1) Venezuela–United States Conflict: Military Operation and Its Outcomes
Military Operation and Background
On 3 January 2026, the United States launched extensive airstrikes in Venezuela as part of Operation Absolute Resolve and Operation Southern Spear. During the operation, Washington claimed that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured and subsequently forced into exile.
The U.S. administration stated that beyond removing Maduro from power, its objectives included controlling Venezuela’s oil industry and stabilizing internal security, announcing that the country would be administered temporarily until a political transition was completed.
Analysts note that this operation represents the largest U.S. military intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama, marking a significant escalation in Washington’s use of force in the Western Hemisphere.
International Reactions
The intervention prompted strong international condemnation. The United Nations Secretary-General and several member states described the action as a violation of international law and national sovereignty, warning that it could establish a dangerous global precedent.
Countries including China, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico publicly criticized the U.S. operation and called for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the crisis.
At the same time, a limited number of states and political leaders—particularly Israel and some figures in Latin America—either welcomed the move or framed it as a necessary intervention to end prolonged instability in Venezuela.
Internal Situation in Venezuela
The Venezuelan government condemned the strikes as an act of U.S. aggression, declared a national emergency, and announced counter-measures aimed at resisting foreign intervention.
Within Venezuela, public reaction has been deeply divided. While some citizens express fear and uncertainty amid escalating violence, others view the developments as a potential opening for long-awaited political change.
2) Impact on Global Polarization
International Norms and Strategic Responses
Political analysts argue that the U.S. intervention risks undermining international norms, multilateralism, and the credibility of global legal frameworks. The use of unilateral military force may further normalize power-based diplomacy over rule-based order.
Drawing parallels with previous conflicts in Iraq and Syria, observers suggest that global politics in 2026 has reached a stage where major powers increasingly view military coercion as an acceptable instrument for advancing strategic objectives.
Globalized Reactions and Strategic Competition
The Venezuelan crisis is also seen as accelerating competition across multiple regions—East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa—as powerful states seek to protect and expand their spheres of influence.
While the European Union and several Asian countries continue to emphasize diplomatic solutions and de-escalation, structural rivalry and interest-driven alignments are becoming more pronounced across the international system.
3) China’s Role and the One China Policy
China’s Initial Response
China strongly condemned the U.S. military action, characterizing it as a breach of international law and a serious threat to global peace and stability. Chinese officials reiterated calls for respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.
Reports indicate that Beijing has intensified diplomatic engagement with other countries, emphasizing peaceful resolution while safeguarding its economic interests and overseas investments.
Link to the One China Policy
Although no direct policy shift regarding the One China Policy has been announced in response to the Venezuelan crisis, China’s opposition to U.S. intervention is widely interpreted as part of a broader contest over global influence.
The One China Policy—primarily associated with Taiwan and the South China Sea—remains central to Beijing’s strategic outlook. In an environment where questions of sovereignty and intervention are increasingly contested, China’s future actions will likely depend on evolving diplomatic pressures and U.S. strategic behavior. At present, no official 2026 declaration signals a formal change in this policy.
4) A Broader Assessment of Global Politics in 2026
The year 2026 is increasingly viewed as a pivotal moment in global affairs:
Major powers are attempting to reshape international relations through the use of force.
Multilateral institutions and international law face growing challenges to their authority and relevance.
Many states and global organizations continue to advocate for diplomatic and legal solutions, often in tension with confrontation-driven strategies.
Global polarization and strategic competition are likely to intensify, with outcomes dependent on future successes, failures, institutional responses, and the balance of power among major actors.
References
2026 United States strikes in Venezuela — Wikipedia
US plans to ‘run’ Venezuela and tap its oil reserves, Trump says — AP News
Trump says Venezuela’s Maduro captured after strikes — Reuters
UN chief says U.S. action sets dangerous precedent — Reuters
World reacts to U.S. strikes on Venezuela — Reuters
International reactions to the 2026 U.S. strikes in Venezuela — Wikipedia
Venezuela announces counter-measures after U.S. attack — Ekhon TV
The Latest: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures Maduro — AP News
Is there any legal justification for the U.S. attack on Venezuela? — The Guardian
The contours of 21st-century geopolitics will become clearer in 2026 — The Economist
World leaders denounce U.S. operation to capture Maduro — Axios
Statement by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson — CGTN Europe
Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis — Wikipedia
Posts
