{"id":25389,"date":"2026-01-04T06:55:09","date_gmt":"2026-01-04T05:55:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=25389"},"modified":"2026-01-04T07:00:24","modified_gmt":"2026-01-04T06:00:24","slug":"04-januar-2026-kurznachrichten","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/04-januar-2026-kurznachrichten\/","title":{"rendered":"January 4, 2026 - Short News"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Power Over Law - How the United States Stormed Venezuela, Claimed at Least 40 Lives, Shattered the International Order and Merz\u2019s Position Is Modest<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Caracas<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

During the night into Saturday, a line was crossed in Caracas that reaches far beyond Venezuela. US forces incapacitated Nicol\u00e1s Maduro and his wife using military force, removed them from the country, and delivered the president to New York just a few hours later. What Washington sells as a swift operation was the targeted overthrow of a sitting head of state \u2013 carried out on foreign territory, without an international mandate, without judicial proceedings, without the consent of the United Nations. That Maduro was an authoritarian ruler is beyond dispute. But this is precisely the dangerous point: It is not the assessment of his rule that determines the permissibility of such acts, but the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nicol\u00e1s Maduro enjoyed personal immunity as a sitting president. This immunity does not protect a person, but the international order. It is intended to prevent states from beginning to eliminate political opponents through military force. The seizure of Maduro, his forcible transfer abroad, and the subsequent announcement that the United States intends to govern Venezuela itself completely undermine this protection. From a legal perspective, this constitutes a cross-border deprivation of sovereign authority \u2013 something international law clearly prohibits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Maduro has arrived in New York \u2014 DEA agents appear to be taking photos as if for a family album.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

According to their own statements, the United States deployed more than 150 aircraft, disabled air defenses, and inserted special forces by helicopter into the military complex of Fuerte Tiuna. At least 40 people, including civilians and soldiers, are said to have been killed. The operation lasted just over two hours. Shortly afterward, President Donald Trump declared that the United States would govern Venezuela \u201cfor a certain period of time.\u201d Whether American troops would occupy the country was left open, but ground forces were explicitly not ruled out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

It was followed by a press conference that resembled less a situational briefing than the public proclamation of a claim to power. Trump spoke of total control, of an operation that only the United States could have carried out. He shifted almost seamlessly from the military to the economic, spoke of oil, of American corporations that would rebuild Venezuela\u2019s energy infrastructure and make money. Previous governments, Trump said, had \u201cstolen our oil.\u201d At the latest at this point, it became clear what this was about besides everything else: resources, influence, and the open willingness to subordinate state sovereignty to one\u2019s own benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Caracas, the government continued to appear before the cameras. Defense minister, attorney general, and governors declared the attack illegal and announced resistance. Vice President Delcy Rodr\u00edguez spoke of a military aggression and demanded proof that Maduro was still alive. Armed civilian groups began patrolling streets. State media showed rallies that spoke of kidnapping and called for international support. There was no public sign of an actual American presence in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Internationally, the reaction was unusually clear. France openly spoke of a violation of international law. President Emmanuel Macron made clear that no political transition could be forced from outside. The United Nations expressed alarm. Secretary General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres warned of a dangerous precedent. Russia and China condemned the operation as armed aggression and announced they would demand an emergency meeting of the Security Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

All the more striking was the reaction from Berlin. Chancellor Friedrich Merz spoke of a \u201ccomplex\u201d legal situation and urged an orderly transition. Maduro had led his country into ruin, Merz said, and referred to election fraud and links to drug trafficking. All of that may be true. But it does not answer the decisive question: May a state unilaterally kidnap a president because it considers him illegitimate? No, the answer is that simple. Anyone who evades this weakens the law precisely where it must provide support. Forty dead and 115 additional deaths from 35 attacks on boats by the United States seem to offer little cause for questions for Chancellor Merz. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the United States itself, a constitutional debate erupted. Trump had not obtained explicit approval from Congress. Critics warned of an open military engagement without a time limit. Trump brushed this aside. The operation had been \u201cbrilliant,\u201d and he called his critics weak. At the same time, he hinted that similar steps could follow elsewhere \u2013 up to and including Mexico. Secretary of State Marco Rubio verbally put pressure on Cuba. The message was unmistakable: Anyone who defies Washington\u2019s expectations must reckon with force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, the official justification is becoming increasingly fragile. Venezuela is not a significant producer of cocaine, but primarily a transit country. The main flow of drug trafficking toward North America runs through the Pacific. Fentanyl, which causes the actual catastrophe in the United States, comes from entirely different supply chains. Nevertheless, Venezuela is declared the central enemy. It is a politically useful opponent \u2013 weakened, isolated, rich in oil. In Florida, parts of the Venezuelan diaspora celebrated Maduro\u2019s arrest. Many suffered under his rule, many fled. This joy is understandable. It does not change the fact that the path to it is a dangerous one. History shows how rarely militarily forced upheavals bring stability. But it very often shows how quickly violence takes on a life of its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What remains is a disturbing picture. A president who openly speaks of occupation. An attack that is declared law enforcement even though it was conducted militarily. A world in which rules apparently only apply as long as they do not stand in the way of powerful states. International law is not a moral seal of approval. It is a barrier against escalation. If this barrier is torn down, it loses its effect everywhere. The decisive question is therefore not how one judges Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. It is whether the international order is prepared to defend law even when it is inconvenient. Or whether we accept that strength decides \u2013 today in Caracas, tomorrow elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Jubilation behind bars<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n