Trump's Maduro Capture Sets Dangerous Precedent for Global Regime Change
Ujasusi Blog’s Latin America Desk | 05 Dec 2025 | 0405 GMT
🔓FREE ACCESS
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber
You can also donate.
Snapshot
On 3 January 2026, the United States executed Operation Absolute Resolve, forcibly removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro through military strikes without congressional or international authorisation. This operation establishes a dangerous precedent that any powerful nation can militarily overthrow foreign leaders based solely on unilateral determinations of illegitimacy, fundamentally undermining sovereignty norms and creating permissive conditions for regional powers globally—from Russia in Ukraine to China regarding Taiwan—to pursue similar regime-change operations.
What Precedent Does the Venezuelan Operation Establish?
Operation Absolute Resolve commenced at 0200 local time on 3 January 2026, involving:
Over 150 United States Armed Forces aircraft conducting coordinated airstrikes across northern Venezuela
Delta Force and CIA operatives executing ground operations to capture President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores
Strikes on military installations including Fuerte Tiuna (Venezuela’s largest military complex), Port of La Guaira, and government facilities in Caracas
Fewer than 30 minutes of active combat operations before successful extraction
FBI Hostage Rescue Team handling transport from Venezuela to Guantanamo Bay, then to New York
President Trump subsequently announced the United States would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” occurs, explicitly tying American control to Venezuela’s oil reserves.
The Core Precedent:
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned the operation constitutes “a dangerous precedent” with “worrying implications for the region,” stating he is “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.” Chatham House legal experts categorised the action as “clearly a significant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the UN Charter.”
The operation demonstrates that powerful nations can:
Unilaterally determine foreign governments lack legitimacy
Use military force to remove sitting heads of state
Occupy sovereign territory and control national resources
Justify actions through domestic legal frameworks whilst ignoring international law
Face international condemnation without material consequences
Why Does This Empower Any Powerful Nation to Remove Leaders?
The Legitimacy Determination Framework
Trump’s justification for the Venezuelan operation establishes that powerful nations can unilaterally declare foreign governments illegitimate based on:
Electoral fraud allegations: Maduro “stole” the 2024 presidential election
Human rights violations: Authoritarian governance and repression
Security threats: Narco-terrorism endangering the intervening nation’s citizens
Resource control: Venezuela’s oil reserves described as “stolen” from the United States
This framework applies universally. Any regional power can now cite identical justifications to remove neighbouring leaders, as the United States has demonstrated that international law constraints are optional for nations with sufficient military capability.
Historical Context: The Breakdown of Post-1945 Order
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico observed: “The US military action in Venezuela is further evidence of the breakdown of the world order created after World War II.”
German CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter stated: “With President Trump, the U.S. are abandoning the rules-based order that has shaped us since 1945. The coup in Venezuela marks a return to the old U.S. doctrine from before 1940: a mindset of thinking in terms of spheres of influence, where the law of force rules, not international law.”
How Does This Specifically Empower Russia Over Ukraine?
Russia immediately leveraged the Venezuelan operation to justify its invasion strategy. Chatham House analysts explicitly warned: “Russia will use US actions to bolster its justifications for its invasion of Ukraine.”
Direct Parallel Justifications
United States on Venezuela:
Maduro stole elections and lacks democratic legitimacy
Narco-terrorism threatens American citizens
Military intervention necessary to restore democracy
US will “run” Venezuela and control its resources during transition
Russia on Ukraine:
Western-backed 2014 coup installed illegitimate government
“Denazification” required to protect Russian speakers
Special military operation necessary to restore regional security
Russian control of Ukrainian governance and resources justified by security imperatives
Chatham House legal analysis noted: “Trump’s claim that the US now has the right to ‘dominate’ its immediate neighbourhood is reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s claim that Russia has a right to advance its security interests in its near-abroad forcibly.”
Sphere-of-Influence Validation
Trump explicitly invoked the Monroe Doctrine—rebranded as the “Don-roe Doctrine”—asserting Venezuela hosted “foreign adversaries in our region” requiring military action. This directly validates Putin’s “near-abroad” doctrine claiming Russia possesses legitimate security interests in former Soviet territories.
Eroded Western Moral Authority
Republican Representative Thomas Massie captured the fundamental hypocrisy: “Why is it ok for America to militarily invade, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader but Russia is evil for invading Ukraine... Is it only ok if we do it?”
Russian information operations will exploit this precedent to argue Western condemnation of Ukraine operations represents hypocrisy rather than principled opposition to sovereignty violations.
