Military attacks by powerful countries against weaker neighbors are nothing unusual in the world. From the perspective of US attacks on other countries over the past decade, this cannot even be considered an unprecedented attack. The US attack on Iraq under the pretext of the presence of weapons of mass destruction was a clear violation of international law, which was later confirmed.
Former President George W. Bush now openly and repeatedly jokes about this lie, which was presented at the time as a relevant pretext for waging war, at various social events.
Attack under the pretext of fighting drugs
The uniqueness of the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro lies in the fact that, in this case, President Donald Trump did not even try to justify America's gross violation of international law with more noble goals, as he had done in the past.
The American attack was preceded by air strikes against ships from Venezuela (estimates speak of 35 attacks and 115 dead) that were allegedly used to smuggle drugs into the US. Under the official pretext of fighting drugs, the US military attacked the city of Caracas in Venezuela with bombing and sabotage targeting urban infrastructure, killing dozens of Venezuelan citizens.
Later, on January 3, 2026, US ground forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and transported them to the US for criminal prosecution. The US accused Maduro of drug-related crimes consisting of narco-terrorism, cocaine smuggling, and possession of weapons and explosives.
However, from the perspective of international law and the position of President Maduro himself, such an intervention (even if the accusations were true) is untenable.
The UN Charter prohibits invasions without a mandate.
Article 2 of the UN Charter excludes the use of force or the threat of force against another state, except in cases of self-defense or when there is a mandate from the UN Security Council to use armed forces to achieve the objectives of the UN Charter (reasons defined in Chapter VII of the Charter as a threat to peace or a breach of peace).
The UN Security Council may decide (under Article 42 and if milder measures fail) to deploy military means, but only if it is necessary to restore international peace or security. In the case of Venezuela, these conditions have not been met and the US has no mandate from the Council for military action.
The US has thus committed a clear and repeated violation of international law by attacking another country without the consent of the international community or a relevant legal title. This is the same violation of law as the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops.
In this case, the USclaims that it was self-defense (similar to Russia's claim in Ukraine), stating that "the attacks were carried out against the operations of a designated terrorist organization and were undertaken in defense of vital US national interests and in the context of collective self-defense of other nations."
The argument about the fight against drugs does not hold water
The US attack was a military invasion of a foreign country, and even the vaguely worded argument of "defending the country against drug imports" does not hold water. The argument of "fighting drugs" is therefore not recognized by international law as a legalizing circumstance for invasion without further conditions, even if it were proven beyond doubt that President Maduro was involved in drug trafficking.
It is worth noting how the US views the "drug threat" in practice. In the past, the US condemned Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández for smuggling 400 tons of cocaine into the country, only for Donald Trump to subsequently pardon him. Trump considered Hernández's punishment "harsh and unfair."
America carried out a similar attack in the case of General Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989. Noriega was accused of drug smuggling and was taken to the US after the US attack on Panama. The UN General Assembly confirmed the prohibition of the use of force in this case and condemned the US operation, stating that it was a "flagrant violation of international law" on the part of the US.
Regime change cannot be achieved by the force of another state.
According to the UN Charter, it is equally unacceptable to undermine the territorial integrity or political independence of any state through military attack.
President Maduro's government is described as a dictatorship, and in the eyes of many Western countries, Maduro is perceived as an illegitimate president after rigged elections. However, there are other international mechanisms of pressure or redress for such suspicions, such as economic sanctions, and it is not possible to immediately resort to armed conflict in the country concerned.
Furthermore, from the perspective of international law, the office of president guarantees the head of state immunity from foreign jurisdiction ("immunity ratione personae"), which means that he cannot be detained or prosecuted during his term of office. This conclusion has been repeatedly confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its case law.
The detention and removal of the highest (or one of the highest) constitutional officials from the territory of another state without their consent is a textbook example of interference with territorial sovereignty and often also with political independence (especially if the result is a change of regime or the de facto paralysis of the government). The fact that the US does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate president does not change this.
