A U.S. military campaign against Venezuela would encounter fierce opposition and prove anything but a simple endeavor, Alexander Stepanov, a military analyst at the Institute of Law and National Security, told TASS.
“A US military operation against Venezuela would pose an existential threat to the current administration and the sovereignty of the Bolivarian Republic, and it won’t be an easy walk,” the expert said.
He pointed out that Venezuela’s armed forces are equipped with advanced weaponry capable of delivering significant damage to U.S. naval assets, including Russian Su-30MK fighter aircraft, Chinese anti-ship missiles, and Iran’s “mosquito fleet” of high-speed attack boats. These assets could seriously endanger the US Navy.
With Donald Trump issuing stark warnings about Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s “numbered days” amid military buildups in the Caribbean, calls for regime change have grown louder.
Yet, a full-scale U.S. invasion remains a challenging prospect, according to multiple military analysts, foreign policy experts, and think tank scholars.
While the U.S. boasts unmatched global firepower, Venezuela’s unique challenges—ranging from its rugged geography and battle-hardened military to fierce regional opposition and the specter of prolonged insurgency could transform any intervention into a high-stakes quagmire.
Venezuela is no small-scale target. Spanning roughly 916,000 square kilometers—twice the size of Iraq—and home to about 28 million people, it could really stretch the American military.
Experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimate that a credible U.S. invasion to topple Maduro would require nearly 50,000 troops, a figure that could balloon to over 100,000 when accounting for post-invasion stabilization efforts.
The human toll could be very high as U.S. forces would face not just conventional resistance but urban combat in densely populated Caracas and guerrilla warfare in the Orinoco River basin and Andean highlands.
Logistical nightmares would complicate the issue. Supply lines stretching from U.S. bases in Florida or Colombia would be vulnerable to interdiction, while Venezuela’s air defenses—bolstered by Russian S-300 systems, and even U.S.-made F-16 jets—could inflict significant losses on incoming aircraft.
As Evan Cooper and Alessandro Perri of the Stimson Center note, even targeted strikes risk “high operational costs” and escalation into full war, with little guarantee of regime collapse.
The Venezuelan armed forces, numbering around 150,000 active personnel, have been “coup-proofed” via fragmented command structures and loyalty tests, making defection unlikely.
A Cato Institute analysis draws stark parallels to the 2011 Libya intervention, where NATO airpower toppled Muammar Gaddafi but ignited nationalist fervor, fracturing the country into militias and spawning ISIS affiliates.
In Venezuela, experts fear a similar backlash: “The Venezuelan armed forces remain loyal to Nicolás Maduro, and a U.S. intervention would likely inflame Venezuelan nationalism, ignite a protracted internal conflict,” the report states.
Post-invasion, the chaos could be catastrophic. Armed “colectivos” (pro-regime militias estimated at 100,000 strong) and narco-traffickers would exploit the vacuum, potentially allying with Colombian rebels like the ELN, who already control swaths of border territory.
A senior National Security Council official described this scenario as a “quagmire that would become a cause célèbre for criminal or illegal armed groups in the Americas,” drawing jihadist-style fighters against U.S. forces.
The International Crisis Group echoes this, warning of a “guerrilla-type war” if senior officers resist a new government, complicating control over ports, airports, and oil fields.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has already decried U.S. strikes on drug boats as escalatory, vowing no support for attacks from Bogotá and sharing intelligence with Caracas.
Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has urged restraint, while even U.S. allies like Argentina pivot toward China amid perceived American unreliability.
Experts like Aníbal Sánchez Ismayel, a Venezuelan political analyst, predict unification: Attacks would spark “diplomatic protests, increased political persecutions,” and rally the populace against “imperialism.”
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) highlights regional militaries’ unreadiness—limited to small peacekeeping roles like Haiti—making multilateral support a non-starter.
The costs extend beyond the battlefield. Venezuela sits atop one of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and conflict could spike global prices by 10-20%, hammering U.S. consumers already strained by inflation.
Nathan Sales, former U.S. counterterrorism coordinator, warns that civilian casualties from strikes would “strain relationships with partner governments” and erode support in vital regions.
Moreover, air campaigns against drug routes have historically failed—U.S. efforts in Afghanistan barely dented Taliban finances—potentially worsening trafficking and migration, with another 7.8 million refugees overwhelming neighbors like Colombia and Brazil.
Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann, advising the Venezuelan opposition, has floated the idea of multilateral forces to avoid “Yankee overreach,” but even he acknowledges the infeasibility given regional pushback.
The Stimson Center’s Cooper and Perri conclude that such actions risk U.S. “pariah status” and accelerate Latin America’s drift toward Beijing.
In Venezuela, proxy meddling by Russia (arms supplier) or China (oil creditor) could internationalize the fight, turning a regional flare-up into a great-power standoff.
As the International Crisis Group urges, “Washington should beware of regime change… and should be candid about the costs, risks and likely consequences of a deeper intervention.”
In sum, while U.S. saber-rattling may pressure Maduro, experts across the spectrum—from CSIS hawks to Crisis Group diplomats—agree that an invasion would demand immense resources, invite asymmetric warfare, alienate allies, and yield uncertain gains.
As Trump weighs his next move, the lesson is clear: Easy victories are illusions in the complex calculus of Latin American geopolitics.
By: ET Online Desk
