I would argue that the failure point has to do with the material conditions of Venezuela, and had little to to with the humans involved in the moment of the kidnapping.

Venezuela is incredibly close to the US. We have seen what the US can do to a nation on the other side of the planet, but we haven't seen the US directly attacking within their sphere of influence in a long time.

Venezuelan leadership has been watching what the US is doing in Iran, and has done in other places, and weighing that destruction against "fighting back," any competent leader would prefer to avoid your nation being firebombed daily, especially after decades of sanctions. Their infrastructure, electrical grid, sewage systems, water treatment, medical system, and domestic extraction ability have all been ground to a snail's pace even before the abduction of Maduro. Getting bombed to shit by planes that can nearly endlessly refuel and rearm is not going to suddenly make you more able to fight back against aircraft. Venezuela was not able to create a military that can withstand the US before this year, so assuming they suddenly would be able to if they just "resisted," is pretty unsound and illogical. Choosing the path of definite bloodshed and mass destruction is not strategic, revolutionary, or anti-imperialist.

There has never been a point where Venezuela could resist US influence, which is why the sanctions have utterly broken the nation and now they are easy to extort. It doesn't mean they are traitors, it means they literally have no options and it's better to hand over the wallet and live another day than to demand your own death. This isn't a movie, these are real people's lives we have to consider.