US Escalation in Venezuela Since 2025: Reshaping Politics, Law, and Regional Stability
What initially began as a dossier of expanded sanctions, designations, and naval deployments in the Caribbean under Operation Southern Spear culminated in early January 2026 in a large-scale military operation titled Operation Absolute Resolve, which struck infrastructure around Caracas and resulted in the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores by US forces (Ali, 2025; Lotlana, 2025; Lotlana, 2026). This marked the first direct armed intervention by US forces on Venezuelan soil in decades and created a watershed in hemispheric geopolitics.
The consequences of this escalation extend beyond the bilateral dynamic and invoke questions of regime survival, violations of international law, debates about the legality of military force outside of collective security mechanisms, the legitimacy of such operations and the regional impacts of US intervention (Jarast, 2026). These issues have been clear in both past and present political analysis as well as the scholarship of international law. Several scholars and policy analysts have disaggregated the crisis in their respective fields. Professor Marc Weller (2026) of Chatham House focused on the illegality of the US operation under international law, and various legal experts have scrutinised the case through the doctrines of sovereignty, use of force, and head-of-state immunity (Sterio, 2026; Matei, 2026); analysts from the Council on Foreign Relations (2026) focused on Venezuela’s humanitarian and migratory crisis; and Brookings scholars as an issue of strategic transition and wider geopolitical fallout (Anderson et al., 2026).
These comprehensive and factual institutional accounts play a role in the development of a unified assessment of how US posturing and direct military intervention have jointly restructured Venezuelan governance, strained the legal architecture of sovereignty, and intensified pressures on regional stability.
Politically, sustained US pressure has disrupted established chains of authority and governance in Venezuela, leading to tactical realignment as well as reshaped the strategic calculations of opposition movements (Esberg, 2022), thereby altering the internal balance of power and the conditions under which governance is exercised. Legally, the measures adopted by Washington have provoked significant controversy regarding the scope of sovereign humanity, the permissible limits of force under jus ad bellum and the expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The cumulative interaction of sanctions regimes, maritime enforcement measures and military actions has exacerbated economic contraction and intensified displacement pressure among already vulnerable civilian populations. These developments when taken together reverberate across the Americas.
This article is structured in four parts: (1) it reconstructs the escalation itself, tracing the movement from sanctions, criminalisation and naval deployments to direct military intervention in January 2026; (2), it assesses the political consequences within Venezuela, focusing on disruptions to state authority, elite realignment, and the changing strategic position of opposition actors; (3), it assesses the legal implications of the escalation, particularly in relation to sovereignty, the use of force, head-of-state immunity, and the expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction; and (4) it considers how these combined effects shape prospects for regional stability in Venezuela and South America, especially through displacement, diplomatic fragmentation, and the weakening of multilateral norms.
From Sanctions to Seizure – the Narrative and the Facts
The US-Venezuela confrontation was not an abrupt transformation into open military intervention. Rather, it evolved through cumulative escalations in which economic coercion, legal criminalisation, and maritime militarisation formed a sequential architecture of pressure. This understanding is key because the political, legal and regional consequences are products of an integrated strategy rather than isolated policy instruments – the escalation reflects not episodic crisis management but a shift in the mode through which Washington pursued its objectives in Venezuela.
The first stage of escalation intensified the long-standing sanctions regime that had progressively restricted Venezuela’s access to international finance, energy markets, and external trade. Under Executive Order 13808, US persons were prohibited from dealing in new debt of more than 90 days’ maturity for PDVSA and 30 days for the rest of the Venezuelan government, constraining Caracas’s ability to refinance obligations or raise new capital through ordinary finance channels (Office of Foreign Assets Control, 2026). The wider sanctions regime also blocked property and interests in property of the Government of Venezuela under US jurisdiction, while progressively extending designations to firms, intermediaries, and vessels involved in the oil trade11. In December 2025, for example, Washington sanctioned four companies and four tankers linked to Venezuelan oil exports, adding to earlier measures against shipping networks and more than 30 sanctioned vessels operating in Venezuelan waters (Psaledakis and Parraga, 2025; Ali et al., 2025).
