Faced with hegemonic coercion, Europe can no longer pretend to be asleep: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: Jan 09, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352722.shtml

Europe is facing a "soul-searching question" regarding the future of Greenland: Should it compromise with hegemonic requests or firmly defend its own sovereignty, interests and international rules? After the US' attack on Venezuela, it has put Greenland on its chopping board. Just as the European version of Politico said, "If European governments didn't realize before that Donald Trump's threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now."

Now within Europe, many voices are discussing "what choices we have," and no matter how conflicted these voices may sound, the very notion of "facing choices" implies a degree of weakness and appeasement toward hegemony. This only reinforces Washington's determination to acquire Greenland. Europe's scattered and disjointed "opposition" regarding the Venezuelan crisis is perhaps one of the catalysts for Washington's recent escalation of threats against Greenland and its arrogant declaration that "Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland." The think tank, European Council on Foreign Relations, pointed out in an article, "Accommodating may preserve short-term transatlantic harmony, but it would reward coercion."

Faced with the rise of hegemonism and unilateralism, Europe has exhibited considerable hesitation and indecisiveness. This stems primarily from two illusions. First, it hinges on the hope that "the US will be better if a different party takes power"; second, it holds a wishful thinking that "Europe will not become the next target of bullying." This mentality reveals a harsh reality: Europe feels powerless to cope with various changes alone, and therefore regards its relationship with the US as a higher-priority "strategic asset" that must be carefully maintained. Consequently, some attempt to exchange compromises of principles for the preservation of their so-called core interests in the face of hegemonic behavior. This is a typical appeasement mentality, fantasizing about pacifying powerful forces through concessions.

However, Europe should no longer pretend to be asleep. 

"Preserving Greenland" and "preserving the NATO alliance to ensure security" are not a one-or-the-other choice for Europe. Greenland's status as a key node in the transatlantic shipping route and a core area for Arctic resource development means that if it falls into US control, Europe may completely lose its voice in Arctic affairs. And this is by no means the end of the US taking advantage of Europe. 

From coercing countries to increase NATO military spending and abandon energy cooperation with Russia, to forcing Europe to comply with US trade sanctions against China, the more Europe appeases hegemony, the more the hegemon will take advantage of it, thus accelerating the binding of Europe itself firmly to the hegemonic chariot and turning it into a pawn in the geopolitical game.

What Europe truly needs to ask itself is this: As a key pole in a multipolar world, how should Europe define itself? 

Some in Europe resemble "geopolitical actuaries" who appear shrewd but end up calculating a profoundly muddled account. On matters of fundamental right and wrong, if Europe consistently responds to hegemonic behavior with appeasement and compromise, treats basic morality and conscience as tradable commodities, and places Washington's preferences above all else, it amounts to tacit acquiescence in, and complicity with, hegemonism and power politics. The consequences of unprincipled compromise came so quickly that Europe will swallow the bitter pill as Greenland faces occupation.

More profoundly, the core ideas and principles on which the EU has been built would be fundamentally shaken, putting at risk its image as a "defender of the international order and multilateralism." Respect for and protection of the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of all states is a widely accepted norm of international relations forged through the blood and fire of World War II. It is also the foundation and soul of the UN-centered international system and of an international order based on international law. Historical lessons have long written a painful verdict on appeasement.

In pursuing strategic autonomy, Europe is by no means without cards to play. As one of the world's largest economic entities, the EU possesses a vast internal market, an advanced industrial system, and deep-rooted multilateralist traditions, which together constitute its key sources of strength in countering hegemonism. Economically, Europe can further deepen internal market integration, reduce excessive dependence on the US financial system, and advance the internationalization of the euro. In the energy sector, it can adhere to a strategy of diversified cooperation and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. Diplomatically, it should stop drawing ideological dividing lines and strengthen cooperation with emerging market countries such as China, and help build a multipolar diplomatic landscape. With a longer-term perspective, Europe has by no means reached a dead end.

If Europe truly regards "abiding by international law" and "upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter" as core values, it should take internationally recognized principles and norms as its guide, stand on the side of international justice and the historical trend toward multilateralism, rather than acquiesce in the erosion of fundamental principles and a return to a law-of-the-jungle world. In fact, at a time when European countries themselves are increasingly anxious and concerned about "hard power," what kind of outcome would there be in opening their arms to a Hobbesian world?

