The first days of 2026 delivered an unexpected strategic shock to the international system. As the world emerged from New Year celebrations, news broke that Venezuela’s sitting president, Nicolas Maduro, had been captured inside Venezuelan territory during a foreign military operation. While international opinions on Maduro’s leadership remain deeply divided, the method and symbolism of this operation have triggered far-reaching implications for global security, sovereignty, and the future conduct of state power.
From a policy perspective, this event warrants careful examination beyond immediate political reactions. The capture of a sitting head of state by foreign forces and the absence of an explicit legal framework marks a notable departure from established norms governing intervention and the use of force. In 1989, a historical precedent was set when Manuel Noriega, the sitting President of Panama, was captured and presented for indictment in the US courts on drug charges. For security readers, policy makers, and scholars in international law, both incidents underscore a shifting international environment in which legal frameworks, deterrence assumptions, and strategic thresholds are being tested simultaneously.
Intervention Norms under Strategic Pressure.
At the core of this development lies a fundamental challenge to long-standing principles of international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. Exceptions are primarily for self-defence (Article 51) or action authorised by the UN Security Council, and they provide narrow legal justifications for military intervention.
Operation Absolute Resolve (as coined by the US for the 3rd January strike and capture), appears to sit uncomfortably outside these parameters. The U.S. justified the operation as a judicial ‘extraction mission’, as a response of its law enforcement operated by the military. Unlike prior intervention in Libya (2011), where regime change was openly articulated or justified through contested humanitarian or security narratives, this operation focused on the detention of a sitting president without a declared campaign or multilateral mandate. From a policy standpoint, this represents not merely breach of norms, but a potential recalibration of what powerful states may consider operationally acceptable.
For policy makers and leaders concerned with international stability, this distinction matters. Norms erode incrementally, not instantaneously. When extraordinary actions go unanswered or become rhetorically normalised, the risk is that they evolve into precedents. . Over time, the distinction between exceptional enforcement actions and routine coercive statecraft becomes blurred, weakening the predictability that underpins strategic stability.
The Normalisation of Unilateralism
Equally significant is the broader signal sent by this operation regarding unilateral action. The international system has long tolerated a degree of unilateral behaviour by powerful states, particularly when global institutions are perceived as slow or ineffective. However, the cumulative impact of repeated unsanctioned interventions carries strategic consequences. Mearsheimer in his analysis of great power politics suggests increased reliance on military capability at the expense of legal or institutional constraint tends to undermine crisis stability rather than reinforce it.
International order depends not only on legal texts but on collective belief in their relevance. When states increasingly bypass multilateral mechanisms, it reinforces perceptions that international institutions lack enforcement capability. In the long run, this trend raises a critical concern: a declining confidence in global governance structures encourages states to rely more heavily on self-help strategies.
As Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism suggests, in an anarchic system, states respond to uncertainty by strengthening military capabilities, forming alliances, and hedging against potential threats. The recent operation may accelerate such behaviour, particularly among middle and smaller powers that lack the ability to deter intervention independently. In policy terms, these dynamic risks intensifying arms competition, alliance fragmentation, and crisis instability across multiple regions.
Strategic Anxiety beyond Superpowers
The implications of Operation Absolute Resolve extend well beyond Venezuela or US-Latin American relations. Reactions from the UN through the statement of its Secretary General Guterre reflect growing anxiety among non-superpower states about the durability of sovereignty in a shifting global order. In his statement read to the UN Security Council, Guterres concerns on “the possible intensification of instability in the country” besides describing the intervention as a “dangerous precedent.”
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that resolving political disputes through force risks making the world “less safe”. From a policy lens, this warning highlights a deeper issue: the threshold for legitimising intervention appears increasingly ambiguous. When justification criteria become flexible, weaker states face heightened uncertainty regarding their exposure to coercive action.
The reported deaths of 32 Cuban personnel during the operation further illustrate the risks of entanglement between Cuba, Venezuela and the US. Third-party states with advisory, security, or economic ties to targeted governments may find themselves involuntarily drawn into conflicts, complicating deterrence calculations and crisis management.
Beyond the Americas, strategic reverberations are already visible. Discussions within the European Union regarding hypothetical unilateral actions against Greenland underscore how quickly perceived precedents travel across regions. For defence ministries, Operation Absolute Resolve (2025) reinforces the need to reassess assumptions about territorial inviolability and escalation control in an era of fluid norms. Greenland and Denmark foreign ministers are expected to hold three party conversation with US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio pertaining to Trump’s idea of acquiring Greenland.
Policy Implications for Global Security
The Venezuelan case presents several urgent questions. First, can unilateral interventions of this nature be contained as exceptional enforcement actions tied to specific narratives such as counter-narcotics, law enforcement, or self-defence? Or are they indicative of a broader shift toward coercive enforcement of national interests?
Second, what role remains for multilateral institutions such as the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice in restraining escalation if major powers increasingly act outside established frameworks? The credibility gap between legal norms and strategic behaviour poses long-term risks to crisis management, particularly in regions marked by great-power competition.
Finally, how should middle powers respond? Hedging strategies, diversified partnerships, and enhanced defence capabilities may become more attractive, but they also risk contributing to systemic militarisation. On the other hand, major powers keep on pressuring middle powers, while being cautious not to cause friction among themselves.
Venezuela is unlikely to be the only state affected by the US’ pursuit of strategic objectives under the Trump administration. Recent signals from US leadership suggest that countries with strained relations with Washington and significant strategic or resource value may face increased exposure to coercive pressure or intervention. Operation Absolute Resolve reinforces perceptions that geopolitical utility, rather than multilateral consensus, may shape US future actions.
The operation also heightens uncertainty for Cuba, which has long relied on Venezuela for subsidised oil and economic support. Prolonged disruption risks fuel shortages, electricity rationing, and economic contraction, increasing the likelihood of domestic instability and humanitarian stress. The risks warrant early policy intervention to prevent wider regional spillover.
Taken together, these developments highlight the need for multilevel preparedness. Governments must plan for not only direct security challenges, but also secondary effects such as energy disruption, economic shocks, and social unrest. Strengthening resilience and multilateral coordination will be essential in an increasingly volatile security environment.
Conclusion
The capture of Venezuela’s president in early 2026 represents more than an isolated geopolitical incident. It is a strategic inflection point that highlights the erosion of intervention norms, the growing acceptability of unilateral action, and rising insecurity among non-superpower states. This is what Finnemore argued in 2003, when she reasoned that international norms do not collapse suddenly. Instead, they weaken through repetition and acquiescence. Actions that are initially justified as exceptional can, over time, recalibrate expectations.
Whether the capture of sitting foreign heads of state remains a singular anomaly or becomes a template for future state behaviour, it will shape the trajectory of international security in the coming decade. What is clear is that the international system has entered a period of heightened uncertainty – one in which power, rather than principle alone, increasingly defines the boundaries of acceptable action.
