US Special Ops Activity in Venezuela

Status
Not open for further replies.
"But muh drones"
"The future battlefield is a static killing field"
"Tanks/helicopters/anything are obsolete/dead"

And yet time and time again actual military strategy and mission-oriented force structure prove that they just work. Vindicated for the millionth time.
 
President Trump announced that U.S. forces had carried out “a large scale strike against Venezuela” and were flying President Nicolás Maduro and his wife out of the country.
Click to expand...
I wonder if any secret stealth aircraft, helicopters, or UAVs were involved in this operation.
 
It is highly likely that the F35 will get involved, considering the location of Venezuela's capital. It is said that those invaders have already taken away the Venezuelan president and his wife.
1767436168065.png
PS: I'm not sure if this image is real or fake, so I'm posting it here for now.
 
fightingirish said:
I wonder if any secret stealth aircraft, helicopters, or UAVs were involved in this operation.
Click to expand...
Explosions were seen while helicopters were flying over Caracas.
It's possibly another dunk on PACOM with Tomahawks but more likely IMO F-35s were overhead dropping LGBs in real time coordination.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The US has confirmed they have abducted Maduro and his wife. Not sure there's any way to discuss this operation while refraining from politics.
Click to expand...
Here's an attempt:
For years, decades perhaps, I've heard arguments like:
"A revolution here would require boots on the ground, many years if not decades of delicate, threading the needle type of nation building while engaging insurgents, and ultimately cost us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in a Vietnam-like war".
Doesn't matter if it's about Venezuela or Iran or whatever.

And for the umpteenth time we've seen it done in a manner of hours-days at minimal expense, achieving an absolute victory.
Short, high impact, low cost operations are an undeniable reality.
 
The objectives looked to have been centered around enforcing Maduro capture for Drug trafficking related charges (2020). It does not look like a so called invasion.

Venezuelan, as a whole will not fight for the Maduro regime.
 
TomcatViP said:
The objectives looked to have been centered around enforcing Maduro capture for Drug trafficking related charges (2020). It does not look like a so called invasion.

Venezuelan, as a whole will not fight for the Maduro regime.
Click to expand...
This also isn't a regime change technically, but it does make it much easier. I think it's good policy to let the local population do the revolutions. It provides higher stability to the successor if it succeeds.
 
Chapter 1, article 2, subs 3 and 4 of the UN Charter:
  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  • All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
... for a start.
Various international treaties should be connected, I have not had the time to delve into them.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Chapter 1, article 2, subs 3 and 4 of the UN Charter:
  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  • All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
... for a start.
Various international treaties should be connected, I have not had the time to delve into them.
Click to expand...
International law's purpose is not to eliminate all military conflict, but to set a framework by which it is conducted.
Since military conflict will always exist, any attempt to prevent it all is void and no one would bother abiding by it.
Even the stuff you quoted does not actually mean a military conflict is somehow legally prohibited. It just means you haven't given it a thought on how this is actually interpreted.

I'll give you an example:
  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
And what if the dispute is not settled?

  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
What if the peaceful means are exhausted?

  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
What if the prior state is that international peace and security were already endangered?

See? You're trying to force it into being something it isn't.
 
One might as well view diplomatic reputation as a kind of credit line. What matters may not be whether there is debt at all, but whether that debt is manageable, and whether investments that draw down diplomatic reputation can generate substantial returns. If a particular action that violates international law or undermines the so-called “rules-based international order” (hh) turns out to be a sound investment, boosting confidence in a country’s capabilities and influence. Then its diplomatic reputation may in fact become more credible rather than less.

This action was clearly a successful investment. Well, in a certain sense, the more international law is violated, the less international law is violated.
 
Please try to avoid discussion on politics or any other aspects susceptible to generate confrontation. We're very far from the forum focus here.
We should try here to comment the military operations and hardware.
 
Forest Green said:

Live Updates: U.S. Military Strikes Caracas, Venezuela Says​

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela
https://twitter.com/x/status/2007339573156950095
View: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007339573156950095?s=20
Click to expand...
Full scale military operations?

One may say the US carried out their very own Special Military Operation. Can we get some "I stand with Venezuela" hashtags going? "Viva Venezuela" patches? No? Okay.

Lol
 
Last edited:
Antonio said:
Please try to avoid discussion on politics or any other aspects susceptible to generate confrontation. We're very far from the forum focus here.
We should try here to comment the military operations and hardware.
Click to expand...
Quite frankly, as of now nothing and nobody that seemed to have participated is out of the ordinary. I'm unsure if there's anything relevant for discussion on this forum, especially as systems seen have their own dedicated thread already where any info/footage could be dropped.

Such threads turn into chaos sooner rather than later, tbh.
 
TomcatViP said:
Venezuelan, as a whole will not fight for the Maduro regime.
Click to expand...

With Maduro removed it means they can fight for something else. It doesn't mean that whoever is installed won't face opposition (including potentially armed opposition).

Big_Zukini said:
"But muh drones"
"The future battlefield is a static killing field"
"Tanks/helicopters/anything are obsolete/dead"

And yet time and time again actual military strategy and mission-oriented force structure prove that they just work. Vindicated for the millionth time.
Click to expand...