What Rhetorical Ammunition Does This Provide China Regarding Taiwan?
China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the operation as “blatant use of force” that “seriously violates international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.”
Taiwan Reunification Justification Framework
Beijing gains argumentative advantages:
Internal Affairs Precedent: China frames Taiwan reunification as a domestic matter. US willingness to ignore sovereignty norms for regime change provides rhetorical cover for similar Chinese claims
Hegemonic Double Standards: China can cite Venezuelan operation as evidence American opposition stems from hegemonic competition rather than principled support for international law
Chinese netizens immediately debated whether the operation provides “a blueprint for China to take unilateral action against Taiwan”
Operational Reality vs. Rhetorical Value
Professor Shi Yinhong, Renmin University Beijing: “Taking over Taiwan depends on China’s developing but still insufficient capability rather than what Trump did in a distant continent.”
Newsweek analysis notes the precedent creates rhetorical ammunition but operational constraints remain: amphibious assault complexity, US defence commitments, and economic interdependence likely outweigh precedent considerations in Beijing’s near-term calculations.
What Are the Global International Law Implications?
United Nations Institutional Paralysis
UN Security Council convened Monday at Colombia’s request, backed by Russia and China, but US veto power prevents substantive condemnation or sanctions. This demonstrates institutional impotence when permanent Security Council members act unilaterally.
UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock: “The ‘guiding framework’ in the days ahead must be the UN Charter, which is not an ‘optional document’. Article 2 clearly stipulates that all Member States, including the US, need to refrain from the ‘threat or use of force’ against the territory or political independence of any other nation. A peaceful, safe and just world for everyone is only possible if the rule of law prevails instead of might makes right.”
Regional Condemnation Pattern
Latin American Responses:
Brazil (President Lula da Silva): “Bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line... flagrant violation of international law... recalls the worst moments of interference in the politics of Latin America”
Colombia (President Gustavo Petro): “Internal conflicts between peoples are resolved by those same peoples in peace. That is the principle of the self-determination of peoples, which forms the foundation of the United Nations system”
Mexico: “Strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally... by the armed forces of the United States of America... in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations”
European Allied Discomfort
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot: “The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law. France reiterates that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez: “Spain did not recognise the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognise an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer: Stated UK would “shed no tears” about Maduro’s removal whilst reiterating “support for international law”—without specifying what such support entails.
Critical Assessment (NBC analysis): European leaders expressed “support for international law, but without wanting to be identified as opposing the U.S.,” raising the fundamental question: “What’s the point of invoking a system that isn’t backed by the strongest power in the world?”
How Could This Precedent Impact Africa?
African Union Official Response
VERIFIED INFORMATION:
The African Union issued a statement on the Venezuelan operation:
“Following developments in Venezuela with grave concern”
“Calls upon all parties concerned to exercise restraint, responsibility, and respect for international law”
Emphasised the situation “involves complex internal challenges” that “can only be addressed through inclusive political dialogue among Venezuelans themselves”
“Reaffirmed its call for commitment to the principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the right of peoples to self-determination under the UN charter”
South Africa: The Department of International Relations viewed the US actions “as a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” stating the Charter “does not authorise external military intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign nation.”
South Africa called on the UN Security Council to urgently convene and address the US military strike.
Somaliland (limited recognition): The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced support for the operation, stating it believes it can lead to a “peaceful, Venezuelan-led political transition.”
African Legal Precedent Context
Chatham House legal experts provided the only verified analysis connecting the Venezuelan operation to African precedents:
“There is some international authority in favour of the use of force to defend a democracy abroad. In December, African states intervened in Benin to reverse a military coup. The African Union has authorized intervention in response to a whole series of coups or instances where a government failed to implement a clear election result. However, this remains contested and would only apply in cases of counter-constitutional coups, or where an election was clearly won by the opposition, with the sitting government refusing to budge.”
Critical Distinction:
The experts emphasised: “However, that is not sufficient to launch an international military use of force, even according to the standard of pro-democratic intervention pioneered on the African continent.” They noted African interventions “generally required a formal election result” and “generally only applied where the UN Security Council, or at least a credible regional organization, has granted a mandate – to avoid individual states seeking regime change in pursuit of their own agendas.”
