The Nuremberg Tribunal, 1946 famously said that “to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Disregarding that legacy (ironically forged primarily by the United States of America), president Trump, the self-proclaimed ‘president of peace’ (who famously denounced the Iraq invasion as a “big, fat mistake”) bombed Caracas in 2026, without the US Congress’s approval and in flagrant violation of every canon of international law. In seeking to revive the Monroe Doctrine (which implicitly seeks hemispheric hegemony, and is therefore destabilising for the whole world order), president Trump sees South America as the US sphere of influence. As Thucydides said when describing Athens, for Trump “the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must”.Dissecting global ripples from VenezuelaLet us consider the myriad implications. Firstly, there was no special session of the United Nations Security Council or United Nations General Assembly to authorise a war or any credible military threat from Venezuela that could plausibly justify a claim of self-defence. This direct kinetic strike has assigned the United Nations (UN) Charter (whose Article 2 clearly stipulates that all Members of the UN shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state and which was forged in the aftermath of a 100 million deaths in the World Wars to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”) and the rules-based international order to the dustbin of history.Secondly, this episode raises serious concerns about national sovereignty. Nothing can justify the rendition of the sitting head of the government of another sovereign country. Irrespective of how bad a nation’s leadership is (something that some US and EU leaders are asserting to whitewash what Trump did), it is for the people of that nation to alter who can lead them. “Humanitarian invasions” (whatever that is) are a brazen violation of democratic principles. As history has shown us, such invasions will inevitably be followed by neo-colonial extractive policies that will reduce the nation to a managed asset.Thirdly, even though reactions will be split along partisan lines in (for example, president Milei will inevitably applaud president Trump), South American leaders and strategic thinkers will be privately musing what this precedent means for their own security. The concern won’t be ideological; it will be strategic. After all, US-backed interventions in South America (Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976 and Panama in 1989) did not lead to greater stability, democracy or prosperity.Only recently, Trump pressurised Panama to sell the Hong Kong company that owned ports surrounding the Panama Canal to a US company. He is also threatening to bomb Mexico. Additionally, 2026 will see two key elections in Brazil (October) and Columbia (May) which Trump may indirectly interfere in. So like Colombian president Gustavo Petro, who has come out very strongly against US actions in Venezuela, other nations in Latin America will be planning for the worst case scenario. Across the Atlantic, Europe’s studied silence against this shredding of international rules (after spending years telling the world how inviolable these principles were, when it was talking about Ukraine’s sovereignty) has send a stark message to the Global South about EU’s credibility and dependability.This will be exacerbated by the fact that in operationalising the “might is right” and spheres of influence doctrines, Trump has clearly ‘left’ West Asia to Israel and Ukraine to Russia and Europe (it is noteworthy that in 2019, Fiona Hill testified that the Russian government was “signaling very strongly that they wanted to somehow make some very strange swap agreement between Venezuela and Ukraine”). If the law of the jungle is now the new norm, then what’s stopping Russia and China from launching similar operations in Ukraine and Taiwan (especially given China has always framed the Taiwan issue as an internal affair)? Furthermore what is stopping Trump from invading Greenland or even Canada tomorrow (threats made just weeks ago)? Will Denmark invoke NATO’s article five (which is essentially an agreement between all NATO members that if one is attacked then the others support them)? It’s shuddering to even imagine where this doctrine leaves the Palestinians.Fourthly, it is widely acknowledged that Venezuela’s bombing and regime change was not about drugs or any democratic concerns. After all, Honduras’ former president Hernández was tried and convicted for importing 400 tons of illegal drugs into the US and Trump pardoned him. So this war is certainly not about curbing narco-terrorism. Additionally, Trump has openly supported former president Bolsonaro, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, the Syrian president (an ISIS commander) and other equally brutal leaders as Venezuela’s president Maduro. So clearly Trump wasn’t motivated by some great love for democratic values. This was about using Venezuela as a resource vending machine.Nine months before the 2024 election, Trump said he wanted Venezuela to collapse so he can take them over for oil, which was mirrored by U.S. Southern Command