Daniel W. Dresner, Paul Hear, Leslie Vinchamuri, Lord Jim O'Neill, Joshua Bucby, Paul Poast
Source: Source: https://globalaffairs.org/commentary/analysis/what-trumps-attack-venezuela-means-region-and-world
Photo Credit: Globalaffairs.org
Supporters of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro hug in the center of Caracas, Venezuela, on Saturday, January 3, 2026, after US President Donald Trump announced the seizure of Maduro and his removal from the country.
The U.S. military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a large-scale operation. Experts estimate what an unprecedented U.S. intervention for Venezuela means, U.S. foreign policy, and regional and global stability.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were captured by US forces during the war. «large-scale operation» against the country on Saturday. Now they are «He will face American justice.» for your own self «The campaign of deadly drug terrorism against the United States and its citizens»US President Donald Trump said at a press conference. Trump says the United States is planning «Management of the» Country of the country «Until there can be a safe, proper and judicial transition». . . .
World leaders have largely condemned the Trump administration’s actions. Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva called the attack on his neighbor «serious infringement of Venezuela's sovereignty and another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community». . . . In a statement circulated by his press secretary, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep concern about the situation and «Potential alarming consequences for the region». . . .
As much remains to be seen, we have asked experts to assess the immediate and long-term implications for Venezuela, the United States and the world.
Threat to unruly allies
Daniel W. Dresner, Visited Senior Researcher in Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
In the summer of 2024, I warned Politico that the second Trump administration would likely increase, not reduce, American military adventurism: «Although the term is often applied to it, Trump is not an isolationist. — He is a mercantilist who prefers to use force in this hemisphere.». . . . Use of force to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — A rather strong argument in favor of this claim.
In the future, one interesting effect to pay attention to in connection with these actions of the United States, — This is how other heads of state and government will react. A permanent feature of US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy was pressure or flattering against individual leaders of other countries. Some of my colleagues called it. «Non-Royalist» A worldview that focuses on individual elites, not laws or institutions. The obvious meaning of this action is that the Trump administration does not care about international laws or norms when it comes to attacks on foreign leaders.
One interesting effect to pay attention to in connection with these actions of the United States, — This is how other heads of state and government will react.
I strongly suspect that the Trump administration will use this move with Maduro to threaten the leaders of unruly allies and weak adversaries that they may be next on the weep. Such threats can work. Just as members of the U.S. Congress have expressed fears of personal attacks during Trump's years over his violent rhetoric, countries without the patronage of a great power may find themselves more malleable to ongoing U.S. pressure. Of course, another effect could be the desire of other leaders to tie themselves closer to other great powers as political insurance against the United States. Stay in touch.
Opportunity for China
Paul Hear, the Senior Visitor at the Leicester Crown Center for Foreign Policy
The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela gives Beijing another opportunity to portray China as a more responsible international player than the United States. The Foreign Ministry immediately stated that China «deeply shocked and strongly condemned» «Washington’s frank use of force against a sovereign state and its president»describing it as a serious violation of international law.
This reaction is consistent with the White Paper, which Beijing published about China's relationship with Latin America less than a week after the Trump administration published its National Security Strategy. The latter gave priority to strengthening the influence of the United States in Latin America, especially at the expense of «certain foreign players»It was widely understood as an indication primarily of China. Indeed, Beijing's White Paper described its comprehensive efforts to expand relations in the region, in part in support of the report. «protection of state sovereignty» and in contrast to «Hegemonism and Power Policy» — It was widely understood as an indication of the United States.
Beijing has had «All-weather strategic partnerships» Venezuela and especially President Nicolas Maduro.
Beijing has had «All-weather strategic partnerships» With Venezuela and especially with President Nicolas Maduro, based largely on China's oil needs and Venezuela's investment needs. Indeed, Maduro met with a special envoy from China, apparently just hours before his capture by US forces.
Accordingly, China will join the chorus of international condemnation of the US invasion of Venezuela and will likely play a leading role in any UN response. At the same time, Beijing will take the opportunity to earn diplomatic points against Washington throughout the developing world and even among US allies.