Greenland allies vow action if Trump moves to seize world’s largest island

A German government source told the Reuters news agency that Berlin was ‘closely working together’ with other allies.

By News Agencies

Published On 7 Jan 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/7/european-allies-reiterate-support-for-greenland-amid-us-threats

European leaders, including in France and Germany, have announced they are working on a plan in the event the United States follows through on its threat to take over Greenland as tensions soar.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday that while nations want to act if the US moves to seize Greenland from an ally, Denmark, they want to do so “together with our European partners”.

“I myself was on the phone with the [US] Secretary of State [Marco Rubio] yesterday… He discarded the idea that what just happened in Venezuela could happen in Greenland,” Barrot said.

On Saturday, the United States – using fighter jets, attack helicopters, and special forces – abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, bringing him to New York City to be tried for alleged drug trafficking.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to greenlight the abduction of Maduro led to widespread condemnation and fear that Greenland, which the president has previously said should be part of Washington’s security apparatus, could be forcibly taken.

But since then, European allies have rallied behind Greenland’s sovereignty, saying the country belongs to its people.

‘Sensible dialogue – now’

Johannes Koskinen, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Finland’s parliament, called for the issue to be raised within NATO.

“[Allies should] address whether something needs to be done and whether the United States should be brought into line in the sense that it cannot disregard jointly agreed plans in order to pursue its own power ambitions,” he said.

Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, requested an urgent meeting with Rubio to discuss the situation.

“We would like to add some nuance to the conversation,” Rasmussen wrote in a social media post. “The shouting match must be replaced by a more sensible dialogue. Now.”

Denmark has warned that any move to take Greenland by force would mean “everything would stop”, including NATO and 80 years of close security links.

Greenland’s government will join a meeting between Rubio and Danish officials next week following renewed US claims on the Arctic island, its foreign minister said on Wednesday.

‌The European Union will support Greenland and ‍Denmark when ‍needed and will not accept violations of international law no matter where they occur, European Council President Antonio Costa said.

“In Greenland, allow me to be ​clear: Greenland belongs to its people. Nothing ‍can be decided about Denmark and about Greenland without Denmark or without Greenland,” Costa said in a speech.

“The European Union cannot accept ‌violations of international law – whether in Cyprus, Latin America, Greenland, Ukraine, or Gaza. Europe will remain ‍a firm and unwavering champion of international law and multilateralism.”

Control of Greenland

Greenland – the world’s largest island, with a population of 57,000 people – is located between Europe and North America. Since 2019, during Trump’s first term, the president has raised the idea of controlling Greenland, saying it would benefit US security.

So far, Trump has not ruled out using force to take the island.

Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s intention is to buy Greenland. “That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning.”

House US House Speaker Mike Johnson said he hasn’t heard talk of sending the military into Greenland and the US is “looking at diplomatic channels”.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump and his national security team have “actively discussed” the option of buying Greenland.

“He views it in the best interest of the United States to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region. And so that’s why his team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like,” Leavitt told reporters.

Neither Leavitt nor Rubio ruled out the use of force. But Leavitt said, “The president’s first option, always, has been diplomacy.”

Three Key Lessons from the US’s Venezuela Intervention

01/06/2026•Mises Wire•Ryan McMaken

https://mises.org/mises-wire/three-key-lessons-uss-venezuela-intervention

On Saturday morning, the US military attacked Venezuela. After bombings of Venezuelan infrastructure, a small US force landed in Caracas and abducted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Trump has characterized the attack as a “law enforcement” action although Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not been able to state what legal authority has authorized the invasion, or how the United States government has jurisdiction to do so. 

Although the claim of “law enforcement” may be the official position, the administration and its supporters have employed a wide variety of justifications for the bombing and invasion, ranging from democratization to human rights. 

This latest military operation by the US regime serves as a reminder that very little has changed in American foreign policy since 1989 when George H. W. Bush set the stage for today’s policy of endless intervention. The only change, perhaps, is that the Trump’s MAGA coalition—after denouncing regime change and nation-building for years—has now embraced the policy wholeheartedly. 

