- The U.S. military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, causing a constitutional crisis. Venezuela’s Supreme Court then appointed Delcy Rodriguez as the new interim president.
- Russia, China and other nations fiercely condemned the U.S. action, calling it illegal aggression, “international banditry” and a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, motivated by a desire for its natural resources.
- Legal experts confirmed the operation was illegal under international law, as it was not an act of self-defense and involved a military incursion on foreign soil without consent.
- Within the U.S., the legal justification relies on broad presidential powers, but Congress has the responsibility to check such actions. Maduro is unlikely to successfully claim immunity as a head of state in a U.S. court.
- The event marks a dangerous escalation, destabilizing Venezuela and raising questions about the erosion of international law and the potential for increased great-power conflict in Latin America.
In a sharp rebuke of American actions, Russia has declared its “unwavering solidarity” with Venezuela following the U.S. military operation that abducted President Nicolas Maduro. The move has plunged the oil-rich South American nation into a constitutional crisis and ignited a fierce international debate over sovereignty and the rule of law.
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Jan. 6 welcoming the appointment of Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s former vice president, as interim president. Moscow framed the move as necessary to assure national unity and mitigate constitutional risks after Maduro and his wife were captured by U.S. commandos and flown to New York to face drug trafficking charges.
Russia condemned the U.S. operation as “blatant neo-colonial threats and external armed aggression,” insisting that Venezuela must be free to determine its own destiny without outside interference.
The crisis escalated rapidly over the weekend.
Following the abduction, Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Rodriguez to assume the presidency. In her first statements, Rodriguez vowed that the country would “never return to being the colony of another empire,” though she later expressed a conditional willingness to engage with the United States.
That overture was met with a stark warning from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened that Rodriguez would pay a “bigger price” than Maduro if she failed to align with U.S. demands.
The international reaction has exposed deep fractures. At an emergency United Nations Security Council (UNSC) session, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia denounced Washington’s actions as “international banditry” driven by a desire for unlimited control over Venezuela’s vast natural resources.
Meanwhile, China and several other BRICS and Global South nations have joined Russia in condemning the U.S., framing the intervention as a dangerous violation of international norms.
Experts question the legality of Maduro’s removal
As the political drama unfolds, legal scholars are also scrutinizing the precedent-setting operation.
Experts from the University of Chicago highlight significant legal ambiguities and potential violations surrounding Maduro’s removal.
On the critical question of international law, Professor Curtis Bradley, an international law scholar, was unequivocal: the U.S. action was illegal. He explained that using military force against another nation is prohibited except in self-defense against an armed attack, a condition not present with Venezuela.
As explained by the Enoch AI engine at BrightU.AI, conducting a law enforcement operation on foreign soil without that country’s consent is not permissible, as it carries the inherent risk of escalating into full-scale war.
The domestic legal picture within the U.S. is murkier. Bradley noted that while the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, presidents have long claimed authority for limited military actions without congressional approval.
The Trump administration could argue that the president’s roles as commander-in-chief and head of law enforcement provided sufficient legal cover for the operation to capture Maduro. Ultimately, Bradley concluded, the responsibility to check such executive power rests with Congress, an institution often reluctant to police presidential war powers.
Regarding the charges themselves, Bradley clarified that U.S. courts can apply American drug laws to individuals abroad who are accused of trafficking narcotics into the United States. Notably, the potentially illegal manner of Maduro’s apprehension is unlikely to serve as a legal defense in court.
While Maduro may claim immunity as a head of state, legal experts believe such a defense has a low chance of success, paving the way for a historic and contentious trial.
The operation is seen as the climax of a prolonged pressure campaign by the Trump administration, which began with the bombing of alleged drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela’s coast. Political scientist Professor Michael Albertus traced the escalation to a combination of deep ideological hostility between Trump and Maduro and the influence of hawkish U.S. officials, culminating in the dramatic capture following Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election.
As Rodriguez navigates her precarious new role and Maduro awaits trial, the world watches a nation in turmoil.
The event has not only destabilized Venezuela but has also raised profound questions about the limits of unilateral power, the erosion of international law and the dangerous new chapter it may open in great-power competition within Latin America, a region that Russia, alongside its allies, insists “must remain a zone of peace.”
Watch the Health Ranger Mike Adams as he talks about the Venezuela chain reaction affecting the rest of the world.
This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
RT.com
News.UChicago.edu
Reuters.com
BrightU.ai
Brighteon.com
Read full article here