Live

The sudden arrest and transfer of Nicolás Maduro to the United States, following an American military operation in Caracas, was not a bolt from the blue, but it did open a new and uncharted chapter for Venezuela and the international order. Washington speaks of a “successful operation,” Europe of “respect for international law,” while the question of what follows remains open. The operation, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, took place in the early hours of Saturday morning and led to the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from the fortified compound where they were staying in Caracas. According to the US, the two are now being held in a New York prison, facing charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. At their arraignment in federal court in Manhattan on Monday, Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores both pleaded not guilty to the US charges, turning the Caracas raid into a New York courtroom drama overnight. The hearing was brief, but the geopolitical signal was loud: this was not only a security operation, but a jurisdictional claim over a foreign leader. At the same time, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting where multiple states condemned the US action, and the UN warned about precedent and respect for international law. This is the collision point Europe tries to avoid: law invoked as a slogan, while power reshapes the facts on the ground.

The operation was the result of lengthy and multi-level intelligence gathering. As reported at a public event held by the organization, US agencies had created a detailed “pattern of life” for Maduro — from his daily movements to his places of residence — using human sources, analysts, and operational units. As noted by CSIS, the cyber dimension of the operation also played a decisive role. Washington admitted that during the invasion, parts of Caracas were “plunged into darkness,” with possible power and internet outages, in order to prevent information leaks and ensure operational superiority. 

The spheres of influence of “Donrow”

The US military action in Venezuela was presented by President Trump himself as an update of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. “The Monroe Doctrine is a great thing, but we have gone way beyond it now, they call it the ‘Donrow Doctrine’,” Trump said, jokingly adding the first letter of his name to this historic doctrine. In practice, Trump reinterpreted the doctrine as the US’s right to impose its primacy in the Western Hemisphere: “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be challenged again,” he stressed, sending a clear message that Latin America remains Washington’s “backyard.”

The original Monroe Doctrine (1823) stated exactly that: a warning to European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the American continent, effectively defining Latin America as the exclusive sphere of influence of the US. The fifth president, James Monroe, had made it clear that any European intervention in the region would be considered an attack on the US. A century later, Theodore Roosevelt added the infamous “Roosevelt Corollary,” which invoked America’s right to actively intervene in Latin American countries, ostensibly to prevent European intervention—but in essence to consolidate American hegemony.

 

Donald Trump went a step further, inaugurating what some analysts have called the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. According to the new US National Security Strategy, the “restoration of American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere” was openly declared as a goal. The Trump administration treats the Western Hemisphere as an area of legitimate US action regardless of international law, clearly adopting the logic of spheres of influence: what Eastern Europe was to Russia or the South China Sea to China, Latin America is now to the United States. This “right” is now being invoked directly by high-ranking US officials – notably, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the operation in Venezuela after the fact as an alleged anti-drug operation and emphasized that the western continental zone is a legitimate field of action for Washington, ignoring the principles of international law. This is a stark reaffirmation of the “Monroe Doctrine” in the 21st century, with the major powers dividing the world into “spheres of influence” where there is no room for rivals or independent courses of action.

It is no coincidence that this new “Dontrow Doctrine” (as Trump jokingly called it) is also motivated by fears of Chinese penetration in the region. As the Guardian pointed out, Trump’s moves in Latin America reflect Washington’s concern about China’s growing role – and are part of a broader promise by his administration that “the United States will reaffirm and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American supremacy.” Simply put, Trump sees himself as “modernizing” the 1823 doctrine, claiming an American “imperial zone” that is equal—in his eyes (short comment: Trump runs the country with the strongest economy and the strongest army in the world based on his own aesthetic. One of the worst spelling mistakes in human history…) – with those he considers to be possessed by other major powers (e.g. Putin’s or Xi’s spheres of influence). Ultimately, he is not concerned about the strengthening of Chinese or Russian spheres of influence, as long as he secures a corresponding “court” for America.

Crude power (and oil)

Behind the rhetoric about the return of democracy (sic) to Venezuela, the harsh reality is that US intervention was primarily dictated by geostrategic and economic objectives, with Venezuela’s enormous oil potential being the priority. The country has approximately 303 billion barrels of proven reserves, the largest in the world. Under Maduro’s regime, of course, production had collapsed (less than 1 million barrels/day, or one-third of what it was 10 years ago) due to mismanagement, infrastructure, and sanctions. However, this “gold mine” – as an American congresswoman described it – did not leave oil companies and strategic planners in the US indifferent. Was oil Trump’s real target? Many believe so and say so openly. The Venezuelan government has directly accused the US of seeking to gain control of the country’s vast oil reserves – and indeed, the energy dimension of these developments is undeniable. Washington’s actions immediately after Maduro’s arrest confirm this. Trump announced a mammoth $2 billion deal to divert Venezuelan oil to the US, taking supplies that were destined for China. Specifically, he stated that the new (provisional) government of Venezuela would “deliver” 30 to 50 million barrels of crude oil to the US , with the proceeds personally controlled by Trump himself to “ensure that they are used for the benefit of the people of Venezuela and the United States.”