Regardless of who is supporting it, however, the US’s bombing of Caracas reiterates three key foundations of American foreign policy. We might say that the Venezuela operation “exposed” the true nature of US foreign policy, but none of this is anything new for anyone who has been paying attention. 

One: The US Constitution Means Nothing 

As with all military operations since 1945, the Venezuela bombing—a clear act of war to anyone who isn’t an apologist for the regime—occurred without any Congressional declaration of war. In this case—as with Obama’s Libya War—there was not even so much as a Congressional debate. Trump now says he informed oil companies of the operation before he informed Congress. 

Countless conservatives who have long pretended to care about “the rule of law” or a “strict constructionist” view of the US constitution are now splitting hairs about whether or not the bombing of a foreign country and the kidnapping of its head of state counts as “war.” They’re pretending to be confused as to why anyone would think a mere bombing operation constitutes warfare. This is the same tactic employed by the Left: pretend to be confused by simple English words that are clear to honest people, but which are repeatedly redefined to fit a political agenda. 

The result of their manufactured confusion is this claim: Because we can never be sure of what the word “war” actually means, bombing foreign countries—at taxpayers’ expense, by the way—doesn’t require even the smallest amount of Congressional action. 

Or so we are told. 

So much for Article I of the US Constitution which put the legislature in place as a veto on military action. This veto, by the way, was not something invented by Americans, but was a principle formed out of centuries of resistance against absolutism in Europe when the Stuart kings and other despots sought to foist wars upon the taxpayers without so much as a vote in parliament. Unfortunately, thanks to decades of disregard for the rule of law in modern times—something now embraced by MAGA—this essential pillar of limiting state power has been utterly abandoned. 

Two: International Law Applies only to Other Countries (But Not Israel)

Just as the negation of the Constitution demonstrates that the rule of law is meaningless in domestic American politics, we also know that law means nothing at all for American policy in the international realm. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US regime spent years lecturing Americans on the so-called “rules-based international order.” In spite of the fact that the US regime had spent years occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, and parts of Syria, the US regime then attempted to claim that the Russians must respect the sovereignty of other states because of an alleged rules-based order. 

This only applies to other countries not named “the United States” or “Israel.” For example, the Russian state claims the right to intervene in its “near abroad” or sphere of influence. Many US foreign policy “experts” deny that any such concept exists. Many even mocked the idea of a sphere of influence. Yet the United States routinely invokes a nearly identical claim over Latin America. The “Monroe Doctrine” is little more than a declaration that Latin America is within the US’s sphere of influence. 

The reality is that US policy is nothing more than an exercise in raw power, and any appeal to international law is used only to justify US intervention. The US regime—and its parasite state, the State of Israel—simply do what each regime’s ruling oligarchs determine to be in the best interests of the ruling class. International law or “court orders” may be used to provide some pretense for policy, but neither the Constitution nor any principle of sovereignty or law means anything in the context of American politics. 

Three: Democracy Doesn’t Matter 

Some defenders of the Venezuela intervention continue to claim that the US action is justified because Maduro was not “duly elected.” The rather fanciful assumption here is that the United States is in the business of spreading democracy. In this way of thinking, the abduction of Maduro means a “duly elected” politician—supposedly María Corina Machado or Edmundo Gonzalez—will become president with the acclamation of the majority. 

First, it is important to remember that US policy has never prioritized the “democratization” of foreign regimes. What really matters is that foreign regimes act as puppet states, compliant with US policy. Whether or not these regimes are democratic is immaterial. For examples of this, we need look no further than the fact that the US is a close ally with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a blood-soaked dictatorship where women have effectively no legal rights and Christianity is illegal. Similarly, the US regime has now allied itself with the ISIS and Al-Qaeda militants who now rule over Syria where religious minorities are routinely targeted and churches are bombed. 

And then there is the current president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose term expired in 2024, and who now rules as the unelected strongman of Ukraine with American approval. Historically, the list of dictators supported by the US is very long, indeed. 

