doubts that quick access to Maduro will automatically bring political stability. Military efficiency does not necessarily mean strategic success.
Heissler reminds us that forced regime changes in recent history have rarely led to orderly transitions. In Venezuela, too, it is completely unclear whether a formal successor can actually gain control of the country – or whether a power vacuum will arise that will lead to new conflicts.
Oil as a motive – and as a problem
While Stahel describes securing the oil fields as a tactical necessity, Heissler places the issue of oil more at the center of criticism. Trump’s own statements suggested that economic interests played a central role. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world – a fact that has aroused desire in Washington for years.
However, Heissler warns: Direct access to the resources of a foreign state crosses a clear boundary under international law. What is possible militarily could cause enormous political and legal damage – including for the credibility of the USA.
The danger of a new permanent conflict
The domestic political dimension is particularly sensitive for Trump. His political rise was based on a promise to keep the US out of endless foreign missions. Previous military operations had already damaged this image.
If Venezuela were to slide into chaos, resistance or a guerrilla conflict, Trump would face exactly what he always wanted to avoid: an open, difficult-to-control conflict with an unclear end point. The short-term gain in power could prove to be a political mortgage in the long term.
Two readings of an intervention
The two analyzes do not contradict each other in terms of the facts, but they do contradict each other in the assessment of the consequences. Albert Stahel sees a rational, limited use of power that has achieved its core goals. Julian Heissler, on the other hand, warns against confusing military success with political control.
The operation in Venezuela shows one thing above all: in a world of increasing great power politics, success is not only decided on the battlefield – but only in the months and years afterwards. (mke)