The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the United States forces has gone down in Latin American history as one of the most unusual examples of foreign intervention. This development did not merely signify the removal of a leader from office, but also created a serious area of debate in terms of state sovereignty, regime continuity, and the limits of international law. The atmosphere in the country immediately following the intervention gave the impression of a transitional period in which sovereignty was suspended, rather than a “regime change.” This is because, despite Maduro’s removal, the state apparatus largely remained intact, and power was transferred to Delcy Rodriguez, one of his closest associates.
This situation presents a different picture from classic examples of coups or externally supported regime change. US President Donald Trump’s statement that “we will manage Venezuela” did not fully correspond to the reality on the field.[i] This is because there has been no comprehensive institutional transformation in the country in the post-Maduro era, and the security apparatus, police, and bureaucracy have largely remained under the control of the old regime. This situation suggests that the aim of the intervention was to create a leadership-centered power vacuum rather than to seize complete control of the state in the short term.
In the context of international relations, this development has brought the question of “whether the removal of the leader is sufficient to bring down the regime” back to the agenda. As seen in the case of Venezuela, even in regimes where personal power is strong, the state’s institutional and military structures can demonstrate continuity independent of the leader. The increased military patrols in the streets and the pressure on the press following Maduro’s removal have revealed that the regime’s reflexes have not changed significantly. This situation shows that the intervention has created a realignment within the regime rather than a regime change.
The US move has also raised serious questions in terms of international law: “Does the capture of the incumbent president of a sovereign state by another country’s military operation create a clear tension with the principles of prohibition of the use of force and non-interference in internal affairs?” The allegations of drug trafficking and weapons smuggling cited as justification for the intervention have been argued controversial even in the context of international criminal law. Under normal circumstances, such allegations would be handled through extradition, judicial cooperation, or international courts. The fact that this option was not chosen has reinforced the perception that the US prioritizes the use of force over legal processes.
The situation in Venezuela has further deepened this legal and political uncertainty. The atmosphere that emerged after the intervention did not produce either clear social relief or a full-fledged anti-regime mobilization. On the contrary, a widespread state of waiting and caution has taken hold in the country. The main reason for this is that, despite Maduro’s removal, the regime has not been completely dismantled. The presence of actors from the Maduro era in key positions within the state apparatus has created serious uncertainty about the future for opposition groups.
This uncertainty has become even more complex when combined with the deep economic and humanitarian crisis Venezuela has experienced in recent years. Following a period in which millions of people left the country, Maduro’s removal created a perception of a “last chance” in some circles, but no short-term improvement has been seen in economic indicators. On the contrary, the rapid increase in basic food prices, coupled with the weakening of state authority, has shown that the uncertainty in the markets continues. This situation has once again demonstrated that a change in leadership alone is not enough to bring about economic and social transformation.
From the US perspective, this intervention demonstrated a conscious avoidance of a long-term occupation or comprehensive reconstruction process. The Trump administration’s foreign policy practice has been shaped by high-impact but limited moves rather than permanent military engagements. In the case of Venezuela, it is evident that the US has opted for an intervention that creates uncertainty and disrupts internal balances, rather than assuming direct responsibility for governing the country. This approach has both conveyed a message of “strong leadership” to the domestic audience and made it possible to avoid long-term military and economic costs.
However, it is also clear that this strategy carries serious risks in terms of its long-term consequences. Leader-focused interventions carried out before the regime is completely dissolved can deepen internal power struggles within the state and increase social polarization. The continued tension between pro- and anti-regime elements in Venezuela following Maduro’s removal is a concrete manifestation of this risk. Furthermore, the US rhetoric, which does not rule out the possibility of a “second strike,” indicates that the fragile stability in the country could deteriorate further.
From the perspective of the international system, the example of Venezuela demonstrates that we have entered an era in which major powers selectively apply the principle of sovereignty. Such interventions affect not only the targeted country but also third parties. Indeed, the United States’ display of power on this scale in Latin America has been closely watched by many actors from Europe to Asia. This situation has raised the question of “under what conditions leaders can actually be targeted” at the global level.
As a result, the situation in Venezuela following Maduro’s removal has produced deep transitional uncertainty rather than a clear regime change. The preservation of the state’s institutional structure has limited the impact of the intervention, while the persistence of social and economic problems has heightened concerns about the future. Although the US move sent a strong message in the short term, in the long term it has further deepened debates about Venezuela’s stability and the legitimacy of international law.
[i] Cuddy, Alice, “‘Fear in the Streets’: Venezuelans Uncertain About What Might Happen Next”, BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62077l3m7eo, (Date Accessed: 18.01.2026).