Similarly, it is already clear that free elections are hardly a priority for the US regime in Venezuela. For example, Donald Trump has already ruled out the idea of a Machado presidency, even though the US has for years claimed her opposition party has enjoyed immense support in Venezuela. Similarly, Washington claims that Gonzalez won two-thirds of the vote in the 2024 Venezuela election. Yet, Trump has not even hinted at a Gonzalez presidency. Rather, he has declared that a Machado presidency is out of the question since she lacks the necessary “respect” in her country.  

If there is so much public demand for Machado and her party, why not let her take power? Perhaps sensing that the popularity of the opposition party in Venezuela has been long inflated by the US propaganda machine, Trump has stated that the United States government will “run” Venezuela indefinitely. In other words, the de facto government of Venezuela is in Washington, DC where, needless to say, no one has been elected by Venezuelan voters. 

Moreover, the US’s de facto puppet regime in Venezuela is now the same socialist party that Maduro headed. Maduro has simply been replaced by another socialist, Delcy Rodriguez, who was sworn in on Monday. Past experience suggests why the socialist ruling party is likely to stay in place: the US regime’s problem with Maduro’s regime was never its socialism. The only problem was Maduro’s anti-Washington bravado. This is no surprise if we consider the many collectivist despots who have been close US allies throughout history. The American regime loves socialist dictators so long as they are our socialist dictators. 

If Rodriguez agrees to take orders from Washington, she may very well be kept in power, in spite of years of Washington propaganda telling us that the current ruling party lost the election. 

But, if new elections do go forward, and a “duly elected” new president takes over, we can be 100% sure that the new president has received the approval of Washington. No “democratically” elected president in Venezuela will be allowed to take office without the approval of the American regime. In other words, the decision of “the people” is subject to decisions made in Washington. That’s what America calls “democracy.” Elections are only permitted when they produce an outcome acceptable to American politicians. If a majority of Venezuelans elect a president who is deemed unfit by Washington’s viceroys, that candidate will be declared illegitimate, exiled, imprisoned, or assassinated. 

This is a well established model in American history, and, as John Mearsheimer notes, “The United States has a rich history of overthrowing democracies around the world, and we have a rich history of siding with some of the world’s biggest dictators. So this idea that we’re out there protecting freedom & democracy, doesn’t mesh with reality.”

Israeli media and US lawmakers signal Iran intervention after Venezuela attack

The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday that the US is weighing 'some intervention' in Iran, while Lindsey Graham trumpets regime change

By MEE staff

Published date: 5 January 2026

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-media-and-us-lawmakers-signal-iran-intervention-following-venezuela-attack

Israeli media reports and a hawkish US lawmaker signalled that Iran might be next on US President Donald Trump's list of interventions following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.  

The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday that the US is weighing “some intervention” in Iran’s protests.

The article also said how Israel believes that the US’s abduction of Maduro over the weekend may indicate a new US risk threshold for intervention in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The report follows an appearance by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Fox News in which he sported a “Make Iran Great Again” baseball hat, saying, “I pray and hope 2026 will be the year that we make Iran great again.”

The brazen US intervention in South America came just after Trump on Friday warned Iran that the US could intervene to "rescue" Iranians if they continue to be met with a harsh response from their government amid protests there.

At least sixteen people have been killed so far in mass protests that have erupted over the cost-of-living crisis in Iran, as the local currency, the rial, effectively collapsed under the weight of US sanctions.

” If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump wrote on his TruthSocial platform.

Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of state and an ardent supporter of Israel, was one of several Republicans over the weekend to draw a parallel between Maduro’s fall and Iran.

“As Maduro sails to NYC, the Venezuelan people now have a greater chance for freedom and the American people will now be able prosecute a man who transited drugs to kill us. I pray the Iranian leaders - who have supported Maduro - will soon be unable to harm the great Iranian people,” he wrote on X.

Trump’s willingness to deploy force in Venezuela has unnerved several countries, with the US leader signalling that Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico could be next.

On Sunday, Katie Miller, the wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, shared a social media post showing Greenland, which is part of Denmark, blanketed with a US flag and the word “SOON".

Maduro was close to the governments of China, Russia, and Iran. He appeared at a US court on Monday, where he and his wife were charged with narco-terrorism, drug trafficking and firearms offences.