These restrictions carried a particularly strong force as Venezuela remains structurally dependent on oil. Recent US government research noted that oil sales account for more than 88% of Venezuela’s exports and over half of its fiscal revenue (Federici et al., 2026). Amid the expansion of US sanctions, falling oil prices, hyperinflation, and chronic sectoral mismanagement – FDI stock in Venezuela fell comparably low. For example, China’s Venezuelan FDI stock fell from $3.5 billion in 2018 to $318 million by 2024 (Federici et al., 2026). Sanctions of this kind are widely understood as statecraft instruments intended to degrade state capacity and alter political incentives by constricting revenue streams, patronage networks, and access to external liquidity (Drezner, 2011).
In the Venezuelan case, the effect was to tighten fiscal constraints, reduce access to hard currency, and increase the costs of macroeconomic stabilisation in a petrostate whose governing apparatus depends heavily on export rents. The objective therefore was to convert economic pressure into political leverage by weakening the material basis through which the Venezuelan state reproduces its superstructural authority.
The second stage of escalation translated this economic pressure into military signalling. Military signalling is often the natural extension of economic statecraft, as it reinforces sanctions with visible force projection while maintaining formal thresholds below declared war – it is recognised as wealth-power transformation (Xiaotong, 2023). Under Operation Southern Spear, the US expanded its maritime presence in the Caribbean Basin through naval deployments, interdiction operations, and surveillance activities. While officially framed as counter-narcotics and regional security measures, these deployments nonetheless represented the largest sustained concentration of US naval power in the region in decades (Lotlana, 2026). The operational logic was clear: maritime control enabled monitoring of Venezuelan trade routes, increased the vulnerability of energy exports, and demonstrated readiness to escalate coercive measures if required. By positioning military assets proximate to Venezuelan territorial waters, Washington also reduced the operational distance between the transfer from coercive manoeuvres to direct action which in turn made the distinction between deterrence and military preparations increasingly ambiguous.
The third stage of escalation was the decisive shift from warships to seizure. There was a qualitative transformation in the character of US involvement in January 2026, when coercive pressure gave way to direct military action. Airstrikes against infrastructure in and around Caracas, coupled with the kidnapping and forced transfer of Venezuela’s head of state, Nicolas Maduro signalled that the White House had crossed the threshold separating coercive containment from overt intervention. The qualitative leap is clear between sanctions, coercive manoeuvres and direct intervention as overt military action produces immediate changes in political authority and territorial control (Lotlana, 2026). The significance of this threshold lies in its cumulative preparation as sanctions had already weakened fiscal resilience, juridical measures had delegitimised leadership internationally, maritime deployments had normalised military proximity. The intervention thus emerged from a pre-existing infrastructure of coercion rather than representing an isolated or spontaneous escalation where each prior measure reduced the political and operational costs of direct action.
Consequently, the January 2026 operation should be understood not as an isolated military episode but as the culmination of a structured escalation pathway. The transition from sanctions to seizure was sequential and mutually reinforcing. This integrated progression set the conditions under which the political, legal, and regional consequences could be examined.
Political Impacts
As assessed already, the political consequences of the escalation did not arrive because of the removal of an incumbent executive but emerged from the disruption of the institutional and material foundations through which authority had been organised within Venezuela.
The political impact cannot be adequately described as a regime collapse, nor as a straightforward liberal opening. Instead, it is more accurately understood as a forced re-composition of the Venezuelan state under conditions of external coercion for the reason that the US intervention did not abolish the existing apparatus; it displaced the apex of executive command while leaving much of the ruling architecture intact. Therefore, what followed was not an institutional tabula rasa but a rupture in executive continuity and a widened opportunity structure for domestic and foreign opposition groups to exploit without a transfer of institutional power to opposition groups. Resultingly, it created an opportunity to subordinate the transitional order of interim President Delcy Rodriguez under a logic of diplomatic normalisation and sanctions relief. However, these are all distinct processes unified by a common mechanism: US escalation altered the material and coercive conditions through which political authority in Venezuela could be reproduced.
Interruption of Executive Command
The most immediate and measurable political effect was the interruption of executive command. On 3rd January 2026, US forces conducted operations in Caracas that resulted in the removal of President Nicolas Maduro from office. Two days later, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as interim president before the National Assembly in front of 283 legislators, the majority affiliated with PSUV (Reuters, 2026a). This fact means that the intervention evidently did not dissolve the domestic institutional architecture of the state but forced a rapid substitution of executive authority within an otherwise intact Chavista political structure.
