By Shaista Bahar

Venezuela is once again at the center of global geopolitical tension following dramatic developments that reportedly led to the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro. While initial narratives framed the events as a decisive U.S. victory, the reality on the ground appears far more complex — and far more dangerous.

According to multiple reports and political insiders, Maduro was not overthrown solely by external pressure but was allegedly deceived by figures within his own inner circle. Claims have surfaced that elements of his cabinet — including senior security and political officials — quietly engaged in backchannel dealings with the Trump administration. These alleged negotiations may have paved the way for Maduro’s removal while preserving much of the existing power structure.

If true, this scenario places those involved in an extremely precarious position. Public sentiment in Venezuela remains fiercely nationalist, and any perception that senior officials collaborated with Washington could trigger widespread outrage. Officials seen as facilitating U.S. interests — especially by allowing American companies to re-enter Venezuela’s energy sector — may face mass protests or even internal retaliation.

- Global Pushback: China and Russia Draw Red Lines

The U.S. move has not gone uncontested. China and Russia, both of which have deep strategic and economic stakes in Venezuela, are expected to resist any attempt by Washington to consolidate influence over Caracas. For Beijing, Venezuela is a critical energy partner; for Moscow, it is a geopolitical foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

Both powers have historically opposed U.S.-led interventions under the banner of sovereignty and non-interference. Any overt attempt by Washington to reshape Venezuela’s political or economic orientation risks provoking diplomatic, economic, or even indirect strategic retaliation from these global powers.

- Public Support Still Matters

Despite economic hardship and political fatigue, Maduro — and more broadly the Chavista movement —The Chavista movement is a left-wing political and social movement in Venezuela inspired by Hugo Chávez, centered on anti-imperialism, state control of key industries, social welfare programs, and mass popular mobilization against U.S. influence. —-  still commands meaningful public support. Neighborhood organizations, trade unions, militias, and ideological elements within the military remain deeply embedded in Venezuelan society. This “Chavismo deep state” has survived leadership changes before and continues to act as a stabilizing — or obstructive — force, depending on perspective.

This reality makes any abrupt political reorientation extremely risky. Venezuelans who tolerate internal reforms may strongly reject foreign-imposed outcomes, particularly those perceived as serving U.S. corporate or strategic interests.

- Regime Change or Regime Tweaking?

Moscow based US Political analyst Andrew Korybko argues that what is unfolding in Venezuela is not classic regime change, but something subtler: “regime tweaking.” This approach seeks to keep the existing power structure largely intact while introducing targeted changes that advance U.S. interests.

Critics argue that Maduro’s removal failed to dismantle the Chavista system. However, Korybko suggests this was never Washington’s true objective. Trump’s second administration includes figures openly critical of past regime-change disasters, which often led to civil wars, migrant crises, and long-term instability detrimental to U.S. interests.

Instead, the immediate goal appears to be replacing Maduro with a more “manageable” figure — potentially Vice President Delcy Rodríguez — while maintaining continuity within the military, intelligence services, and bureaucracy. Trump’s public remarks implying that Rodríguez could “run the country” during a transition, combined with his dismissal of opposition leader María Corina Machado, suggest limited interest in Western-style democratic transformation.

Notably, Trump avoided using the word “democracy” altogether, signaling a pragmatic rather than ideological approach.

- The Role of the Armed Forces

The Venezuelan armed forces’ limited resistance during Maduro’s removal has fueled speculation that senior defense and interior officials may have already reached understandings with Washington. Figures such as Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello reportedly adopted a confrontational tone afterward, possibly to maintain domestic legitimacy.

If elections are held within 30 days as mandated by Article 233 of the Constitution, the cooperation of the military and internal security apparatus will be essential. Their support would effectively legitimize the transition — but also bind them to its outcome.

- What Comes Next?

The U.S. appears less concerned with who governs Venezuela than with how it is governed. Key priorities likely include restoring U.S. influence, redirecting oil exports to Washington-approved buyers, and reducing China’s strategic footprint. However, moving too quickly risks igniting a civil war, crippling energy infrastructure, and unleashing another wave of migration.

As Korybko notes, gradual change is more likely than radical transformation. Elements of Venezuela’s social programs, community organizations, and even parts of the Chavista ideological framework may need to be preserved to avoid unrest.

- A Fragile Balance

Venezuela now stands at a dangerous intersection of internal betrayal, foreign pressure, and popular resistance. Those who allegedly facilitated Maduro’s removal may soon find themselves caught between an angry public and demanding foreign patrons. Meanwhile, global powers are watching closely, ready to intervene diplomatically or economically.

The coming weeks will determine whether Venezuela enters a managed transition — or slides into deeper instability with regional and global consequences