[Goose]

Yeah, I'm not a fan despite the dictator overthrow. Separately, I wasn't aware that American forces had spirited his key opponent out of the country (this is the one that won the Nobel Peace Prize) before Maduro's forces could capture and torture her and I have no doubt that Maduro's allies and those benefiting economically will condemn the action.

In fact, I think that's the way it is for most voters. It's the economy, stupid -- according to the sign on President Clinton's desk. When there are economic shocks, the party in power loses...as both American parties have found out/are finding out.

How are the US actions different legally and morally than what Putin is doing? I'll give it a shot:

Nature and scale of war
Ukraine: A full-scale, multi-front interstate war to seize/hold territory, involving major ground, air, and missile campaigns across a large country.
Venezuela/Maduro: A short, targeted operation focused on capturing a head of state, paired with maritime strikes/interdictions framed as counter-narcotics actions.

IMO the difference was that the US was competent and the Russians were not. Remember, Putin expected to capture Kiev in 24 to 48 hours max. It was definitely intended to be a short, targeted operation. Russia would then "run things". It became a full-scale multi-front war when Ukraine didn't fold up as Russia expected. The administration has a plan for what should evolve in Venezuela. If it doesn't go that way it can easily become a "full scale war". Remember, Iraq was supposed to be the quick and easy removal of a dictator and a quick installation of a flowering democracy. Didn't turn out that way.

Stated objectives
Ukraine: Russia has pursued maximal political and territorial aims (including claims over occupied areas and demands about Ukraine’s strategic alignment).
Venezuela/Maduro: The U.S. publicly justified action as removing a “narco-terror” leadership and disrupting drug trafficking networks/boats.

So far, the administration has presented no evidence I am aware of that Maduro is a "narco-terrorist". The somewhat externally similar removal of Noriega from Panama differed importantly in that Noriega had already been indited in two separate federal jurisdictions. If Maduro is so guilty, why was that not done? Another important legal (but probably not practical) difference was that Noriega was not an elected official of the Panamanian government. He was a military officer, not a legitimate government representative. I do hope the administration actually has the "goods" on Maduro.

Territorial annexation vs. leadership removal
Ukraine: Russia has attempted to formalize control via annexation claims/referendums in occupied regions.
Venezuela/Maduro: No annexation claim; the operation was described as capture/removal and temporary administration goals rather than absorbing territory.

Yet we are going to "run things". Our expectation is that US companies will be given access to the oil resources of Venezuela. Presumably we will at least initially have a "compliant" government in Venezuela. Operationally, the two things will not be all that different. Putin attempted the same by supporting a pro-Russian presidential regime in Ukraine, including personally campaigning for that outcome inside Ukraine. He expected to succeed in that effort, and most of the world expected that success.  When that didn't happen eventually force became the answer.

How each action is treated under international law (as argued publicly)
Ukraine: Widely condemned as aggression; the UN General Assembly demanded Russia withdraw.
Venezuela/Maduro: Also widely criticized as likely unlawful use of force absent UN authorization/self-defense; legal experts quoted described it as violating the UN Charter.

International response patterns
Ukraine: Broad, sustained diplomatic/economic response over years (sanctions, isolation, ongoing UN focus).
Venezuela/Maduro: Immediate condemnation and shock, but the situation is new and the global reaction is still forming in real time.

Duration and endgame
Ukraine: A long-running conflict (approaching four years as of late Dec 2025 reporting), with shifting battle lines and negotiation demands.
Venezuela/Maduro: Described as a rapid raid/strike culminating in capture, with downstream political/legal fallout rather than a prolonged conventional campaign.

Primary military method
Ukraine: Combined-arms invasion with large-scale ground occupation and sustained strikes.
Venezuela/Maduro: Special-operation-style capture plus maritime/air strikes on vessels alleged to be drug-running.

Targets
Ukraine: Military forces, infrastructure, and governance across wide areas—war fought against another state’s armed forces and territory.
Venezuela/Maduro: Leadership target (Maduro) and specific maritime targets (boats), with claims the strikes were aimed at trafficking networks.

Economic dimension
Ukraine: Economic coercion largely external (sanctions regimes, trade/energy disruptions) layered onto the battlefield war.
Venezuela/Maduro: Reports emphasize direct coercive pressure tied to oil/shipping (blockade/seizures) alongside the operation.

Information environment and controversy
Ukraine: Dispute often centers on battlefield facts, responsibility for attacks, and legitimacy of territorial claims.
Venezuela/Maduro: Dispute centers heavily on legality/authorization, civilian risk in “drug boat” strikes, and regime-change precedent.

While I do agree with many of the points you make, what the US has done is regime change, whatever out justification. That is also what Russia initially desired in Ukraine. They wanted another Belarus. When that didn't happen, military action was the result. Russia expected a very quick victory. The US already believes it has achieved victory in Venezuela. If that actually happens the two outcomes may diverge. However, the ends don't justify the means. OTOH, if the  Venezuela story becomes less of a quick victory (as we experienced in Iraq) the to outcomes may end up looking much more alike.

---

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/...-terrorism

It turns out there was an outstanding indictment of Maduro. Again, I hope the DOJ can actually prove its case with evidence that will stand up in court.

