Recent developments surrounding the US-led arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro have sparked extensive debate, analysis, and numerous conspiracy theories. Some speculate that the operation was coordinated between Trump and Putin, but Ukrainian experts consistently dismiss these claims as unfounded conspiracies.
Analysts emphasize that the primary goal of the Trump administration was to strengthen US influence in the Western Hemisphere and counter China's expansion, rather than reach agreements with Russia. The US strategy focuses on limiting Chinese influence in the Panama Canal, Caribbean region, and the Arctic, as part of a long-term foreign policy vision. The arrest operation is seen as a demonstration of US dominance as a global actor.
In the US, opinions on the Maduro arrest differ across the political spectrum. Members of both the Republican and Democratic parties have voiced criticism, mainly due to the lack of prior notification to Congress. The administration, however, has justified its actions by citing national security and efforts to curb international drug trafficking operated by Maduro. Debate continues within both major parties, centered on procedural transparency and adherence to international law.
Regarding Russian and Chinese responses, experts reject claims about any behind-the-scenes deals with Washington. Official Russian statements and UN addresses condemn the US intervention in Venezuelan affairs. Experts point out that Russia has lost much of its influence in the region, while the US has asserted its ability to act decisively without coordination with either Moscow or Beijing. Suggestions of a new global division of influence are dismissed as propaganda, lacking real evidence.
Overall, experts underline that the US is not only taking a tough stance on Russia but is also actively countering China in the Indo-Pacific region and supporting allies in Australia, the UK, India, Japan, and Taiwan.
The operation against Maduro illustrates the consistency of US foreign policy while exposing ongoing domestic debates about the legality and expediency of such actions.
