The Great Unravelling: Operation Absolute Resolve and the Fracturing of International Order - Maxthon

An Analysis of the Venezuela Operation and Its Global Implications

Executive Summary

On January 3, 2026, the United States launched Operation Absolute Resolve, a predawn military strike on Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This operation represents what international law experts are calling the most significant breach of the post-World War II international legal order since the 2003 Iraq invasion. The ramifications extend far beyond Latin America, threatening to fundamentally reshape global norms on sovereignty, the use of force, and great power behavior.

This analysis examines the operation’s deviance from established international norms, projects potential outcomes, assesses systemic dangers, and evaluates specific implications for Singapore and small states in an increasingly lawless international environment.

I. The Operation: A Technical and Strategic Overview

The Military Action

The operation, conducted by Delta Force and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, lasted approximately 30 minutes. Venezuelan officials report at least 80 casualties, including both military personnel and civilians. The strikes targeted multiple military installations across northern Venezuela, including Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s largest military complex where Maduro resided.

According to military analysis, the operation involved:

Cyber operations to disable Venezuelan air defenses
Clandestine intelligence gathering
Preparatory strikes on military installations
Highly specialized helicopter insertions using classified technology
Kamikaze drones, evidenced by distinctive sounds captured in ground videos

Maduro and Flores were extracted and flown to New York, where they were arraigned on January 5, 2026, in Manhattan federal court on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and weapons possession.

The Legal Justification

The Trump administration has offered multiple, sometimes contradictory justifications:

Law Enforcement Rationale: Framing it as an arrest operation to execute existing federal indictments
National Security Argument: Citing drug trafficking threats to American security
Armed Conflict Declaration: An October 2025 administration memo declared drug cartels as “unlawful combatants,” positioning the U.S. in an “armed conflict” with them
Monroe Doctrine Revival: President Trump explicitly invoked what he termed a “Donroe Doctrine,” asserting U.S. hemispheric dominance

The administration relied heavily on a controversial 1989 legal memorandum by then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr, which controversially argued that the President could order actions violating the UN Charter as a matter of domestic law, even if they remained unlawful under international law.

II. Deviance from International Norms: A Systematic Breakdown

Violation of the UN Charter

The operation constitutes a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The Charter permits only two exceptions:

Self-defense against armed attack (Article 51): Venezuela posed no armed threat to the United States
UN Security Council authorization: No authorization was sought or obtained

International law professor Michael N. Schmitt, along with legal experts Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman, concluded that the operation “amounts to a severe breach of foundational principles of international law.” Professor Ziyad Motala described it as “international vandalism, plain and unadorned.”

Precedent: The Panama Comparison

The closest historical parallel is the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. However, critical differences exist:

Similarities:

Both involved capturing a leader on drug trafficking charges
Both violated international law
Both relied on the Barr memo legal framework

Key Differences:

Panama had declared a state of war on the U.S. and killed a U.S. Marine before the invasion
Panama was significantly smaller and weaker than Venezuela
The 1989 operation occurred before widespread international acceptance of the International Criminal Court
The geopolitical context was fundamentally different (Cold War ending vs. rising great power competition)

Breaking the Taboo on Leadership Targeting

While states have historically attempted covert assassinations or captures, the open, celebrated nature of this operation breaks a critical norm. As UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul stated, this represents “illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader.”

The operation essentially legitimizes the principle that powerful states can unilaterally decide which governments are legitimate and remove those they deem criminal, bypassing all international legal mechanisms.

III. Global Reactions: A Fractured World

The Condemnation Coalition

Latin America: Strong opposition from left-leaning governments:

Brazil’s Lula: Called it an “unacceptable line” crossed and “extremely dangerous precedent”
Colombia’s Petro: Rejected “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela”
Mexico: Condemned actions as violating the UN Charter
Chile: Called for restraint and respect for international law

Major Powers:

China: Expressed being “deeply shocked” and “strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force.” Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated, “We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman”
Russia: Called it a “grave violation of sovereignty and international law”
Iran: Supreme Leader Khamenei called for resistance against American hegemony

European Powers:

France: Foreign Minister Barrot stated the operation “contravenes the principle of non-use of force”
Spain: Prime Minister Sánchez said it violated international law
Germany: Chancellor Merz called the legality “complex” and urged caution

The Support Coalition

Right-wing Latin American Governments:

Argentina’s Milei: Celebrated as “liberty advances”
El Salvador’s Bukele: Signaled support via social media
Ecuador’s Noboa: Called it a blow to “narco-Chavista structures”
Peru: Welcomed the intervention

