By moral and democratic standards, the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was correct, although against international legal practice. Over 90% of the 8 million Venezuelans who fled the country during his rule celebrate his arrest. Within Venezuela, 70 to 80% of citizens believe they were cheated in the elections and support the opposition. Since the will of the people is clear, the American intervention was a liberation, not an attack.
Critics say Trump violated Venezuela's sovereignty, but Maduro lacked the legitimacy of the people to represent the country's sovereignty. This view is supported by the first sentence of the US Constitution, which begins with the words "We the People," demonstrating that in a democracy, only the citizens are the sovereign rulers of the country. And only through properly conducted elections can politicians be granted this claim to sovereignty for a limited time.
Maduro's 13-year illegal rule directly cost tens of thousands of lives, and hundreds of thousands more died from inadequate nutrition and healthcare, as well as during dangerous escape attempts. In contrast, his overthrow resulted in almost no civilian casualties. The action resembled Trump's decisive intervention in 2025, which successfully ended Netanyahu's war with Iran—swiftly, effectively, and thus avoiding a full-scale war.
However, the enormous potential of Trump's approach to ending blatant tyranny only becomes clear when compared with the disastrously counterproductive Western military policy of the 80 years since World War II. The countless British and American interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, have taken mankind further and further away from the UN goal of abolishing war. In particular, large numbers of civilians were lost. In 2003, President Bush violated Iraq's sovereignty without a declaration of war or a UN mandate. But only superficially did this appear to be a similar case to Trump's current intervention in Venezuela. Although Bush announced the military strike as liberation, it turned out to be a conquest which led to almost nine years of occupation.
This nightmare was based on a counterproductive concept that repeated the mistakes of the Vietnam War on an even larger scale:
- CIA disinformation about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction provided the pretext for the attack.
- Mainstream media presented the false image of a precision war against clearly defined military targets. In reality, however, civilian infrastructure such as homes, bridges, and power plants were destroyed on a massive scale.
- Approximately 4.2 million people lost their homes; almost half of them fled the country.
- The ruthless treatment of the civilian population through constant checks, arrests, and restrictions fueled hatred of the West. This environment also gave rise to the terrorist group ISIS.
- Iraqi security forces, 'trained' by the CIA, distinguished themselves through particular cruelty.
- The "war of liberation" and the occupation cost almost as many Iraqis their lives as Saddam Hussein's rule.
- Western nations lost prestige and their role as role models in the Islamic world.
After WikiLeaks exposed this fiasco, its founder, Julian Assange, was politically persecuted for approximately 15 years. This unlawful action confirmed the danger which the insufficiently controlled US intelligence constitutes to Western freedom. Presidents of the founding decades had issued stark warnings against such a militaristic course. John Quincy Adams captured the essence of the great danger that threatened America when, on Independence Day in 1821, he outlined the prospect: „She (America) might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.“
To overcome the decades of US mistakes in Latin America, everyone must implement the necessary changes: Maduro's supporters, the Venezuelan military, the Trump administration, and commentators worldwide must embrace this transformation as a new beginning; otherwise, they will plunge the country into even greater chaos and miss a global political opportunity.
Trump should bear in mind that past US interventions in Latin America have severely damaged trust. Unlike the insufficiently informed US citizens, Latin Americans are aware of the long history of destructive CIA interventions, the overthrow of elected governments, and the installation of dictators. They also know which interests this policy of almost every US president since William McKinley (1897-1901) has served—those of large international corporations, particularly those in the oil and arms industries.
The same interventions have brought decades of suffering to the civilian population—for example, a 36-year civil war in Guatemala. For Trump, this means distancing himself from this destructive policy of the past and establishing a genuine democratic partnership. Only then will the liberation of Venezuela from the Maduro dictatorship fit seamlessly into the dawn of a more peaceful and just era. After decades of the growing power of corporate oligopolies and militarists, this means paving the way for peaceful conflict resolution and reviving the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
Trump has little time left for the necessary clarification of the battle lines. Concerning Venezuela's oil, seventy percent of it has gone to China so far. Substantially changing this would once again allow US oil companies to dictate the direction of American policy. That would be the first step in a 2026 of global chaos and violence.
If political decision-makers now manage the test run in Venezuela in a way that avoids war, there is also hope for a solution in the unstable Middle East. It must be a measure that puts an end to the activities of terrorist supporters in Tehran without the civilian population having to suffer from the crimes of their unpopular leaders.
Maduro's successful overthrow offers the chance to largely prevent wars by removing and holding accountable oppressive regimes through intelligent, narrowly defined interventions. For far too long, American politicians have practiced arming "pro-Western" rebels in endlessly protracted wars, from Central America to Afghanistan and Syria. In contrast, the war-avoiding, minimally invasive approach against Maduro's dictatorship adheres to the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, it also aligns with the sovereignty of UN members as enshrined in Article 2 of the 1945 Charter. For members are primarily not states with their nations, but rather United NATIONS with THEIR states.