Venezuela between liberation and the abyss: end of a regime or normalization of imperial power?

For years, Venezuela has been the most painful example of how a state can degrade into a machine of repression, corruption, and structural misery. The regime led by Nicolás Maduro not only emptied democratic institutions of their meaning but also transformed the country into a territory captured by criminal, military, and economic networks that operate outside—and often against—the interests of its own people.

© FT montage/Getty Images

Therefore, it is not surprising that a significant portion of public opinion, both inside and outside Venezuela, has received recent events with a mixture of relief and hope : the feeling that, finally, something is changing in the face of a regime that seemed untouchable. However, alongside this hope emerges a deep, legitimate, and necessary concern: at what price? And, above all, for what future?

The fall of an authoritarian regime does not automatically guarantee the establishment of democracy. History shows that a power vacuum can be as dangerous as concentrated power, especially when external actors set themselves up as arbiters of national destiny.

The end of Maduro: a historical necessity?

To deny that the Maduro regime had to end would be to ignore a widely documented reality. Elections without guarantees, persecution of the opposition, absolute control of state powers, the collapse of basic services, and a humanitarian crisis that has driven millions into exile make Venezuela a de facto failed state .

Added to this situation is the structural impoverishment of a population that, despite living in one of the countries with the largest oil reserves in the world, has been condemned to precariousness, food insecurity, and dependence on humanitarian aid. The deterioration of the health, education, and energy systems is not a side effect, but a direct consequence of an extractive and exclusionary model of power.

Added to this is an even more serious accusation: the link between the state apparatus and international drug trafficking , through what is known as the Cartel of the Suns . Under this logic, the regime ceases to be merely a dictatorship and comes to be considered by some international actors as a transnational criminal organization.

From an ethical and humanitarian point of view , it is understandable—even reasonable—that many people consider the regime's continued existence unsustainable and that any change, however imperfect, seemed preferable to paralysis.

However, accepting the necessity of an ending does not imply giving up questioning the forms, actors, and interests that define that ending. The how is as relevant as the what.

The problem isn't just who falls, but who decides.

The great dilemma arises when Maduro's departure is not the product of an internal process or clear multilateral pressure, but of a direct intervention by the United States , under the leadership of Donald Trump .

Here arises the question that defines this historical moment: are we facing a necessary action to unlock a prolonged tragedy or a power operation that reopens old imperialist logics?

The difference between the two interpretations is not insignificant: in one, intervention is presented as a necessary evil in the face of total collapse; in the other, as a reaffirmation of the ability of the great powers to unilaterally decide the fate of weaker states.

The distrust is not ideological, but historical. Latin America knows the precedents well: governments overthrown with the promise of freedom that devolved into dependent, fragile, or outright authoritarian regimes. The fear that Venezuela will go from a criminal regime to a puppet or tutelary government is not paranoia; it is a hypothesis based on experience.

Therefore, the demand for democratic, free, internationally supervised elections with real guarantees is not a technical detail, but the red line that separates liberation from the replacement of one illegitimate power with another .

Without real popular sovereignty, any transition runs the risk of becoming a mere reconfiguration of elites, with different rhetoric but similar dynamics of exclusion.

International legality: a violation… or a dangerous gray area?

From the perspective of classical international law, the intervention violates the Charter of the United Nations : there is no Security Council mandate or multilateral consensus to support it.

However, the United States has justified its actions under a different framework: the fight against narcoterrorism and the imminent threat to regional security . In this reasoning, Maduro ceases to be treated as a head of state and is instead considered the leader of a narcoterrorism criminal organization and and prosecuted for drug and arms trafficking, which would allow for action under doctrines of expanded or preventive self-defense .

This conceptual shift—from head of state to global criminal—is not neutral: it redefines who deserves legal protection and who can be removed from the international regulatory framework.

This argument is not new, but it is deeply controversial. It is not fully recognized by international law and sets an extremely dangerous precedent : if a power unilaterally decides who is a “global criminal,” the multilateral system loses its raison d'être.

Legality thus ceases to be a common framework and becomes a flexible tool at the service of power, eroding the principles of sovereign equality and legal certainty between states.

