Former Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Eduardo Ritter warned this week that the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro should not be seen as the end of the Chavista regime. He argued the situation differs fundamentally from the aftermath of the 1989 United States invasion of Panama (1989) and the arrest of General Manuel Noriega. Ritter made his comments while analyzing the complex political scenario unfolding in Venezuela following Maduro’s detention on January 3, 2026.
The ex-chancellor emphasized the operational distinctions between the two historical events. He described the Panama operation as a full-scale military invasion that completely dismantled the state. The Venezuelan case, he suggested, appears more like a surgical strike focused solely on capturing the president and his wife.
“It would be a mistake to consider that the mere capture of Nicolás Maduro is enough for Venezuela to return to democratic channels,” [Translated from Spanish] Ritter stated.
He explained there’s no political exit in Venezuela without the involvement of the country’s armed forces. Those forces, he noted, remain highly ideologized and committed to the principles of Chavismo. Maduro’s arrest hasn’t triggered a collapse of power because the civil and military leadership structure remains largely intact.
Key Regime Figures Remain in Power
Ritter pointed out that key Chavista figures like Diosdado Cabello, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López are still active. They have even publicly called for resistance. This continuity of power contrasts sharply with Panama’s experience, where authorities moved immediately to install elected officials after the invasion.
In Venezuela, the regime itself hasn’t fallen. Only its top figure has been removed. “In Panama there was a large-scale ground invasion; that has not been the case here,” Ritter clarified. He described the current Venezuelan situation as a “de facto” scenario where power has simply passed to other hands within the same system.
“So it seems that the capture of Nicolás Maduro does not put an end to a regime that is clearly illegitimate,” Ritter considered. “The regime as such has not fallen.” [Translated from Spanish]
This analysis suggests a potentially protracted transition. It raises questions about what follows the capture operation and whether it might deepen Venezuela’s internal crisis instead of solving it.
Legal Charges Create Political Ambiguity
Another complicating factor, according to Ritter, involves the specific charges against Maduro. The accusations focus on crimes like drug trafficking, conspiracy, and terrorism. They don’t directly address the illegitimate or anti-democratic nature of his hold on power. This legal focus creates ambiguity about the political endgame of the operation that captured him.
The former diplomat drew a direct contrast with Panama’s history. The U.S. invasion there led to the total dismantling of General Manuel Noriega‘s government and the Defense Forces. That total dismantlement created a vacuum filled by the previously elected winners. Venezuela’s power structures, however, continue operating.
“Now the analysis that must be made is what follows after Maduro’s capture,” Ritter said. The path forward remains unclear without the big scale institutional breakdown seen in Panama. His warning serves as a caution against expecting a simple or rapid democratic restoration in Venezuela following the dramatic arrest of its longtime leader.