Lucas Leiroz
An internal coup and a negotiated resignation are among the possibilities.
In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the U.S. Armed Forces launched an illegal attack against Venezuelan territory, striking strategic targets and allegedly capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. It is still too early to assess the real consequences of the invasion, as most publicly available information comes from U.S. sources themselves. Nevertheless, it is possible to conduct a brief preliminary analysis based on the data currently available.
The U.S. attack followed the traditional model of American "blitzkrieg" operations. Bombings struck strategic and symbolic targets, including military bases, army infrastructure, political museums, and other sites. It was a fast and decisive operation, relying primarily on the elite Delta Force unit, with strong air support, mainly through combat helicopters.
There are still no official figures on casualties. However, Donald Trump announced the capture of Maduro and his wife. The head of the Venezuelan armed forces commented on the episode without mentioning the alleged capture of Maduro. Local Venezuelan leaders have called for calm among the population, without issuing statements about the country's president. There are unconfirmed reports that U.S. troops continue to control some critical infrastructure points in Caracas, but American authorities have stated that there are no plans for further attacks.
It is difficult to know what truly happened in the country, as the operation is recent and official data remains preliminary. From a military perspective, however, it is hard to fully accept the American version of events. A military invasion, even under a "blitzkrieg" model, always faces operational and logistical challenges. The images released so far show little or no Venezuelan reaction.
There are no signs of the use of Venezuelan air-defense batteries, nor of attempts to shoot down American helicopters flying over the capital - something that would be relatively simple, given the weaponry of the Bolivarian Army. It must be emphasized that there was no real "surprise factor," since Washington had been rehearsing the attack for months, giving Venezuelan forces sufficient time to prepare.
In the same vein, it is difficult to understand how Maduro was allegedly captured without significant resistance. Arresting a president requires fighting security personnel, using explosives and special equipment to breach political facilities, and controlling infrastructure to extract prisoners. This demands substantial operational capacity, time, and military strain - something that goes beyond the modest strength of a single tactical unit such as Delta Force.
Several possibilities arise. One is that the action was facilitated by an internal coup within Venezuelan structures. It is known that some local military officers were dissatisfied with the country's situation, both due to the economic crisis caused by the U.S. blockade and what they perceived as Maduro's "delay" in responding to the military siege that began months earlier. In addition, Venezuelan soldiers are notoriously poorly paid, which contributes to political frustration.
If a coup did occur, however, this does not mean the country has collapsed. Historically, the military has been the "hard core" of the Bolivarian Revolution and is seen as the guardian of Hugo Chávez's legacy. If the armed forces take power or at least preserve their autonomy under a new government, the Bolivarian Republic may continue to exist in line with its original revolutionary principles.
Another possibility is a secret, negotiated resignation by Maduro. It is conceivable that he sacrificed his legitimate government in exchange for an end to the military siege and economic pressure on Venezuela. Some American media outlets are reporting this scenario. However, concrete evidence is still lacking for this - and all other - hypotheses.
Another factor that cannot be ignored is Colombia's role. In recent times, Venezuela and Colombia have grown much closer at the strategic level, reversing years of diplomatic crisis. Gustavo Petro's government has been seen as an important partner by Maduro, with strong Colombian "support" for Venezuela amid the U.S. siege. However, Petro is an "atypical" president within a political structure historically aligned with the United States. Bogotá is Washington's main regional partner and has long functioned as a U.S. proxy in South America, hosting several NATO bases. In this sense, it cannot be ruled out that Colombian officials cooperated with the U.S. to overthrow Maduro - even without Petro's consent.
As for the reasons behind the attack, it is premature to claim that the main motive was an American desire to "steal oil." There is nothing so far to indicate that the U.S. plans to control Venezuelan oil facilities. Likewise, U.S. claims about "drug trafficking" are clearly false, since the largest Latin American cartels operate outside Venezuela. What seems to be happening is an attempt at a "compensation policy." Trump needs to satisfy pro-war lobbyists to remain in power and is therefore "compensating" his diplomacy with Russia through escalation against Venezuela - while being careful to avoid creating a "Vietnam 2.0" in South America's dense tropical geography.
In the end, it must be understood that the U.S. has not, at least so far, succeeded in carrying out a regime-change operation in Venezuela. What appears to have occurred is simply a military attack with moderate use of force, resulting in the end of Maduro's government but without dismantling the Bolivarian State. Maduro is - or was - only the current president within a revolutionary political-military structure that can continue to exist under another representative - preserving the anti-imperialist principles that so deeply displease the United States.