The capture of Venezuela's leader by US forces has reignited a familiar and uncomfortable debate. Even if Washington believes its actions were justified, the operation raises serious doubts about respect for international law and the protections afforded to state sovereignty in an increasingly unstable world.

This is not, of course, the first time a foreign power has intervened in the domestic affairs of another state. America's own history is dotted with such episodes, from Vietnam to Panama to Iraq. Each was framed as necessary at the time, whether in the name of security, democracy, or humanitarian concern. Each also left a legacy of instability, civilian suffering, and long-term geopolitical fallout. The intervention in Venezuela now risks joining that list, reinforcing the perception that international norms apply unevenly, depending on who holds power.

The global context makes this action particularly alarming. The world is already strained by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing volatility in the Middle East, and the fragile balance of power across multiple regions. In such an environment, the last thing the international community needed was a dramatic unilateral military operation in Latin America. Rather than contributing to stability, it adds another fault line to an already fractured global landscape.

None of this is to defend Nicolas Maduro himself. Venezuelans have suffered enormously under his rule. But accountability pursued outside international law is not justice; it is force. If the principle becomes that powerful states may simply seize leaders they deem unwanted, the entire architecture of international law is weakened. Today it is Maduro; tomorrow it could be anyone deemed inconvenient.

This raises an unavoidable question: what was the true motivation behind Maduro's capture? Was it a genuine effort to restore democracy in Venezuela, long hollowed out by authoritarian rule? Was it primarily about longstanding drug trafficking allegations? Or is it impossible to separate the operation from Venezuela's vast oil reserves and their strategic appeal to Washington? The suspicion is that this was less about values and more about interests.

Those suspicions have only deepened in the days following the operation. President Donald Trump's renewed rhetoric about Greenland, Colombia, and Cuba suggests that Venezuela may not be an isolated case, but the opening move in a broader assertion of US power in the Western Hemisphere. Threats of military action against Colombia over cocaine trafficking, talk of taking over Greenland for "security interests", and warnings that Cuba is "in a lot of trouble" all point to a more expansive and confrontational doctrine.

Against this backdrop, world peace looks increasingly fragile. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that a potential takeover of Greenland by the US could spell the end of NATO.

What happened in Venezuela also casts an uncomfortable light on Malta's Foreign Minister Ian Borg, who last October nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. That world football organisation FIFA chose to bestow its own peace prize on Trump now appears equally incongruous.

At a time when global tensions are already stretched to breaking point, restraint matters as much as resolve. Sustainable stability is built through diplomacy, multilateral engagement, and respect for international law, however slow and imperfect those processes may be. If the international community is serious about peace, it must prioritise de-escalation over dominance and dialogue over disruption. The alternative is a world in which power, not principle, decides outcomes - and that is a world far more dangerous than the one we already inhabit.