Other Supporters:

Israel: Minister Sa’ar commended the U.S. as “leader of the free world”
Some U.S. allies privately supported the outcome while publicly expressing concern

The Cautious Middle

Many U.S. allies found themselves in a difficult position:

UK: Prime Minister Starmer said Britain would “shed no tears” but called for respect for international law
EU: Called for respect for the UN Charter while acknowledging Maduro’s illegitimacy

IV. Southeast Asia and Singapore: Small States in a Dangerous World

Regional Response Pattern

Southeast Asian nations showed remarkable unity in expressing concern, albeit with varying degrees of condemnation intensity:

Strong Opposition:

Malaysia: PM Anwar Ibrahim stated the actions “constitute a clear violation of international law” and called for Maduro’s immediate release. He added, “the forcible removal of a sitting head of government through external action sets a dangerous precedent”
Indonesia: Emphasized the operation’s illegality and potential to set a harmful precedent

Measured Concern:

Singapore: Expressed being “gravely concerned” and emphasized commitment to “international law and the principles of the UN Charter that safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, especially small states”
Vietnam: Called on parties to “respect international law and the United Nations Charter” and “refrain from the use or threat of force”

Most Restrained:

Philippines: Viewing the operation “with concern” but carefully avoided condemning its security ally, instead urging “concerned parties to resolve disputes through peaceful means”

Singapore’s Strategic Calculus

Singapore’s response deserves particular attention as it encapsulates the dilemma facing small states:

The Official Statement: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a carefully calibrated statement that:

Expressed “grave concern”
Emphasized commitment to international law and UN Charter principles
Specifically noted the importance of sovereignty for “small states”
Called for restraint and peaceful resolution
Notably did not explicitly condemn the U.S. or demand Maduro’s release

The Subtext: Former Permanent Secretary Bilahari Kausikan noted that Singapore did not outright condemn the action and may not have been strongly opposed to it privately. This reflects Singapore’s complex position:

As a small state, it has existential interest in sovereignty protection
As a U.S. security partner, it must maintain the alliance
As a pragmatic actor, it may have viewed Maduro’s regime negatively
As a trading nation, it needs stable international rules

Why This Matters for Singapore

Singapore faces unique vulnerabilities in a world where might makes right:

Geographic Vulnerability:

Surrounded by much larger neighbors
Dependent on international law for protection
No strategic depth for defense

Economic Vulnerability:

Trade-dependent economy requiring stable international rules
Major financial hub relying on rule of law
Critical shipping hub dependent on freedom of navigation

Strategic Vulnerability:

Caught between U.S.-China competition
Cannot defend itself without international law backing
Serves as a test case for small state viability

As Bilahari Kausikan has written extensively, Singapore’s entire existence depends on a rules-based international order. The Venezuela operation threatens that foundation.

V. The China Factor: Taiwan in the Crosshairs?

Beijing’s Strategic Response

China’s reaction has been multifaceted:

Immediate Condemnation:

Called for Maduro’s immediate release
Demanded U.S. respect for Venezuelan sovereignty
Framed itself as defender of international law

Strategic Positioning:

Xi Jinping, in a meeting with Ireland’s Prime Minister, stated that “unilateral bullying seriously impacts the international order”
Chinese state media portrayed the action as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy
Beijing positioned itself as the true champion of the rules-based order

Economic Concerns:

China is Venezuela’s largest creditor and biggest oil customer
Chinese companies have invested $4.8 billion in Venezuela
Loss of Venezuelan ally represents significant geopolitical setback

The Taiwan Question

The question dominating strategic analysis: Does this operation greenlight Chinese action against Taiwan?

Arguments for Increased Risk:

Precedent Setting: If the U.S. can forcibly remove a foreign leader it doesn’t recognize, why can’t China act against Taiwan’s leadership?
Normative Erosion: The operation weakens international law constraints on all actors
Opportunity: Chinese strategists may see the U.S. as distracted or hypocritical
Domestic Pressure: Chinese nationalists on social media are calling for similar action on Taiwan

Arguments Against Immediate Risk:

Capability Constraints: Experts note China lacks the special operations capability demonstrated by the U.S.
Different Context: Taiwan involves far greater military risks than Venezuela
Long Game: China’s strategy toward Taiwan is decades-long and patient
Economic Costs: The economic fallout of Taiwan action would be catastrophic

Expert Consensus: Most analysts, including Bonnie Glaser of the German Marshall Fund and Ryan Hass of Brookings, believe China is unlikely to alter its Taiwan strategy in response to Venezuela. However, Beijing may feel less constrained in grey-zone operations and may develop legal frameworks to justify future action.

