The collapse of the planet order: How the US kidnapping of Venezuelan president changes geopolitics and what this means for Poland

chiny24.com 4 weeks ago

In an unprecedented act that shook the foundations of the global order, the United States conducted an armed intervention in Venezuela, hijacking President-in-Office Nicolás Maduro. This dramatic movement, defined by president Trump's administration as “a mission of judicial extraction”, has sparked a wave of agitation worldwide and has spawned fundamental questions about the future of global law, global safety and alliances, including Poland's position on the global arena.

Intervention in Venezuela: a clear violation of global law

The attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its president is simply a gross violation of the fundamental principles of global law, above all the principles of sovereignty of states and the prohibition of force, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) UN Charter makes it clear that all members “refrain in their global relations from threatening or utilizing force against the territorial integrity or political independency of any State“.

U.S. intervention was not authorized by the UN safety Council, the only body that can legally licence the usage of force in situations another than self-defense. The White House's arguments that the operation was a form of defence against “drug-terrorism” are not justified in global law that limits the right to self-defense to respond to an armed attack. As prof. Ziyad Motala of Howard University School of Law emphasizes, “international law is not a moral mandate for large powers to change government“.

Doctrine Ker-Frisbie: Why do the US not have the right to justice a abroad leader

The issue of putting president Maduro before an American court is at least controversial. The United States is likely to invoke the alleged Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which allows US courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant, no substance how he was brought into US territory. This means that even if the abduction was illegal from the point of view of global law, the US court may recognise its jurisdiction.

However, international law grants the Heads of State of office immunity from the jurisdiction of abroad courts. This is simply a fundamental rule aimed at safeguarding the sovereignty of states and ensuring stableness in global relations. The refusal to grant Maduro immunity, as was the case with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, is another violation of global standards and creates a dangerous precedent.

Precedent for the Kremlin: how US action will affect Russia and Ukraine

Intervention in Venezuela has far-reaching implications for the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. U.S. action, taken without global law, provides Russia with a powerful propaganda argument. The Kremlin can now present its aggression on Ukraine as an act analogous to American politics, claiming that large powers have the right to intervene in their “areas of influence” to defend their own safety interests.

As Chatham home notes, although this is simply a false analogy, president Trump's claim that the US has the right to “dominate” in their neighbourhood is dangerously akin to Vladimir Putin's rhetoric of Russia's right to act in the alleged “close foreign”. This weakens the position of the West, which has so far been guarding the integrity of Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, and now itself breaks these rules in another region of the world.

Poland in the fresh World: Are the US inactive a trustworthy ally?

For Poland, whose safety is mostly based on an alliance with the United States and NATO guarantees, Trump administration's actions are an emergency signal. Transactional and unpredictable approach to abroad policy, disregard for global law and allies, puts the credibility of the US as a guarantor of the safety of Central and east Europe at question.

The systematic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and now the public violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, fall into a wider trend of isolationism and return to Doctrine Monroe. In this fresh strategy of forces, Poland must ask itself whether it can inactive trust unconditionally on an American protective umbrella. A revision of Polish abroad policy is needed, which should be based more on its own strengths, strengthening European defence and tactical cooperation, alternatively than strategic, treatment of relations with the US.

Doctrine Monroe 2.0: Back to impact zones and the end of globalisation

The Venezuelan incidental is the latest and most striking example of the formation of a fresh planet order, based on the brutal rivalry of powers and the division into spheres of influence. Trump's administration, referring to the Monroe Doctrine, signals that Latin America is an exclusive US sphere of influence. This, in turn, gives Russia the silent approval to rebuild its sphere of influence in east Europe, and China the continued expansion in Asia.

This return to 19th century geopolitics marks the end of the era of globalisation and liberal order, which prevailed after the Cold War ended. For countries like Poland, which have benefited enormously from integration with the West and based their safety on an alliance with the US, this is an highly dangerous scenario. It requires fundamental consideration of the strategies to date and the search for fresh safety guarantees in an unstable and unpredictable world. The United States and earlier had an aggressive policy with the usage of armed forces, even in the case of Panama. At the time, however, they were an undisputed planet hegemon. Today, Americans retreat into both Americas, leaving the remainder of the planet alone. On pre-established conditions. Therefore, it is not essential to look for a “soothing” analogy between the situation in Venezuela and Panama, Chile or Argentina. present is not the same as yesterday, past has not done any cycle. In this case, in the case of armed intervention in Venezuela in January 2026 past writes its completely fresh chapter.

Source: