The U.S. operation aimed at capturing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has ignited a heated discussion in Washington and beyond. There’s debate about whether this act undermines international standards or, conversely, serves as a message of deterrence toward competitors like China and Russia.
Some critics claim that seizing control in a sovereign nation sets a risky precedent that could empower adversaries to justify their own military interventions. “My biggest concern right now is that Russia will use this to rationalize its aggressive actions in Ukraine or that China might see it as grounds for invading Taiwan,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) expressed. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also raised a thought-provoking question: “What would we say now if President Putin tried to take Mr. Zelenskiy out?”
On the flip side, others argue that countries like Russia and China have never truly adhered to such norms, and that deterrence is more effectively determined by displays of military capability than by legal frameworks.
Pedro Garmendia, a geopolitical risk expert based in Washington, suggested that neither President Putin nor President Xi likely believe sovereignty outweighs power. He noted, “China and Russia pick and choose when to respect international law; they ignore it when it suits their interests.”
Complications of American Lethality
For the U.S.’s adversaries, the most unsettling takeaway may be the visible show of American military effectiveness. The operation reportedly resulted in numerous casualties among Venezuelan and Cuban security forces, with U.S. forces encountering significant armed resistance. Both governments acknowledged the deaths, while independent sources estimated the toll in the dozens, involving both military personnel and civilians.
Former President Donald Trump later clarified that the nature of the mission demanded a level of violence due to existing threats, which included foreign armed groups among Maduro’s protective detail. He argued that the degree of military action was necessary to secure Maduro’s capture before he could mobilize his supporters.
Analysts claim that exhibiting such readiness to use force can have its own deterrent implications. Garmendia pointed out that Venezuela is not an isolated partner for America’s rivals. “Both Russia and China have invested heavily in both the Chávez and Maduro regimes,” he said. “It’s frankly embarrassing for them that the U.S. managed to detain Maduro so quickly, particularly right after a Chinese envoy visited him.”
Execution of Force
This operation didn’t just bring casualties—it also underscored U.S. capabilities in speed and precision. Special operations forces had rehearsed for months, even using a scale model of Maduro’s residence for practice. Intelligence agents meticulously tracked his movements, allowing planners to identify when Maduro would be most vulnerable.
Air dominance, quick approach, and synchronized movements were executed swiftly, minimizing the time Venezuelan forces had to react. Trump highlighted this detailed preparation as evidence that the operation was far from impulsive; rather, it necessitated speed and overwhelming force to ensure success.
Former FBI officer Eric O’Neill commented that these operational details likely hold more weight for nations like China and Russia than mere legal discussions at the United Nations. He suggested that for Trump’s presidency, this might create an illusion of deterrence against those nations, who were seemingly caught off guard by Maduro’s rapid removal.
Experience Matters
The essence of deterrence also rests in experience—the ability to execute complex, intelligence-driven operations stemming from years of counterterrorism and special operations training. U.S. officials emphasized the seamless integration of planning, logistics, and execution as evidence of a sophisticated operational approach that can be initiated with little notice.
However, international organizations have voiced concerns as well. Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN human rights office, warned that such actions might erode global norms, suggesting that this indicates individuals in power could act with impunity. “Intervention like this can undermine global security and make countries less safe,” she cautioned.
The Chinese government reacted strongly, expressing deep shock and condemning the U.S. for its “blatant use of force against a sovereign state,” calling it a serious violation of international law. It further warned that such actions could destabilize the Latin American and Caribbean regions.
This criticism from China aligns with its increasing military pressure on Taiwan, involving frequent air patrols and extensive military drills aimed at showcasing readiness to use force.
Russia similarly condemned the U.S. operation at the UN, pointing to it as a breach of sovereignty and international law, even as it continues its own aggressive actions in Ukraine.
From the perspective of U.S. strategists, this inconsistency in responses highlights their intended message. While adversaries may leverage international law rhetorically, it’s the actual capacity to plan and act without warning that truly influences their calculations.
