Now “Russia is not an aggressor,” or Venezuela as a modern colony

Unfortunately, the new year of 2026 has inherited the old problems of the past. From the very first days of January, the unfolding global turmoil has once again demonstrated that international law is little more than a piece of paper for powerful states. Those who promised to restore peace to the world have shown that, when it suits them, they can disregard these norms without hesitation and resort to violence, while democracy — often presented as a measure of justice — becomes a convenient tool to justify that violence. On one side is Russia’s war against Ukraine, launched and still unresolved. On the other is Israel’s destruction of Gaza. Now it is the turn of the United States’ imperial ambitions in the Western Hemisphere. In short, it appears that the era of colonization is returning.

We spoke several times last year about tensions between the United States and Venezuela, yet the fact that the crisis would ultimately be resolved through military force came as a surprise to many. The sharp shift in decision-making by U.S. President Donald Trump — who loudly proclaimed “peace on Earth” during New Year celebrations — has sparked criticism and, at times, biting satire on social media. After all, peace is hardly established by illegally crossing a sovereign border, abducting a head of state, and causing civilian casualties in the process.

While Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is relentlessly condemned, Trump’s attempt to establish de facto dominance over the American continent has largely gone unchecked. Powerful states and international organizations appear to have limited themselves to issuing formal statements of concern, lacking the courage to go further. It is hardly surprising, then, that public trust in international law and the United Nations continues to erode.

Details of the operation

On January 3, 2026, at approximately 02:00 local time, U.S. air forces entered the airspace over Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. The operation, which lasted nearly half an hour and encountered no significant military resistance, ended with the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were subsequently taken to the United States. The operation, codenamed “Operation Absolute Resolve,” traces its origins back to the summer of 2025. According to sources cited by CBS, the plan was developed with the participation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the President’s National Security Adviser Stephen Miller. It relied on U.S. air power capabilities and support from a faction within the Venezuelan government.

Speaking at a press conference on January 3, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Cain stated that the operation plan had been finalized as early as December, but execution was delayed for several weeks due to unfavorable weather conditions. According to him, suitable conditions emerged on the night of January 3, and at 22:46 Eastern Time, Trump authorized the start of the operation. More than 150 aircraft and drones took off simultaneously from 20 bases.

At 02:01 Caracas time, helicopters reached Maduro’s residence, covered by aircraft and drones from above. The arrest team then detained Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The helicopters took off, and four hours and 43 minutes after the operation began, they landed on the aircraft carrier Iwo Jima at 03:29 Eastern Time.

Many operational details remain classified, but local media report that not only military personnel but also civilians were killed during the assault. According to The New York Times, more than 40 people died as a result of shootings and explosions. Venezuela’s Ministry of Defense confirmed that explosions occurred in residential areas.

Trump under fire

The U.S. operation came as a shock not only to Venezuela but to the world at large. A swift military attack and the forced removal of a sitting head of state — actions that cannot be justified under any legal framework — triggered sharp criticism across political circles.

The first official response came from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whose country borders Venezuela. On the social media platform X, he warned of bombings in Caracas and called on the UN Security Council and the Organization of American States to convene emergency meetings.

“At this very moment, Caracas is under attack. Alert the entire world: Venezuela is being attacked. Missile strikes are underway. The Organization of American States and the UN must convene immediately,” Petro wrote.

He was far from alone. More than 40 countries and international organizations issued statements, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Albania, and Kosovo from Europe; China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Israel from Asia; Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Uruguay, Peru, Paraguay, and Argentina from South America; South Africa, Senegal, Nigeria, and Ethiopia from Africa; as well as Australia and New Zealand from Oceania. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, and OAS Secretary General Albert Ramdin also issued critical statements. Most condemned U.S. actions, calling for respect for international law, the principle of non-interference, Venezuela’s right to self-determination, and the preservation of international peace.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the operation had come as a surprise and expressed strong opposition.