chief General Laura Richardson (although she went further and spoke about the need to control oil, lithium, gold, and rare earth minerals, and in that context spoke about Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile). Clearly then, the goal was to create the conditions for capital accumulation for Trump’s crony capitalists (it is on record that US oil companies donated about USD 445 million for president Trump’s campaign in 2024). The larger question is whether this logic will be imposed on any nation where there is profit to be made, or supply lines to be secured?Fifthly, Venezuela has 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (the largest in the world, valued at USD 17.3 trillion if crude is taken to trade at USD 57 per barrel). Obviously the US also wants control of this. However, oil is just one of the headlines because even though Venezuelan oil reserves amount to 17-18% of global reserves, they account for only 1-1.5% of global production (for a plethora of reasons including underdevelopment and underinvestment). This whole operation was primarily a strategic currency defence operation. Venezuela was trading that oil to China and other nations in non-dollar currencies including Chinese yuan, euros and rubles (even announcing in 2018 that it would “free itself from the dollar”).Venezuela was also petitioning to join BRICS (which is currently also exploring currency alternatives to the dollar) and collaborating with China on Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) (a payment systems beyond SWIFT that already has nearly 5000 banks in 185 nations). Collectively, this would have severely impacted the hegemony of the petro-dollar. In effecting a regime change in Venezuela, president Trump has bought a lifeline for the dollar, but this move will inevitably spark a hard rethink amongst Iran, North Korea, Russia and BRICS nations (especially China). If they begin to think that the dollar’s hegemony is maintained exclusively through force (and not mutual economic benefit, an impression which has gathered steam because of president Trump’s sanctions and tariffs, weaponisation of SWIFT and seizure of assets of Russian oligarchs), they will aggressively start exploring alternatives, which the US will then be forced to retaliate against.One of those alternatives might unfortunately be increased nuclearisation. Iran and other nations might decide that the only way to secure their sovereignty is through nuclear weapons and that disarmament is suicide. This is inevitably going to make the world a much more dangerous and unstable place.Sixthly, the US is now in control of the largest oil reserves in the world, over 8000 tonnes of gold, 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (34th largest reserves in the world), 8,000+ tons of gold resources (largest in Latin America), four billion tons of iron ore reserves (worth nearly USD 600 billion), about two percent of freshwater supplies and rare earths like nickel, copper, and phosphates (access to which will presumably will be guaranteed by whichever regime is installed in Venezuela, whether led by vice President delcy Rodríguez or Nobel laureate María Corina Machado).This means it will be insulated against any global fluctuations in oil prices and could (if it so wishes) weaponise oil prices, using them as a geopolitical bargaining chip. It also means that the US just annexed a massive supply chain of battery and chip inputs (future war inputs), reducing dependency on China (which had weaponised its dominance over rare earths and critical minerals in retaliation to US tariffs). It also means that the economic cost of escalation have dramatically lowered and US’ behaviour in West Asia and Africa will now be much more unfettered and extractive.Finally, the ‘rules‑based’ international order was underwritten – by structured rules and US military restraint. Clearly after the sanctions and tariffs, and now Venezuela, that era is over. Venezuela is a strategic precedent, and the US is merely recalibrating its strategic presence for a larger strategic competition with China. It also demonstrates that the US will readily use force to realign the global balance of power. This is not lost on the world, especially China and Russia (who resist the West’s insistence that the only way to be modern is its way). This moment officially marks the beginning of the New Cold War between US, China and Russia (with the world splitting into strategic factions for all domains – mirroring Kissinger’s Balance of Powers theory). This new Cold War is about the future, where the imagined global village will henceforth be a gladiatorial contest. There will be increased factionalism in international and regional multilateral organisations. Nations will split into blocs (and even go to wars) over the control of global supply chains and choke points. And global trade and economy will become even more insular (given it’ll be all nations for themselves). This will especially impact agriculture, energy, rare earths, AI and technology, and defence and space.Implications and way forward for IndiaThis situation has multiple implications for India’s position. Unlike what External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said, we don’t have the luxury of not defending ourselves with force simply because another nation’s economy is larger than ours. Even if there is force asymmetry, India will need to take urgent stock of power projection capabilities. This is especially because PM Modi’s personalised and propaganda driven diplomacy (claims of being a Vishwaguru, leader of the Global South, manufactured diaspora events etc.) are not going to help India in this phase of global politics.Thirdly, for those hawks in India who welcome spheres of influence need to shed their blinkers. As the post Operation Sindoor world proves, Trump sees South Asia as Pakistan’s stomping ground (which is why it supported a defence pact, greater financial support and favourable trade and tariff deals). In his mind, India is a nation of the periphery (which was further reinforced in the 2025 US National Security Strategy). This is exacerbated by Modi’s failed foreign policy because of which Nepal (the only Hindu nation in the world) is anti-India, as is Bangladesh (a nation India helped liberate), Maldives (which a short time ago, expelled our troops from its nation) and China, who allegedly helped Pakistan during Operation Sindoor and has captured our land in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, yet remains India’s biggest trading partner under the Modi government (we imported USD 127 billion worth of goods in 2024). It is therefore high time that PM Modi openly acknowledges his mistakes and embraces non-alignment (which the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) has rebranded as multi-alignment to avoid political embarrassment).Although the Modi government’s foreign policy has failed on numerous counts, consider India’s innate strengths – India anchors the Indo-Pacific, sits astride the Indian Ocean, can play a constructive role in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region, and complicates China’s two-front planning. We need to urgently capitalise on these natural advantages. Additionally, we need to urgently enhance our manufacturing and tech capabilities (which necessitates ramping up research and development budgets and restoring scientific temperament – both of which have declined under the Modi government in the last decade).India also needs to urgently scale up our manufacturing and tech capabilities (which necessitates augmenting research and development budgets, as well as restoring pedagogic autonomies and scientific temperament – both of which have declined under the Modi government in the last decade). We will also need to reassert public-sector control over critical sectors like energy, infrastructure, data/digital-finance, defence, space, water, education, healthcare and agriculture, which are essential for our national security and to provision for all Indians (and not just the few).We will also have to strategically deploy our Public-Sector-Units like China’s State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to further our foreign policy goals. India must also align with likeminded forces in the Global South to press for an urgent overhaul of international financial institutions to secure fairer representation to Global South economies. Only then can we fight for fair-trade policies that protect India’s industries and sectors, and enable us to forge with equitable trade partnerships bilateral and regional economic alliances.We will also need to be nimble-footed to tackle dynamic geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which also necessitates restoring stability in our neighbourhood. It is therefore critical for Modi to restrain himself and hardliners in his party from attacking Bangladesh, Canada, China or any other nation (including Pakistan) to score political points. We need to engage them and have difficult conversations, and embed solutions for lasting peace – which is the only guarantee for India’s continued development and prosperity.And most importantly, India (which has a rich legacy of exerting moral force in the Korean conflict, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, against Apartheid etc.) will need to take a principled stance on thorny global issues, including Venezuela. The BJP government cannot look the other way just because it expects relief on US-tariffs and a better US-India deal (which the BJP government is unlikely to achieve anyway).Actualising this means shedding partisanship, and reaching out to the opposition so its rich institutional memory and expertise can be leveraged to create a visionary national foreign policy doctrine. Apart from forging consensus on where we should be heading as a nation, and how we get there, there also needs to be continuity in foreign policy. For this, Modi needs to stop treating the opposition as the enemy and see them as genuine partners in national development. India has a rare window of opportunity to realise her manifest destiny in the emerging world order, and we cannot miss this because the BJP prioritised petty politics over the national interest.Pushparaj Deshpande is Samruddha Bharat Foundation’s Director & Editor of The Great Indian Manthan (Penguin).