Some commentators have suggested that Beijing could use US justification and means to attack Venezuela to carry out a similar attack on Taiwan. But this is highly unlikely because Beijing — Contrary to popular opinion — He does not seek pretext or opportunity to incur international costs and conviction for attacking Taiwan.
In the Western Hemisphere
Leslie Vincamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer
U.S. attacks on boats in the Caribbean quickly escalated into something much larger and potentially long-term. The U.S. has now intervened in Venezuela's affairs, displaced President Nicolas Maduro, and on Saturday U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would govern the country. — particularly its oil sector — and use oil export revenues to finance the operation. Trump also pointed out that U.S. military troops are likely to be sent to Venezuela indefinitely and for as yet unspecified purposes.
Amid the ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan that Washington is seeking to end, and the serious geopolitical challenge between the US and China, Trump’s attack on Venezuela has demonstrated that a new National Security Strategy is underway. — Not empty words. Domination in the Western Hemisphere and exclusion of other major powers — Especially China and especially where oil resources are involved. — It is a top priority for the United States.
The Trump administration has avoided consulting Congress and major U.S. allies and appears to have only a limited interest in demonstrating clear and limited legal justification in international or domestic law. The New York court's indictment is unlikely to be seen as providing a legal context for military intervention, much less for prolonged occupation. But it doesn't seem to matter.
If drug trafficking, illegitimate election victory or oil control — This is a new threshold for the military seizure of power in the United States, we are waiting for a very turbulent 2026 — and uncharted territory.
If drug trafficking, illegitimate election victory or control of oil — This is a new threshold for the military seizure of power of the United States, we are waiting for a very turbulent 2026. — And also uncharted territory. Invasion of Panama in 1989 and capture of dictator Manuel Noriega in 1990, removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003 and 2011 intervention with removal of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya — All of this has some, but ultimately little to do with what we're seeing right now.
There are many challenges and risks ahead. Venezuelans, and probably also U.S. troops, will be among the first to suffer. And while Washington is preoccupied with internal battles and perhaps also governing Venezuela, there will inevitably be less focus on resolving wars in Ukraine or Gaza, let alone Sudan, where little, if any, progress has been made. This will have profound and lasting implications for U.S. allies, the U.N. system, and the important, albeit deeply problematic, concept of the sanctity of state sovereignty and the broader set of international norms and laws underpinning the international order.
The rest of the world — U.S. partners and allies, but also its adversaries — Now we must decide how to respond to a US president who wields extraordinary power and is willing to use it in an unregulated and unpredictable way. Perhaps the Europeans will decide that their negative moral assessment of Maduro, combined with the enduring importance of their alliance with the US, means that it is wiser to remain neutral. EU Foreign Minister Kaya Kalas made an initial statement, notable for significant fluctuations. The European Union has refrained from assessing the legitimacy of US actions under its leadership. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also gave an initial response, abstaining from judgment and calling for time to be given to the government. «Establish all facts and talk to allies». It is possible, though unlikely, that Britain or Europe will actively provide verbal support for US policy in Venezuela. That would be myopic.
The internal consequences of today’s actions will be profound. Will Congress come together? And will it deepen the divisions within the MAGA movement? Will this set a new threshold for any possibility of limiting executive power? Or will it create internal disagreements and disputes? The answers likely depend on how U.S. involvement develops in the coming weeks. If American intervention turns into a risky, long, or costly occupation of Venezuela, domestic objections are likely to be significant and unfavorable to Trump. But at a time when many people at home and abroad were willing to put up with a breach of norms, a successful, rapid, and profitable transition of power in Venezuela can be rewarded both at home and abroad. — As hard as it may be to imagine.
Shock for markets
Lord Jim O'Neill, Distinguished Research Fellow in Global Economics
As an economist who has spent most of his professional life immersed in markets, I have learned not to outperform markets when it comes to such extraordinary events. I will be keeping a close eye on crude oil, energy and other markets when they open in Asia on Monday morning and before the start of trading hours in the US.
Quite often, when similar shocks have occurred in the past, markets have reacted differently than conventional wisdom dictates. Will markets believe that this intervention is part of a well-thought-out plan, which could mean, among other things, that Venezuela is not going to be able to intervene? — oily — It will be able to produce and export much more, and crude oil prices could fall even further. That would probably be something other markets might welcome.
