The reported capture and forcible removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces on Saturday, 3 January 2026—followed by his dramatic arraignment before a Manhattan court barely forty-eight hours later—sent shockwaves across the globe. The sheer speed, clinical precision, and apparent effortlessness of the operation left governments, analysts, and ordinary observers momentarily stunned.
Like many around the world, I was initially struck by the audacity of the act. Yet as the dust slowly settles, it is becoming increasingly evident that what President Donald Trump has unabashedly described as a “regime change” or “narco-trafficker arrest” operation is, at best, unfinished and at worst, dangerously destabilizing.
Thus far, Washington has succeeded only in extracting Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuelan soil. The Venezuelan state itself remains standing. Its institutions continue to function, its armed forces have not disintegrated, and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has been swiftly sworn in as Acting President. She has pledged continuity, political sovereignty and economic independence, the very principles Washington seeks to dismantle.
President Trump’s ambition clearly extends beyond the physical removal of one man. His true objective is the control over Venezuela’s political direction, its economic levers, and ultimately its future. On that decisive front, the outcome remains uncertain and fiercely contested.
Predictably, the operation has provoked a chorus of international condemnation. Numerous states and observers have denounced it as a blatant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. An emergency session of the UN Security Council convened on Monday, during which many members openly criticized the American action.
Yet, speaking as a former diplomat who served at the United Nations between 2015 and 2017, I can state without hesitation that these protests will amount to little more than ritual indignation. Once again, the UN has exposed its chronic inability to restrain a determined permanent member of the Security Council. Conceived in the aftermath of World War II, its Charter signed on 26 June 1945 and entering into force on 24 October that same year, the organization has repeatedly failed its foundational promise when confronted by the unilateral will of great powers. Venezuela is merely the latest, and perhaps clearest, reminder of this institutional paralysis.
Much commentary has focused on the conspicuous silence, or impotence, of Russia and China, long regarded as Venezuela’s principal allies. But neither Moscow nor Beijing possesses the military reach or the political appetite to confront the United States in the Western Hemisphere, a region Washington has historically treated as its exclusive sphere of influence. Diplomatic protests, therefore, are likely to be the full extent of their response.
Both capitals may now place their hopes in Acting President Rodríguez’s resolve to preserve Maduro-era policies and sustain existing strategic partnerships. However, President Trump has blatantly issued stern warnings to the new leadership in Caracas to either comply with U.S. demands, or brace for even harsher consequences.
The most troubling aspect of this episode lies not in Venezuela alone, but in the precedent it sets. Russia and China may well invoke the Venezuelan case to legitimize their own coercive actions in Ukraine and Taiwan respectively. Some cynical observers even speculate about an unspoken understanding among the major powers, each tacitly tolerating the other’s excesses within their perceived spheres of influence. If such a logic prevails, then we are witnessing a grim regression to the law of the jungle, where power eclipses principle and weaker states are left dangerously exposed.
President Trump has given no indication of retreating from this posture. On the contrary, his rhetoric suggests an expanding appetite for coercion, directed not only at other Latin American states but even beyond. Open talk of targeting Colombia, Cuba, Nigeria, and the extraordinary proposal to seize Greenland from Denmark raises serious alarm. The latter, in particular, would strain NATO cohesion, potentially fracture the alliance, and inadvertently hand strategic advantage to Russia at a critical juncture in Europe.
The lesson from Venezuela is obvious and unmistakable. Alignment with a superpower no longer guarantees security. International law offers little protection when a powerful state decides that a weaker one has become expendable. In today’s unforgiving world, national survival depends less on external assurances and more on internal cohesion, resilience, and strategic self-reliance.
Finally, the circumstances surrounding Maduro’s capture have ignited intense speculation. Some point to betrayal within his security apparatus; others cite reports that 32 Cuban personnel guarding his residence were killed while resisting the operation. If true, this would not reflect a failure of loyalty, but rather an overwhelming imbalance of force. No lightly armed unit, however committed, could realistically withstand the intelligence dominance, firepower, and operational sophistication attributed to U.S. special forces, particularly if compounded by internal intelligence leaks.
Time alone will reveal the full truth. What is already beyond dispute, however, is that Venezuela marks a turning point. It signals the steady erosion of international norms, the hollowness of global institutions, and the unapologetic return of raw power as the primary currency of world politics.