 

The US plan envisages that this oil will be sold by the US on international markets, with the money going into an account controlled by Washington. It has not even been clarified whether Venezuela will have access to the proceeds, given that sanctions have placed the state-owned company PDVSA outside the global financial system..It is difficult to imagine a more stark confirmation of the “spoils” of war. “We will manage the country until we can make a safe, proper, and prudent transition,” Trump said, adding in a businesslike tone that Venezuela has “billions in oil revenues” that will be used for its reconstruction. It is therefore not surprising that global crude oil prices fell 1.5% immediately after the announcements, as markets anticipate an increase in Venezuelan oil exports to the US. US company Chevron (the only company operating with a special license in Venezuela, covering ~20% of production) is already ramping up production, while the new US Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, has taken over the operational implementation of the export agreement. Trump himself met with executives from oil giants just a few days after the intervention, making it clear that he seeks to “open up” Venezuela’s oil industry to American companies. In fact, Secretary of State Rubio threatened an “oil quarantine” if the new authorities in Caracas did not comply fully, giving the US control over the flow of Venezuelan crude oil.

Rivals Out: China, Cuba, Iran—and the Türkiye Factor

The other major axis is geopolitical rivalry with China (and Iran). Maduro’s Venezuela had for years turned to Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran in an “anti-US” bloc of cooperation. China became Venezuela’s largest oil buyer in the last decade, especially after the US sanctions of 2019-20. Russia also provided loans, military equipment, and support. Iran sent convoys of tankers with gasoline and supplies to break the embargo. An extra wrinkle in this ‘anti-US bloc’ is Türkiye. Erdoğan was among Maduro’s most visible external backers during the 2019 crisis, and Ankara’s economic links helped Caracas breathe under sanctions. After the raid, a new claim surfaced: US Senator Lindsey Graham suggested Maduro ‘could be in Türkiye today’, implying Trump offered him a gilded exile in Türkiye before the operation—an account also reported via transition-talk sources.  Erdoğan publicly denied receiving any such proposal, but the episode matters even if contested: it shows Washington treating third countries not as neutral actors, but as staging grounds for managed exits, when a regime change is already penciled in.” Finally, Cuba had (and still has) thousands of advisers and military personnel in Venezuela, supporting the regime. All these forces found themselves in the crosshairs of the new US policy.

It is no coincidence that during the night raid to arrest Maduro, dozens of Cuban officials who were in the country were killed (Havana announced the death of 32 members of its armed forces), which shows that Washington also directly targeted Cuban involvement. Immediately afterwards, Trump demanded that Venezuela’s interim president, Delsy Rodríguez, expel all Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban agents and advisers from the country—warning that if she did not comply, there would be a “second military operation.” This is essentially a “cleansing” of the American backyard of any rival foreign players.

The new US National Security Strategy states bluntly: the goal is “to prevent non-hemispheric competitors from possessing or controlling strategically vital assets in our hemisphere” – clearly stating the intention not to allow China or Russia (or others) to get their hands on Latin America’s resources and infrastructure. Even conservative commentators admit that this goes beyond anti-Chinese policy and conflicts with European interests. It is no secret that European companies and countries also have major interests in Latin America (from trade agreements such as EU-Mercosur to investments and energy projects). The US’s “unilateral plundering” of Venezuela is therefore causing concern in Europe that Washington will now act ruthlessly, even against European positions. The Chinese reactions were furious: Beijing accused the US of “typical acts of intimidation” and “brazen use of force” in order to impose “America First” on the disposal of another country’s resources.

What a shame…International Law as slogan

At the European level, more specifically the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, called for “calm and restraint” and stressed that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected.” The statement was adopted by 26 of the 27 member states, with Hungary being the only exception. The most institutionally clear expression of the European position came in the form of an official announcement by the European External Action Service. In its statement of January 4, supported by 26 member states, the European Union calls for “calm and restraint from all parties involved,” emphasizing that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter must be respected,” with particular reference to the increased responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council. Although it is repeatedly stated that Nicolás Maduro lacks democratic legitimacy, the EU insists that only a peaceful, democratic, and Venezuelan-owned transition can be considered viable. At the same time, the Union recognizes the importance of combating organized crime and drug trafficking, but stresses that these issues must be addressed exclusively through international cooperation and with full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the same context, the EU calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners and states that it is in constant contact with the US and regional partners to promote a negotiated solution.