The Political Transmission Belt
The presidency co-ordinates the armed forces, intelligence oversight, cabinet discipline, oil policy and inter-agency command. The forcible interruption of this therefore produces more than a leadership turnover; it disrupts the transmission belt through which decisions travel from the centre to the bureaucracy, the military and regional authorities. Unlike an electoral succession, where continuity has the potential to be mediated through recognised procedure, the January transition took place under conditions of external force. The result was therefore an exceptional succession resting on the immediate need to preserve governability.
Venezuela Structurally Bound to Oil
Venezuela entered the intervention already weakened as a petro-state. The state’s political order remained structurally bound to oil even after the collapse of its productive base. The country still holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves yet the output that stood at roughly 3 million barrels per day 20 years ago had fallen to a fraction of that level after years of underinvestment, operational decay, sanctions and mismanagement (Monaldi et al., 2021). Its decline was a few years recent and steep – CFR notes that Venezuela was still producing close to 2.5 million barrels per day as recently as 2016 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). By the 2020s, their output hit its lowest level in decades. Against that background, the significance of the January 2026 operation becomes clearer: Venezuela’s oil exports had rebounded to 800,000 barrels per day in January, up from around 500,000 barrels per day in December 2025 after the end of the US oil blockade which meant an increase of roughly 60% in a single month (Parraga, 2026a).
By early March, the new US licensing environment had already enabled the export of about 27 million barrels of Venezuelan oil (Parraga, 2026b), while PDVSA had accumulated 4.8 million barrels of diluted crude oil in storage by the end of February. In a rent-dependent formation of this kind, the forcible removal of the executive immediately led to an immediate crisis over control of the rent circuit itself: foreign exchange access, oil contracting authority, storage and shipping channels, and the institutions that convert export earnings into fiscal distribution, political patronage, and coercive stability. Simply, the January seizure disrupted command over the material infrastructure through which Chavista rule had long been reproduced and allowed the US to impose its own terms upon the Venezuelan government.
The Recalibration of Power
Unlike typical regime change operations, there was no full-scale fragmentation of Chavismo. Instead, the intervention placed the ruling government under acute stress and triggered a rapid struggle over the control of strategic institutions. Reuters reported on 17 January that Rodriguez, “facing internal division,” moved to gain control of the state by appointing a new central bank chief, a new presidential chief of staff and a new head of DGCIM, the Venezuelan military counterintelligence agency (Reuters, 2026b). The very choice of these institutions is revealing: (1) control over the central bank is especially important since Venezuela’s crisis has long been mediated through exchange-rate instability, inflation and its access to hard currency; (2) control over the presidential staff since executive coordination is the means by which a transitional leadership can convert formal office into operative command; (3) control over DGCIM means that intelligence and counterintelligence can be used as instruments to contain dissent.
Simply, Rodriguez’s early moves indicate that the key issue after Maduro’s removal was to concretely capture the financial, administrative, and coercive nodes through which the state is held together while operating under US coercion and not upheaval.
The Sensational Coverage of Widening Opposition Opportunities in the Media
Although there was no corresponding transfer of institutional power, Maduro’s removal weakened the incumbent centre of command though it did not transfer the state’s apparatus to the opposition17. The Assembly that swore in Rodriguez was still dominated by ruling-party legislators because opposition forces had boycotted the May elections (Reuters, 2025). Thus, although the intervention opened space for opposition actors theatrically, the core representative institutions of the state remained under Chavista control. This created a situation that appeared significant in narrative than in substance as the opposition gained an opening in the strategic field with no command over the formal machinery of governance. This distinction should not be blurred: a political opening is not identical to a political takeover.