“I’m innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man, the president of my country,” Maduro said.

The death count from the US attack on Venezuela has risen to 80, including civilians and members of security forces, according to a senior Venezuelan official who said the number could rise further, The New York Times reported. 

US special forces abducted Venezuela's president from the capital, Caracas, early on Saturday, as American fighter jets bombed key military installations and bases across the country.

Netanyahu was visiting Trump in Florida in the days leading up to the attack on Venezuela. On Sunday, he issued his first remarks on the Iranian protests.

“The government of Israel, the State of Israel, and my own policies - we identify with the struggle of the Iranian people, with their aspirations for freedom, liberty and justice,” Netanyahu said. “It is quite possible that we are at a moment when the Iranian people are taking their fate into their own hands.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says Maduro capture is 'the same Washington playbook' that we're 'sick and tired of'

The Republican congresswoman has previously bucked the president, and her last day in Congress is Monday.

By Megan Lebowitz

Jan. 4, 2026,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-maduro-capture-america-first-trump-rcna252147

WASHINGTON — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., slammed the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, saying on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Sunday that the operation was part of “the same Washington playbook that we are so sick and tired of that doesn’t serve the American people.”

Greene argued that President Donald Trump and his administration “campaigned on Make America Great Again, that we thought was putting America first.”

“I want to see domestic policy be the priority that helps Americans afford life after four disastrous years of the Biden administration,” she told “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, pointing to policies to prioritize jobs, housing and health care.

Her comments come as lawmakers grapple with the operation that captured Maduro and his wife and brought them to the U.S., with lawmakers’ support largely falling along party lines. Greene has previously opposed Trump administration policies that she argued contradicted “America First” principles.

In Sunday’s interview, she said that “we don’t consider Venezuela our neighborhood.”

“Our neighborhood is right here in the 50 United States, not in the Southern Hemisphere,” she said.

On Saturday, Trump was asked by a reporter how running Venezuela aligns with his “America First” agenda, after he said earlier that the U.S. would “run the country” until there was a transition to new leadership.

“I think it is because we want to surround ourselves with good neighbors,” Trump told the reporter. “We want to surround ourselves with stability. We want to surround ourselves with energy. We have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves. We need that for the world.”

Greene publicly spoke against the Maduro operation on Saturday as well. The congresswoman said in a post to X that Americans’ “disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it.”

“This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end,” she said in the post. “Boy were we wrong.”

Greene’s last day in Congress will be on Monday. She announced her resignation in November after a public falling-out with Trump, despite having previously been a loyal backer.

Throughout the public fights leading up to Greene’s resignation announcement, the congresswoman broke with him on issues including international relations, Trump’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and Obamacare subsidies.

She has argued that Trump has not focused enough on domestic policy, saying later in a CBS News “60 Minutes” interview that “for an ‘America First’ president, the No. 1 focus should have been domestic policy, and it wasn’t.”

US strikes on Venezuela, seizure of Maduro draw widespread condemnation

US hegemonic acts seriously violate intl law, Venezuela’s sovereignty: FM

By GT staff reporters

Published: Jan 04, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352161.shtml

US President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that the US carried out a "large scale strike against Venezuela" and claimed that President Nicolas Maduro and his wife had been captured and removed from the country. Trump also posted on social media a photo of Maduro on board USS Iwo Jima after captured as the latest development of the US military operation. 

The US military action against the South American nation has shocked the international community.

China on Saturday night said it is "deeply shocked" and strongly condemns the US' blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president, warning that Washington's actions seriously violate international law and threaten regional peace and security.

"Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuela's sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it," a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry made the remarks on the US military strikes on Venezuela on Saturday night. 

"We call on the US to abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and stop violating other countries' sovereignty and security," said the spokesperson.

Trump claimed during a press conference Saturday that "Late last night and early today, at my direction, the United States Armed Forces conducted an extraordinary military operation in the capital of Venezuela, overwhelming American military power," according to the Reuters. "Air, land and sea was used to launch a spectacular assault. And it was an assault like people have not seen since World War Two."