 

Behind the common line, however, European capitals appeared divided. Spain and Norway expressed clearer reservations about the legitimacy of the US intervention, while other leaders chose to focus exclusively on the “day after” and the democratic transition, avoiding direct references to the use of force. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a lawyer by profession, carefully avoided condemning the attack on a sovereign state, stating that the legal status of the intervention is “complex” and that Berlin was examining it, while at the same time expressing his satisfaction with the “kidnapping” of Maduro, whom he accused of corruption, election fraud, and involvement in drug trafficking . Emmanuel Macron initially openly supported the American venture, stating that “the Venezuelan people have reason to rejoice,” only to later backtrack, saying that France “neither supported nor approved of the method,” but asking that the event be considered a fait accompli and that power be handed over to the opposition (specifically to an exiled politician who had been defeated in the 2024 elections).

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, although ideologically close to Trump, muttered that “foreign military action is not the right way to put an end to totalitarian regimes,” but almost immediately justified the American action by speaking of a “defensive intervention” against hybrid threats such as drug trafficking, implying that it is legitimate. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, for his part, also welcomed the end of the rule of “illegitimate President Maduro,” fully aligning himself with Washington’s line. The crescendo of hypocrisy on the part of the Europeans is evident. As has been aptly observed, the European powers “the more loudly they invoke international law, the more openly they violate it” — they invoke it when it suits them (e.g., in the war against Russia or in the confrontation with China) and forget about it when it hinders them (e.g., in the genocide in Gaza, the economic strangulation of Iran, or the seizure of Maduro). 

The hypocrisy of the Europeans is evident. As has been aptly observed, the European powers “the more loudly they invoke international law, the more openly they violate it” — they invoke it when it suits them (e.g., in the war against Russia or in the confrontation with China) and forget about it when it hinders them (e.g., in the genocide in Gaza, the economic strangulation of Iran, or the seizure of Maduro). This schizophrenia, as it has been described, is indicative of the dilemma they find themselves in. Europe is unable or unwilling to openly confront Trump: it depends on the US to continue the war in Ukraine and fears losing American support if it clashes with the White House. Thus, it remains complicitly silent, at best uttering vague appeals for “calm” and “respect for the authorities” – but in essence legitimizing the fait accompli.

Greece, in particular, found itself in an embarrassing position. The Greek government, which internationally presents itself as a staunch defender of international law (especially on issues such as Turkish violations in the Aegean), in this case limited itself to aligning with the European “line” — that is, a wait-and-see attitude. Athens supported the EU statement (approved by all member states except Hungary), which, as we saw, discreetly welcomed Maduro’s removal and avoided any criticism of the US. Officially, therefore, Greece did not condemn the violation of Venezuela’s national sovereignty nor did it directly characterize Trump’s action as illegal. Instead, through the Euro-statement, it confirmed that it considers Maduro “illegitimately elected” and wishes for a “peaceful transition” to democracy. In other words, Greece was quietly happy about the change in regime, even if it had reservations about the method. This is a blatant contradiction of Athens’s stated position that “international law comes first.”

But when the superpower violates international law, the Greek government turns a blind eye. This did not go unnoticed within the country: the body of Greek judges issued an unprecedented statement, sounding the alarm about the absolute relativisation of international law in the wake of the intervention in Venezuela. The judges speak directly of a “violation of international law” and “the prevalence of political cynicism and the law of the militarily strongest,” , warning that this perception, if it takes hold, will have dramatic consequences at the international and domestic levels. The message to the Greek government was clear: we cannot have double standards in defending legality. Nevertheless, official Athens chose to remain silent.

Donald Trump said that the US would “temporarily administer” Venezuela until a “safe and proper transition” could be established, without setting a timetable or committing to elections. At the same time, he ruled out the possibility of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado leading the transition period. Within Venezuela, de facto power appears to have passed to Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president. However, according to CSIS analysts, the real balance of power depends on the stance of the army, the National Guard, and the armed colectivos, which have already been deployed in Caracas to prevent demonstrations.

The EU’s lukewarm response does nothing more than serve as a silent acceptance of the new order of a harsh power where international law is a mantra. This lukewarm stance undermines the Union’s credibility as a defender of international law. Europe seems to be accepting a fait accompli, trying to balance between fear of American pressure and rhetoric about principles — an attitude that reflects the overall management of Trump’s second term. 