The Legal Framework Question

One underappreciated danger: China may now feel compelled to develop its own legal justification for Taiwan action, similar to how the U.S. used drug trafficking charges against Maduro. Possible Chinese frameworks could include:

“Counter-secession law” enforcement
“Anti-terrorism” operations
“Law enforcement” against “separatists”
“Protection of Chinese nationals”

VI. Ukraine and the Sphere of Influence World

Implications for the Russia-Ukraine War

The Venezuela operation has profound implications for Ukraine:

The Dangerous Parallel:

Russia has long claimed Ukraine is illegitimate
Russia has attempted to capture Zelenskyy multiple times
Russia may cite Venezuela as justification for intensified operations

The Strategic Shift: European analysts warn that the operation signals a U.S. return to sphere of influence thinking. As articulated by European Policy Centre fellow Chris Kremidas-Courtney, the operation suggests:

The U.S. will enforce primacy in the Western Hemisphere
U.S. commitment to European security becomes more transactional
Washington may be willing to concede Russia’s “sphere of influence”

Zelenskyy’s Response: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s cryptic comment—”If you can do this with dictators, so easily, then the United States knows what needs to be done next”—reveals both hope and anxiety. The operation demonstrates U.S. capability but also raises questions about U.S. consistency and commitment.

Congressional Warning: Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, stated: “Russia and China just learned that all you need to do if you want to go into Estonia is to say that the leader of Estonia is a bad person. You don’t even need to make a particularly good case.”

VII. Projected Outcomes: Four Scenarios

Scenario 1: Controlled Transition (20% probability)

Description: U.S. manages to facilitate democratic transition in Venezuela with international support.

Path:

Delcy Rodríguez, the interim leader, cooperates with transition
Opposition leader Edmundo González assumes power through elections
Venezuelan military accepts transition with amnesty guarantees
Oil production increases, benefiting global markets

Requirements:

Sustained U.S. engagement (doubtful given “America First” doctrine)
International legitimacy (severely damaged)
Venezuelan military unity (unlikely given fractures)
Massive reconstruction investment (uncertain source)

Implications:

Partial vindication of intervention
Limited long-term normative damage
Possible template for future “regime change with justification”

Scenario 2: Chaotic Collapse (45% probability)

Description: Venezuela descends into civil conflict, refugee crisis, and humanitarian catastrophe.

Path:

Military fractures between factions
Armed groups and narco-gangs fill power vacuum
Mass refugee exodus to Colombia and Brazil
U.S. unable or unwilling to commit occupation forces
International intervention blocked by Russia/China at UN

Requirements:

Venezuelan military fragmentation (likely)
U.S. withdrawal or minimal engagement (likely)
Regional states overwhelmed (probable)

Implications:

Iraq/Afghanistan-style quagmire without occupation
Massive humanitarian crisis
Vindication of critics’ warnings
Further erosion of U.S. credibility
Regional destabilization

Scenario 3: Madurismo Without Maduro (25% probability)

Description: Regime continuity with new faces but same power structures.

Path:

Delcy Rodríguez or other Chavista consolidates power
Military and security apparatus remain intact
U.S. pressure insufficient to force democratic change
Elections held but manipulated
U.S. eventually forced to accept new strongman

Requirements:

Venezuelan military unity under new leader
Elite consensus on maintaining system
Russian and Chinese continued support
U.S. attention diverted elsewhere

Implications:

Worst outcome for U.S. credibility
Massive investment in operation with no strategic gain
Demonstration that military force alone cannot achieve political change
Precedent set but objectives failed

Scenario 4: Wider Conflict Spread (10% probability)

Description: Operation emboldens broader U.S. interventionism or adversary actions.

Path:

Trump administration conducts similar operations in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Iran
Russia intensifies operations in Ukraine citing Venezuela precedent
China increases grey-zone pressure on Taiwan
Multiple simultaneous crises overwhelm international system

Requirements:

Trump administration continued interventionism
Adversaries willing to escalate
International institutions further paralyzed

Implications:

Complete collapse of post-1945 order
Return to pre-WWI great power competition
Multiple simultaneous conflicts
Catastrophic risk escalation

VIII. Systemic Dangers: The Erosion of Restraint

The Normative Framework Under Siege

The post-1945 international order rested on several key principles:

Sovereign Equality: All states possess equal sovereignty regardless of size or power
Prohibition on Aggression: Use of force banned except for self-defense or UN authorization
Non-Intervention: States shall not interfere in internal affairs of others
Peaceful Dispute Resolution: International law provides mechanisms for resolving conflicts

Operation Absolute Resolve directly assaults all four principles.

