On the night of Friday to Saturday 3 January 2026, the United States launched an armed attack on Venezuela, directed at the constitutional authorities of that country. After firing on military bases, airports and another facilities, US forces captured Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife, for the intent of bringing him before an American court under the pretext of the alleged “Drug-terrorism conspiracy to import cocaine” and “possessing device weapons and demolition devices against the USIt’s okay. ” The US invasion of Venezuela is simply a clear example of an infringement of global law, and in peculiar a violation of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations. This article states that: all members of the UN should refrain in their global relations from utilizing a threat or force against the inviolability of territory or political independency of any State, or any another way, contrary to the principles of the United Nations. Equally illegal is the arrest of president Nicolas Maduro, who is not under the jurisdiction of the American judiciary.
The U.S. military action against Venezuela is not amazing in the sense that the US authorities have been formulating specified announcements for months, utilizing public threats of force against a sovereign state. Moreover, most of the armed conflicts in the modern planet have just been caused by the United States. These were either assault wars, or interventions that caused the escalation of existing conflicts, under the appearance of “Combating Communism‘, ‘Combating terrorism‘, ‘defending democracyor “Defence of human rightsIt’s okay. ” In fact, it was always about defending the geopolitical or financial interests of the US. In the shortest summary and rather selectively you can mention specified events as:
- Vietnamese conflict (1961-1975),
- invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965),
- invasion of Grenada (1983),
- raids on Libya (1986),
- Intervention in Panama (1989),
- interference in the Haiti elections (1991),
- Desert Storm Operation in Iraq (1991),
- attacks on Serbian forces in Bosnia (1995),
- actions in Kosovo (1999),
- invasion of Afghanistan (2001),
- the invasion of Iraq (2003),
- participation in the Syrian War (since 2011),
- Inspiring and financing alleged "colour revolutions" in different countries.
The answer to the question of the motives of American aggression against Venezuela is so obvious. This is not about any war on terrorism or drug cartels threatening the US. The real reason for United States action is to control Venezuelan oil deposits. After the regulation of Nicolas Maduro, and earlier Hugo Chavez Venezuela conducted a sovereign policy and protected its own resources, which was surely not in the interests of the United States. Any effort to interfere with US home and abroad policy Venezuela has failed. As a result, the force variant was used. However, even if American accusations of supporting global terrorism and the activities of drug cartels were true, they did not give the right to take armed action. As Dr. Mateusz Piątkowski rightly pointed out: “Even if the State controls cartels, the same supply of prohibited substances within the territory of a abroad State does not make a situation that is adequate for air bombardment or artillery shelling.‘ [1]. It is equally absurd to argue according to which the "dictator" was removed in order to defend democracy and broken civilian rights. ‘There is no work in global law to be a democratic state in the sense of a political system. In line with the Tinnoco principle, the regimes besides benefit from the protection provided for in the CNN‘ [2].
However, the most interesting issue is the deficiency of an adequate consequence by Polish politicians to events related to the US attack on Venezuela. We all remember the hysterical statements condemning Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. How many times Russia was compared to Nazi Germany, and Vladimir Putin himself to Hitler. Anyone who tried to justify and rationalize the causes of this conflict could have had serious legal problems and be accused of praising the assault war. In this case, however, no of the crucial Polish politicians explicitly and consistently condemned American aggression against Venezuela. There was besides no authoritative message from the Polish authorities. The Ministry of abroad Affairs, advised only on travel to Venezuela due to an unstable situation, appealing to Polish citizens for caution and return, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed information about the presence of 11 Poles who went to Venezuela against warnings. On the margins, it is worth noting the curiosity of the opposition. Among another things, Krzysztof Bosak of the Confederation stated that there should be no sentiment towards “anti-Western socialist dictator“ erstwhile you say,Dmowski's hard realism alternatively of liberal and left-wing illusions” (sic!) [3]. In turn, the politics of Law and Justice Tobias Bocheński tried in an equivalent way to diversify Russian and American aggression. Well, Kale's morality and mentality turn out to be alive forever...
Michał Radzikowski
[1} Mateusz Piątkowski: "U.S. attack on Venezuela is simply a serious violation of the United Nations Charter" — https://international observer.pl/,
[2] ibid.,
[3] Krzysztof Bosak asked about Poland after the US attack on Venezuela. "It's worth analyzing" — https://news.onet.pl/country.
