The Return of Ugly American: Venezuela, US Aggression and the Geopolitical Faultlines

The dramatic escalation in Venezuela, with the United States claiming to have captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, has once again opened the debate on naked aggression, international law, and the shifting balance of global geopolitics. Russia, Iran, Cuba, and several other countries have condemned the action, calling it a violation of sovereignty and a blatant imperialist attack. The European Union has urged restraint and de-escalation, while India has taken a cautious stance, stating that it is for the people of Venezuela to decide their future. This divergence of responses reflects the deep fractures in the international system and the contest between unilateralism and multipolarity.

The United States military strike on Caracas, accompanied by explosions, low-flying aircraft, and widespread damage to civilian and military installations, is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger pattern of Washington’s pressure campaign against Venezuela, justified under the pretext of combating narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. Since August, the US has deployed aircraft carriers, warships, and fighter jets off Venezuela’s coast, marking the largest military presence in the region in decades. Alongside military action, sanctions and oil blockades have been imposed to cripple Venezuela’s economy. The capture of Maduro, if confirmed, represents the sharpest escalation yet, raising questions about regime change, resource control, and the legitimacy of unilateral military interventions.

The geopolitical implications are profound. For Russia and Iran, the US strike is a reminder of Washington’s disregard for sovereignty and international law. Both countries, themselves targets of American sanctions and military threats, see Venezuela as part of a broader struggle against Western hegemony. Their condemnation is not merely rhetorical but part of a larger narrative of resistance to what they call neo-imperialism. The European Union’s call for restraint reflects its discomfort with unilateral military actions, even as it remains aligned with the US on broader strategic issues. India’s cautious response, refraining from condemning the US, highlights its delicate balancing act between strategic partnerships with Washington and its traditional alignment with the Global South.

The phrase “Return of the Ugly American” captures the essence of this moment. The Trump administration, backed by the military-industrial complex and big business, appears determined to use military force to secure geopolitical and economic interests. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves make it a prime target, and the strikes are seen by many as an attempt to seize control of these resources under the guise of combating drug cartels. The narrative of narco-terrorism provides a convenient justification, but the underlying motive is resource extraction and regime change. This is not new; Latin America has long been a theatre of US interventions, from Chile in 1973 to Panama in 1989. What is new is the scale of escalation and the brazenness of announcing the capture of a sitting president on social media.

The uncertainty surrounding Maduro’s whereabouts, the chain of command in Caracas, and the extent of casualties adds to the volatility. Venezuela has declared a state of external disturbance, mobilising defence plans and urging supporters to resist. Armed civilians and militias have appeared on the streets, while other neighbourhoods remain deserted. The Federal Aviation Administration’s ban on flights over Venezuelan airspace underscores the risks of further escalation. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, highlighting the regional dimension of the crisis. The bombing of sites associated with Hugo Chávez, a symbol of Chavismo, adds a layer of political symbolism to the strikes, suggesting an attempt to dismantle not just a government but an ideology.

The geopolitical questions are stark. Does unilateral military action by the US undermine the credibility of international law and institutions like the UN? Can sovereignty be overridden by claims of combating terrorism or drug trafficking? What role should emerging powers like India play in such crises—align with Washington or assert an independent voice for the Global South? The Modi government’s reluctance to condemn the US action is being perceived as siding with Washington and Israel, raising questions about India’s long-term strategic positioning.

The implications extend beyond Venezuela. The US has also threatened military action against Iran, raising fears of a wider conflict. The pattern of sanctions, blockades, and strikes suggests a strategy of coercion aimed at reshaping regimes and securing resources. For Latin America, this is a return to the era of interventions, undermining sovereignty and destabilising societies. For the global order, it is a test of whether multipolarity can resist unilateralism. Russia and Iran’s condemnation, Cuba’s criticism, and the EU’s call for restraint are signs of resistance, but the effectiveness of this resistance remains uncertain.

The Venezuelan crisis also raises questions about the role of domestic politics in shaping foreign policy. Trump’s announcement on Truth Social, his emphasis on success, and the absence of detailed briefings from the Pentagon suggest a personalised, media-driven approach to military action. This blurring of lines between governance and spectacle undermines the seriousness of international law and diplomacy. It also raises concerns about accountability, as decisions of war and peace are announced casually on social media without institutional checks.

Ultimately, the capture of Maduro, if true, is not just about Venezuela. It is about the future of global governance, the credibility of international law, and the balance between unilateral power and collective restraint. The condemnation by Russia, Iran, and Cuba, the cautious stance of India, and the EU’s call for de-escalation reflect the contested nature of the international system. The protests in Caracas, the mobilisation of militias, and the uncertainty of leadership highlight the domestic volatility. The strikes on military bases, the blackout in parts of the city, and the ban on flights underscore the risks of escalation.

The geopolitical argument is clear: unilateral military aggression undermines sovereignty, destabilises regions, and erodes the credibility of international institutions. The US action in Venezuela is not an isolated event but part of a broader strategy of coercion and resource control. The responses of other countries reveal the fractures in the global order and the contest between unilateralism and multipolarity. The question that remains is whether the international community will allow the return of the Ugly American to define the future of geopolitics, or whether collective resistance will restore respect for sovereignty and international law.