A lot of people are already arguing that the military action against Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro set a dangerous precedent that Russia and China will use to justify their own ambitions in Ukraine and Taiwan. That concern is understandable, but it’s also being overstated in some important ways. And more importantly, this situation in Venezuela is far from resolved.
What to Know…
The capture of Maduro does not significantly change Russia’s behavior in Ukraine and only marginally affects China’s long-standing calculus on Taiwan.
On the ground in Venezuela, little has changed because much of the power structure remains intact, and living conditions for ordinary people are unchanged.
U.S. intervention risks repeating historical failures in Latin America, with both occupation and disengagement likely to produce negative outcomes.
For starters, the idea that this somehow changes Russia’s credibility or posture regarding Ukraine doesn’t really hold up. Russia has already invaded Ukraine, occupies large portions of the country, and routinely attempts to assassinate President Volodymyr Zelensky. From Moscow’s perspective, nothing about Venezuela meaningfully alters its calculations. This isn’t a new escalation for them; it’s business as usual.
China is a slightly different case. Beijing has sought control over Taiwan for roughly eight decades, and it watches international responses to regime change very closely. It’s possible Chinese leadership could view this moment as an opportunity, believing that global attention will be consumed by criticism of the United States, creating space for them to act with less immediate backlash. That said, China doesn’t need Venezuela as a pretext; its position on Taiwan has been consistent for generations.
Complicating matters further is the fact that China, Russia, and Iran all have strategic and economic interests in Venezuela. Maduro’s capture doesn’t erase those interests, nor does it remove their incentives to influence what happens next.
On paper, very little has actually changed inside Venezuela itself.
Maduro’s vice president remains in place, along with much of the existing power structure. Whether the broader regime collapses without Maduro is an open question, but as of now, the material conditions for ordinary Venezuelans are essentially the same as they were before. Food shortages, economic instability, and institutional decay don’t disappear overnight just because one figurehead is removed.
History also offers a grim warning. In Latin America, when the United States intervenes militarily, topples a government, and leaves behind a power vacuum, the outcome is almost never positive. Chaos, repression, and long-term instability tend to follow. Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are all examples of how even decades after American interference, Central American countries haven’t been able to establish what we would consider a normal or safe environment within their respective borders.
Senator Marco Rubio has said that with Maduro captured, there are no plans for further strikes on Venezuela. That may be true, but it doesn’t rule out occupation, “stabilization,” or other forms of prolonged involvement. If U.S. forces move in, the situation risks sliding into a familiar Iraq- or Afghanistan-style quagmire. If the U.S. stays out entirely and leaves Venezuela to sort itself out amid fractured leadership, the result is unlikely to be any better.
Either path leads to bad outcomes, which raises the most important point of all: this is exactly why the United States should not be engaging in this kind of intervention in the first place. Regime change creates far more problems than it solves, and Venezuela appears poised to become another example of that hard-learned lesson.