Global Geopolitical Fracture: The Maduro Operation

Relations between the USA and Venezuela experienced one of the most shocking fractures in modern diplomatic history this January when President Maduro was captured by US special forces and taken to New York. His midnight Caracas kidnapping has transformed tensions between the two countries from a classic diplomatic crisis into a global sovereignty and legal crisis, rendering it a pivotal test of the nascent multipolar world order, rather than a mere feud between strongmen. Analysing this process properly requires a triplet of perspectives: Donroe Doctrine (modern Monroe Doctrine), the global energy chess game, and the boundaries of international jurisdiction.

Military and Strategic Background to the Operation

Operation "Absolute Resolve", carried out by the elite Delta Force unit, lasted only 30 minutes and was executed simultaneously with seven major explosions in Caracas. The Trump administration's marketing of this political assassination  as a "fight against crime" demonstrates that the US is applying a doctrine similar to its 1989 Panama intervention (the Manuel Noriega case). However, in 2026 this move is not merely a regional cleanup, but aims to break the region’s anti-Western axis by eliminating its premier outpost for actors such as Russia, China, and Iran. Statements made from Mar-a-Lago after the operation revealed the intervention had been monitored "as if watching a television program," reinforcing its display of power.

From Ideological Conflict to "Narco-State" Allegations

Washington's Venezuela strategy had been built on ideological containment since the Chavez era. However, over time, this tension between the US and Venezuela evolved beyond an ideological clash into a multidimensional conflict involving energy security, the regional power balance, and international legal boundaries. Disputes over the legitimacy of the 2024 elections in Venezuela and data provided by the opposition prepared the ground for Washington to declare the Maduro administration "illegitimate". The primary US argument in this process is the allegation that Maduro is not only a despot but the head of a structure that manages regional drug trafficking and finances "narco-terrorism" activities. This strategy, then, evolved from political animosity into a direct ‘crime-fighting’ case. Indictments prepared by the US Department of Justice against Maduro and his staff define Venezuela as an organisation managing global drug routes through the "Cartel de los Soles" (Cartel of the Suns). This definition provided the US with a legitimacy purportedly similar to "combatting international terrorism". Maduro's abduction has been marketed by Washington not as the arrest of a head of state, but as bringing a wanted fugitive to justice.

Energy Security and "Caribbean Chess"

The economic-strategic dimension of the issue centers on oil reserves and regional control. Although Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven crude oil reserves, it has been unable to utilise this potential due to both international sanctions and internal problems within Venezuela's oil sector. The changing role of Russia in energy markets following the war in Ukraine, and China's economic expansionism in Latin America (especially through Venezuelan debts and energy projects), pushed the US to take a more aggressive stance in its ‘backyard’. The near-halt of production in Venezuela, and the increasing influence of China and Russia in the region, are perceived as a threat to the US Latin America strategy. The removal of Maduro is a crucial strategic move to reintegrate Venezuelan oil into Western markets and break Russo-Chinese influence. Consequently, Washington's desire to restructure Venezuela's energy sector under the guise of ‘rehabilitation’ following Maduro's removal shows that the political motivation of this operation is not to bring democracy, just to control strategic resources. Questions remain about who will be in Caracas's new government, how stability will be achieved, and how the energy sector will be privatized.

Legal Legitimacy, "Crime of Aggression" and Sovereignty Debates

The militarily flawless extraction operation has precipitated fractious international law debates. The US administration defines the intervention as "self-defense" and a "judicial evacuation" taken to protect the American people from the threat of fentanyl and cocaine. However, legally, this event straightforwardly violates the "prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states" (Article 2(4), UN Charter). While the United Nations and many independent jurists define the operation as a "crime of aggression", the US Department of Justice has declared Maduro a "narco-terrorist," dissolving his immunity to reduce him to the status of an ordinary criminal. This sets a dangerous precedent, that any superpower can declare a leader it dislikes a "criminal" and abduct them to be tried on its own soil. In particular, the US "self-defense" thesis struggles to find support in the international community as no evidence has been presented that Venezuela concocted concrete attacks against the US. 

Another highly debated legal aspect of the operation is America’s extension of its own domestic jurisdiction into another state. In international law, head of state immunity is fundamental; however, the US has disregarded this immunity by arguing that Maduro is not a "legitimate head of state" due to electoral fraud. This approach, like the others, creates a dangerous precedent. If a major power declares the leader of another country "illegitimate" or a "criminal," does it have the right to abduct that leader? The law of the jungle is increasingly encroaching on the rules-based international order.

Conclusion

While this US intervention has created a new wave of unification against ‘Yankee imperialism’ among the left-wing governments (Pink Tide) in Latin America, it has been a source of secret satisfaction for its conservative governments. Furthermore, left-wing US allies in the region, such as Brazil and Mexico, have entered a period of silent waiting despite their critical stances. This muteness has likewise revitalised the perception of ‘Yankee imperialism’ among the people of the region and fuelled new motivation for anti-US radical movements.

Whether Venezuela will descend into a civil war, or whether a US-backed transitional government can maintain peace, remains uncertain. Ultimately, the abduction and trial of Maduro have led to both a power vacuum in Venezuelan domestic politics and a further widening of the gap between the US and the non-Western bloc (Russia, China, Iran) in global politics. Indeed, this event is a manifestation of the clash between post-Cold War unipolar world habits and the rising multipolar world reality. While the US tries to maintain the status quo via hard power, the world is witnessing a period where the concept of sovereignty is being redefined. In this context, the "Absolute Resolve" operation is one of the most controversial and consequential events in the history of international law and relations. This Washington-Caracas struggle has transformed debates over the limits of intervention into an adversary’s  internal affairs, and on whether international accusations can strip a head of state of their immunity, into an international law and politics case that will reverberate for decades.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Drug Enforcement Administration

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.