Moreover, President Donald Trump has openly declared that the US will govern Venezuela until "there is a legal transfer of power to the political representatives of Venezuela," with Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, being inaugurated as president.
Such illegal seizures of power over a sovereign country and its subsequent administration are not uncommon on the part of the US, but they are a clear and unacceptable violation of international law.
The violent takeover of oil infrastructure as the real reason
In his speech after the attack on Venezuela, Donald Trump himself openly said that America must get back its oil infrastructure, which was nationalized by President Hugo Chávez, as well as control over the Venezuelan central bank.
Trump said, "We built the oil business here, and they (Venezuela) took it over. Now we've taken it back." He added that the US would thus "sell much larger volumes of oil" and that the restoration of nationalized American oil companies would be "paid for by Venezuela."
Trump's repeated claims about controlling the country with the largest oil reserves in the world and the need to bring it under US influence and subsequently exploit it economically drown out the dubious narrative that the invasion was carried out because of President Maduro's criminality.
This is an aggressive and legally unfounded attack on a foreign state, which is currently only comparable to the invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine. The Russian invasion was jointly condemned by the international community of Western countries, which began to impose sanctions on Vladimir Putin's regime.
Europe is approving the illegal attack in advance
In the case of US aggression, however, the same politicians who condemned Russia's attack have turned around and are now talking about the need to "rejoice at the overthrow of the dictatorship." These words were spoken by French President Emmanuel Macron.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said during the US invasion that he "would not shed a tear over the end of Maduro's regime." The European Union could only muster general phrases about compliance with international law without clearly condemning the US actions, as it did in the case of Russia.
America is stepping into the role of dictator in the world
The US has already publicly threatened Cuba and Colombia, talked about the need to annex Greenland, and Trump has openly said to the current president of Venezuela, Rodríguez, that if she "doesn't listen, she will suffer a fate worse than Maduro's."
America is thus openly telling the rest of the world that its power, and especially its military supremacy, guarantees it the freedom to attack anyone and subsequent immunity from punishment. It considers compliance with international law to be an outdated concept that it does not even need to concern itself with. Ultimately, it is America that has imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Such blatant disregard for the world order, which was established by the current legal framework to prevent armed conflict in the world, is truly unique. In terms of violators of international law and unprovoked aggression, the US finds itself on the same level as Russia.
With dubious arguments about the need to overthrow a dictatorial regime and protect democracy by military force, it is worth noting that none of the "democracy spreaders" dare to attack what is arguably the worst regime on the planet – North Korea – militarily.
The dictatorship has guaranteed its security through military force (including nuclear weapons), and therefore the need for military intervention to protect the people does not seem to apply to Asian tyranny, or the argument about the "impossibility of stealing mineral wealth" applies.
The US will go unpunished
The world legal order is openly disintegrating, and only those with military power rule. Weak European "leaders" can do nothing more than agree with their big brother's military attacks, even though this is in direct violation of the UN Charter.
This approach means that the US, as the aggressor, will not be punished. There is no threat of economic sanctions, as in the case of the Russian Federation, and it is unlikely that any significant action will be taken at the UN, apart from a meaningless condemnation on paper. In principle, all Western allies agree with the aggression and violation of the law because it is directed against an "evil regime."
Venezuela has already requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to take a position on US aggression. However, it is rational to expect a US veto on any similar opportunity to seek redress that would not be in the interests of the US.
Latin American countries can also sue the US before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violating the UN Charter, but even if they obtained a condemnatory judgment against the US, it would be practically unenforceable – which also applies to the individual responsibility of specific persons for war crimes.
The open rhetoric of the US as the hegemon in this part of the world dictates how others should behave, in accordance with its interests, of course, but contrary to the law. This move will encourage other countries, such as China, to assert their power claims by force. It is faster and more convenient than enforcing legal norms.
And so the era of law and stability comes to an end and an era begins with the motto "might is right." This means that those who have power can do anything without any repercussions, even if their actions are illegal.