Was Maduro Betrayed by His Own Ranks?

In an extraordinary turn of events early Saturday, Venezuela’s long-time president (dictator) Nicolas Maduro was removed from power amid a dramatic U.S. military operation that appears to have capitalized on fractures within the Venezuelan armed forces, according to multiple sources. The Maduro fall would have been caused by the betrayal of his military forces.

According to Reuters, the operation, which included strikes in Caracas and other strategic locations, resulted in Maduro’s capture along with his wife, Cilia Flores, as U.S. military and law enforcement forces transported them out of Venezuela. The Trump administration hailed the action as a success in its campaign against what it called “narco-terrorism,” though the legality and international ramifications remain fiercely contested.

Betrayed by his own ranks? Military fractures behind Nicolas Maduro’s fall

While the United States executed the tactical part of the takeover, credible reporting suggests that Maduro’s grip on Venezuela’s once tightly controlled military had been eroding in recent months. Analysts argue that the breakdown of loyalty among key military factions — long considered the backbone of the regime — played a decisive role in enabling the operation’s success.

Historically, Maduro secured power through a patronage network that bound the high command to him with lucrative positions and influence over Venezuela’s vast oil industry. Yet pressure from international sanctions, the ongoing economic collapse, and ferocious domestic opposition weakened this allegiance. Sources from Spanish outlet El Pais noted that even as late as this week, Maduro had focused on internal military purges and loyalty tests to prevent dissent.

In the run-up to this morning’s assault, observers say whispers of dissent grew louder within the ranks. Interviews and leaks from Venezuelan exiles and regime insiders indicated growing disillusionment among middle and upper-level officers who feared being held accountable for corruption and human rights abuses if Maduro’s regime collapsed. These officers reportedly began hedging their bets, refusing to fully back Maduro in the critical hours before the U.S. assault, WLRN reports.

Betrayal at the barracks?

The narrative of military betrayal dates back years — opposition forces have tried and largely failed to incite defections in past coups — but analysts say this time was different. In 2025, retired Venezuelan military figures publicly called for senior officers to hand Maduro over to the opposition and recognize the president-elect Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, including detailed plans for safe defection.

While it remains unclear how many active units truly defected during the U.S. operation, security analysts believe that whispered negotiations between U.S. operatives and factions within the Venezuelan army undermined Maduro’s ability to mount an effective defense. “Once trust within the inner circle frays, a regime collapses not only from outside pressure but from within,” said a Latin American security specialist who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Veteran regional observers also note that rumors of clandestine negotiations encouraged segments of the military to stay neutral or withdraw their support at pivotal moments. This internal skepticism may have prevented a unified defense of Maduro’s command centers, effectively giving U.S. airborne contingents an opening to secure key positions quickly and with comparatively limited resistance.

Regional and global backlash

International reactions to Maduro’s fall have been swift and sharply divided. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the use of force, calling it a breach of international law and sovereignty, while world powers such as Russia and China slammed the U.S. action as unilateral aggression. Several Latin American nations also voiced concern about regional stability and the precedent this military move sets, Reuters reports.

Meanwhile, some leaders in Argentina and other countries cautiously welcomed the outcome as a potential step toward restoring democratic governance in Venezuela. The U.S. has framed its intervention as a measure justified under self-defense against drug trafficking networks allegedly intertwined with Maduro’s administration, though critics reject this characterization and demand evidence and oversight.

Power vacuum and future uncertainty

According to The New York Post, with Maduro gone and the constitutional line of succession unclear — Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has not officially assumed leadership — Venezuela now faces a precarious transition. Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has signaled readiness to lead a transitional government, pledging to release political prisoners and rebuild democratic institutions.

Still, the specter of military fragmentation raises concerns about whether Venezuela will achieve a stable, peaceful transition or descend into factional conflict. Analysts warn that even with Maduro’s fall, Venezuela’s deeply entrenched economic struggles, armed groups, and fractured institutions may pose significant obstacles to a sustainable future.