The fact that it happened so early in the new year, and the subsequent fall in U.S. stock markets and other major markets, will be remarkable.
If the reaction is opposite and there is no clear plan, the opposite and more painful result may follow. The fact that it happened so early in the new year, and the subsequent fall in U.S. stock markets and other major markets, will be remarkable. If the S&P 500 index rises in the first five days of a new calendar year, it tends to indicate a good year. Of course, stock markets as a whole are up, not down, over the course of the year, but in those cases where the S&P 500 is down in the first five days, it's a serious warning that the year could be uneven.
Separate from that, there are actions to be taken by most of the BRICS+ countries, and the need for a better and better international order in which their voices are stronger. It's gonna be an interesting year.
The pretext for access to oil
Joshua Busby, Visited Senior Researcher in Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
At such moments, scientists often look for historical analogies for what might happen next. The recent experience of the United States and international partners shows that regime change can be easy, but the subsequent stabilization and nation-building. — difficult. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are instructive examples and have contributed to the spread of pessimism about regime change in the academic community.
If you look for the best-case scenario, analysts can point to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, when the United States captured the country’s dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges. Panama has a much smaller population and territory than Venezuela.
It remains unclear whether the United States will take responsibility for what happens next in Venezuela, especially if the country sinks into the factional violence we have seen elsewhere since the top leadership was overthrown. Washington’s ability to manage and sustain a transition in Venezuela is questionable, given the downsizing of the State Department’s diplomatic and operational apparatus, the abolition of USAID, and the reorientation of the Department of Defense to the United States. «rivalry».
The Trump administration has presented its actions against Venezuela as a law enforcement operation against drug trafficking, based on a previous 2020 indictment against Maduro, rather than a military operation. Before the attack, the Trump administration also sometimes pointed to a desire to restore access to oil assets that were first nationalized in the 1970s with foreign assets that were further seized in the early 2000s under Maduro's predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez.
The more Washington uses this attack as a pretext to secure access to oil, the more it will play into the hands of claims that the United States is acting in violation of international law and norms against territorial gains. — norms already under enormous pressure due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The more Washington uses this attack as a pretext to secure access to oil, the more it will play into the hands of claims that the United States is acting in violation of international law and norms against territorial gains. — norms already under enormous pressure due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The rest of the Maduro regime has apparently remained in place in Venezuela, and it's unclear whether the Trump administration has plans to go further. Trump's press conference today showed that the US would temporarily rule the country with some unspecified Venezuelans, possibly from the current government, with the aim of restoring stability and access to oil. This raises serious questions about whether additional U.S. troops will be deployed. Maduro has maintained power through election fraud, most recently in 2024 in an election deemed rigged. So the question remains: what will happen to the Venezuelan government?
Political error
Paul PoastVisiting Senior Researcher on Foreign Policy and Public Opinion
While some feared that U.S. President Donald Trump was leading the United States toward an Iraqi-style quagmire in Venezuela, I felt that the administration was instead hoping for something closer to Washington’s ouster of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989. It seems that the administration not only carried out such a scenario, but did it even more effectively, as part of the invasion of Panama lasted a month before Noriega surrendered.
Although the operation was successful militarily, it was not lawful under international law, unless the definition of «defensiveness» The UN Charter is not stretched to the limit. The same is true of what happened in Panama in 1989. In both cases, the US administration — George H.W. Bush in 1989 and Donald Trump in 2026 — She believed the United States had a national interest in removing the Latin American leader. And in both cases, drug trafficking played a role in their rationale.
Although the operation was successful militarily, it was not lawful under international law, unless the definition of «defensiveness» The UN Charter is not stretched to the limit.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been unpopular in Venezuela, the region and the international arena, as evidenced by the latest Nobel Peace Prize laureate. There were grounds for his removal from power, and both the Trump administration and the Joe Biden administration have long imposed sanctions on Venezuela. But Trump was politically wrong about this situation.
In short, it could have been an operation that many welcomed. Instead, mainly because of a series of clearly illegal «boating» Over the past few months, Trump has turned this into a situation where, at best, many grudgingly admit it wasn't the worst thing the Trump administration has done.
