Absolute Resolve -- Trump’s Tactical Triumph. What Comes Next?

The World Is Divided in Its Assessment of Maduro’s abduction, Which Washington Framed as a Law-Enforcement Operation

The U.S. military operation in Venezuela on January 3, which resulted in the abduction of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, became an event of global proportions. For some, it appeared as a long-awaited act of justice and a demonstration of the power of international law; for others, it was a shocking and alarming precedent of direct forceful intervention.

On Monday, January 5, the detained couple appeared before a U.S. federal court in New York. They were charged with drug trafficking and illegal arms dealings. Predictably, they pleaded not guilty. Maduro, despite being under arrest, continues to regard himself as the president of Venezuela—albeit now in the status of a prisoner of war.

Global reactions are polar opposites. Some governments and experts speak of the restoration of justice where sanctions and diplomatic pressure had failed for years. Others warn that such actions undermine the remnants of international legal norms and legitimize the use of force to resolve political issues.

For Ukraine, despite its geographical remoteness from Latin America, this event may have indirect but potentially significant implications. It is not only about the precedent of forcibly removing an authoritarian regime, but also about the signal it sends: in a world where international institutions are increasingly powerless, force is once again becoming the decisive argument. How this signal will be interpreted—in Kyiv, Moscow, and other capitals—remains to be seen.

NOT A MILITARY, BUT A LAW-ENFORCEMENT OPERATION?

From a military perspective, Operation “Absolute Resolve” was executed flawlessly. The United States demonstrated its ability to carry out a precise, time-limited, and narrowly scoped raid aimed at achieving a clearly defined objective. Speed, secrecy, inter-agency coordination, and the absence of casualties underscored the technological and organizational superiority of the U.S. armed forces.

Several factors have proved crucial ahead and during the operation: intelligence work, including both human intelligence networks and cutting-edge technical capabilities; the neutralization of Venezuela’s Russian-supplied air defense system; and the disabling of the country’s military command headquarters and ground forces. All of this unfolded suddenly and unexpectedly for Caracas.

However, the operation was particularly specific for its limited scope. American forces withdrew from the country immediately after completing the mission. The Venezuelan state apparatus—apart from Maduro himself—remained intact and continues to function.

The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Michael Waltz, stated as much during a UN Security Council meeting convened on January 5 at the request of Venezuela by Colombia, Russia, and China: ““There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” Waltz said, according to the UN website. “This was a law-enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades”.

THE SAME REGIME, VIEWED FROM THE SIDE

This is precisely where the core contradiction emerges. The U.S. presidential administration has made it clear that it has no intention of transferring power to the Venezuelan opposition, which had previously been recognized in the West as a legitimate alternative to the Maduro regime. Instead, Washington is effectively betting on cooperation with the very same officials who for years served as the backbone of the detested regime.

It is rather naïve to expect that functionaries shaped within an authoritarian system will voluntarily carry out directives imposed from abroad. Their interest lies not in transforming that system, but in preserving it—or, at best, in waiting out a shift in political alignments in Washington.

Historical analogies speak eloquently to the weakness of such an approach. No meaningful political transition has ever occurred through the old elite without an external mechanism of control or coercion. In the absence of such a mechanism, sabotage, delay, and the imitation of reforms are almost inevitable.

This raises a fundamental question: is the U.S. administration truly interested in the country’s democratization and in transferring power into the hands of a people freed from Maduro — a “de-Madurized” nation?

In the context of Trump’s operation, most politicians and experts emphasize what they see as its genuine motivation: the strive to gain control over Venezuela’s oil wealth.

Venezuela possesses huge amounts of natural resources, yet their degradation over recent decades has become a symbol of inept state governance — one that can rival even the Kremlin’s record.

The sharp decline in oil production caused by this mismanagement has turned the energy sector from a source of national income into a chronic liability.

The United States speaks of reviving the oil industry, soliciting private capital, and compensating for losses. However, an economy does not function in a vacuum. Without predictable governance, clear rules of the game, and credible security guarantees, serious investment is unlikely.

As long as Venezuela’s political model remains undefined, talk of rapid economic recovery amounts more to wishful thinking than to a realistic plan. Stability is a prerequisite for economic reform — not merely its outcome.

