The Facts and the Narrative
During the early morning hours of January 3, 2026, airstrikes and explosions occurred in Caracas, La Guaira, Miranda, and other states, affecting strategic areas of Venezuela, including military bases such as Fort Tiuna and La Carlota, as well as airports, ports, and communications centers. The sound of explosions, low-flying aircraft, and power outages generated alarm among the population. Due to widespread censorship, people reported what was happening through videos and images on social media. It was a military operation aimed at capturing Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, as part of a large-scale security action dubbed “Operation Absolute Resolution.” It is expected that in the coming hours, both leaders of the de facto government will face drug trafficking charges in a New York court.
As part of the uncertainty sparked by the event on a global scale, more questions than answers arise regarding the objectives, scope, duration, and consequences of the United States’ incursion into Venezuelan territory. To date, there is no assessment in terms of casualties and material damage, nor is there any information about the physical condition of the two detainees, nor details about Venezuela’s prepared response. Given that this was a high-intensity air operation with prior intelligence, perhaps the most significant question is how the capture of two individuals sustains the theory of an alleged Cartel of the Suns. While the narrative surrounding this cartel hasn’t collapsed, it has lost strength, because far from encompassing a criminal network, the United States’ action points to a personalized criminal leadership, which ultimately leads to questioning whether a cartel truly exists embedded within the state or if the accusation serves a specific political objective.
In any case, the flagrant violations of International Law, as defined by the Charter of the United Nations, are being left out of the debate. The main violation is the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2.4), as there has been no prior armed attack by Venezuela against the United States to justify any legitimate self-defense, nor any authorization from the Security Council to support it. The fundamental basis of International Law, which rests on the principle of sovereignty, has been violated.
The entry of foreign troops, along with the practice of unauthorized detentions and “extractions,” constitutes a violation of sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force (Articles 2.1 and 2.4), even if the target is a de facto ruler accused of serious crimes. In general, the United States has undermined international peace and security by launching military attacks to resolve political situations, even if they have local and global repercussions, to the detriment of Venezuela’s territorial integrity and political independence, considering the damage caused and the issue of “overseeing a transition” (Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.4).
In the field of human rights, any forced transfer of a person to another state, without extradition proceedings or a relevant procedural mechanism between the countries involved, constitutes an arbitrary and high-risk operation, which legal doctrine refers to as “extraordinary renditions.” These practices by the United States consist of obtaining custody of a person suspected of participating in a serious crime in violation of at least the norms of due process and judicial protection. The fact that a country lacks democracy or separation of powers, or that the operation is “surgical” against the most heinous criminals, does not serve as an excuse to legitimize this arbitrary procedure.
Whether the existing framework of international law does not allow for another solution to the Venezuelan conflict is part of a deeper discussion, but that is the exclusive responsibility of the states, which have committed to subjecting their domestic laws and policies to international law.
The Regime’s Reaction
Given the magnitude of the offensive launched against Venezuela, which, according to the United States Secretary of War, involved 150 aircraft and a large number of military helicopters, there was no perceptible reaction from the Bolivarian Armed Forces. No obstacle was placed in the way of the bombings that attacked Caracas.
Furthermore, government spokespeople, with a few exceptions such as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Interior, did not communicate the regime’s position or the measures to be taken to defend the safety of individuals in the face of this grave situation. Shortly after the offensive began, the illegitimate government issued a statement declaring that “…President Nicolás Maduro has signed and ordered the implementation of the Decree declaring a state of External Disturbance throughout the national territory, to protect the rights of the population, the full functioning of republican institutions, and to immediately transition to armed struggle…” However, the legal standing of this statement is unclear, and it appears to have served only as propaganda, given that the declaration of such a state of external disturbance must be made by the Council of Ministers and ratified by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not occurred. Nevertheless, hours later, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, in a public address, announced a similar decree and presented it to the President of the Court. She also stated that, given the President’s absence, the Council of State remains in permanent session.
Nor, at least as of the writing of this text (6:00 pm, Venezuela time), was there a call for an extraordinary session of the National Assembly, something that, given the unfolding events, should be of the utmost urgency.
On the other hand, the government’s call for “armed struggle” was openly ignored by the public, who neither during the offensive nor afterward took to the streets to demonstrate in defense of the regime. It is worth noting that there was also no visible presence of the militiamen, who are the most overtly politicized sector of the Armed Forces.
Reaction of María Corina Machado
More than six hours after the arrest of Maduro and Flores was confirmed, opposition leader María Corina Machado posted a message on social media that began with a statement that does not correspond to reality, claiming that Maduro “faces international justice for the atrocious crimes committed against Venezuelans.” Neither the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York qualifies as part of an international justice system, nor are the narcoterrorism charges are related to the atrocious crimes committed against Venezuelans. The message also suggested that Maduro’s capture marks the end of the dictatorship. For now, this is not the case, and, worse for the leader, Trump does not see Machado as the person capable of leading a transition.
International Reaction
The international reaction has reflected the persistent polarization surrounding the situation in Venezuela, but some critics of Maduro, including the European Union, did not unconditionally applaud Trump’s armed intervention, recalling that “under any circumstances, the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations must be respected.” The mediation offers made by the governments of Colombia and Brazil do not appear very viable, given that they lost their best opportunity after the electoral fraud of July 2024. Other mediation offers from Spain, Qatar, and Panama would require the approval of Trump, who maintains a triumphalist, defiant, and arrogant attitude, perceiving himself as a central actor in conflict resolution, not part of the conflict, even though he is.
As a neighboring country, Colombia also announced the enactment of an economic, social, and environmental emergency decree for the border to address, among other things, a possible influx of migrants, while Brazil, another neighboring country, temporarily closed its border but reopened it hours later.
In the multilateral arena, the first to speak out was the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, followed hours later by the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General. In both cases, the reactions focused on the need for restraint and respect for the UN Charter and international law.
Trump’s Announcements
After outlining some details of the operation, Trump stated, “We are going to govern that country until we can have a secure transition. We are going to manage that country.” He also repeated the false narrative about the prisons and psychiatric hospitals that Maduro supposedly emptied to send criminals and the mentally ill to the U.S., thus persisting in the criminalization and objectification of Venezuelan migrants to justify their arbitrary detention and deportation. He insisted on the alleged “theft” of oil, which he claims belongs to the U.S.
Once again, the words democracy, rule of law, and human rights were absent from Trump’s speech.
Finally, Trump announced that Delcy Rodríguez, vice president of the de facto government, had been sworn in as president and that she was willing to cooperate with the U.S. in what could only be described as a supervised transition. However, hours later, the main spokespeople for the de facto government appeared, led by Rodríguez, who denounced Maduro’s kidnapping.
What can be expected from the international community?
Neither the Trump administration nor the de facto government of Venezuela is known for its commitment to truth and transparency, so it will be several days before we know who is really in charge. For now, control of the population and territory seems to remain in the hands of Chavismo, and they are the ones who must be held accountable. But if a supervised transition succeeds, a foreign government would be jointly responsible for past, present, and future human rights violations, and it will be essential to hold them accountable.
Meanwhile, those who call for respect for sovereignty should remember that Venezuela’s sovereignty, expressed by the people in the stolen election of July 28, 2014, had already been violated. Those who fear the plundering of resources should remember that those resources had already been handed over to foreign powers. Respect for the popular will expressed on July 28, 2024, and the recovery of wealth gains for Venezuelans cannot be relativized or postponed in the name of a tutelary transition.