The Precedent Cascade

The greatest danger is not the Venezuela operation itself, but what it authorizes:

For Great Powers:

Russia may cite Venezuela in Ukraine operations
China may develop similar frameworks for Taiwan
Any permanent Security Council member may now feel emboldened

For Regional Powers:

India-Pakistan conflicts over “terrorism”
Turkey-Syria/Iraq operations against “terrorists”
Saudi-Iranian proxy conflicts justified as “counter-narcotics”

For Small States:

Any state can be targeted if a great power deems its leadership “criminal”
International law becomes optional for the powerful
Alliance commitments become unreliable

The Enforcement Gap

A critical structural problem emerges: The UN Security Council, designed to restrain great power aggression, is paralyzed when permanent members act. There exists no enforcement mechanism when the enforcer breaks the rules.

IX. Singapore and Small States: Navigating the Storm

The Existential Challenge

For Singapore and similar small states, the Venezuela operation poses an existential question: How do we survive in a world where international law no longer protects sovereignty?

Strategic Options for Small States

Option 1: Enhanced Alliance Commitments

Deepen security partnerships with major powers
Risk: Alliances may not hold when inconvenient
Example: Denmark’s anxiety over Greenland despite NATO membership

Option 2: Nuclear Deterrence (Not viable for Singapore)

Develop independent deterrent capability
Risk: Massive cost, international backlash
Example: North Korea’s strategy

Option 3: Economic Indispensability

Make invasion economically catastrophic for all parties
Risk: Economic utility may not outweigh strategic imperatives
Example: Singapore’s strategy but Venezuela shows limits

Option 4: Hedging and Neutrality

Avoid taking sides in great power competition
Risk: May be seen as unreliable by all sides
Example: Austria, Switzerland (but both are in Europe)

Option 5: Institutional Strengthening

Work to preserve and strengthen international law
Risk: Institutions may be too weak to matter
Example: Singapore’s traditional approach now under severe strain

Singapore’s Likely Path

Singapore will likely pursue a combination strategy:

Continue strong U.S. security partnership while maintaining strategic ambiguity
Deepen economic ties with China while resisting political pressure
Strengthen ASEAN unity around sovereignty principles
Invest heavily in self-defense capabilities
Champion international law while recognizing its diminished power

However, the fundamental problem remains: No combination of strategies fully protects a small state when great powers choose to disregard international law.

The ASEAN Challenge

The Venezuela operation tests ASEAN’s unity and relevance:

Challenges:

Members have different relationships with U.S. and China
Some members may secretly welcome U.S. assertiveness against China
Others fear becoming targets themselves
ASEAN principles of sovereignty are directly challenged

Opportunities:

United small state voice carries more weight
Southeast Asian unity can complicate great power calculations
Regional architecture could provide some protection

Economic Implications for Singapore

Direct Impacts:

Oil market volatility (Venezuela has 17% of world reserves)
Regional instability affecting Latin American trade partners
Potential refugee flows to third countries affecting global stability

Indirect Impacts:

Erosion of rule of law affecting financial hub status
Uncertainty about international contracts and treaties
Insurance costs and risk assessments for shipping
Long-term impact on trade-based growth model

Systemic Risk: If international law becomes unreliable, Singapore’s entire economic model—based on stable rules, contract enforcement, and neutral territory—faces fundamental challenges.

X. The Historical Moment: Parallels and Warnings

The 1930s Analogy

Historians note uncomfortable parallels between our era and the 1930s:

Then:

League of Nations collapsed as great powers ignored it
Japan invaded Manchuria (1931) with impunity
Italy invaded Ethiopia (1935) with impunity
Germany remilitarized Rhineland (1936) without response
Each violation emboldened further aggression
Result: World War II

Now:

Russia invaded Ukraine with limited consequences
China aggressively pushes in South China Sea
U.S. now openly violates sovereignty
Each violation tests international response
Result: Unknown but concerning

The Difference: Nuclear Weapons

The critical difference between the 1930s and today is nuclear weapons, which make great power war potentially civilizational. This cuts both ways:

Restraint: Nuclear weapons deter total war
Risk: May embolden “limited” aggression below nuclear threshold
Danger: Miscalculation in crisis could be catastrophic

The Post-Cold War Illusion

The post-Cold War era (1991-2022) now appears as an historical aberration rather than a permanent condition. Key features of that era are ending:

U.S. unipolar dominance
Expanding liberal democracy
Strengthening international institutions
Globalization as inevitable
Great power war as unthinkable

We are returning to a world that looks more like pre-1945 than post-1991.