According to various estimates up and down, restoring Venezuela’s oil production sector could take years, and it is unlikely to happen during Trump’s term in office. It may well turn out that the U.S. operation did not put an end to the Venezuelan crisis but merely shifted it into a new phase.

A realistic scenario for Venezuela’s transformation would require either the inclusion of the opposition in a new government, or a rapid electoral process under international supervision, or an external stabilization mission. Otherwise, the regime may simply change its façade while remaining essentially the same — a continuation of the Chávez–Maduro era.

As for the United States, in such a scenario the initial swift success could be followed by disappointment.

Thus, the strategic question — what Venezuela should become after Maduro, especially given that Trump generally avoids the word “democracy” — remains unanswered. And it is precisely this uncertainty that may turn out to be the main headache for the current administration.

THE WORLD HAS DIVIDED IN ITS ASSESSMENTS

The international legal aspect of the operation is clearly its weakest point.

The global community has perceived it in a highly ambiguous way — largely depending on attitudes toward Trump.

The UN Security Council meeting on January 5 demonstrated sharply differing reactions to the events, even among Latin American countries.

Unequivocal support was expressed by overt allies of the U.S. president, particularly countries led by far-right forces. Among them were Argentina and Paraguay.

Clear condemnation came from Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. This position was supported by South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, and Uganda, which stated that the selective application of international law risks undermining the entire system of collective security.

However, the harshest criticism of the United States came from Russia and China, which traditionally express solidarity with various dictators. As for Moscow, its tirade against Washington was somewhat unexpected, given that during Trump’s presidency the Russian delegation had generally avoided excessively sharp attacks on his administration. Russia’s permanent representative described the military operation in Venezuela and the abduction of dictator Maduro “banditry,” and additionally claimed that it constituted a “violation of every norm of international law.”

“We must not allow the United States to assert itself in the role of some kind of supreme judge—one that alone claims the right to invade any country, determine guilt, assign punishment, and carry it out, disregarding the principles of international jurisdiction, sovereignty, and non-interference,” Nebenzya dutifully read aloud from a text sent from Moscow.

The largest group, however, appears to consist of countries that condemn the Maduro regime or do not recognize him as Venezuela’s legitimate president, yet at the same time express concern over U.S. actions. Their reactions range from near-neutral (the United Kingdom, Latvia) to moderately critical (France, Denmark).

Denmark’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Christina Markus Lassen, reiterated the Secretary-General’s “call regarding the alarming consequences of this military action” and emphasized that “the course of events creates a dangerous precedent; international law and the UN Charter, as the foundation of the international security architecture, must be respected by every state.” Lassen recalled “the fundamental principle of international law that prohibits states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.” At the same time, she stressed that “Denmark does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela after 2024.”

The European Union failed to work out a unified position on the matter, and therefore its representative did not speak at the Security Council meeting. This was evidently because such a position would have had to include criticism of Trump—something the EU is currently making a point of avoiding.

Within the United States itself, since the administration insists on framing the operation as a law-enforcement action, this automatically shifts the debate into the realm of judicial procedures. Disputes over the scope of the White House’s authority and the legal grounds for the use of armed force are almost certain to reach U.S. courts and will be actively exploited by the opposition. And not only by Democrats, but also by a dissatisfied segment within the Republican camp. Representatives of the MAGA movement are already criticizing the president for interfering in the affairs of other countries and for disregarding the “America First” principle.

WHAT DOES THIS ENTAIL FOR UKRAINE?

For Ukraine, Absolute Resolve is not merely an episode of global politics but also an important signal about Washington’s approaches to international problems. And those approaches contain not only advantages.

Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrii Sybiha, issued a statement consonant with those voiced by European countries—emphasizing the illegitimacy of Maduro while simultaneously stressing the need to uphold international law.

Thus, the United States has demonstrated its readiness to use military force to achieve political objectives. Washington is no longer confining itself to sanctions, statements, or diplomatic pressure alone, but is capable of swift, risky, and highly targeted actions. Such resolve on the part of the White House is, on balance, a positive signal for Ukraine.

It suggests that under certain conditions the United States may display similar determination in deterring other aggressors, including Russia—through the provision of more advanced weapons to Ukraine and the expansion of sanctions against the Kremlin.

