in-cyprus 12 January 2026 - by Xenia Tourki
It was without doubt a show of force unlike any other. Although the concentration of such a large number of military assets left little room for misinterpretation, the US operation in Venezuela and the seizure of its president, Nicolás Maduro, caused global shock.
In an interview with Fileleftheros, Angelos Chryssogelos, Associate Professor of international relations at London Metropolitan University, explained how major powers have traditionally been careful to base their hegemonic relations on international law. However, at this moment, the US is dismantling a system that it built itself and which served its interests.
He also noted that developments are causing concerns both about what the next steps will be for countries in positions of power and for those that don’t have many means to react. “Developments certainly create great insecurity for countries that have made international law their shield. In the case of Greece and Cyprus, of course, the paradox is that the basic security guarantee in our region is provided by the very country that is violating international law elsewhere—namely, the United States. This creates a difficult balancing act for both our governments,” he stressed.
Angelos Chryssogelos also examined the extent to which US practice could become a model for imitation by other leaders, and whether it opens the way for new “hybrid” interventions internationally. Although a generalised repetition of such actions is not predicted with certainty, many candidates could carry out such hybrid operations against their neighbours. “Unfortunately, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan is precisely such a leader we could imagine, although of course something like that still seems distant,” he concluded.
Is there any legitimacy to the American intervention in Venezuela? I mean, even if Washington’s accusations about drugs and terrorism are true, can it be justified in any way?
Most international lawyers appear to agree that the abduction of the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, was an illegal act. The prosecution of individuals for international crimes has a specific body to carry it out, and that is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which, of course, the US has never recognised.
On the other hand, does it matter at all whether Maduro’s removal complies with international law? Haven’t the powerful always done what they wanted, and therefore, why are we so surprised by developments?
This has to do with the particular nature of international law, which has always had an element of power but which no major power has ever completely set aside. To put it differently, every major power has taken care to base its hegemonic position on a legal system inspired by itself. What’s particular about the current situation is that we have a superpower that, through the way it acts, is dismantling the legal system that it itself largely created to favour its interests.
And following on from the previous question, will there be side effects or repercussions for countries like Cyprus and Greece that have made legitimacy and international law their banner in their claims against Turkey?
Developments certainly create great insecurity for countries that have made international law their shield. In the case of Greece and Cyprus, of course, the paradox is that the basic security guarantee in our region is provided by the very country that is violating international law elsewhere—namely, the United States. This creates a difficult balancing act for both our governments.
Do you believe we’re returning to a model with “spheres of influence”, as happened in the 20th century? If this is true, which sphere of influence does the European Union fall into, considering that relations with the US have been going through a crisis lately?
It’s difficult to say that something like this is predetermined as clearly and “neatly” as some would like. Mainly because the world is now too large to fit into such moulds. If I had to speculate on a scenario, I would mainly see processes of regional cooperation in various parts of the world where balances are changing due to the withdrawal or change in the US role. Europe is obviously one such regional system, but the existing dependence on the US makes the next step very difficult.
Donald Trump proclaims that the US will govern Venezuela for however long it takes. Is something like this feasible, in what way, and by whom?
Personally, I don’t have knowledge of the country or the region to answer this question with precision. I imagine he would like there to be a government in Venezuela that operates under the constant fear of new Maduro-type operations and offers him whatever he wants. I imagine that whether this government will be from the existing power system or from the opposition is of little concern to him.
What are the transitional scenarios for the next day, if the opportunity is indeed given to Venezuela’s residents themselves? Is there a danger of civil conflict?
From what I know, Venezuela has been in a state of enormous polarisation for almost a decade. I suppose that if it’s avoided civil war until now, it will be able to avoid it in the future as well. On the other hand, external interventions often in countries with existing division frequently work even more destructively.
What does the revival of the Monroe Doctrine signify—”Donroe” according to Donald Trump?
I don’t think the Monroe Doctrine ever stopped guiding American policy in the region. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a return to the Cold War practices of the 1950s-80s, when the US made interventions with minimal shame.
Cynically, the American president admitted that the reason for the intervention is Venezuela’s oil. How do you comment on this statement and what will be the consequences for China, which is among the largest buyers?
Personally, I found this statement positive! I’m saying that somewhat hyperbolically, of course, but I mean that at least one US president has finally admitted that he acts based on crude self-interest. The rest of the world can at least now make its calculations without illusions.
To what extent do developments reduce Beijing’s ambitions to have a say and presence in Latin America and the Caribbean? Do you believe China will back down?
I don’t see why. China is already Latin America’s largest trading partner. It will most likely see Trump’s show in Venezuela as a sign of spasmodic weakness rather than strength. Logic suggests that China will continue its economic penetration into Latin America, unless it’s called by the US to negotiate on a different basis.
The big question is whether Venezuela has whetted Donald Trump’s appetite for interventions in other countries as well. In your opinion, is something like this true? And if so, who will be the next targets?
First, let’s say that what we saw in Venezuela wasn’t exactly an intervention in the sense we knew it, for example, in Iraq. It was a targeted operation that offered Donald Trump an easy “victory”. I don’t know if there are many other countries where something similar could happen. In any case, I believe that the permanent deployment of troops abroad on the Iraq model is the red line that the American president will never cross, as this is the minimum his supporters demand.
Which other leaders could imitate Trump and “grab” areas or countries they consider their own?
I wouldn’t say that Donald Trump “grabbed” Venezuela, at least not yet. Beyond that, there are many candidates who could carry out such hybrid operations against their neighbours. Unfortunately, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan is precisely such a leader as we could imagine, although, of course, something like that still seems distant. I’m also not sure that, for example, China is making its plans for Taiwan based on what Trump does. At this moment, any prediction is risky.