Beyond the immediate practical stakes, the US intervention in Venezuela stands out as a historic moment of recognition of a deeper ideological shift in global politics. In recent years, particularly under Donald Trump, we have seen the dismantling of the pretexts of so-called “liberal interventionism” that is, the practice whereby the major powers (mainly the US in the post-war period) justified interventions by invoking supposedly liberal values, such as the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights, or the prevention of humanitarian tragedies. Of course, these were often pretexts and excuses, but they still provided a moral cover for the actions of Western states—and thus maintained a belief (or illusion) in certain international rules. Now, these pretexts are being completely abandoned. 

Trump himself is not known for taking concepts such as “democracy” or “human rights” at face value – on the contrary, he fearlessly allies himself with dictators (he praises Nayib Bukele of El Salvador as “the coolest dictator,” supports the far-right Milei regime in Argentina in exchange for favors, legitimizes the genocidal Netanyahu, etc.). In the case of Venezuela, the rhetoric “in favor of democracy” was so shallow that it fell flat in no time. Trump openly declares that the US will run the country until the transition takes place, while his vice president, J.D. Vance, proclaims in his speeches that “freedom” and “democracy” are concepts that Washington now redefines according to its interests . This is a cynical play on words: words such as “freedom,” “rights,” and “peace” are being exploited by Washington and other global players, stripped of their original meaning.

The result is nothing more than a world order that is dangerously leaning toward a model of “brute force” where the slogan “might is right” is now openly heard. Trump exemplifies a world where power makes law—and indeed “dominates” in that direction. This legitimization of cynicism and authoritarianism at the international level is perhaps the most serious consequence of the Venezuela affair. Because if the rule becomes that “the powerful do whatever they want,” then who will stop other major powers from doing the same tomorrow? Russia has already tried to do so in Ukraine – and now sees the US responding in kind in its own “neighborhood.” 

The ideological shift is clear: the post-war “norm” of even superficial adherence to a rules-based order is giving way to a new reality of brutal Realpolitik. At the beginning of Trump’s second term, the message is clear: Trump’s America is not bound by post-war “noble pretexts” about international rules, it will intervene at will in its “backyard” – and perhaps elsewhere. The blatant violation of the sovereignty of a major South American state sends a grim signal to the rest of the world.

We are obliged to face this truth head-on, and that is that we are witnessing a moral collapse of the world order, where even the former pretences of “justice” are being abandoned. This slide towards the “law of the strongest” carries enormous risks; the impression that the only law that applies is the law of the strong may become irrevocably entrenched internationally. We are already seeing the consequences: Europe is beginning to openly discuss remilitarization and “autonomy” so that “we are not at the mercy” of others, with German commentators calling for the rearmament of Germany and the EU because in a world where might makes right, Europe must arm itself. In other words, the “response” that many are discussing is not a return to principles, but a descent into a new power struggle. This is a dangerous spiral of escalation—a darker, more unstable world where small players will be crushed between giants who trample on every rule.

The US intervention in Venezuela under Trump in 2026 is a negative milestone, and even those who will not shed tears for the fate of the Maduro regime should be deeply concerned about the way in which this was achieved. Because no one wins in a world where the powerful do whatever they want and the rest just shrug their shoulders. We can’t ignore the fact that this sets a really dangerous precedent: it legitimises the practice of “kidnapping” leaders and violently changing regimes without an international mandate. Who will tell another major power tomorrow that it is “not allowed” to do the same? And how credible will that be?

The case of Venezuela also shows the limits and contradictions of the West. European democracies have failed to rise to the occasion, sacrificing principles on the altar of an even uglier Realpolitik. This sends the wrong message to the rest of the world—especially to the so-called Global South, where there is already mistrust of Western proclamations about “rules.” Europe’s credibility is eroded when it appears to apply international law à la carte. If the EU turns a blind eye when it suits it (as it is doing now), how will it persuade other countries to follow it in other cases (e.g. in supporting Ukraine or maintaining sanctions)? This attitude undermines Europe’s own interests in the long term.

Finally, this case calls on all of us to take responsibility—as citizens and as societies that believe in democracy, rights, and the rule of law. We must view the intervention in Venezuela not through the rose-tinted glasses of propaganda, but for what it is: a show of force that tramples on rules and moral values. And we must speak out about it. We must demand consistency and respect for principles from our leaders—and refuse to be dragged into a new, dark world of “wicked authoritarianism” where the law of the powerful becomes the new norm.Critical voices are more necessary than ever. Because if we remain silent in the face of such developments, tomorrow no one will be safe from the next “powerful” figure who decides to rewrite the rules. The case of Venezuela is a wake-up call – and we cannot ignore it. History shows us that when pretences end, a dangerous era begins. And now, unfortunately, we find ourselves at precisely that turning point. It is our duty to point this out and to address it with honesty and determination. The principles of international legitimacy will either apply to everyone or to no one – and it is so difficult to write anything more than a truism that tends to no longer be true. 

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article