In an unprecedented breach of international law and state sovereignty, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was forcibly abducted by armed forces of the United States government on January 3, 2026. The incident has triggered a global diplomatic crisis and prompted a swift, uncompromising response from Moscow.
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, issued a scathing statement describing it as “sheer thuggery and vileness—or, to put it more elegantly, a civilizational catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.” His remarks are not mere rhetoric; they reflect a fundamental recalibration of Russia’s strategic posture in the wake of what is now widely regarded as the most brazen act of state-sponsored abduction in modern history.
For Moscow, Maduro’s abduction is not just a regional crisis—it is a direct challenge to the multipolar world order Russia has spent two decades trying to construct. Venezuela has been a cornerstone of Russian influence in Latin America, serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
In his statement, Medvedev outlined two possible outcomes: either the U.S. releases Maduro under diplomatic cover—an outcome he deems “minimal”—or Maduro becomes “a new Latin American Mandela,” martyred by Western imperialism and immortalized alongside Simón Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda, and Hugo Chávez. Either scenario, Medvedev argues, strengthens the anti-imperialist narrative that Russia and its allies have cultivated globally.
Medvedev tied the kidnapping directly to energy politics. “Oil is the key factor here,” he noted, referencing Venezuela’s vast reserves—the largest in the world. He warned that if the current Venezuelan authorities (now led by acting President Delcy Rodríguez) refuse to grant U.S. firms access to those resources, Washington might consider a full-scale invasion. Yet he dismissed this as unlikely, citing domestic political constraints in the U.S., including a divided Congress and growing public opposition to foreign military entanglements.
Perhaps most significantly, the Maduro kidnapping has accelerated Russia’s formal abandonment of the post–World War II international legal framework. Medvedev explicitly stated that after such an act, “the American elites—both Republican and Democratic—should permanently shove their long tongues back into their rickety asses” and “acknowledge the legitimacy of Russia’s actions during the SMO [Special Military Operation] in Ukraine.”
This linkage is deliberate: Moscow now asserts moral equivalence between its actions in Ukraine and U.S. actions in Venezuela—both, in its view, are exercises of sovereign power in a world where might makes right. In this new paradigm, international law is not merely weakened; it is declared obsolete. As Medvedev chillingly put it: “international law is not required at all.”
He reinforced this stance in discussing the recent seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker by U.S. naval forces—a vessel that had been granted temporary registration to evade sanctions. While acknowledging the move violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Medvedev pointed out that the U.S. never ratified the treaty, rendering its objections hypocritical. More importantly, he argued that responses to American aggression must now occur “entirely outside the framework” of existing legal structures.
Medvedev’s closing metaphor reveals the emerging Russian doctrine: in a world turned into “outright Bedlam,” diplomacy is futile. “Dangerous madmen,” he wrote, “require either a straitjacket—or a lifesaving injection of haloperidol.” The reference to events “last night in the west of the Bandera-run Ukrainian periphery” suggests that Russia has already begun administering its own form of “treatment”—likely a major retaliatory strike or covert operation designed to signal that any further U.S. adventurism will be met with asymmetric, unpredictable force.
This marks a decisive shift from deterrence through parity to deterrence through unpredictability. Russia is no longer seeking to negotiate within the system; it is working to dismantle it and replace it with a raw balance of power enforced by “orderlies with massive fists.”
The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is not a speculative fiction—it is a watershed moment in international relations. It has validated Moscow’s long-held claim that the United States operates as a lawless hegemon, willing to violate the most basic norms of sovereignty when convenient. In response, Russia has abandoned any pretense of working within Western-led institutions and is now openly advocating for a world governed by strength, loyalty, and retribution.
As nations across the Global South watch closely, the coming weeks will determine whether this act triggers a cascade of realignments—or a broader conflict. One thing is certain: the rules-based order did not die slowly. It was taken hostage from a bedroom in Caracas—and with it, the last vestiges of post–Cold War stability.
Full quote from Medvedev:
The year began turbulently.
