4 January 2026, Geneva

Situation Overview

On 3 January 2026, the United States executed Operation Absolute Resolve, a large-scale special operations raid involving approximately 150 aircraft and Delta Force operators. Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores were captured at their compound and transported to a federal detention facility in Brooklyn, New York. Donald Trump subsequently declared a Monroe Doctrine–style mandate, stating that the United States will “run” Venezuela until a political transition is secured.

This action marks a shift from pressure and containment to direct regime disruption. Historical precedent, and Venezuela’s own pre-capture behavior, indicates outcomes will hinge not on leader removal alone, but on security force cohesion, institutional sequencing, cognitive legitimacy, and control of humanitarian and information flows. The same asymmetric tools previously used to defend the regime are likely to reappear as post-regime spoilers.

Key Judgments

1. The upside is asymmetric, but resistance will be asymmetric as well.
   Venezuela’s strategic value (energy, migration, hemispheric signaling) makes success unusually valuable; however, non-state and residual actors will favor scale, spectacle, and narrative warfare over conventional confrontation.
   
   

2. Energy dynamics elevate the payoff and the contest.
   Reintegrating Venezuelan supply could stabilize markets and increase pressure on Russia by diluting energy leverage, but energy infrastructure and logistics will be prime targets for cheap denial and coercive signaling.
   
   

3. Cognitive legitimacy is the main battlespace.
   Post-capture conflict shifts from regime survival to transition legitimacy. Narratives of “foreign trusteeship,” “sovereignty loss,” and “scarcity blame” will compete with stabilization messaging.
   
   

4. Humanitarian performance is a security variable.
   Aid access, food availability, and service continuity will directly shape compliance, protest risk, and security force loyalty, activating a humanitarian–security loop if mismanaged.
   
   

5. Visibility control will distort early warning.
   Information friction—media constraints, drone restrictions, curated feeds—will persist, complicating attribution and increasing the risk of miscalculation.
   
   

Potential Strategic Benefits (If Successful)

Strategic Reset in the Western Hemisphere

A credible transition would remove a long-standing authoritarian node and disrupt extra-hemispheric influence in the Americas, delivering a geopolitical gain disproportionate to the theater.

Payoff:

• Reinforced regional norms against authoritarian entrenchment

• Reduced adversarial footholds in the hemisphere
  
  

Through-line: Expect counter-narratives and performative sovereignty from spoilers seeking to delegitimize the reset.

Energy Market Stabilization

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Even partial recovery under legitimate governance could add meaningful supply over time.

Payoff:

• Reduced price volatility

• Greater supply resilience

• Expanded investment pathways
  
  

Through-line: Energy assets will be contested via cheap denial (labor disruption, port harassment, legal obstruction) rather than direct attack.

Energy Pressure on Russia

Incremental non-Russian supply would erode Moscow’s pricing power, weaken energy coercion, and complement sanctions and price-cap regimes.

Payoff:

• Dilution of Russian energy leverage

• Alignment of economic and security objectives
  
  

Through-line: Expect information operations framing energy reintegration as “plunder” or “neocolonial extraction.”

Scenario Framework

Scenario 1: Rapid Consolidation (“Panama-Like”) — Best Case

Description:

• A broadly accepted interim authority forms quickly.

• Security forces remain unified under civilian oversight.

• Clear electoral timetable restores legitimacy; humanitarian flows stabilize.
  
  

Outcome:

• Political stabilization

• Gradual economic normalization

• Initial energy reintegration within 12–24 months
  
  

Primary Risk:

• Legitimacy erosion if governance is perceived as externally imposed.
  
  

Through-lines:

• Cognitive legitimacy managed proactively;

• Visibility expanded (independent media/OSINT);

• Humanitarian delivery prioritized to break scarcity loops.
  
  

Scenario 2: Prolonged Contestation (“Nicaragua-Like”) — Most Likely

Description:

• Competing claims to authority persist.

• Partial institutional defection without collapse.

• Extended negotiations amid sanctions relief sequencing and sporadic unrest.
  
  

Outcome:

• Slow erosion of authoritarian remnants

• Fragile governance

• Delayed, uneven recovery
  
  

Through-lines:

• Synthetic asymmetry by spoilers (militia theatrics, lawfare);

• Narrative collision dominates;

• Humanitarian stress intermittently escalates security responses.
  
  

Scenario 3: State Fragmentation — Worst Case

Description:

• Security forces fracture along political or criminal lines.

• Authority devolves to regional power centers and non-state actors.

• Central governance collapses.
  
  

Outcome:

• Severe instability and humanitarian deterioration

• Energy and strategic benefits unrealized for years, if ever
  
  

Through-lines:

• Asymmetry becomes entrenched;

• Visibility degrades sharply;

• Scarcity drives coercion and migration surges.
  
  

Near-Term Outlook: What to Expect and What to Watch

What to Expect (Next 30–90 Days)

Legitimacy Will Move Faster Than Institutions
Public and international perceptions of sovereignty, legality, and competence will outpace formal institutional steps. Early actions will be judged symbolically, with missteps amplified.

Information Friction and Visibility Gaps
Expect uneven media access, intermittent communications disruption, and heavy reliance on partisan or curated reporting, fueling rumor and misattribution.

Energy Delays, Not Attacks
Disruption will focus on friction, labor actions, regulatory delays, insurance uncertainty, rather than overt sabotage, raising investor and market risk.

Humanitarian Stress as a First Test
Food, fuel, and medical supply continuity will quickly shape public compliance. Localized shortages are likely to trigger early protests and security responses.

Quiet Elite Bargaining
Security and institutional elites will hedge publicly while negotiating privately. Any defections will be incremental and transactional.

What to Watch (Key Indicators)

Cognitive / Legitimacy

• Converging narratives framing the transition as illegitimate or extractive

• Legal actions or decrees timed to diplomatic or aid events

• Platform amplification shifts or coordinated inauthentic activity
  
  

Energy / Economy

• Labor or port disruptions at export hubs

• Insurance, shipping, or compliance advisories citing uncertainty

• Legal or environmental challenges delaying output

• Administrative or cyber anomalies affecting logistics
  
  

Humanitarian / Social

• Localized shortages (fuel, food, medicine)

• Aid access restrictions or politicized re-prioritization

• Protests framed around scarcity, rapidly politicized
  
  

Security / Institutions

• Chain-of-command signals within police and military

• Selective enforcement patterns

• Electoral or judicial timeline ambiguity
  
  

Signals to Flag

Deterioration:
Simultaneous stress across domains (protests + energy delays + information blackouts); persistent mandate ambiguity.

Stabilization:
Consistent humanitarian delivery; clear, credible communications; gradual normalization of energy logistics.

Conclusion

This strategy is explicitly non-incremental. It trades near-term stability for the possibility of structural gains in hemispheric security, energy resilience, and sustained pressure on Russia’s core revenue streams.

• If successful, the reward is a strategic reset in the Americas, energy market stabilization, and durable dilution of Russian leverage—achieved by managing institutions, legitimacy, and humanitarian delivery faster than spoilers can exploit asymmetry.
  
  

• If unsuccessful, the costs include fragmentation, prolonged instability, and reputational damage amplified by cognitive warfare and visibility loss.
  
  

The decisive factor is not the raid; it is whether governance, legitimacy, and relief operations can outrun the asymmetric tools that once sustained the regime and will now seek to obstruct the transition.