For a long time, Venezuela has been part of an informal coalition of states that supported the Russian Federation politically and diplomatically. The Maduro regime provided Moscow with opportunities to demonstrate its global reach, including through military cooperation, energy projects, and information influence campaigns. The destabilization of this regime—even without a complete transfer of power—narrows Russia’s room for maneuver in the Western Hemisphere and thus indirectly serves Ukraine’s interests.

Moreover, Cuba—a long-standing ally of Russia in the region—could come next.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently pointed to the serious problems that are likely to confront the Cuban regime following the fall of Maduro.

The very fact of the dictator’s abduction by force carries a powerful symbolic impact, demonstrating that even the highest formal status does not guarantee immunity.

Putin—well known for his acute concerns about personal security—is almost certainly projecting this scenario onto himself, despite Trump’s personal sympathies toward him. Ultimately, presidential immunity is not permanent.

As for the downsides of Absolute Resolve, for Ukraine they largely mirror those faced by the rest of the international community. The United States has followed a path of disregarding international law—a path first paved by Russia through its aggression against Georgia and Ukraine—but in doing so has created a new precedent of its own, which inevitably poses a challenge to the global order.

Russia, in turn, may exploit the American operation as a rhetorical justification for its own actions, arguing that major powers are entitled to intervene by force in the affairs of other states. (Recall Nebenzya’s words: “We cannot allow the United States to appoint itself a kind of supreme judge, the only one entitled to invade any country, determine guilt, impose punishment, and carry it out.”)

Ultimately, some analysts have suggested that Trump is using this move to demonstrate America’s intention to dominate the Western Hemisphere. He has, in fact, explicitly declared a return to the so-called 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, which designated the region as a zone of Washington’s influence, proposing a modernized name for it — the “Donroe Doctrine”.

Under this logic, the rest of the world’s regions could supposedly be divided among other players — Europe, Russia, and China. There have even been claims that the United States and Russia are quietly negotiating such arrangements behind the scenes. However, the hysteria with which Russia’s UN ambassador Nebenzya attacked the United States at the Security Council contradicts these assumptions.

Although Washington is capable of acting simultaneously on multiple fronts, political attention and diplomatic capital are not limitless. The Venezuelan crisis may temporarily divert some resources — military, financial, and political — away from the European theater. For Ukraine, this means there is a pressing need to work more actively to keep Russia’s war against Ukraine at the center of the U.S. agenda.

Washington’s rhetoric on Venezuela once again demonstrates that, at this stage, economic interests take precedence for the United States over the restoration of democratic institutions or the defense of values.

EXPERT COMMENTARY: I SEE NO WINNERS

Human rights advocate and researcher of Russia’s genocide in Ukraine, Christopher Atwood, believes that the U.S. military operation to abduct Maduro constituted a clear violation of international humanitarian law, yet may nonetheless produce more positive than negative consequences for Ukraine.

As Atwood told Ukrinform, assessing the events in Venezuela, he said he is compelled to view them from two perspectives — as an American and as a human rights advocate who has worked on issues of accountability for war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.

“I see no winners in this situation. I acknowledge that Maduro was a dictator who governed Venezuela poorly and treated his population brutally. I also know that many Venezuelans are very happy about his removal. However, the way this was done constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law,” he emphasized.

According to the expert, the operation was extremely risky and could have ended “very, very badly.”

“Frankly, it’s a miracle that it turned out the way it did,” he noted.

The human rights champion also criticized the rhetoric of the U.S. leadership, calling it a manifestation of American colonialism.

“Donald Trump stated that the United States would effectively run Venezuela. Then Marco Rubio explained that this was about applying pressure on Venezuela. At the same time, Trump, speaking to the press, repeatedly said that the United States would extract wealth from Venezuela. That fits into the definition of colonialism,” Atwood said.

At the same time, he noted that from the Ukrainian and broader geopolitical perspective, the situation looks more favorable.

“From Ukraine’s perspective, given the geopolitical context, this is probably more good for Ukraine than bad. The most likely scenario is that it will lead to even greater polarization in the world,” the expert said.

According to him, the U.S. operation will provoke a negative reaction from Moscow and Beijing.

“This will anger Russia. It will anger China and make Russia less inclined to engage in any negotiations with Trump on anything related to Ukraine outside of Ukraine,” he added.

Overall, Atwood believes that the consequences of the operation may be positive in the short and medium term, but in the long run it creates serious risks for the world.

Volodymyr Ilchenko, New York

All photos via The White House