The armed forces of the United States carried out a lightning operation in Venezuela on 3/1/2026, which resulted in the arrest and removal from the country of the nation’s president, Nicolás Maduro.
American media report that the military actions lasted less than 30 minutes, a fact that underscores the surprise and absolutely targeted character of the operation.
The events triggered a wave of commentary internationally, from political and military analysts to war correspondents and specialized channels that monitor the Russian special military operation in Ukraine.
The common thread of the reactions is clear: the international order as we knew it has been replaced by the “law of the strong”.
Another common element in expert analyses is that internal betrayal was what made the Americans’ lightning operation so easy.
The US is bombing Venezuela in an actual unprovoked attack. Many excuses will be given over the next days: Narco-terrorism; Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and others "operating" in Venezuela; democracy promotion backed by the Nobel Peace Prize etc. pic.twitter.com/qhiVq0OOZu
— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 3, 2026
Only one law exists – the law of the strong
The correspondent of VGTRK, Evgeny Poddubny, was categorical: “We have long been living in a world where there is only one law – the law of the strong.
They simply stole the president of an independent country.
No outrage, no sanctions, no cancellation of American culture”.
This position summarizes the core argument of critics: a military operation which, if confirmed as described, completely bypasses international law, without the consequences that any other country would face in a similar case.
Trump, bombings and ‘negotiations’
Special correspondent Alexander Sladkov highlighted the contradiction between the image of Trump as a peace negotiator and his alleged personal involvement in the operation: “Poor, poor Earth. The main ‘negotiator’ is an ordinary robber.
That is who we are dealing with.”
This statement reinforces the view that rhetoric about peace initiatives now coexists with direct military solutions when strategic interests are at stake.
Venezuela’s capital is now under attack by the US regime
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 3, 2026
No authorization from Congress, no popular American support
Just another terrorist war for oil, plunder and imperial control initiated with “shock and awe”pic.twitter.com/7iesVaWNXo
No resistance: Collapse of defense or internal disintegration?
The military analytical center Rybar focused on the almost complete absence of armed resistance: “If the material is not the product of AI, then the Venezuelans simply slept through the attack.
The Americans are acting casually, helicopters flying low over the capital could have been shot down even with a machine gun, let alone with MANPADS”.
The remark “if you allow helicopters to fly between apartment blocks, drones will not save you” sums up a harsh critique of the state of air defense and operational readiness.
A similar assessment was made by the military pilot Fighterbomber, who spoke of a complete absence of defense: “There was no resistance. No air defense, no attempt at defense.
Venezuela did not enter a war and will not enter one.
It resembles Syria, except that here there were no forces of ours to stabilize the situation”.
BREAKING: The Trump administration has begun an illegal bombing campaign of Caracas, Venezuela, striking various parts of the city. pic.twitter.com/SeSfSzWh20
— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) January 3, 2026
Russian presence: Advisory and not combat
On the question of whether Russian military presence could have influenced events, Rybar was clear:
“There is a limited number of military personnel as advisers. There is no full armed formation on our side”.
In other words, Russia did not have the means to intervene operationally, leaving Venezuela essentially alone against the operation.
Professionalism and internal betrayal
The channel Two Majors, despite its sarcasm, acknowledged the professionalism of the American forces, while at the same time hinting at internal collaborators:
“Joking aside, the operation was carried out without unnecessary noise.
It is difficult to believe that there were no traitors inside”.
Historical parallel: The Noriega case
The channel Military Informant compared the case with the arrest of Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1990.
At that time, the United States accused Noriega of murders, extortion, kidnappings, and drug trafficking. 36 years earlier, on 3 January, he surrendered to American special forces.
The comparison reinforces the image of a rapid intervention with collaborators on the ground, limited objectives, short duration, rapid withdrawal. “They flew in, did the job, and left”.
Whether Washington’s claims are fully confirmed or not, the message conveyed is clear: power precedes law.
The operation in Venezuela is presented as a model of military effectiveness, but at the same time raises fundamental questions about state sovereignty, international law, and the limits of intervention.
In this new landscape, the rules are not merely abolished, they are ignored when they do not serve the strong.
And that is perhaps the most troubling message of the case.
Who were the Americans’ internal collaborators
The speed and precision of the American operation in Venezuela, according to reports, less than 30 minutes to arrest Maduro, have sparked open discussion in international military forums about how an independent country collapsed so easily in the face of the United States.
Many analysts focus on the scenario of internal betrayal as a decisive factor in the success of the operation.
This assessment is based on the strong likelihood that the operation was not limited solely to military superiority.
There was most likely internal cooperation from individuals within the state apparatus of Venezuela, who facilitated access for special forces to critical points of the capital and possibly provided information on security movements and the location of Maduro.
Analysts note that the internal “collaborators” may belong to various levels, from military officers who were not acting on behalf of the president, to members of the presidential guard, or even politicians who had different interests.
The result? The capital was left completely exposed, without any active resistance, while American forces were able to move with absolute freedom.
Planning with internal knowledge
The fact that the American operation in Venezuela was limited to the simple arrest of the president, leaving behind only limited destruction, suggests strategic planning based on internal knowledge and cooperation, not solely military superiority.
Expert commentators on the Rybar channel agree that internal betrayals likely determined the success of the operation. Without them, the operation would have faced serious resistance from at least basic security units of the capital, helicopters, and drones that could have mounted a defense.
The operation in Venezuela demonstrates that in the modern world military power is often combined with internal mechanisms of betrayal and cooperation.
The speed, precision, and lack of resistance cannot be explained solely by technology or by the training of US special forces.
The “silent power” of internal betrayal was most likely the decisive factor that allowed an external power to arrest the President of an independent country without large scale armed conflict.
In this context, Venezuela offers a warning scenario for all countries: internal cohesion and the loyalty of institutions are often more important for a country’s security than any weapon or military force.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών