In the sweltering heat of Caracas, the echoes of U.S. airstrikes still reverberate through shattered streets and stunned communities. On January 3, American forces executed a lightning operation that toppled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, placing him in U.S. custody and igniting a firestorm of global condemnation. President Donald Trump, in a defiant White House address, declared that the United States would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” with an eye on restarting Venezuela’s vast oil flows to bolster American energy security. For many observers, this audacious move—framed by the Trump administration as a humanitarian intervention against a “narco-dictator”—marks not just a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but a stark reminder of the perils of superpower overreach in an increasingly multipolar world.
The parallels to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine are impossible to ignore, yet the asymmetries in global response are equally glaring. When Moscow annexed Ukrainian territory and the West swiftly froze approximately $300 billion in Russian central bank assets, it shattered the illusion of the U.S. dollar as a neutral global reserve currency. That financial weaponization—coordinated by the U.S., EU, and allies—did not merely punish Russia; it sowed seeds of doubt worldwide. “If it can happen to them, it can happen to us,” became the unspoken mantra in chancelleries from Brasília to Beijing, propelling a quiet but inexorable trend toward de-dollarization. Central banks, from those in the BRICS bloc to emerging markets in Southeast Asia, began diversifying reserves into gold, yuan- denominated assets, and bilateral trade pacts bypassing the dollar entirely. By late 2025, the dollar’s share in global trade had eroded to around 54 percent, down from a post-World War II peak of 76 percent, with projections for 2026 warning of further slippage toward a precarious 50 percent threshold.
Also Read: US attack on Venezuela: Dadagiri or drama
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, exemplified this strategic reticence in a thread of subtle maneuvers that analysts are now dubbing the “Modi Doctrine.” Without fanfare, New Delhi allowed U.S. Treasury holdings to mature without reinvestment, slashed new purchases by tens of billions, and pivoted toward gold and silver stockpiles—reaching historic highs in domestic silver prices to fuel ambitions in solar energy, electric vehicles, and defense. Bilateral rupee-ruble trade with Russia, formalized amid Western sanctions, is on track to hit $100 billion annually, incorporating yuan settlements to sidestep dollar dependency. “This isn’t about hating the dollar,” as one Indian geopolitical commentator noted recently. “It’s about not being hostage to it.” Such shifts underscore a broader realignment: not a chaotic unraveling, but a gradual erosion where empires fall loudly while new systems rise quietly.
Enter Venezuela, where the U.S. has now crossed from economic coercion to kinetic action. After months of escalating rhetoric and military buildup in the region—bolstered by Trump’s return to the Oval Office—the strikes targeted key regime sites, capturing Maduro with minimal reported casualties on the U.S. side. Trump touted the operation as a “decisive blow against socialism and crime,” promising to “get the oil flowing” to alleviate domestic pressures from global energy volatility. Yet, as Venezuelan crowds in Caracas mingled tentative celebrations with palpable anxiety—fearing a power vacuum or prolonged occupation—the world beyond America’s borders recoiled in alarm.
Global reactions have been swift and stratified, revealing the fault lines of a fractured international order. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres decried the strikes as a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the UN Charter’s prohibitions on force against sovereign states. In Latin America, the epicenter of unease, leaders from Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum to Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva issued blistering condemnations, warning of a “return to gunboat diplomacy” that could destabilize the hemisphere. “This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. This is deeply concerning and condemnable,” Sheinbaum stated, echoing sentiments from Bogotá to Buenos Aires.
Beyond the Americas, the response blends outrage with calculated caution. China’s Foreign Ministry labeled the intervention “hegemonic bullying,” vowing to safeguard multilateralism while quietly advancing yuan-based oil deals with sanctioned states—a nod to its own de-dollarization playbook. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, whose Ukraine gambit drew near-universal Western rebuke, struck a wry note: “The rules apply to some, but not others,” his spokesperson quipped, hinting at opportunistic alliances in the Global South. India, ever the balancer, urged “restraint and dialogue” without naming the U.S., a stance that aligns with Modi’s non-aligned ethos amid whispers of a four-way global shake-up involving Trump, Putin, Xi, and himself.
Will these U.S. actions face the same chorus of sanctions and isolation that Russia endured over Ukraine? Early signs suggest not—or at least, not yet. While European allies like France and Germany expressed “profound concern” and called for UN mediation, there are no immediate threats of asset freezes or SWIFT exclusions against Washington. This perceived double standard fuels the de-dollarization fire: if the enforcer of the rules can flout them, why tether one’s economy to its currency? Surveys of reserve managers already indicate that the 2022 Russian freeze had “significant consequences,” with many accelerating diversifications; Venezuela could be the tipping point.
Geopolitically, the implications ripple far beyond Caracas. Analysts at the Atlantic Council warn that unilateral U.S. intervention risks alienating swing states in the Global South, hastening a “new world order” where power diffuses among rising poles—America’s unipolar moment yielding to a contested multipolarity. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, already experimenting with non-dollar petroyuan trades, may double down on sovereignty safeguards: fortified regional blocs, gold-backed reserves, and tech chokepoints like India’s nascent rare earth dominance. Yet uncertainty looms large. Could this provoke a unified BRICS retaliation, or fracture further into opportunistic hedging? Will oil markets spam, exacerbating dollar weakness amid Federal Reserve rate cuts and persistent geopolitical tremors?
As Trump eyes a “judicious transition”—a phrase that evokes Iraq’s quagmire more than liberation’s triumph—the world holds its breath. The bully may have bared its fangs, but in doing so, it has awakened a beast of its own making: a chorus of nations, from Moscow to Mumbai, resolved to claw back their autonomy. Whether this catalyzes a bolder defense of sovereignty or merely entrenches cynical realpolitik remains the defining question of 2026. For now, the global order teeters, its fractures exposed under the harsh light of interventionist ambition.