Trump claimed that the US will "run" Venezuela after the US military raided the country and captured its President Nicolás Maduro, Xinhua reported. "We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition," Trump said at the press conference at his Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida, according to report. 

And then he turned to oil, claiming that American companies would fix the infrastructure, "and start making money for the country."


What happened?

Multiple explosions rocked Venezuela's capital Caracas early on Saturday and columns of black smoke and aircraft could be seen, according to Reuters witnesses and images circulating on social media.

US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on sites inside Venezuela, including military facilities, US officials told CBS News. 

The surprise operation sent shockwaves through the international community, with President Trump announcing on social media hours later that the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife had been "captured and flown out of the Country."

According to CBS News, the Venezuelan President was captured early Saturday morning by members of the US Army's elite Delta Force, citing US officials. The report said Delta Force, the US military's top special mission unit, was responsible for the operation. 

Trump said that he watched the operation from Mar-a-Lago, when spoke with Fox News on Saturday morning just hours after the US hit Venezuela and captured its leader. He further stated that Maduro and his wife were taken by helicopter to the U.S.S. Iwo Jima. 

According to Xinhua, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said Saturday morning that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro will "soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts" after he was captured and flown out of the oil-rich South American nation.

The operation marked the latest escalation in Washington's long-running pressure campaign against the Maduro government, which has included an extensive US military buildup in the region.  

Speaking on state television, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and his wife are unknown, asking for proof they are alive, according to media reports. 

Following the initial shock, Caracas lodged a strong protest and requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Venezuela's Permanent Mission to the United Nations sent a letter on Saturday to the rotating president of the Security Council, Abukar Dahir Osman, Somalia's envoy to the UN, strongly condemning what it described as a "brutal, unjustified and unilateral armed aggression" launched by the US against Venezuela, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Why it happened? 

South Korea's Chosun Daily reported that this was the first instance since the US invasion of Panama in 1989, known as "Operation Just Cause," where a sitting (or de facto) head of state was apprehended by US special forces on their own territory and forcibly transferred to a third country.  

Diplomatic circles are viewing this incident as a decisive example of the U.S. ability to alter the status quo through force, which remains operational even in the 21st century, the Chosun Daily reported on Saturday.

The abruptness and unprecedented nature of the arrest of another country's leader in the post-Cold War era caught global media, experts and political figures by surprise. Global Times reporters contacted several Chinese experts closely following developments in Venezuela in the early hours after the strike. While they initially urged further observation, news of Maduro's capture emerged almost immediately, leaving many struggling to believe it at first.

"Overthrowing the Maduro government has long been an objective pursued by the US, but capturing a sitting head of state in this manner is highly unusual and can be described as reckless," Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Saturday. "It not only violates international law, but also lacks any legal basis under US domestic law."

"This is a declaration of the revival of a new Monroe Doctrine and an assertion of US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere," Lü added. 

In December, the US released its 2025 National Security Strategy, pledging to deprioritize Europe and focus more on the Western Hemisphere. His administration is calling it the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine.

Jiang Shixue, an expert on Latin American studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Saturday that the US military action is essentially the culmination of long-standing standoff between the US and Venezuela.

Jiang elaborated that on the political level, since former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez took power in 1999, Venezuela has steadfastly raised the banner of anti-US hegemony and provided petroleum energy support to leftist countries such as Cuba. The US has long resented this, imposing multidimensional sanctions on Venezuela for years and consistently seeking to remove this "thorn in its side."

Jiang also believed that at the same time, the US also has economic demands, namely the contention over petroleum resources. Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves. After Chávez came to power, he implemented nationalization of the petroleum industry, leaving only Chevron as the sole US oil company still conducting extraction and refining operations in Venezuela - a situation the US views as detrimental to its own interests.

The US, under the pretext of the so-called "war on drugs," has resorted to military force this time in an attempt to push for regime change in Venezuela, with the underlying intent of regaining control over Venezuela's vital petroleum resources, Jiang said.

Global reactions

In the wake of the shocking strike and Maduro's capture, the United Nations and countries around the world moved quickly to respond. 

A spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General said the Secretary-General is "deeply alarmed by the recent escalation in Venezuela, culminating with today's United States military action in the country," warning that it carries "potential worrying implications for the region."