It doubt Venezuela has stockpiled thousands of fibre optic drones... so the comparison doesn't matter. The potential lack of MANPAD activity is interesting though.
 
TomcatViP said:
The objectives looked to have been centered around enforcing Maduro capture for Drug trafficking related charges (2020). It does not look like a so called invasion.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting here is this question: What could they prosecute him for? Can a foreign head of state be prosecuted for indirectly allowing domestic (U.S.) laws to be violated? The ramifications of this, if it were to take place...

The only logical thing would be to return Maduro to Venezuela and have him tried by the new regime for violation of domestic (i.e. Venezuelan) laws.
 
EmoBirb said:
Quite frankly, as of now nothing and nobody that seemed to have participated is out of the ordinary. I'm unsure if there's anything relevant for discussion on this forum, especially as systems seen have their own dedicated thread already where any info/footage could be dropped.

Such threads turn into chaos sooner rather than later, tbh.
Click to expand...
Agree. That's why I'm keeking an eye :)
 
Dilandu said:
Okay, I admit: it was masterfully done. Not that Venezuela's military was anything but a joke, of course. But still, breaking into nation capitol and capturing president - something that you don't see everyday.

*my hat's off*
Click to expand...
I mean, they already showcased that in recent history with the Bin Laden raid. Where they entered a sovereign country without permission, did their things, packed up and got out quickly. One may even argue that Pakistan reacting to air space violations would have been more of a threat than the Venezuelan military.

So yes, it's an impressive move from an objective POV, but also not something the Americans are unknown for. The only people more skilled in abducting foreign nationals are possibly the Israelis?
 
That's what happens when you traffic Fentanyl. Should have stuck to cocaine, Fentanyl is more of a chemical weapon than a drug.

EmoBirb said:
Full scale military operations?

One may say the US carried out their very own Special Military Operation. Can we get some "I stand with Venezuela" hashtags going? "Viva Venezuela" patches? No? Okay.

Lol
Click to expand...
Aren't they supposed to take 4 years though? You know, when they're going to plan and stuff.

If they'd waited for Putin to visit they could have got a 2-for-1 deal on Marshal services.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The US has confirmed they have abducted Maduro and his wife. Not sure there's any way to discuss this operation while refraining from politics.
Click to expand...
The correct term is probably “arrested” as Maduro was under a long standing, unsealed federal indictment, although the official use of the term “captured” is also correct considering the military context of the apprehension.

The sad thing is that the Venezuelans themselves detained Hugo Chavez in 2002 and had him in custody, when George W. Bush unexpectedly insisted that he be released and reinstalled in power. Decades of economic collapse and the suffering of millions of Venezuelans could have been averted if Bush had merely nodded in ascent.
 
Regime change isn't caused by Fentanyl, if it was about doing something against drug trafficking, gutting the bloated US defense spending in favor of diverting funds towards border protection would be a more effective way. Also a way which could actually get certain people their Peace Prize, something that's now definitely off the table for good (as if it wasn't before).

ExxonMobil and Chevron are taking out the champagne rn.

Aren't they supposed to take 4 years though? You know, when they're going to plan and stuff.
Click to expand...
Well seems like this time the Americans could deliver an accurate prediction, unlike last time in 2022.
 
Big_Zukini said:
This also isn't a regime change technically, but it does make it much easier. I think it's good policy to let the local population do the revolutions. It provides higher stability to the successor if it succeeds.
Click to expand...
Let’s not kid ourselves here; the American side doesn’t give a rat’s ass about whoever’s in charge. What they care about is:

1) squeezing as much out of your country as possible

2) retaining their global military dominance.

When literally any other country in history does the exact same thing, it’s labeled imperialism and colonialism, but somehow, this gets a different name.
 
EmoBirb said:
I mean, they already showcased that in recent history with the Bin Laden raid. Where they entered a sovereign country without permission, did their things, packed up and got out quickly. One may even argue that Pakistan reacting to air space violations would have been more of a threat than the Venezuelan military.

So yes, it's an impressive move from an objective POV, but also not something the Americans are unknown for. The only people more skilled in abducting foreign nationals are possibly the Israelis?
Click to expand...

It is different here though - Osama Bin Laden wasn't a head of state and was in a declared war with the United States at the time.

TinWing said:
The correct term is probably “arrested” as Maduro was under a long standing, unsealed federal indictment, although the official use of the term “captured” is also correct considering the military context of the apprehension.
Click to expand...

The question is - under what standing within either Venezuelan or International Law?
 
snne said:
Let’s not kid ourselves here; the American side doesn’t give a rat’s ass about whoever’s in charge. What they care about is:

1) squeezing as much out of your country as possible

2) retaining their global military dominance.

When literally any other country in history does the exact same thing, it’s labeled imperialism and colonialism, but somehow, this gets a different name.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you squeeze something out of a country without caring about who's controlling it?
Strategically important trade is agreed on a G2G level.
 