XI. What Comes Next: Critical Questions

For Venezuela

Will democratic transition succeed or will chaos prevail?
Can Venezuelan military be reformed or will it fracture?
What happens to Venezuelan oil in the global market?
Will regional states accept U.S. role or resist?

For International Order

Will other states follow U.S. precedent?
Can international law recover from this blow?
Will UN Charter be formally revised or just ignored?
Is sphere of influence the new organizing principle?

For U.S. Leadership

Has U.S. credibility been enhanced or damaged?
Will allies trust U.S. security commitments?
Can U.S. maintain “rules-based order” rhetoric?
What other regimes might be targeted?

For Great Power Competition

Will China alter its Taiwan strategy?
Will Russia intensify Ukraine operations?
Will Iran face similar action?
Are we entering a new era of great power war?

For Small States

How can sovereignty be protected?
Are alliances reliable or situational?
Should small states arm more heavily?
Is international law still relevant?

XII. Recommendations and Conclusions

For Singapore and Small States

Immediate Actions:

Strengthen defense capabilities: Increase investment in self-defense, focusing on deterrence
Diversify security partnerships: Avoid over-dependence on any single great power
Build regional unity: Deepen ASEAN cooperation around sovereignty principles
Champion international law: Continue advocacy despite diminished effectiveness
Develop economic resilience: Reduce vulnerabilities to economic coercion

Medium-term Strategy:

Scenario planning: Prepare for multiple possible world orders
Elite consensus: Maintain national unity on foreign policy fundamentals
Public diplomacy: Explain small state vulnerabilities to international audiences
Coalition building: Form coalitions of concerned states
Military modernization: Ensure defense capabilities remain credible

Long-term Preparation:

Constitutional resilience: Strengthen institutions against external pressure
Economic diversification: Reduce dependence on single sectors or partners
Social cohesion: Maintain national unity in uncertain times
Innovation focus: Maintain competitive advantages through technology and services
Strategic patience: Recognize that international order cycles over decades

For the International Community

Urgent Needs:

UN Security Council reform: Current structure is inadequate for multipolar world
Alternative enforcement mechanisms: Since UNSC is paralyzed, other options needed
Normative reaffirmation: States must collectively reaffirm sovereignty principles
Crisis management protocols: Better mechanisms for preventing escalation
Small state protection: Specific frameworks to protect vulnerable states

For the United States

Strategic Questions:

Can the U.S. maintain leadership while violating the rules it claims to uphold?
Is short-term tactical success worth long-term strategic damage?
Will allies trust U.S. commitments when its behavior is unpredictable?
Does the U.S. want a rules-based order or a sphere of influence world?

The Fundamental Choice

The international community faces a stark choice:

Option A: Restore the Rules

Collectively condemn the Venezuela operation
Strengthen international law enforcement
Support international institutions
Accept short-term inconvenience for long-term stability

Option B: Accept Might Makes Right

Recognize that international law is dead
Prepare for sphere of influence competition
Build defense capabilities and alliances
Accept higher risk of conflict

The Current Path: Drift

Condemn but don’t constrain violations
Maintain fiction of rules-based order
Allow precedents to accumulate
Slide toward Option B without choosing it

Final Assessment

Operation Absolute Resolve represents a watershed moment in international relations. Whether it proves to be:

A one-time anomaly that international order absorbs, or
The beginning of a new era of great power lawlessness

…depends on how the international community responds in the coming months and years.

For Singapore and small states, the lesson is stark: International law alone cannot protect sovereignty. Small states must combine diplomatic skill, economic value, military capability, and alliance relationships to navigate an increasingly dangerous world.

The post-Cold War illusion of steady progress toward a rules-based international order has been shattered. We are entering an era where power matters more than principle, where might makes right, and where small states must be extraordinarily careful to survive.

As Yale Professor Oona Hathaway wrote: “The cost will be paid in human lives.”

The great unravelling has begun. The only question is whether the international community can prevent complete collapse into a Hobbesian world of all against all.

This analysis was prepared January 7, 2026, based on the best available information at that time. The situation remains highly fluid and assessments may need revision as events unfold.

Key Sources: International law analysis from Just Security, Chatham House, Council on Foreign Relations; Regional reactions from diplomatic sources; Strategic analysis from Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment, German Marshall Fund; Southeast Asian response from The Diplomat; Singapore statement from Ministry of Foreign Affairs.