The post-January order widened the range of possible opposition action such as public re-entry, negotiations over political prisoners, and renewed international recognition (Dib, 2026). However, it did so within an institutional landscape still largely structured by the ruling party, consequently creating an asymmetrical effect as oppositional actors had the capacity to act with greater visibly as well as greater expectations of future influence, yet they still confronted a state whose legislature, party apparatus, and coercive institutions remained shaped by Chavista incumbency. This helps to explain why the opposition’s strategic gains remained partial. The month of February suggested renewed political motion for the opposition, including the return of prominent opposition figures to the national scene (Cabrices and Ball, 2026). Under these conditions, the political field entered a liminal phase in which the opposition benefited from the weakening of the executive centre while the ruling bloc retained its institutional supremacy. This is precisely why “regime change” is too crude a description of the political outcome, as what emerged was a dual condition: diminished executive coherence on one side, but persistent Chavista institutional entrenchment on the other.
Selective Liberalisation and Diplomatic Normalisation
Domestic political adjustment inside Venezuela was directly linked to the expectations of external recognition, sanctions management, and investment reopening. On 24 February, Foro Penal had verified 545 political-prisoner releases since January, with 91 of those occurring after the passage of an amnesty law on 20 February (Foro Penal, 2026; Reuters, 2026c). The government, for its part, claimed that around 2,200 people had either been released or had legal restrictions lifted (Reuters, 2026d). Whatever the discrepancy between official and NGO counts, the political significance remains. The interim government moved to reduce sections of their coercive burden that had characterised the late-Maduro rule and displayed their acceptance to external coercion.
This liberalisation was a direct result of diplomatic normalisation and coercive efforts on behalf of the US On 5 March 2026, the US and Venezuela agreed to re-establish diplomatic and consular relations, with Washington framing the move as one that would assist a “peaceful transition” and support political reconciliation, stability and economic recovery (U.S. Department of State, 2026). In early March, Rodriguez met US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, discussed changes to mining regulations, and moved to submit a reform of Venezuela’s mining law to the National Assembly to reduce bureaucratic barriers and attract capital (Cano, 2026a; Cano, 2026b).
It is evident the state began to orient more legislative and regulatory changes through a negotiated relation with the U.S and foreign capital which resultingly meant political authority became dependent on the prospect of diplomatic reopening, sanctions relief and renewed extractive accumulation (Cano and Hussein, 2026). The material parameters of governance were increasingly set in relation to external approval. In that respect, the political effects of escalation extended beyond succession and factional manoeuvre but the adjustment of Venezuelan sovereignty within the orbit of US-mediated normalisation.
Taken together, these developments show that the political consequences of US escalation were neither exhausted by Maduro’s removal nor adequately captured by the vocabulary of regime change. The intervention ruptured executive continuity, compelled a rapid struggle over the financial and coercive organs of the state, widened opposition opportunity without delivering institutional transfer, and tied the transitional order to selective liberalisation and diplomatic rehabilitation. The net result was not the resolution of Venezuela’s political crisis but a reorganisation of it. Sovereign executive power was replaced in a reconfigured form: less concentrated domestically, more permeable to opposition re-entry, and more visibly conditioned to liberalisation.
Legal Impacts – the UNSC Charter
The January operation marked the point at which US coercive and legally questionable diplomacy into a direct challenge to the legal architecture of sovereignty. The central issue is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which requires that states refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except where force is authorised by the UNSC or justified as self-defence under Article 51 (United Nations, 1945). In the Venezuelan case, neither condition was met. There was no UNSC mandate for the strikes on Caracas nor for the forcible capture of Nicolas Maduro5, and no credible claim that Venezuela had launched an armed attack against the United States. According to Professor Marc Weller of Chatham House, the capture of Maduro and the accompanying attacks had no justification in international law while the UN Secretary-General warned that the action set a “dangerous precedent” (Weller, 2026). UN experts likewise condemned the operation as a “grave, manifest and deliberate violation” of international law and a clear breach of Article 2(4) (OHCHR, 2026).
The Legal Rationale and Absence of Justification
Washington’s stated legal rationale rested instead on a hybrid enforcement logic: Maduro had been indicted on narcotics charges, the operation was framed in part through counter-narcotics and criminal-enforcement language, and the Trump administration has treated those accusations as sufficient to blur the distinction between law enforcement and interstate force (Olay, 2026). Yet this reasoning is precisely what legal scholars reject. Criminal allegations, even serious ones, do not furnish a standing legal entitlement to use armed force on the territory of another sovereign state. Allowing indictments or narcotics designations as legally acceptable justifications for cross-border seizure would be to convert domestic prosecutorial claims into unilateral exceptions to the prohibition on force5.
