Nicolás Maduro was re-elected Venezuela’s president last May by fraudulent means, as regional governments and independent observers noted at the time, and his leadership lacks legitimate authority. Maduro, in office if not in power since 2013, has proved himself an incompetent and unimpressive successor to the late socialist president, Hugo Chávez, on whose name and reputation he shamelessly trades.

Maduro has disastrously mismanaged Venezuela’s potentially wealthy economy, overseeing severe shortages of food and medicine and hyperinflation. His authoritarian rule, enforced by violence, has exacerbated social divisions, undermined democratic institutions and free media, caused millions to flee abroad and alienated neighbouring countries.

Given this grim record, Venezuela would be well rid of him and the sooner the better. If Maduro truly has the people’s best interests at heart, he should recognise that he has become an obstacle to national renewal – and step aside. If he will not go voluntarily, there are legitimate, constitutional and peaceful options for propelling him towards the exit.

These options emphatically do not include US intervention in Venezuela. Given Washington’s long record of calamitous meddling in Latin America, the motives of the most benign White House would rightly be suspect. Donald Trump’s gang of rightwing zealots, crooks and opportunists is not benign. Everywhere they intrude, they make matters worse. For them, altruism is an alien concept.

Trump’s involvement allowed Maduro to denounce Guaidó as a puppet dancing to the tune of the 'gringo empire'

Opinions will differ over whether Juan Guaidó, the inexperienced opposition leader, was well advised last week in declaring himself president in Maduro’s stead. Guaidó appears to enjoy considerable support among the middle classes and, in a significant shift, among disillusioned working-class Chavistas. He is young, charismatic, energetic and free from ideological dogmas – everything Maduro is not.

But Guaidó’s bid to usurp the usurper, as he calls Maduro, does not seem to have been fully thought through. By creating a rival power centre and challenging the regime to do its worst, he risks further dividing the country, even to the point of possible civil war. As the UN has warned, the risk of spiralling violence is very real.

Guaidó appears to have acted before he was sure of support from the Venezuelan military. On the contrary, on the day following his unilateral declaration, the top brass turned out in force to express continued confidence in Maduro. Guaidó has offered an amnesty to officers who defect and private talks are reportedly continuing. But as of now, he lacks crucial army backing.

Potentially most damaging to Guaidó’s cause is his evident, prior collusion not only with rightwing regional governments such as Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, which instantly recognised him as president, but also with Trump’s White House, which did likewise. Allying with Trump at any time is a risky undertaking. To seek his endorsement, and appear to welcome his implicit threat of direct US military intervention in the affairs of a sovereign Latin American country, is decidedly unwise.

Phrases such as supping with the devil come to mind. Trump’s self-serving, boastful and, above all, undependable involvement immediately allowed Maduro and his ministers to denounce Guaidó as a US puppet dancing to the tune of the “gringo empire”. That is unfair, but it will give pause to many Venezuelans with no cause to love the US. Letting in Trump also let in the Russians, who swiftly rallied to Maduro’s side, including dispatching armed mercenaries to protect him.

Trump's national security adviser more or less admitted that the US has no joined-up strategy for what comes next

The emergency UN security council debate called by the US on Saturday and the future of the Maduro regime are now inextricably caught up in the wider geopolitical contest between a resurgent Russia and the US. This will hinder, not help, a resolution of the crisis. China, with its cold-eyed interest in Venezuelan oil and debt, has also pitched in unhelpfully. Once again, the UN is stymied along east-west lines.

Mike Pompeo, perhaps the least able US secretary of state in living memory, seems to think Washington is still boss of the world. His playground bully’s demand at the UN that all countries “pick a side” and join the “forces of freedom” showed just how immature and regressive US policy has become under Trump. Britain and other west European countries, who are jointly urging Caracas to hold new elections, should distance themselves from such juvenile “us versus them” antics.

Trump’s decision to back Guaidó was typically impulsive. His national security adviser, John Bolton, another superannuated hawk, more or less admitted in subsequent briefings that the US has no joined-up strategy for what comes next. There is talk of more sanctions, but this being Trump, there will be no Iran-style embargo on Venezuelan oil imports, since that would hurt US businesses. To all practical intents and purposes, Guaidó may soon find himself out on his own.

Yet in truth, the less the US is involved, the better. Both sides must admit their vulnerabilities. There can be no outright winners here. Both Guaidó and Maduro would be well advised to lower their fists, build on tentative weekend overtures for talks and launch a broad-based dialogue without unrealistic preconditions, ideally mediated by the UN. The primary aims must be to map a consensual, peaceful way forward, promote national reconciliation – and swiftly alleviate the people’s grievous suffering.