US Military Action in Venezuela: Sovereignty Concerns

The recent capture of Nicolás Maduro in a military operation conducted by the United States has revealed a shift in Washington's foreign policy approach. Rather than signaling a new democratic era for Venezuela, the event highlights a long-standing logic of intervention that is now being exercised without restraint. The operation, carried out under the direction of the current US administration, suggests that American involvement is driven by capability and strategic interest rather than the defense of democratic principles.

Statements regarding the operation emphasize a policy of entry, retention, and decision-making based on national convenience. The narrative of humanitarian aid or democratic defense has been abandoned in favor of a transparent assertion of power. This marks a significant change in how the United States engages with sovereign nations, particularly those rich in resources. The following analysis explores the implications of this policy shift, the rhetoric used by officials, and the future of US-Venezuela relations.

The messaging emerging from Washington regarding the military operation in Venezuela is characterized by its simplicity and directness. High-profile figures have articulated a stance that prioritizes national capability over international norms. The core of this message is that the United States acts because it possesses the power to do so, and it intends to stay as long as it serves its interests. This represents a departure from the complex diplomatic language often used to justify foreign interventions.

Under the current administration, the pretense of defending democracy or engaging in humanitarian missions has been stripped away. The operation is not framed as an effort to liberate the Venezuelan people, but rather as an exercise of sovereign will by Washington. This unvarnished approach suggests that the US government is no longer interested in maintaining the rhetorical facades of previous eras. Instead, the focus is on the practical outcomes of military engagement.

Historically, foreign interventions have often been accompanied by narratives emphasizing the protection of human rights or the restoration of democracy. However, the current situation in Venezuela suggests that these justifications are no longer necessary for the United States. The violation of Venezuelan sovereignty is being executed openly, without the usual diplomatic cover or the claim of it being a 'necessary evil.' It is a raw display of geopolitical strategy.

The exploitation of Venezuela's resources is now a stated or implied objective without the veil of exceptionality. The operation is conducted 'a cara descubierta'—openly and without shame. This transparency in motive indicates that the rules of engagement have changed. The international community is witnessing a shift where the power to act is the only justification required.

The continuity of the current political situation in Venezuela, despite the capture of its leader, points to a complex dynamic. The United States has revealed that it does not prioritize the democratic process in Venezuela to the extent of removing the current regime structure entirely. By allowing the continuity of Chavismo or similar political structures, Washington signals that its interests may align with stability or specific resource management rather than total political overhaul.

This approach disregards the Venezuelan opposition, who may have hoped for a definitive break from the current governance. The US action suggests that the ultimate decision on who rules is based on American interests. The focus remains on the strategic value of the region rather than the internal political aspirations of the Venezuelan populace.

The events unfolding in Venezuela serve as a clear indicator of the current geopolitical climate in Washington. The military operation targeting Nicolás Maduro is not an isolated incident but the manifestation of a broader policy shift. The United States has moved away from the era of disguised interventions and is now engaging in direct power projection.

The message to the world is unequivocal: national interests and the capacity to project power are the primary drivers of foreign policy. For Venezuela, this means that the path forward is dictated not by internal democratic mechanisms, but by the strategic calculations of a foreign superpower. The era of diplomatic niceties regarding resource-rich nations appears to be over.