There's obviously a lot one can unravel about the strike against Maduro. I will just focus on a few points and try to keep it brief. Some personal views on the whole affair and its implications, or lack of it.
The US has done similar missions before, acting unilaterally against international law against a dubious head of state. The most prominent example is the invasion of Panama in 1989, which resulted in hundreds of deaths on both sides and took over a month. The first year of the Trump presidency, for all its verbal awfulness, lack of decorum, and international maneuvers that sometimes defy logic, has been rather constrained in terms of the use of military power. So far, the two most prominent foreign interventions, against Iran and Venezuela, have been carried out with no losses on the US side and in record-breaking time. They also haven't escalated or dragged the US into commitments that lead to years of attrition without any gains.
There is, of course, the potential that the US will do something so harebrained that it will completely cut itself off from any reason. And apart from Trump himself, parts of the government keep stoking those fires, e.g. vis-à-vis Greenland. As stupid as all that is, so far it's rhetoric. The actual policy moves and the military actions can be read in several, even diametrically opposed, ways: smart 4D power moves against Russia or China, or carving up the world between the big powers. I don't think it's the latter at all, especially since there is much chaos at play in the administration itself, with different interests at work that all influence Trump or sell him their ideas. Rubio's influence is certainly more noticeable recently, with the focus on Venezuela and possibly Cuba.
Some observers, also in Germany, mostly the liberal-woke part of the political spectrum, but including others, have argued that this emboldens China and Russia. "Now China will have fewer constraints to strike Taiwan." That, in my view, is complete historical amnesia and shows a lack of understanding of politics in general. And I don't mean some realist Mearsheimer BS. On the US side, these actions aren't, as mentioned, unprecedented, and European countries have happily played along or even dragged the US into non-UN-sanctioned military interventions in the past, under the guise of human rights.
Russia, meanwhile, has tried killing Zelensky several times, and China likely wanted to kill Bi-Khim Hsiao in a traffic accident while she was in Prague. Even if we assume that China cares about international law in the European understanding of the term, they see Taiwan as completely removed from it, and among all other factors, including their international standing, it is the least of their concern. Decapitation strikes against the Taiwanese government and quick interventions to get rid of Lai and others have been their wet dream for at least a decade and have been circulating in propaganda, both domestically and directed toward Taiwan, including during their military exercises last week. No matter how deluded they are, Chinese leaders would at least know that since Taiwan is a functioning country, simply killing the head of state isn't enough, especially since they don't just want concessions or economic gains through military action, but to exterminate the ROC as an entity altogether. Even if the PLA had the same military prowess and accumulated experience as the US armed forces, something akin to Operation Absolute Resolve wouldn't accomplish their goals, but would only strengthen resolve in Taiwan.
Ultimately, deterrence and the US stance are what's holding them back, not some EU technocrats and their strongly worded speeches about peace in the Taiwan Strait.
