Key Takeaways:
- The attack on Venezuela in 2026 is a blatant breach of international law and a demonstration of the United States’ disregard for global norms.
- The international community’s response to the attack has been muted, with many countries and media outlets downplaying the severity of the situation.
- The United States’ actions are a reflection of its desire to maintain global hegemony and its willingness to use coercion and violence to achieve its goals.
- The silence and tacit support of the international community, including Western foreign policy analysts and media, enable the United States’ lawlessness and undermine efforts to hold it accountable.
- The normalization of lawlessness abroad has consequences for domestic cohesion and the rule of law, and can lead to a decline in moral responsibility and a rise in decadence.
Introduction to the Crisis
The year 2026 began with a sense of fragile hope that it would be better than the previous two years, which were marked by the horrific genocide in Gaza. However, this hope was short-lived, as the attack on Venezuela on January 3rd confirmed that the system would not pause and that dehumanizing actions had not reached their limit. The attack was a clear breach of international law, and the world’s reaction was one of surprise but not fury. This distinction matters, as outrage enforces norms, and shock without consequence merely rehearses impunity.
The International Community’s Response
The international community’s response to the attack on Venezuela has been characterized by a lack of outrage and a tendency to downplay the severity of the situation. Western analysts and media have moved quickly to make the event legible, reasonable, and ultimately forgettable. The dominant framings of the event have been familiar, with a focus on energy discipline, regional stability, geopolitical objectives, and the moral escape hatch of "messy, but necessary." These narratives launder power, converting a breach of law into strategic inevitability, and absolving the United States of responsibility.
The United States’ Actions and Motivations
The United States’ actions in Venezuela are a reflection of its desire to maintain global hegemony and its willingness to use coercion and violence to achieve its goals. The attack on Venezuela is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger pattern of behavior that includes the use of military force, economic sanctions, and regime change. The United States’ motivations are rooted in its desire to maintain its position as the world’s dominant power and to protect its interests, particularly in the energy sector.
The Consequences of Normalizing Lawlessness
The normalization of lawlessness abroad has consequences for domestic cohesion and the rule of law. When illegality is tolerated and even encouraged, it can lead to a decline in moral responsibility and a rise in decadence. The United States’ actions in Venezuela are a prime example of this, as the country’s leaders and citizens are willing to ignore or downplay the severity of the situation in order to maintain their country’s position of power. This has led to a situation in which the United States is able to act with impunity, and its actions are enabled by the silence and tacit support of the international community.
The Role of Liberal America
Liberal America has a significant role to play in enabling the United States’ lawlessness. Despite its rhetoric of outrage and concern, liberal America is often more focused on performance than actual change. This is reflected in the way that liberal America responds to crises such as the attack on Venezuela, with a focus on issuing statements and decrying genocide in carefully calibrated language, rather than taking concrete action to hold the United States accountable. This allows the United States to maintain its position of power and continue its lawless behavior, while also maintaining a veneer of legitimacy and moral authority.
The Global Implications
The attack on Venezuela has significant implications for the global order. The fact that the United States was able to act with impunity, and that the international community responded with silence and tacit support, sets a dangerous precedent for the future. It suggests that the rules-based international order is no longer effective, and that powerful countries are able to act as they please without fear of consequences. This has significant implications for global stability and security, and raises questions about the ability of the international community to hold powerful countries accountable for their actions.
The Need for Resistance
The need for resistance to the United States’ lawlessness is clear. The international community must be willing to speak out against the United States’ actions and to hold it accountable for its breaches of international law. This requires a fundamental shift in the way that the international community approaches issues of global governance and security, and a willingness to challenge the dominant narratives and power structures that enable the United States’ lawlessness. It also requires a recognition of the consequences of normalizing lawlessness abroad, and a commitment to upholding the principles of international law and human rights.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the attack on Venezuela is a stark reminder of the dangers of the United States’ lawlessness and the need for resistance. The international community must be willing to speak out against the United States’ actions and to hold it accountable for its breaches of international law. This requires a fundamental shift in the way that the international community approaches issues of global governance and security, and a willingness to challenge the dominant narratives and power structures that enable the United States’ lawlessness. The consequences of failure to do so are severe, and could lead to a decline in global stability and security, and a rise in decadence and lawlessness.