UN and Europe: the paralysis that legitimizes the strongest

While the intervention itself generates unease, the international reaction breeds frustration. The UN , hampered by its own design and the veto system, once again demonstrates its inability to act in high-intensity crises. Europe , for its part, issues calls for restraint but lacks the real power to influence events.

This inaction is not harmless: it sends the message that multilateral institutions are no longer capable of offering credible solutions to the most serious conflicts in the international system. When diplomacy is limited to statements without consequences, others fill the void with unilateral decisions.

This combination of silence, slowness, and ambiguity has a devastating effect: it leaves the field open for the United States to act without checks and balances, reinforcing the perception that the international order is no longer governed by shared norms, but by the law of the strongest.

In this scenario, Venezuela becomes not only a national tragedy, but a global symptom: a reflection of a world in which legality, ethics, and sovereignty are increasingly subordinated to the geopolitics of power.

Possible scenarios for Venezuela

Short-term scenarios: between transition and void (0–12 months)

In the short term, Venezuela is navigating extremely fragile terrain, where the decisions made—or imposed—will determine the country's immediate course. The most desirable scenario would be a controlled political transition , with a provisional government of limited mandate whose sole function would be to guarantee the return of popular sovereignty. This path would entail holding free and democratic elections, with credible international observation , and the beginning of a slow but essential institutional reconstruction. However, this scenario requires a fundamental condition that remains uncertain today: the genuine willingness of the United States to withdraw from political leadership and allow the process to proceed without being perceived as being directed from abroad.

A much more likely scenario, according to numerous analysts, is an intermediate one: a fragile, tutelary government , sustained by international support—primarily from the United States—but with limited domestic legitimacy. In this context, an apparent stability could be achieved, preventing the country's immediate collapse, but without resolving the root causes of the crisis. The lack of broad social support, coupled with a perception of external dependence, could translate into protests, polarization, and persistent discontent that, in the medium term, erode any attempt at political normalization.

The worst possible outcome would be a power vacuum , with the fragmentation of the military apparatus and the consolidation of criminal networks in different parts of the country. This scenario would imply increased violence, greater everyday insecurity, and a new wave of migration, exacerbating an already overwhelming humanitarian crisis. In that context, international intervention would cease to be a one-off event and become a prolonged one, with unpredictable consequences for both Venezuela and the region.

Medium-term scenarios: democracy, guardianship or global precedent (1–5 years)

Looking beyond the immediate impact, Venezuela's future depends on whether it manages to initiate a genuine process of democratic reconstruction . This path is neither quick nor easy: it requires national reconciliation, transitional justice mechanisms, the restoration of the rule of law, and sustained multilateral support. It is not a naive scenario, but it is possible if the starting point is clean elections and a real commitment to the country's political autonomy.

There is, however, a risk that Venezuela could drift toward a new form of “friendly” authoritarianism : a system with less overt repression than the previous regime, but with limited sovereignty and a democracy that is more formal than substantive. Under this model, the country could regain some economic and diplomatic stability, at the cost of becoming politically dependent on external interests, reproducing dynamics of dependency that Latin America knows all too well.

Beyond the Venezuelan case, what has happened sets a troubling international precedent . If it becomes normalized for a powerful nation to act unilaterally to overthrow governments under ambiguous legal frameworks, other actors might feel justified in doing the same. The result would be a further erosion of the multilateral system and the rules that, with all their imperfections, have underpinned the international order since World War II.

It is possible—and necessary—to hold several truths simultaneously without contradicting one another. The Nicolás Maduro regime had to end, but the method used to achieve this is legally questionable and politically risky. The fall of a dictator does not, in itself, guarantee the arrival of democracy , and the passivity—or impotence—of the international community has contributed to the United States acting without effective checks and balances.

Venezuela finds itself at a historic crossroads. The outcome will depend not only on who has left power, but also on whether the international community allows—or demands—the Venezuelan people to decide their future without external tutelage or imposition.

Because when freedom comes without sovereignty, it ceases to be freedom. And when legality is sacrificed without consensus, the global order enters a dangerously unstable phase.