[Goose]

Yeah, I'm not a fan despite the dictator overthrow. Separately, I wasn't aware that American forces had spirited his key opponent out of the country (this is the one that won the Nobel Peace Prize) before Maduro's forces could capture and torture her and I have no doubt that Maduro's allies and those benefiting economically will condemn the action.

In fact, I think that's the way it is for most voters. It's the economy, stupid -- according to the sign on President Clinton's desk. When there are economic shocks, the party in power loses...as both American parties have found out/are finding out.

How are the US actions different legally and morally than what Putin is doing? I'll give it a shot:

Nature and scale of war
Ukraine: A full-scale, multi-front interstate war to seize/hold territory, involving major ground, air, and missile campaigns across a large country.
Venezuela/Maduro: A short, targeted operation focused on capturing a head of state, paired with maritime strikes/interdictions framed as counter-narcotics actions.

IMO the difference was that the US was competent and the Russians were not. Remember, Putin expected to capture Kiev in 24 to 48 hours max. It was definitely intended to be a short, targeted operation. Russia would then "run things". It became a full-scale multi-front war when Ukraine didn't fold up as Russia expected. The administration has a plan for what should evolve in Venezuela. If it doesn't go that way it can easily become a "full scale war". Remember, Iraq was supposed to be the quick and easy removal of a dictator and a quick installation of a flowering democracy. Didn't turn out that way.

Stated objectives
Ukraine: Russia has pursued maximal political and territorial aims (including claims over occupied areas and demands about Ukraine’s strategic alignment).
Venezuela/Maduro: The U.S. publicly justified action as removing a “narco-terror” leadership and disrupting drug trafficking networks/boats.

So far, the administration has presented no evidence I am aware of that Maduro is a "narco-terrorist". The somewhat externally similar removal of Noriega from Panama differed importantly in that Noriega had already been indited in two separate federal jurisdictions. If Maduro is so guilty, why was that not done? Another important legal (but probably not practical) difference was that Noriega was not an elected official of the Panamanian government. He was a military officer, not a legitimate government representative. I do hope the administration actually has the "goods" on Maduro.

Territorial annexation vs. leadership removal
Ukraine: Russia has attempted to formalize control via annexation claims/referendums in occupied regions.
Venezuela/Maduro: No annexation claim; the operation was described as capture/removal and temporary administration goals rather than absorbing territory.

Yet we are going to "run things". Our expectation is that US companies will be given access to the oil resources of Venezuela. Presumably we will at least initially have a "compliant" government in Venezuela. Operationally, the two things will not be all that different. Putin attempted the same by supporting a pro-Russian presidential regime in Ukraine, including personally campaigning for that outcome inside Ukraine. He expected to succeed in that effort, and most of the world expected that success.  When that didn't happen eventually force became the answer.

How each action is treated under international law (as argued publicly)
Ukraine: Widely condemned as aggression; the UN General Assembly demanded Russia withdraw.
Venezuela/Maduro: Also widely criticized as likely unlawful use of force absent UN authorization/self-defense; legal experts quoted described it as violating the UN Charter.

International response patterns
Ukraine: Broad, sustained diplomatic/economic response over years (sanctions, isolation, ongoing UN focus).
Venezuela/Maduro: Immediate condemnation and shock, but the situation is new and the global reaction is still forming in real time.

Duration and endgame
Ukraine: A long-running conflict (approaching four years as of late Dec 2025 reporting), with shifting battle lines and negotiation demands.
Venezuela/Maduro: Described as a rapid raid/strike culminating in capture, with downstream political/legal fallout rather than a prolonged conventional campaign.

Primary military method
Ukraine: Combined-arms invasion with large-scale ground occupation and sustained strikes.
Venezuela/Maduro: Special-operation-style capture plus maritime/air strikes on vessels alleged to be drug-running.

Targets
Ukraine: Military forces, infrastructure, and governance across wide areas—war fought against another state’s armed forces and territory.
Venezuela/Maduro: Leadership target (Maduro) and specific maritime targets (boats), with claims the strikes were aimed at trafficking networks.

Economic dimension
Ukraine: Economic coercion largely external (sanctions regimes, trade/energy disruptions) layered onto the battlefield war.
Venezuela/Maduro: Reports emphasize direct coercive pressure tied to oil/shipping (blockade/seizures) alongside the operation.

Information environment and controversy
Ukraine: Dispute often centers on battlefield facts, responsibility for attacks, and legitimacy of territorial claims.
Venezuela/Maduro: Dispute centers heavily on legality/authorization, civilian risk in “drug boat” strikes, and regime-change precedent.

While I do agree with many of the points you make, what the US has done is regime change, whatever out justification. That is also what Russia initially desired in Ukraine. They wanted another Belarus. When that didn't happen, military action was the result. Russia expected a very quick victory. The US already believes it has achieved victory in Venezuela. If that actually happens the two outcomes may diverge. However, the ends don't justify the means. OTOH, if the  Venezuela story becomes less of a quick victory (as we experienced in Iraq) the to outcomes may end up looking much more alike.

---

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/...-terrorism

It turns out there was an outstanding indictment of Maduro. Again, I hope the DOJ can actually prove its case with evidence that will stand up in court.