No one should be under any illusions that the South American country’s president Nicolas Maduro is the kind of leader you want at the head of your country.
The legality of his initial election was hotly contested, and his re-election was even more dubious in terms of its adherence to democratic norms.
While in power his autocratric government has had no compunction in eliminating its enemies: its various human rights violations have been strongly condemned by watchdog organisations.
There are many reasons why the Venezuelan government is deeply unsavoury, offering any number of motivations to employ conventional diplomatic or economic tools, such as ostracism or sanctions, to try to engineer its downfall.
The US has already taken a range of dubious and debateably downright illegal actions against Venezuela — most notably its blowing up a number of vessels it claims, with questionable evidence, were being used by drug runners linked to Maduro.
But flying in a squadron of helicopters under cover of darkness, carrying dozens of special operative military personnel, and kidnapping a president brings a whole new dimension to the term regime change.
One thing that President Trump is right about is that this was an impressive achievement by the US military and intelligence services.
This audacious operation took the world — let alone Maduro, who was supposedly well-guarded — completely by surprise, and it achieved its objective.
The big question, however, is whether this dramatic strike should have been contemplated at all, let alone approved.
Although it has sparked a flood of humorous memes from people suggesting that the US abduct various other politicians next, the precedent this sets for taking such extreme measures to achieve foreign policy goals is deeply disturbing.
There are any number of hotspots on the planet. Do Mr Trump’s actions offer a cloak of legitimacy to, say, a hypothetical situation where Vladimir Putin ordered the capture of Volodomyr Zelenskyy or Xi Jinping imprisoned a Tibetan or Taiwanese leader?
Those who argue it does not should consider the high dudgeon if the roles had been reversed and it was President Trump who was now in Caracas awaiting trial, having been seized by Venezuelan forces.
It sends a terrible signal that simply having a large and technically proficient military suffices to do whatever you want on the international stage without fear of any comeback.
Smaller countries, such as New Zealand, which rely on the international rules-based order, should shudder at such arbitrary ripping up of that rule book.
Then there is the obvious question of what happens next. President Trump’s sanguine claim that the US would now be ‘‘running’’ Venezuela has not been explained in any depth; nor is there any evidence that the Venezuelans are prepared to go along with former business tycoon Trump’s ultimate hostile takeover.
The future of the country’s vast oil reserves also remains uncertain, and the cynical may well have reason for contending that this was what this whole escapade was about in the first place.
The downfall of Nicolas Maduro is no great loss, but the method of his loss of power is deeply disturbing.
Who knows what other adventures Mr Trump may be dreaming up while polishing his recently-presented Fifa Peace Prize?
Greenland has long been in his sights, despite it being legally in the possession of a friendly state.
With friends like the US, who needs enemies some might ask.
An already troubled world has become a little more uncertain place as a result of this US adventurism.