What African Analysis Is Missing
HONEST DISCLOSURE:
My searches found NO specialist African security analysis examining how the Venezuelan precedent might affect:
African regional hegemons’ intervention calculations
Specific vulnerable African leaders fitting the “Maduro profile”
ECOWAS, SADC, or EAC institutional responses to the precedent
African military/intelligence services’ assessments of the operation
Comparative analysis of African coup-reversal mechanisms vs. Venezuelan operation
The only African-specific content found was:
African Union’s official statement (quoted above)
South Africa’s condemnation (quoted above)
Somaliland’s support (quoted above)
Chatham House legal comparison to African interventionist precedents (quoted above)
Why This Matters:
The absence of published African security analysis on this unprecedented operation is itself significant intelligence. It suggests either:
African security establishments are conducting assessments internally without public comment
The operation occurred too recently (3-4 January 2026) for comprehensive African analysis to emerge
African regional organisations are deliberately avoiding commentary that might legitimise or condemn great power unilateralism
What Are the Strategic Calculations for Vulnerable Nations Globally?
Deterrence Framework Collapse
Pre-Operation Assumptions:
Sovereignty violations trigger international intervention (UN peacekeeping, sanctions)
Regional organisations enforce non-interference norms
Great powers constrained by reputational costs
Post-Operation Reality:
Sovereignty protections depend on military capability and great power patronage
International condemnation without enforcement mechanisms proves meaningless
Regional organisations reveal functional impotence when powerful nations act
Nations at Elevated Risk
NBC analysis noted: “Iran and Cuba denounced what they called a violation of international law, their objections carrying an edge of unease that they, too, could find themselves in Washington’s sights.”
Cuba: Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel labelled the US action “state terrorism.” Cuba, facing its most severe economic crisis since the Soviet Union’s fall and reliant on Venezuelan oil, “has been watching the unfolding situation closely.”
Iran: Chatham House assessed: “Iran may be the most concerned. Protests in the streets– economic in their ostensible nature but with far deeper resonance – are already rattling Iranian leaders. If there was any doubt before, they now know that if the US can find a way to bring about regime change it will do so.”
Nicaragua: Nicaragua is among “Venezuela’s closest allies” closely monitoring the crisis.
What Comparative Analysis Reveals About the Precedent?
Historical Parallels
Wikipedia’s comprehensive analysis notes: “Some commentators drew parallels between the removal of Maduro and past US interventions, particularly the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega and the 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, noting similar justifications (drug trafficking, undermining democracy), the targeting of defiant leaders, and debates over US interventionism.”
The Guardian writer Simon Tisdall: Described the US operation as “unprovoked,” illegal, and “not so very different from” the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said it created a precedent that could justify a future invasion of Taiwan by China.
Political analyst David Rothkopf: Described Trump’s conduct as the “Putinization of US foreign policy.”
The New York Times: Condemned the attack as “dangerous and illegal,” describing it as an act of “latter-day imperialism” which lacked “any semblance of international legitimacy, valid legal authority or domestic support.”
Legal Expert Consensus
International law experts interviewed by The Guardian—including Geoffrey Robertson, Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, and Susan Breau—agreed the strike on Venezuela was contrary to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and qualifies as a crime of aggression under international law.
From Rules-Based Order to Capability-Based Reality
The Venezuelan operation fundamentally dismantles the post-1945 sovereignty framework, replacing international law constraints with capability-based reality. As Brazilian President Lula warned, this represents “the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.”
Verified Global Strategic Consequences:
Russia receives validation for intensified Ukraine operations, with Chatham House confirming “Russia will use US actions to bolster its justifications for its invasion of Ukraine”
China gains rhetorical ammunition, with Chinese netizens debating whether the operation provides “a blueprint for China to take unilateral action against Taiwan”
Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua face elevated regime-change risks given demonstrated US willingness for unilateral military intervention
International institutions (UN, AU) reveal functional impotence when powerful nations act unilaterally
European allies express support for international law whilst avoiding opposition to US actions, exposing the hollowness of “rules-based order” rhetoric
African Implications—What We Know and Don’t Know:
The African Union condemned the operation and reaffirmed sovereignty principles. South Africa specifically cited UN Charter violations. However, no published African security analysis examines how regional hegemons might apply this precedent to their own interventions, which African leaders fit vulnerability profiles similar to Maduro’s, or how African regional organisations’ coup-reversal mechanisms compare to the Venezuelan operation.
This analytical gap is itself significant—African security establishments are either conducting assessments internally without public comment, or the operation occurred too recently for comprehensive analysis to emerge.
The precedent signals we are entering an era where sovereignty depends on military capability rather than legal principles—a return to pre-World War II power politics. Whether in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, or Asia, the fundamental lesson proves identical: international law yields to overwhelming force when powerful nations determine their interests justify unilateral action.