The dramatic US extraction of Venezuela’s president in early 2026 marks a defining rupture in global power politics. This episode exposes the hollowness of the “rules-based order” and reaffirms America’s willingness to enforce primacy by force.

Ambassador Dr. Deepak Vohra, IFS (R) | For News Analytics

5 mins read. 

The world is changing faster than established norms can adapt. Rules of international behaviour—once framed by powerful states—are increasingly ignored by the strong and imposed on the weak. Western interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, among others, reflect a pattern where force and influence override principles.

For over two decades, Latin America’s only constant was a socialist Venezuela in confrontation with the United States. Despite holding the world’s largest oil reserves, Caracas aligned with rivals of US dominance—Russia, China, and Iran—while maintaining transactional ties with smaller Caribbean states.

Until 2023, the United States remained a major buyer of Venezuelan crude. By mid-2024, tightened sanctions—despite limited exemptions—triggered a collapse in Venezuela’s oil exports, intensifying economic distress.

Doctrines Collide

The long-standing Monroe Doctrine, which defined US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, has effectively evolved into a far more assertive and unilateral approach—informally dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine.”

Free trade, once central to the post-World War II order, is now selectively interpreted. Economic openness increasingly depends on power rather than principle. Simultaneously, multilateral institutions such as the United Nations—once pillars of a “rules-based order”—appear diminished, often bypassed in major decisions.

This shift reflects a United States that is less constrained by multilateral norms and more willing to act unilaterally. The post-Cold War confidence that liberal democracy would define the global order—captured in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History—appears to have evolved into a more transactional worldview.

In this emerging framework, power projection takes precedence over consensus, and dissenting nations are often pressured into alignment.

Venezuelan Flashpoint

Venezuela has become a focal point of this transformation. US sanctions have excluded it from global financial systems, weakening its economy and triggering large-scale migration. Washington questioned the legitimacy of the 2024 elections and refused to recognise Nicolás Maduro as president.

The US accused Maduro of involvement in narcotics trafficking and escalated pressure by offering a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest under US law—underscoring a unilateral enforcement approach.

Simultaneously, American naval deployments in the Caribbean, ostensibly aimed at curbing drug trafficking, led to the destruction of multiple vessels, drawing criticism from Caracas, which accused Washington of destabilisation.

Venezuela responded by strengthening defence ties with Russia and China and attempting to bypass sanctions through covert oil shipments. The United States countered by seizing tankers and intensifying maritime surveillance.

This escalating confrontation culminated in a decisive operation: Venezuelan air defences were neutralised through control of command systems, and the country’s leadership was swiftly captured and transported to the United States to face trial.

The operation demonstrated the integration of sanctions, intelligence, and military capability in achieving strategic objectives—irrespective of international legal or political objections.

Power Signals and Global Reactions

The episode sent a clear message globally. While criticised by some, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, resistance quickly softened under pressure, reflecting the limits of opposition.

More significantly, the operation reinforced perceptions among major powers such as Russia and China that American military and intelligence capabilities remain unmatched.

Despite ongoing discourse around multipolarity, the reality remains that the United States retains overwhelming strategic and economic leverage. Under a more assertive leadership style, this power is increasingly exercised without restraint, shaping outcomes through dominance rather than consensus.

Future Outlook

The broader implication is clear: a more unilateral and assertive United States is less inclined to operate within established conventions. Even frameworks such as the UN’s “Responsibility to Protect,” which mandate collective action and legal legitimacy, are sidelined when they conflict with strategic objectives.

In an era where economic power, market access, and financial systems are weaponised, the United States continues to define the contours of global engagement. Despite rhetoric around a multipolar world, decision-making power remains heavily concentrated.

The global order is therefore not transitioning smoothly into multipolarity but is instead being reshaped through selective enforcement of rules and the projection of overwhelming capability.

For observers accustomed to Cold War frameworks and rule-based systems, this transformation represents a fundamental shift: power is no longer mediated by consensus but exercised directly. The choice for the rest of the world is increasingly stark—adapt to this reality or resist at significant cost.

(Ambassador Deepak Vohra, IFS (R) is a former Ambassador to Armenia, Sudan and Poland. He was also a special Advisor to the Government of South Sudan. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Herald.)