Avimimus said:
The question is - under what standing within either Venezuelan or International Law?
Click to expand...
Venezuela doesn’t have a functioning independent judiciary. As far as “International Law,” there are no viable international institutions of enforcement. Truth be known, there never were. One surprising detail is that when European navies capture drug traffickers at sea, they always turn them over to the United States for prosecution. The US federal courts are effectively the only effective institution for combating international drug smuggling in the Caribbean basin.
 
Avimimus said:
The question is - under what standing within either Venezuelan or International Law?
Click to expand...

Legal Framework for Drug Trafficking​

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/drug-trafficking/legal-framework.html
The three major international drug control treaties, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (as amended in 1972), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, are mutually supportive and complementary.
Click to expand...

International Drug Laws​

https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy/international-drug-laws
National drug policies are bound by commitments to international law. The three key treaties shaping international law on drugs are:

  • The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
  • The 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances
  • The 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
The UN drug control conventions are binding agreements that require countries to ban the supply of controlled drugs for non-medical or scientific use. This is a primary barrier to drug policy reform at the national level. However, an increasing number of countries (e.g. Canada) are deviating from these restrictions by legalising cannabis.
Click to expand...

What do the drug conventions say?​

The UN drug conventions have two core goals: preventing the production, supply and use of specific drugs for non-medical or scientific purposes, and ensuring a limited supply of those ‘controlled’ drugs for legal use (e.g. pain relief). International systems of control over opiates, cocaine and cannabis existed before the conventions were created (starting with the ‘Hague Convention’ of 1912), but those earlier agreements were superseded by the 1961 UN Single Convention.
Click to expand...
 
Avimimus said:
What I find interesting here is this question: What could they prosecute him for? Can a foreign head of state be prosecuted for indirectly allowing domestic (U.S.) laws to be violated? The ramifications of this, if it were to take place...

The only logical thing would be to return Maduro to Venezuela and have him tried by the new regime for violation of domestic (i.e. Venezuelan) laws.
Click to expand...
Time will tell as to what happened in Venezuela. Will the internationally recognized winners of the last election take power, will there be new elections or will regime adherents maintain their grip on power? I don’t know.
 
I would like to also remind that most of what is typically quoted as international law, isn't actual binding laws. It's recommendation, a guideline.
Binding law is state law, which is rarely international.
 
Forest Green said:
His trafficking crimes related to drugs smuggled into the US (i.e. crimes in the US), so international law has got nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So, if Maduro was caught in U.S. customs, smuggling drugs, without diplomatic immunity... then there would be an argument.

But we're talking about conducting a surprise attack without declaring war to capture a foreign head of State within the territory of that State. So, we're talking about violating Westphalian sovereignty based on a claim that a foreign politician based on violations of criminal law within another country by other actors? That is completely different, isn't it?
 
The ICC will probably like a chat with him fairly shortly too is my guess.
 
You do realise that this could be a justification for the abduction of a wide array of U.S. politicians for having supported policies which indirectly violated the domestic laws of other countries? Without having to do something like bother to make a case under International law for these abductions.

For instance, a lot of U.S. politicians have supported firearms regulations which undermined efforts to stem the flow of illegal firearms into Canada (including ones used by organised crime and for murder). Does that mean we're allowed to abduct and try politicians for policies they enacted within the United States on the grounds that these policies led to violation of Canadian domestic law?

The argument would seem to be identical.

At least with regard to International law (e.g. Geneva Conventions) there is an agreed upon treaty to which States are signatories, which can provide a justification for a trial at the Hague... but if we're talking about prosecution of foreign actors in foreign countries based on domestic laws... then it is utter chaos - there is no agreed upon standard.
 
Joy, tears and chants of "freedom" by Venezuelans in South Florida

Venezuelans in South Florida poured into the streets of Doral early Saturday, celebrating the U.S. military action in Venezuela that led to the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro.
Celebrations erupted outside El Arepazo restaurant, a longtime gathering spot for the Venezuelan community, where people hugged, sang and waved flags as the sun came up.
Chants of "Libertad" echoed through the area as crowds sang both the U.S. and Venezuelan national anthems, marking a moment many said they had waited decades to see.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/venezuela-us-military-strikes-maduro-trump/
And it's not like many Venezuelan in the US are enamored with this administration policies.

https://www.defensenews.com/news/yo...ezuela-says-nicolas-maduro-has-been-captured/
 
Last edited:
Avimimus said:
So, if Maduro was caught in U.S. customs, smuggling drugs, without diplomatic immunity... then there would be an argument.

But we're talking about conducting a surprise attack without declaring war to capture a foreign head of State within the territory of that State. So, we're talking about violating Westphalian sovereignty based on a claim that a foreign politician based on violations of criminal law within another country by other actors? That is completely different, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Avimimus said:
You see - that would make sense to me. At least there is a common standard of law that could be referred to.
Click to expand...
Did you miss this post:
Post #32
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-special-ops-activity-in-venezuela.50890/post-866809
Trafficking narcotics is against international law, and when you have boats carrying fentanyl leaving regularly and you're head of state and make no arrests, you're in on it. Unless you're seriously claiming that other countries know what's going on under your nose better than you do, even when you're a strict authoritarian regime.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom