Rajarshi Chakraborty*

In the early morning of 3rd January, 2026, the United States launched a dramatic military operation in Venezuela and captured President Maduro along with his wife, and they flew to the United States to face criminal charges. In addition to announcing the strike, US President Donald Trump declared that the United States would temporarily govern Venezuela during the transition period. In the Western Hemisphere, this unparalleled sudden attack has caused tremors among the countries. This onslaught, which is remarkable in its scope and daring, offers a clear lens through which to understand not only our relationship with Venezuela but also a more general pattern of great power behavior in its immediate vicinity. In Russia’s strategic thinking, Venezuela is now comparable to Ukraine. Due to their perceived closeness to other countries, both nations occupy a geopolitical position that challenges the boundaries and nature of great powers.

It is crucial to go past the immediate headlines and comprehend the systemic logic that made such a dramatic intervention possible to decipher the analogy. Russia views Ukraine as essential to security reasoning; therefore, it is more of a symbolic geography and strategic identity. Zelensky’s preference for NATO or any other tactical considerations is not the reason for Moscow’s action against Ukraine in 2014 or, more significantly, in 2022, but it would jeopardize Russia’s identity and standing as a major power.

However, Venezuela, which is strategically located in the Western Hemisphere, has abundant oil resources and has historically resisted US supremacy, and came to test the Trump administration’s ability to influence its own neighborhood. The basic instinct is familiar even though the hemispheric setting and power dynamics differ greatly from those in Europe: a great power feels obligated to behave in a particular way because it senses an intolerable risk in the political trajectory of a neighboring state.

In the last few years, the US government pursued a strategy of escalating pressure on the Maduro government with sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and legal indictments that finally led to the capture of the Venezuelan president and his wife recently. This intervention narrative was strengthened by the perennial pressure on the Maduro regime for alleged international drug trafficking and related charges, which turned him into a criminal and a threat to US national security. However, the Venezuelan administration did not fall despite years of pressure. Rather, it strengthened Venezuela’s fortitude. The Trump administration opted for direct military action after diplomatic and economic pressure had failed to break the Madurai government’s resolve. This change demonstrates a belief in credible coercion, which holds that decisive action is necessary to maintain the United States’ standing in its domain rather than merely talking about it or imposing penalties. Russia uses similar reasoning in Ukraine. When the Kremlin believed that its national interest was immediately at risk, what had begun as both overt and covert assistance for the separatists resulted in a direct armed conflict. In a time when international law and multilateral diplomacy predominated, both major countries turned to military force in response to persistent resistance. This was unusual but not surprising.

To assume that such power politics are devoid of any moral framing would be foolish. Moscow and Washington have wrapped their intervention in morally appealing tales. The United States defended the operation as a mission to restore stability to a nation in turmoil and to preserve justice against an indicted leader. However, Russia has presented the military operation as defensive and firmly grounded in defending its citizens and security interests. Beneath this moral pretense, however, is the indisputable geopolitical arithmetic of strong nations protecting their borders at all costs. While moral framing may offer legitimacy at the national level or in alliances, it also reveals how powerful nations interpret international rules in accordance with their own priorities.

The US operation’s methodology and legality have been the subject of discussion. Critics contend that international law is violated in the absence of a UN authorization, congressional permission, or a self-defense basis. Similar ethical and legal disputes surround Russia’s activities in Ukraine, where the international community has largely rejected Moscow’s explanations and called them violations of the UN Charter. In both cases, the big powers have challenged the liberal international orders, casting doubt on the long-term viability of the standards designed to limit such interventions.

If the current trajectory holds, the Venezuela intervention may mark a watershed in hemispheric relations and in global geopolitics. It suggests that great powers are willing to reinterpret international norms when they perceive their strategic interests to be at stake and that they may do so with little regard for multilateral frameworks if domestic politics and national narratives demand forceful action. The Venezuelan tragedy has the potential to change the political landscape of the entire Western Hemisphere, much as the conflict in Ukraine has changed the political landscape of Europe. In the age of a multipolar world, such military operations pose serious concerns about the legitimacy, sovereignty, and boundaries of great power involvement.

The idea that Venezuela is America’s Ukraine is not an exaggeration; rather, it provides an analytical understanding of how a major power approaches neighborhood policy and its readiness to take action when it sees a threat. These events will have repercussions that extend beyond Venezuela and Ukraine, influencing future great power engagement rules.

*Rajarshi Chakraborty
Assistant professor Mody University of science and technology Laxmangarh, Sikar, Rajsthan, India.