The US-led operation in Caracas on January 3, 2026, resulting in the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro, is more than a Latin American crisis. It is a geopolitical earthquake that exposes a core truth: sovereignty is disposable when it obstructs a superpower’s interests.
Adrian Korczyński
For Central Europe, this precedent carries immediate and grave implications. If a sitting president can be taken by force, what guarantees remain for smaller states? The operation—airstrikes, the seizure of Maduro, and the instant claim on Venezuela’s oil—sent a message as old as geopolitics itself: power dictates terms.
History, now underscored by Caracas, shows that for mid-sized powers, alliances and norms are tools for the strong, not shields for the weak
Central European Perspective: A Lesson in Conditional Sovereignty
The nations of Central Europe have every reason to view this event with profound alarm. Venezuela is not merely about oil wealth; it is equally about its strategic pivot towards a Russia-China axis, which directly challenges the geopolitical architecture Washington seeks to maintain. The United States acted to break those ties. Thus, the urgent question for Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, and Bratislava becomes: What happens if a Central European state pursues “too” deep an economic or energy partnership with actors Washington opposes? The abduction in Caracas demonstrates that sovereignty is conditional—revocable by force if it challenges a hegemon’s design. This is a direct warning against blind trust in any distant protector.
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have borne significant costs as loyal allies—through military aid, sanctions regimes, and diplomatic alignment. Yet this loyalty buys no insurance. History, now underscored by Caracas, shows that for mid-sized powers, alliances and norms are tools for the strong, not shields for the weak. Compliance is no guarantee of security.
Historical Context and the Pattern of Intervention
The Caracas abduction fits a familiar pattern. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, US-led interventions have shown that international law bends before power and strategic need. Pretexts change, but the goal of asserting dominance remains constant. Europe has often played the role of junior partner, lending support while ceding control.
Central Europe knows this dynamic. EU and NATO mandates often reflect Washington’s strategy more than local realities. The costs—seen in frozen funds, disproportionate burdens, and political strains—are real. And as Venezuela proves, even faithful adherence offers no immunity when a superpower’s calculus shifts.
Potential Scenarios and the Imperative of Autonomy
Venezuela poses a stark question: what befalls a state whose partnerships conflict with a dominant ally’s interests? If Central Europe deepens ties with Eurasian powers, will it face only pressure, or could it, following the Maduro precedent, face something more severe? The lesson is clear: alignment is a conditional lease, not a permanent guarantee.
Central Europe must think beyond binary choices. Developing multi-vector relationships is no longer optional, but a necessity for survival. This means balancing Western ties with pragmatic engagement elsewhere. Strategic autonomy is not confrontation; it is the rational hedging of risks in a multipolar world. Failure to build these options dooms the region to perpetual dependency. This abstract warning, drawn from history and geopolitics, is crystallized into an immediate and tangible lesson by the very reaction of Europe’s own leaders to the Caracas precedent.
European Leaders’ Reactions: Restraint, Hypocrisy, and the Multipolarity Lesson
The official European reaction to the abduction in Caracas constitutes a masterclass in diplomatic hypocrisy, laying bare a fundamental truth: for Brussels and most Western capitals, the sanctity of international law is not a principle, but a variable, adjusted based on the identity of the violator.
The collective EU statement, supported by 26 member states with only Hungary withholding its signature, set the tone of calculated ambivalence. Its ritual invocation to uphold international law was strategically buried. The text’s true priority was revealed by its opening salvo: not the condemnation of an act of abduction, but the reiteration that Maduro “lacks legitimacy.” This established the core alibi: by first delegitimizing the victim, the violation of sovereignty could be framed as a secondary, almost technical detail. The subsequent call for “calm and restraint by all actors” completed the charade—a studiously neutral phrase that diluted culpability and avoided identifying the aggressor, granting diplomatic cover for a stark precedent.
This institutional caution was mirrored, with minor variations, in the hesitant rhetoric of national leaders. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz epitomized the evasive stance, declaring it “too early” for a legal judgement and labeling the assessment “complex.” He spent more breath detailing Maduro’s failures — “he led his country to ruin”—than on the illegality of the operation itself.
Similarly, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the situation “not straightforward,” and insisted it was “for the U.S. to justify the action,” while his spokesperson rushed to dismiss any comparison to other military interventions, revealing the deep anxiety over consistent application of principles.
French President Emmanuel Macron provided the most stark illustration of this cognitive dissonance. His initial, almost celebratory remark that Venezuelans “can only rejoice” was hastily walked back into a sterile, procedural disapproval of the “method employed,” which France “neither supported nor approved.” This pattern was clear: a subtle, often reluctant criticism of Washington’s method was always preceded or outweighed by a reaffirmation of the target’s illegitimacy.
Against this grey backdrop of ambivalence, two reactions from within Europe stood out for their clarity, though from diametrically opposed poles. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico delivered the most direct and unambiguous moral condemnation from any EU capital, labeling the event a “kidnapping” and the “latest American oil adventure,” a raw indictment of power erasing law.
At the other end of the spectrum, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán offered a purely amoral, pragmatic assessment. He bypassed the legal and ethical debate entirely, focusing solely on the potential economic outcome: combined U.S.-Venezuelan control over oil reserves could lower global energy prices, which was simply “good for energy markets.” By abstaining from the EU statement, Orbán practiced a cold form of multipolar realpolitik—neither endorsing nor condemning the precedent, but positioning his country to engage with all sides based solely on tangible interest.
The totality of the European response delivers a clear lesson to Central Europe: the principles of sovereignty are tools of selective enforcement. When another state acts, it is an existential crisis. When the self-appointed architect and enforcer of the prevailing order acts, it becomes a “complex” matter, rationalized by the victim’s flaws. This is the core hypocrisy of dependency. For Central Europe, alignment is no shield. The only durable strategy is the pragmatic cultivation of one’s own agency through true strategic autonomy.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Realpolitik
The takeaway from Caracas is not moral, but practical. In geopolitics, power and precedent are the true currencies. Central Europe cannot shelter behind parchment alliances. The only reliable insurance is pragmatic action: diversifying partnerships, reducing critical dependencies, and asserting sovereignty in deed.
Venezuela may be distant, but the precedent set there lands on Europe’s doorstep. The nations of Central Europe face a choice: remain dependent actors, absorbing risks crafted by others, or seize the initiative, diversify their ties, and defend their own interests with cold focus. Central Europe cannot wait for crises to arrive on its doorstep—action is the only protection. The abduction of Nicolás Maduro is a mirror held up to Europe’s own vulnerability. The time for strategic action is now.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
No comments:
Post a Comment