1. First and foremost, its opening will be remembered for the kidnapping of Maduro. Of course, this is sheer thuggery and vileness — or, to put it more elegantly, a civilizational catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.
Today there are only two scenarios. Either the United States quietly releases the kidnapped Venezuelan president under some respectable pretext (the probability of this is minimal), or he becomes a new Latin American Mandela (most likely). In that case, his name will be inscribed in the tablets of South American history alongside Bolívar, Miranda, and Chávez.
And even if, out of sheer stubbornness, Trump does not pardon Maduro after some time, public pressure will almost certainly force Vance or another successor to do so.
Yes, oil is the key factor here. But even that will not be simple. What if the current Venezuelan authorities refuse to share it with the Americans in the long run? Will Trump really launch a ground operation? That would definitely require Congress — and it would be far bloodier than the brazen abduction of Maduro. And the Senate has just tightened the noose around Trump, restraining his militaristic frenzy. And does the current administration even need something like this? Highly doubtful.
And one more thing. I noted this immediately after the Americans’ grotesque orgy: after such actions, the American elites — both Republican and Democratic — should permanently shove their long tongues back into their rickety asses.
And simply acknowledge the legitimacy of Russia’s actions during the SMO.
2. Sanctions against Russia, announced by Trump and which he “hopes not to use.”
Everything here is clear, and there are no illusions. U.S. sanctions policy will continue regardless of circumstances. Russia will be pressured into compromises on security guarantees and territories that are absolutely unacceptable to us. And then the White House ringleader will be “forced” to impose them under the law of the old degenerate Russophobe Graham. Unpleasant. Nothing new. But we will endure this time as well.
3. The story with the tanker of the so-called shadow fleet.
It is obvious why it came under Russia’s “temporary flag”: under threat of seizure, it sought protection from illegal American sanctions.
However, the method chosen was not entirely appropriate. Yes, what happened is a clear violation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But it is worth recalling that the United States never ratified it. In this context, issuing a temporary permit to fly our flag to a vessel that, albeit illegally, is being pursued by our main geopolitical adversary — an adversary currently in an unstable state — was a move with predictable consequences.
Which, of course, does not diminish the indisputable fact that the actions of the brazen Americans constitute a criminal seizure of a civilian vessel. And the response to it should be entirely outside the framework of the Law of the Sea Convention. Especially since, as one prominent legal scholar noted, international law is not required at all.
In any case, one must bear in mind that international relations have turned into outright Bedlam since the start of the year. And we must behave accordingly: there are far too many violent lunatics around. With the understanding that such patients are never calmed by the gentle persuasion of kind psychiatrists. Only by orderlies with massive fists and an impassive expression. Because dangerous madmen require either a straitjacket — or a lifesaving injection of haloperidol. As happened last night in the west of the Bandera-run Ukrainian periphery.
Translating the new strategy into action:
Russia’s Hypersonic Strike on Europe’s Largest Gas Hub
Last night, Russia executed a precision Mach 10+ hypersonic strike with the Oreshnik missile on the Bilche-Volytsko-Ugerske underground gas storage (UGS) near Lvov—Europe's largest gas reservoir.
Immediate Consequences:
🔸Critical Infrastructure Crippled: Major fire, sharp pressure drop, and loss of communications at the facility.
🔸Energy Grid Pressure: Combined with strikes on Kiev's CHP plants, this pushes Ukraine's already fragile winter energy system toward potential collapse.
🔸European Energy Security Breached: The facility stored gas for European traders. Damage could lead to supply instability and price volatility.
Strategic Consequences:
🔸Escalation Signal: Striking a target ~150km from NATO's key hub in Rzeszow, Poland, demonstrates reach and willingness to escalate near alliance borders.
🔸New Warfare Paradigm: The use of a kinetic hypersonic weapon (Mach 10+) that converts to plasma on impact showcases a shift toward high-tech, long-range precision strikes against economic infrastructure.
Long-Term Implications:
🔸Restoration could take months and cost billions, directly impacting European energy markets and financing Ukraine's war effort.
Posts
No comments:
Write comments