Many scholars have pushed the same line, arguing that the absence of any serious legal justification from Washington is itself revealing: the US acted first and left the law behind (Weller, 2026; Sterio, 2026; Matei, 2026). The legal significance of the case therefore lies not only in the violence used, but in the fusion of criminal process, sanctions policy, and military force into a single enforcement continuum.
Head of State Immunity
The question of head-of-state immunity poses another issue (International Law Commission, 2007). Maduro’s defence in US court rests in part on the claim that, as a sitting head of state at the time of capture, he possessed immunity ratione personae from foreign criminal jurisdiction. AP noted that this dispute revives unusually sensitive questions in U.S. courts about the prosecution of incumbent foreign leaders and echoes the Noriega precedent (Goodman and Tucker, 2026). The issue is not merely technical; immunity is not absolute across all contexts as witnessed with the ICTY and recognition questions can complicate the analysis.
However, the issue at hand begins prior to the courtroom: the legal claim of immunity was generated by an operation that several scholars already regard as an unlawful use of force. The separation of Maduro’s immunity claim from the wider laws on recognition and the prohibition on force implies that once forcible seizure becomes an available instrument, immunity can be emptied of much of its practical content for weaker state leaders.
The broader precedent is therefore deeply asymmetrical. If the operation were to be treated as lawful, it would imply that a powerful state may indict a foreign leader, invoke criminality, bypass the UNSC, strike targets in a sovereign capital, and transfer that leader abroad for prosecution (Selvaraj, 2026). This would not only weaken the prohibition of force; it would juridically reorganise it around disparities of power. This is why the Venezuelan case, and the previous War on Terror appear to be stress-tests for whether the Charter system still constrains unilateral force when the acting state possesses an overwhelming military capacity and UNSC insulation. The legal consequence of the 2025–26 escalation is therefore not only that Venezuela’s sovereignty was breached, but that the already fragile boundary separating coercive diplomacy from armed intervention was pushed further toward collapse.
What does this mean for the Americas?
South America absorbed a large displacement crisis and any potential renewed political or economic shock in Venezuela risks intensifying pressure on neighbouring territories whose borders and public services already face strain. Approximately 8 million people have left Venezuela (UNHCR, 2026a) and Colombia alone absorbed more than 2.8 million Venezuelan migrants (UNHCR, 2026b). Even when diplomatic normalisation and sanctions waivers have the potential to create short-term optimism across the region, Venezuela’s economic and humanitarian position appears fragile and marked by triple-digit inflation as well as rapid currency depreciation.
The result is not merely a region under humanitarian strain but one experiencing multidimensional stress across governance, security, and legal order. Host states are compelled to absorb large migrant populations into already fragile fiscal and institutional systems, often without sufficient international support, while border regions become increasingly exposed to illicit economies and armed actors that exploit displacement flows. At the same time, migration governance across South America has fragmented into an uneven patchwork of regularisation schemes, restrictions, and ad hoc enforcement, leading to policy incoherence across the region. These material pressures are compounded by deepening ideological divisions following US intervention, which have weakened regional diplomatic coordination and undermined confidence in multilateral institutions. Crucially, the erosion of the legal prohibition on the use of force introduces a normative instability: it signals that sovereignty protections are contingent, encouraging strategic hedging and reducing reliance on collective security frameworks. The Venezuelan crisis is no longer a contained national collapse but a structural regional transformation in which displacement, weakened legal norms, and geopolitical fragmentation interact to make stability across South America increasingly fragile and contingent.
The result is an unstable wider region of South America as the combination of legal violations, diplomatic fragmentation and migratory spill-overs makes South America strategically brittle. The broader conclusion, then, is that US escalation against Venezuela has not simply altered one state’s internal balance; it has weakened multilateral confidence, sharpened ideological division across the hemisphere, and made regional stability more contingent on power rather than law.
Bibliography
Ali, I. (2025) U.S.-Venezuela tensions rise as U.S. warships arrive in southern Caribbean. Reuters.
Ali, I., Stewart, P., Khan, S. and Parraga, M. (2025) Trump orders ‘blockade’ of sanctioned oil tankers leaving, entering Venezuela. Reuters.