"Independently of the situation in Venezuela, these developments constitute a dangerous precedent," the spokesperson said, stressing the importance of full respect by all parties for international law, including the UN Charter, and expressing deep concern that the rules of international law may not have been respected.

Spain and the European Union also called for respect for international law following the latest events. 

The European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas said that the bloc calls for restraint after the latest events in Venezuela.

"The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition," Kallas said in a post on X. "Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected."

Countries including Germany and Italy said they are closely monitoring the situation. 

Following the incident, President Javier Milei of Argentina commented the capture of Nicolás Maduro as "Liberty advances," Milei wrote on social media, The New York Times reported.

At the same time, a growing number of countries condemned the sudden US attack, including Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chilean President Gabriel Boric, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei voiced oppositions toward the US action.

Russia urged the US to release Maduro and his wife, in a statement issued by the Russian foreign ministry on Saturday.

"In light of confirmed reports that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife are in the United States, we strongly urge the American leadership to reconsider its position and release the legally elected president of a sovereign country and his wife," the ministry said in the statement.

The US action has dealt a huge shock to the international order. On one hand, it wants to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict; on the other, it is creating new conflicts itself,Lü said. 

In the future, Latin American countries may continue to face various forms of pressure and interference from the US, potentially triggering instability across South America, he added.

MADURO AND HIS WIFE CAPTURED BY THE UNITED STATES

In an operation carried out by U.S. special forces in the early hours of January 3, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured and transferred to New York to face narcoterrorism charges, for which they have been indicted since 2020 in the Southern District of Manhattan.

President Trump announced the capture in a morning interview on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program and later at a press conference at the White House.

He stated that they had been waiting for the opportunity to carry out the operation for two or three days, until the possibility arose today.

At the press conference, Trump reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine, indicated that they have a second attack against Venezuela prepared if necessary; blamed Maduro for the flow of drugs into the United States and the deaths caused by them (which must have made the leaders of the Mexican cartels smile); and stated that the United States “will run Venezuela until it is safe,” in addition to stating that US oil companies will return to the country to “rebuild its oil industry,” insisting that the United States had been stripped of all that infrastructure by the Venezuelan socialist government (the Venezuelan oil industry was nationalized half a century ago by President Carlos Andrés Pérez, not by Maduro or Chávez).

Trump indicated that Marco Rubio had already spoken with vicepresident Delcy Rodríguez (who apparently had already taken office as president) and that she agreed that the United States government should take charge of Venezuela, as a kind of protectorate.

As for the military operation, although Trump stated that the possible Venezuelan response was eliminated, it seems almost impossible that several Black Hawk helicopters entered Venezuelan airspace undetected, flew over Caracas without being attacked by any aircraft, helicopters, or anti-aircraft weapons from the Venezuelan Air Force or Army (supposedly only one helicopter was slightly damaged by ground fire), reached Maduro's residence, where a small contingent of his guards tried to prevent their capture but were quickly subdued, without any members of the US special forces being killed; and then removed Maduro and his wife from their bedroom to take them to the United States.

Everything seems to indicate that negotiations took place between the Trump administration and the heads of the Venezuelan armed forces to allow the operation virtually without interference. This puts those military leaders (it's still unknown whether Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino agreed) in a better position to negotiate their situation when a power transition occurs in Venezuela.

Delcy Rodríguez demanded "proof of life" from the United States for Maduro and his wife; and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino placed the Venezuelan armed forces on high alert (a bit late, I would say) in response to the aggression suffered at the hands of the United States.

So far, it doesn't appear that the structure of the Venezuelan government has collapsed, only that Maduro and his wife are no longer in power.

Negotiations have already begun between the United States and Rodríguez to form a joint government (perhaps with the opposition), or some kind of transitional government, until new presidential elections are held.

This is a very hard blow for the Latin American left, which continues to decline and faces a US government determined to act without restraint in its sphere of influence, and a Latin American right wing that, faced with the failure of several left-wing governments (Bolivia, Chile, Honduras), has been regaining ground and winning several presidential elections. This year will see two more very important elections in Colombia and Brazil, where the left will be put to the test once again.