Have you ever wondered why we still call military operations "glorious" when they leave behind shattered lives and burning cities?
Welcome to FreeAstroScience.com. We're glad you're here. Today, we're stepping away from telescopes and particle physics to talk about something equally complex: the human condition during conflict. If you've woken up to headlines about explosions in Caracas and felt that knot in your stomach, you're not alone. We feel it too.
This isn't a political piece. It's a human one. We invite you to read until the end—not because we have easy answers, but because thinking through hard questions together makes us all a little wiser.
What Just Happened in Venezuela?
Around 2:00 AM local time on January 3, 2026, residents of Caracas woke to explosions that "made windows tremble". The United States had launched a large-scale military strike on Venezuela's capital. According to President Donald Trump's announcement on Truth Social, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured and removed from the country.
The operation targeted military installations. Fort Tiuna—Venezuela's largest military base—and La Carlota Air Base sustained significant damage. Heat signatures detected by NASA's Fire Information system confirmed fires near Fort Tiuna at 2:33 AM local time .
Journalist Mary Mena, who was in Caracas during the strikes, described the experience:
"We woke up with loud noises here in Caracas early in the morning... it was clear that something was happening and it was big because of the detonations that we heard. Also, we heard a lot of planes and helicopters flying over the city."
The US military justified the operation based on Maduro's 2020 indictment for narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking, and weapons charges. US Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that Maduro would "face the full wrath of American justice on American soil" .
But here's what headlines often miss: military operations aren't chess moves. They're earthquakes that shake real people's lives.
Who Pays When Missiles Fall?
This is where the "glory" narrative falls apart.
Venezuela's Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López confirmed that US helicopters "attacked urban areas of Caracas and killed or injured a number of civilians". The Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil stated plainly: "We can confirm that there are dead, civilian and military".
The exact death toll remains unclear. What we know is that innocent people—not combatants, not narco-traffickers, just ordinary Venezuelans—lost their lives on January 3rd.
Think about that for a moment.
Somewhere in Caracas, a family went to bed on January 2nd with ordinary worries. Bills. Work tomorrow. Maybe a child's school project due Monday. By morning, their world had changed forever.
The Italian embassy immediately advised its citizens to "not leave home and avoid travel". Spain, with a large Venezuelan diaspora, offered mediation while expressing concern for Spanish nationals. China warned its citizens against traveling to Venezuela, citing "significant security risks".
| Country | Citizens in Venezuela | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | ~160,000 | Stay home, avoid travel |
| United Kingdom | ~500 | Shelter in place |
| China | Undisclosed | Do not travel |
| Spain | Large colony | Embassy monitoring |
Wars don't discriminate between guilty and innocent. That's not their nature. And that's precisely why "glory" is the wrong word.
A World Divided: How Nations Responded
The international reaction to the Venezuela strike reveals something uncomfortable: we can't agree on what justice looks like.
Those who supported the operation:
- Argentine President Javier Milei celebrated with a simple post: "Viva la Libertad"
- Puerto Rico's Governor Jenniffer González called it "a new day for Venezuela"
- US Vice President JD Vance praised the "impressive operation"
Those who condemned it:
- Brazilian President Lula da Silva called it a "very serious violation of Venezuelan sovereignty" and "the first step toward a world of violence, chaos and instability"
- Chilean President Gabriel Boric expressed "concern and condemnation," emphasizing that "the crisis must be addressed through dialogue"
- Russia demanded "immediate clarification" and called the action an "unacceptable violation of sovereignty"
- China issued travel warnings but notably avoided political commentary walking a middle line:**
The European Union, through High Representative Kaja Kallas, stated that the EU "has repeatedly affirmed that Maduro lacks legitimacy" but simultaneously called for "respect for international law principles and the UN Charter"
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized that the UK was "not involved in any way" and stated: "I always say and believe we should all uphold international law".
This division isn't just about Venezuela. It's about a fundamental question: When, if ever, does military force become acceptable? And who gets to decide?
History's Echo: From Panama to Caracas
The capture of Maduro fell exactly 35 years after another Latin American leader was seized by US forces. On January 3, 1990, Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega surrendered to American authorities after the US invasion of his country.
The parallel isn't accidental. Both leaders faced drug trafficking charges. Both were captured through military force. Both operations were justified as protecting American interests.
Trump's strike also coincided with the sixth anniversary of the January 3, 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani—another dramatic military action ordered during Trump's presidency.
Here's what history teaches us: these operations often achieve their immediate objectives. Noriega went to prison. Soleimani was killed. Maduro was captured.
But the "victory" narrative never tells the whole story.
After Panama, the country struggled with instability for years. After Soleimani's death, the Middle East saw escalating tensions that contributed to ongoing regional conflicts. After Venezuela... we simply don't know yet.
US Senator Brian Schatz put it bluntly: "We should have learned not to get into another stupid adventure". His colleague Ruben Gallego called the war "illegal" and said: "It's embarrassing to go from being the world's police to being the world's bullies".
The Myth of Glorious War
Let's talk about glory.
The word comes from the Latin gloria—meaning fame, renown, great praise. In ancient Rome, victorious generals paraded through streets while citizens cheered. Poets wrote verses immortalizing their triumphs.
But those same poets rarely wrote about the widows. The orphans. The burned villages. The displaced families walking endless roads with everything they own on their backs.
President Trump called the Venezuela operation "brilliant and well-planned". From a tactical perspective, he may be right. The Delta Force executed a complex mission with "impressive speed and precision," according to munitions expert N.R. Jenzen-Jones .
But precision doesn't mean painless.
Venezuela's Defense Minister Padrino López called the attack "the greatest insult the country has ever suffered". He described it as "deplorable" and "criminal." Even if you believe Maduro was a tyrant who deserved arrest, Padrino's words reflect something real: an entire nation feeling violated.
Glory, if it exists at all, belongs to the doctors treating the wounded. To the firefighters rushing toward burning buildings. To the ordinary citizens checking on neighbors. To the journalists like Mary Mena who stayed in Caracas to tell the world what was happening.
It doesn't belong to missiles.
Where Do We Go From Here?
As we write this, Venezuela's future hangs in uncertainty.
According to the Venezuelan constitution, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez now leads the country. New elections must be held within 30 days . Opposition figure María Corina Machado—the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize laureate—had spoken in December about preparing for "an orderly and peaceful transition".
But peaceful transition after military intervention is notoriously difficult to achieve.
Colombia has deployed troops to its border "for humanitarian reasons" and to contain guerrilla groups who have denounced US intervention. Brazil has condemned the operation. Russia has demanded UN Security Council meetings.
The path forward isn't clear. It never is after violence.
What we can do—what all of us can do—is refuse to accept easy narratives. "Good guys versus bad guys" makes for entertaining movies, but reality is messier. Maduro may have been a corrupt authoritarian. That doesn't make civilian casualties acceptable. Military operations may be "precise." That doesn't make them just.
A Final Thought
At FreeAstroScience, we believe the sleep of reason breeds monsters. That's why we're here—to keep our minds active, questioning, awake.
Today's question isn't about physics or astronomy. It's about us. About how we talk about conflict. About whether we can hold two thoughts at once: relief that a dictator may face justice, and grief for innocent lives lost along the way.
There is no glory in wars. There is only cost. The question we must keep asking is whether the cost was necessary—and whether we, as a global community, can find better ways.
We don't have perfect answers. Nobody does. But we believe that asking hard questions makes us better humans.
Thank you for reading. Come back to FreeAstroScience.com whenever you need a space to think clearly about complex things. We'll be here.
Post a Comment