Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s reported reaction to the United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—suggesting that Donald Trump might next “capture” Russian President Vladimir Putin—would be laughable if the global situation were not so grave. Such remarks are not merely fanciful; they betray a dangerous normalization of lawlessness in international affairs. If world leaders begin to speak casually of abducting sovereign heads of state, one must ask: Does the United Nations Charter still exist, or has it been reduced to a decorative document? If brute power alone is to decide global outcomes, then honesty demands that the UN be disbanded altogether. Let the strong conquer the weak, let military might replace diplomacy, and let international law be declared obsolete. At least the hypocrisy would end. The Venezuelan episode raises uncomfortable questions that Washington has conspicuously avoided answering. If the action against Maduro was truly about narcotics or criminal liability, why has the United States never demonstrated similar “courage” against Mexico, where drug cartels operate openly and inflict daily damage on American society? Why not Cuba, if authoritarianism alone is the justification? The answer is obvious and inconvenient: Cuba hosts Russian strategic interests. Power, not principle, dictates American action. Many had hoped that Donald Trump’s return to office would mark a recalibration of U.S. priorities—a retreat from regime-change adventurism, an end to destabilising democratically elected governments, and a focus on restoring global balance. After all, Trump campaigned on promises to dismantle ideological networks operating from U.S. soil, to rein in politically motivated NGOs, and to focus inward on American decline. What the world has witnessed instead is the opposite. The “Make America Great Again” slogan has morphed into a justification for economic predation and geopolitical intimidation. Oil-rich nations, mineral-rich regions, and strategically located territories suddenly become targets of American “concern.” Canada is casually spoken of as a potential 51st state. Panama and Greenland are mentioned as strategic acquisitions. Threats are issued with alarming regularity, often without strategic coherence. This is not statesmanship; it is a revival of colonial-era thinking—gunboat diplomacy dressed up as national revival.
Ironically, Trump seems blind to the fractures within his own society. While projecting power abroad, the United States grapples with ideological polarization, economic stress, rising inflation, and pressures on its healthcare system. The election of openly radical figures in key American cities should serve as a warning: internal decay cannot be cured through external aggression.mIf Maduro were indeed accused of crimes under international law, there were established mechanisms to address them—extradition requests, international warrants, proceedings through the International Criminal Court, or UN-sanctioned actions. Bypassing these frameworks sends a catastrophic message to the world: rules apply only to the weak. The consequences are profound. The U.S. has now forfeited its moral authority to oppose China’s ambitions toward Taiwan. It weakens its position in restraining Russia in Ukraine. It emboldens Israel’s regional assertiveness and, paradoxically, legitimizes unilateral military solutions everywhere. By this logic, India could justify reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, supporting Baloch self-determination, or even redrawing borders—yet New Delhi restrains itself precisely because it respects international order, not because it lacks capacity. India’s calibrated “wait and watch” approach reflects civilizational restraint, not weakness. But history teaches that when global norms collapse, restraint is often mistaken for vulnerability. Trump still speaks of peace prizes and conflict resolution, yet his actions contradict his rhetoric. True leadership would have focused on checking China’s expansion, stabilizing Europe, recalibrating Ukraine’s expectations, and strengthening strategic partnerships—especially with India. Instead, inconsistency and arrogance now define Washington’s posture. With U.S. midterm elections approaching and domestic discontent growing, Trump would do well to reassess. Foreign adventurism cannot mask internal failures indefinitely. Empires rarely fall from external threats alone; they collapse when power is mistaken for wisdom. The world is watching—and learning the wrong lessons.