Anderson, S., Brockwehl, A. et al. (2026) Making sense of the US military operation in Venezuela. Brookings Institution.
Cabrices, R. and Ball, C. (2026) Is Venezuela getting ready for post-Maduro elections? Caracas Chronicles.
Cano, R. (2026a) Venezuela is offering security assurances to foreign mining companies, US Interior Secretary says. Associated Press.
Cano, R. (2026b) Venezuelan lawmakers open debate on a mining bill to lure foreign capital. Associated Press.
Cano, R. and Hussein, F. (2026) US issues a license that authorizes sales of Venezuelan gold. Associated Press.
Council on Foreign Relations (2024) Venezuela: The rise and fall of a petrostate. Council on Foreign Relations.
Council on Foreign Relations (2026) Humanitarian crisis in Venezuela conference transcript. Council on Foreign Relations.
Dib, L. (2026) Two months without Maduro in Venezuela: democratic transition or authoritarian adaptation? Washington Office on Latin America.
Drezner, D. (2011) ‘Sanctions sometimes smart: targeted sanctions in theory and practice’, International Studies Review, 13(1), pp. 96–108.
Esberg, J. (2022) ‘How exile shapes online opposition: evidence from Venezuela’, American Political Science Review, 116(3), pp. 1045–1060.
Federici, J. et al. (2026) China–Venezuela fact sheet: a short primer on the relationship. U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Foro Penal (2026) Foro Penal actualiza cifras de excarcelados y beneficiados por la ley de amnistía. Foro Penal.
Goodman, J. and Tucker, E. (2026) Maduro’s case will revive a legal debate over immunity for foreign leaders tested in Noriega trial. Associated Press.
International Law Commission (2007) Immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. United Nations.
Jarast, F. (2026) Venezuela beyond the use of force and Maduro’s immunity. Opinio Juris.
Lotlana, A. (2025) Sanctions to warships: American mobilisation near Venezuela. Atlas Institute for International Affairs.
Lotlana, A. (2026) Sanctions to seizure: Washington’s use of military force in Venezuela. Atlas Institute for International Affairs.
Matei, A. (2026) Has the U.S. operation against Maduro changed the prohibition on the use of force? Opinio Juris.
Monaldi, F. et al. (2021) ‘The collapse of the Venezuelan oil industry: the role of above-ground risks limiting foreign investment’, Energy Policy, 149, 112–124.
Office of Foreign Assets Control (2026) Venezuela sanctions FAQ. U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2026) UN experts condemn US aggression against Venezuela. United Nations.
Olay, M. (2026) Trump announces U.S. military’s capture of Maduro. U.S. Department of War.
Parraga, M. (2026a) Venezuela oil exports rise sharply in January under US control, data shows. Reuters.
Parraga, M. (2026b) Venezuela resumes exports of diluted crude oil after 15-month pause. Reuters.
Psaledakis, D. and Parraga, M. (2025) US issues fresh sanctions targeting Venezuela’s oil sector. Reuters.
Reuters (2025) Venezuela ruling party keeps control of legislature amid opposition division. Reuters.
Reuters (2026a) Delcy Rodríguez formally sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president. Reuters.
Reuters (2026b) Venezuela’s new leader, facing internal division, moves to tighten her grip on power. Reuters.
Reuters (2026c) Just over 540 political prisoners freed in Venezuela, NGO says. Reuters.
Reuters (2026d) Nearly 2,200 people have benefitted from Venezuela amnesty law, lawmaker says. Reuters.
Selvaraj, J. (2026) If unilateral force becomes normalized, who will be disciplined next and by whom? The structural vulnerability of Third World sovereignty. Opinio Juris.
Sterio, M. (2026) The United States’ attack against Venezuela: might does not make right. Opinio Juris.
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. United Nations.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2026a) Venezuela situation. United Nations.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2026b) Colombia. United Nations.
U.S. Department of State (2026) A statement on U.S.–Venezuela relations. U.S. Government.
Weller, M. (2026) The US capture of President Nicolas Maduro – and attacks on Venezuela – have no justification in international law. Chatham House.
Xiaotong, Z. (2023) New economic statecraft: China, the United States and the European Union. Routledge.
