On Saturday, the United States’ Delta Force captured the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, in a daring raid on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas.
This is the Monroe Doctrine in effect. I don’t think you can claim this is automatically an enforcement of the “liberal international order”. That remains to be seen with how we handle the situation as it develops.
Further, I don’t agree that Maduro would have merely “came around” to working with Trump. He was hostile and fine with destroying the Venezuelan economy as long as it meant he could stay in power and remain rich.
May I suggest that Maduro was the weak link in the chain of international socialism that should cause the balance of the socialist adversaries to proceed more cautiously, prudently and reasonably none of which are virtues in progressive ideology.
Trump’s Venezuela raid is being sold as a clean “win”, but the strategic ledger tells a very different story—and the implications run straight through India.I just broke down how the Maduro operation exposed America’s biggest weaknesses and road‑tested a three‑weapon playbook that’s already live in India’s information space.If you care about India’s strategic autonomy and how power actually operates behind headlines, this is worth a read.👉 Full analysis here:
I appreciate the concern for the lives of our troops, but this essay's arguments and evidence were wrong or misleading, and I think you are missing the broader point of why the Trump Administration decided to do this.
The mention of res publica is irrelevant to this discussion.
The stated rationale isn't always the primary rationale when it comes to official statements, particularly in the realm of geopolitics.
We used to work with Venezuela in counter-narcotics trafficking prior to Chavez, but we haven't even had official diplomatic relations with Venezuela for many years. They were in an adversarial relationship with the US, which would prevent any sort of successful drug interdiction partnership. This is the whole point--Venezuela was not cooperating.
In fact, Venezuela was going the opposite direction for decades, increasingly strengthening their relationships with China, Iran, and Russia, and even working with and turning a blind eye to Hezbollah operatives. China's investments may have been decreasing in some aspects because of the overall instability and corruption in the country, but they were still buying the majority of Venezuelan oil, and they had signed a major Strategic Partnership agreement. Chinese influence was strong in Venezuela and this was leverage they had over the US. Russia was in a similar position, and had provided security and other diplomatic assistance to Maduro, including their advanced air defense systems which turned out to be completed overmatched by US military power in this operation. Iran had been providing UAV systems and production capabilities to Venezuela, which is enormously significant because they (or their proxies like Hezbollah) or the Venezuelans could then threaten US and other military or commercial shipping in the Caribbean Sea. Just look at what the Houthis did in the Red Sea to evaluate the potential impact of that.
And the evidence provided that Maduro was someone we could work with is weak. He has been someone we couldn't work with from the beginning. The fact that he returned hostages is not evidence of it, as our adversaries wrongfully detain Americans in exchange for something they want all the time. The fact that he said he was "ready and willing to talk" also means nothing. Putin says he is ready to make peace all the time. It's just a tactic. Clearly, if Trump thought Maduro was someone he could work with, he would have worked with him.
As for the regime change, it looks like he actually hasn't changed the regime yet, just Maduro himself, which many liberals are crying about, so that argument does not really hold up--yet. We'll see what ends up happening. Regardless, we don't need Venezuela to be an American style republic--we just need it to stop its aggressive anti-American behavior, reduce its relationships with American adversaries, and work harder to stop the flow of drugs and gang members in to the US.
I think the most significant positive resulting from this event is a re-establishment of American military deterrence. After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump's decision to act decisively against Iran's nuclear program and to capture Maduro in extremely impressive military operations that did not lose a single serviceman or aircraft puts our adversaries on notice. Now they have evidence that when Trump says he might do something, he might actually do it. You can argue that these operations may not have been worth it or effective in the long run given their limited nature, but there is no denying that American military prowess is respected again.
So in terms of "America First", the Maduro Arrest means: Trump has taken another direct action towards stopping narco-terrorist gangs from hurting Americans (especially if Venezuela is stabilized after this in a way that stems emigration to the US), he has weakened the influence of our main adversaries in our backyard, he has re-established American military deterrence, he has opened the potential to allow the US to benefit from significant energy and other material resources from the country and deny it to our adversaries, he has preemptively protected vital maritime shipping lanes, he has knocked out a key ally of the marxist axis in Latin America, and he has done this so far without conducting a full Iraq-like invasion to rebuild Venezuelan democracy or even losing a single servicemember. Clearly, this story is not over yet, but the knee jerk reaction that any sort of action abroad is counter to America First is just ridiculous. America First never was isolationist.
China decreased reliance on Venezuelan oil because of U.S. sanctions. This recent action is now the nail in the coffin. China is no longer planning on relying on Venezuela: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinese-refiners-expected-replace-venezuelan-oil-with-iranian-crude-traders-say-2026-01-07/?