“China is deeply shocked and firmly condemns the U.S. use of brute force against a sovereign state and actions against its president. Such hegemonic behavior seriously violates international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean,” the statement said.

France, one of Washington’s key allies, also expressed concern. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot criticized Maduro’s policies but stressed respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty.

“The military operation that led to Nicolás Maduro’s arrest violates the fundamental principle of non-use of force at the heart of international law. France recalls that no lasting political solution can be imposed from outside and that sovereign peoples must determine their own future,” he wrote.

Russia’s reaction was no less noteworthy. A country widely viewed as a violator of international law since its invasion of Ukraine suddenly invoked those same principles when it came to U.S. actions.

“In the current situation, it is crucial above all to prevent further escalation and to seek solutions through dialogue,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said, calling the justifications for the operation unfounded.

North Korea also weighed in, calling the U.S. action “a blatant act of aggression” and another example of Washington’s “brutal and predatory nature.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the events in Venezuela set a dangerous precedent and reiterated the importance of full respect for international law, including the UN Charter.

Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all members must refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Neither the restoration of democracy nor any other justification grants the right to resolve issues through military force. Article 51 allows the use of force only in self-defense following an armed attack. Washington’s stated rationale — combating drug cartels — does not meet that threshold. In short, the International Criminal Court has sufficient grounds to hold the U.S. administration accountable, yet the White House shows little interest in justifying its actions legally.

There were, however, a few voices of support. Albania’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Elisa Spiropali, expressed backing for the United States on X, praising its leadership against authoritarianism, corruption, and transnational crime.

Experts overwhelmingly argue that the operation cannot be justified under any international legal norm and amounts to a criminal act. Even under U.S. law, interference in another state’s internal affairs is prohibited.

New York’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, also criticized Trump’s decision, highlighting concerns over Venezuelan sovereignty.

“Such an overt push for regime change affects not only foreign populations but also New Yorkers, including tens of thousands of Venezuelans who call this city home,” Mamdani wrote.

Venezuela’s grim reality

Maduro’s autocratic regime has fallen, and Delcy Rodríguez — backed by Washington — has assumed interim leadership. Yet public unrest persists, and stability remains elusive. Protests continue, only with different participants. Rodríguez herself is no outsider to the previous government, having served as vice president under Maduro. Her first statement after taking power was to confirm cooperation with the United States. Trump, however, warned that should Rodríguez deviate from Washington’s expectations, she could face the same fate as her predecessor.

Despite possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves — around 300 billion barrels — Venezuela remains mired in poverty, hyperinflation, and extremely low per capita income. The official minimum wage is among the lowest globally, estimated at just $0.30–0.50 per month. More than 70 percent of the population earns less than $50 a month, while only 6 percent earn over $1,000. Most households rely on remittances or government food aid to meet basic needs.

Inflation in 2026 is projected to range from 225 to 629 percent, driving relentless price increases. GDP per capita is estimated at $2,970–3,750, figures that mask the reality that over 90 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, with 67 percent in extreme poverty. Energy shortages and the collapse of healthcare and education systems persist.

Mismanagement and overreliance on natural resources have pushed the population into hardship. Yet the U.S.-backed intervention offers no guarantee of improvement. Analysts argue that Venezuela’s growing ties with China and Russia were a key trigger for Washington’s actions. The goal, they say, is not merely oil but a broader geopolitical contest in Latin America. At a UN meeting on January 5, U.S. officials openly described the Western Hemisphere as a zone of American interests and warned against the presence of rival powers.

By this logic, any state could justify invading another to protect its strategic interests. Taken to its conclusion, Russia, too, would no longer be an aggressor but merely a power defending its interests.

In essence, Trump’s true objective is not democracy or combating drug cartels, but preventing rivals from gaining influence and securing control over vast energy resources. Controlling Caracas means controlling oil flows to China. This is not democracy promotion — it is modern colonialism.