Commentary: The Fall of Maduro and the Waning of the Post-WWII Order

In the early hours of January 3rd, under direct orders from President Donald Trump, United States forces conducted a dramatic and unprecedented military operation in Venezuela. The U.S. breached Venezuelan sovereignty by storming the Tiuna military fortress in Caracas, extracting President Nicolás Maduro for trial in the United States. This operation utilized Delta Force commandos, advanced electronic warfare techniques, and deployed over 150 aircraft from across the Western Hemisphere. Remarkably, the mission “decapitated” the Venezuelan government in under 36 hours, signifying an extraordinary projection of U.S. military capability and resolve [para. 1].

From a purely tactical perspective, the mission was hailed as a model of efficiency. The bulk of combat was confined to intense, close-quarters fighting within Maduro's personal compound, sparing the wider Venezuelan military from engagement and avoiding a more drawn-out conflict. For President Trump, who has often insisted on avoiding protracted military involvements, the operation represented an optimal “low-cost victory” with limited broader entanglement [para. 2].

Nevertheless, the strategic repercussions of this action are profound. By forcibly removing the leader of a sovereign nation, the U.S. has eclipsed the prior boundaries of the international order established after World War II [para. 3]. The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy had already signaled a newly unapologetic posture, stating outright that powerful nations will always wield outsized influence. The Caracas raid, following airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, makes clear that international law is, at least for the current administration, more a guideline than a hard constraint [para. 4].

This act forces a recalibration of strategic thinking worldwide. For other major and regional powers such as China and Russia, the U.S. now visibly claims near-total “freedom of action” inside what it considers its sphere of influence. The ease with which Maduro was extracted signals to world leaders that the psychological barrier against military intervention has dropped dramatically, prompting others to contemplate similar moves to secure their interests [para. 5].

Consequently, a dangerous preemptive logic is taking hold. The shift suggests that striking first, to present rivals with a fait accompli, may soon become the default for survival in world affairs. Warnings from world leaders, such as Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, underscore fears that bypassing international law leads nations down the path to greater instability, where power trumps rule-based order [para. 6].

Countries will therefore seek “strategic redundancy” — tightening alliances and fortifying defenses — and may take even previously unthinkable U.S. policy proposals seriously, given the unpredictability demonstrated. As noted by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Europeans may now need to prepare for conflicts on a scale unseen in generations [para. 7].

Just as Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine shattered the post–Cold War peace, Trump’s raid on Caracas is seen as marking the end of 80 years of guaranteed national sovereignty under the UN system. Without a global enforcer, power politics now seems to define the international order [para. 8].

Humanitarian impacts add complexity. While the Maduro era’s end may bring hope to long-suffering Venezuelans — over 8 million fled economic collapse in recent years, with UN reports noting dire shortages in health staffing and food security — the country remains unstable [para. 9]. The installation of Delcy Rodríguez as interim president suggests a pragmatic U.S. attempt to manage the transition, with military force lingering as a threat. This fragile government offers cautious optimism for eventual recovery but rests on uncertain ground [para. 10].

Ultimately, while Trump may cast himself as a decisive actor for peace, his actions have removed the façade of international legal norms, revealing sheer power as the deciding factor in global affairs [para. 11].