This is the Monroe Doctrine in effect. I don’t think you can claim this is automatically an enforcement of the “liberal international order”. That remains to be seen with how we handle the situation as it develops.
Further, I don’t agree that Maduro would have merely “came around” to working with Trump. He was hostile and fine with destroying the Venezuelan economy as long as it meant he could stay in power and remain rich.
May I suggest that Maduro was the weak link in the chain of international socialism that should cause the balance of the socialist adversaries to proceed more cautiously, prudently and reasonably none of which are virtues in progressive ideology.
Trump’s Venezuela raid is being sold as a clean “win”, but the strategic ledger tells a very different story—and the implications run straight through India.I just broke down how the Maduro operation exposed America’s biggest weaknesses and road‑tested a three‑weapon playbook that’s already live in India’s information space.If you care about India’s strategic autonomy and how power actually operates behind headlines, this is worth a read.👉 Full analysis here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/geopoliticsinplainsight/p/trumps-venezuela-raid-isnt-what-you?r=72pxma&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I appreciate the concern for the lives of our troops, but this essay's arguments and evidence were wrong or misleading, and I think you are missing the broader point of why the Trump Administration decided to do this.
The mention of res publica is irrelevant to this discussion.
The stated rationale isn't always the primary rationale when it comes to official statements, particularly in the realm of geopolitics.
We used to work with Venezuela in counter-narcotics trafficking prior to Chavez, but we haven't even had official diplomatic relations with Venezuela for many years. They were in an adversarial relationship with the US, which would prevent any sort of successful drug interdiction partnership. This is the whole point--Venezuela was not cooperating.
In fact, Venezuela was going the opposite direction for decades, increasingly strengthening their relationships with China, Iran, and Russia, and even working with and turning a blind eye to Hezbollah operatives. China's investments may have been decreasing in some aspects because of the overall instability and corruption in the country, but they were still buying the majority of Venezuelan oil, and they had signed a major Strategic Partnership agreement. Chinese influence was strong in Venezuela and this was leverage they had over the US. Russia was in a similar position, and had provided security and other diplomatic assistance to Maduro, including their advanced air defense systems which turned out to be completed overmatched by US military power in this operation. Iran had been providing UAV systems and production capabilities to Venezuela, which is enormously significant because they (or their proxies like Hezbollah) or the Venezuelans could then threaten US and other military or commercial shipping in the Caribbean Sea. Just look at what the Houthis did in the Red Sea to evaluate the potential impact of that.
And the evidence provided that Maduro was someone we could work with is weak. He has been someone we couldn't work with from the beginning. The fact that he returned hostages is not evidence of it, as our adversaries wrongfully detain Americans in exchange for something they want all the time. The fact that he said he was "ready and willing to talk" also means nothing. Putin says he is ready to make peace all the time. It's just a tactic. Clearly, if Trump thought Maduro was someone he could work with, he would have worked with him.
As for the regime change, it looks like he actually hasn't changed the regime yet, just Maduro himself, which many liberals are crying about, so that argument does not really hold up--yet. We'll see what ends up happening. Regardless, we don't need Venezuela to be an American style republic--we just need it to stop its aggressive anti-American behavior, reduce its relationships with American adversaries, and work harder to stop the flow of drugs and gang members in to the US.
I think the most significant positive resulting from this event is a re-establishment of American military deterrence. After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump's decision to act decisively against Iran's nuclear program and to capture Maduro in extremely impressive military operations that did not lose a single serviceman or aircraft puts our adversaries on notice. Now they have evidence that when Trump says he might do something, he might actually do it. You can argue that these operations may not have been worth it or effective in the long run given their limited nature, but there is no denying that American military prowess is respected again.
So in terms of "America First", the Maduro Arrest means: Trump has taken another direct action towards stopping narco-terrorist gangs from hurting Americans (especially if Venezuela is stabilized after this in a way that stems emigration to the US), he has weakened the influence of our main adversaries in our backyard, he has re-established American military deterrence, he has opened the potential to allow the US to benefit from significant energy and other material resources from the country and deny it to our adversaries, he has preemptively protected vital maritime shipping lanes, he has knocked out a key ally of the marxist axis in Latin America, and he has done this so far without conducting a full Iraq-like invasion to rebuild Venezuelan democracy or even losing a single servicemember. Clearly, this story is not over yet, but the knee jerk reaction that any sort of action abroad is counter to America First is just ridiculous. America First never was isolationist.