In an era where international norms are increasingly tested, the recent U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has ignited global debates on authoritarianism and the principle of “might is right.” This bold move, executed with overwhelming force, raises critical questions: Is the world witnessing a new wave of authoritarian tactics where military strength overrides sovereignty and legal frameworks?
U.S. Seizure of Maduro and the Assertion of Dominance
The operation unfolded swiftly, with U.S. forces assembling a massive armada to apprehend Maduro and his wife without any American casualties. Announced at a press conference in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, the action positioned the United States as the interim controller of Venezuela, promising a “safe, proper, and judicious transition.” Key figures, including the U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, lauded the mission as a textbook display of military prowess.
Maduro’s refusal to acknowledge his 2024 electoral defeat, where opposition candidate Edmundo González was widely seen as the victor, set the stage for this intervention. Despite international recognition of figures like María Corina Machado, who received the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, U.S. leadership dismissed her viability, stating she lacked sufficient support and respect. The timing, shortly after Maduro’s meeting with Chinese diplomats in Caracas, added layers of geopolitical intrigue, suggesting a preemptive strike against potential alliances.
This event echoes historical U.S. interventions, such as the 1994 operation in Haiti involving 25,000 troops and two aircraft carriers, which ultimately led to a failed state overrun by armed gangs. Similarly, past efforts in Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan (ending in 2021 collapse) highlight the pitfalls of regime change through force, yet the Venezuela action proceeds with confidence in U.S. superiority.
Embodying ‘Might is Right’: From Words to Military Action
At its core, the seizure exemplifies “might is right,” where military muscle supplants diplomatic or legal resolutions. U.S. officials justified the move as assisting in an arrest warrant for Maduro, labeled a “drug lord,” while openly discussing resource extraction as reimbursement. Statements like “We’re going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground, and that wealth is going to the people of Venezuela… and it goes also to the United States of America in the form of reimbursement” underscore a worldview prioritizing economic gains through dominance.
The operation supersedes traditional doctrines like the Monroe Doctrine, declaring that “American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again.” Interactions with Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez, who was told she had “no choice” but to comply, further illustrate this coercive approach. Warnings to leaders in Colombia and hints at actions against Mexico signal an expanding sphere of influence driven by threats and force.
Critics argue this risks eroding the UN Charter and international law, creating a vacuum where authoritarian regimes can justify similar aggressions. As one U.S. senator noted, “If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?” Once crossed, these lines could unravel global restraints, favoring the strong over the rule-bound.
The European Union’s Principled Stance:
The European Union has adopted a carefully balanced yet firmly principled position in response to the U.S. military operation that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro, emphasizing the paramount importance of international law while acknowledging the lack of legitimacy surrounding his regime. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, along with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders, has repeatedly stressed that under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected, calling for calm, restraint, and de-escalation to avoid further instability. The bloc has long maintained that Maduro lacks legitimacy following the disputed 2024 elections and has advocated for a peaceful, democratic transition reflecting the will of the Venezuelan people. However, this support for change does not extend to endorsing unilateral military interventions, with statements underscoring that any resolution must uphold sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the use of force. This nuanced approach highlights Europe’s commitment to multilateralism and rules-based order, even as transatlantic alliances face strain, and serves as a reminder that addressing authoritarianism through extralegal means risks setting dangerous precedents that could undermine global stability in an already volatile geopolitical landscape.
Global Authoritarianism on the Rise: Implications and Country-Specific Examples
The Venezuela incident is not isolated but part of a broader trend toward authoritarianism, where leaders exploit power vacuums and precedents to advance agendas. This shift threatens to normalize unilateral interventions, potentially sparking resource-driven conflicts worldwide.
Russia and Ukraine: Parallels in Aggression
Russian President Vladimir Putin could draw inspiration from the U.S. model to justify further actions in Ukraine, such as abducting its leadership under pretexts of criminal conduct. U.S. attempts to profit from Ukraine’s natural resources in exchange for military aid mirror the Venezuelan resource focus, highlighting how authoritarian tactics blend military force with economic opportunism.
China and Taiwan: Sovereignty Under Threat
China swiftly condemned the U.S. action as “hegemonic acts” that “seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” urging the U.S. to “stop violating other countries’ sovereignty and security.” This precedent could embolden China regarding Taiwan, viewing reunification as a justifiable use of force against perceived criminal leaders. The timing of Maduro’s meeting with Chinese diplomats just before his capture underscores escalating U.S.-China rivalries.
United States: Unilateralism Redefined
The U.S. operation, while successful in execution, faces scrutiny for ignoring allies and international norms. European partners, including the UK, struggle to reconcile support for rule-of-law with non-condemnation, revealing alliance strains. Broader ambitions, such as eyeing Greenland’s Arctic resources amid climate change, suggest a pattern of resource covetousness that could extend authoritarian reach.
Latin America: Regional Ripple Effects
In Venezuela, the regime’s corruption networks, armed militias, and ties to Colombian guerrillas pose risks of post-seizure violence, as warned by expert analyses in late 2025. Cuba remains on the agenda due to historical animosities, while Colombia’s president was bluntly advised to “watch his ass.” These dynamics threaten Latin American stability, potentially leading to a domino effect of interventions.
Warnings and the Path Forward
Analyses from international think tanks in October 2025 highlighted the dangers of Maduro’s fall, predicting chaos involving armed factions, criminal groups, and guerrillas. War-gamed scenarios foresee prolonged instability, underscoring the challenges of governance post-intervention.
As global authoritarianism gains traction, the “might is right” ethos could dismantle decades of international cooperation. Leaders worldwide must navigate this turbulence, balancing power with diplomacy to prevent a descent into unchecked aggression. For nations like Venezuela, the promise of wealth redistribution clashes with the reality of potential turmoil, leaving the world to ponder: Will rules prevail, or will might define the new global order?
