Venezuela has intensified its accusations against Washington after Foreign Minister Yvan Gil told the United Nations Human Rights Council that President Nicolas Maduro had been abducted in a US-led operation last month and demanded his immediate release on Monday. Under the pretext of a so-called law enforcement operation, the United States invaded Venezuela on Jan 3 and abducted Maduro and his wife. It was a blatant demonstration of "might makes right" and a flagrant disregard for international law.

US President Donald Trump later claimed that events were unfolding as planned. But history has repeatedly proven that invading a sovereign country triggers chain reactions and outcomes that no one can fully control. Instead of achieving the strategic objectives envisioned by Washington, the invasion may entangle the US in three self-made dilemmas.

First, the US global leadership is in decline. After the end of World War II, the US spearheaded the establishment of a liberal international order based on open markets and rules. This system not only bolstered its interests and influence, but also gave Washington tremendous international prestige and leadership. But the current US administration's "America First" unilateralism is persistently eroding the foundations of the order the country once championed. From imposing tariffs on allies and questioning NATO's value to threatening to "acquire" Greenland and openly discussing cross-border strikes against Mexican drug cartels, the US administration has essentially substituted strategic considerations and long-term stability with short-term self-serving calculations.

These moves have continuously challenged the bottom line of the rules-based international system. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has even declared that the postwar global order is not only "obsolete" but has been turned into a weapon against the US.

The invasion of Venezuela blatantly violates the principles of the United Nations Charter, including the prohibition on the use of force and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. This action sends a dangerous signal to the world: the US can enforce rules when it deems fit and disregard them when its interests are "threatened". By undermining the credibility of the liberal international order, Washington may have to rely on coercion and force rather than consensus.

And where threats do not work, other countries may be forced to reassess the risks of aligning with the US and potentially opt for a "hedging strategy". Over time, this would not reinforce the global leadership of the US but hollow it out, delivering a significant blow to the country's soft power.

Second, the invasion of Venezuela has sparked widespread criticism across Latin America, further alienating regional countries from the US. Major countries have collectively voiced their condemnation, while anti-US sentiment runs high among the public. On Jan 4, the governments of Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay and Spain released a joint statement denouncing the US military operation that violates the UN Charter and warned that it has set a dangerous precedent. When Maduro and his wife appeared in a New York court on Jan 5, protests erupted throughout Latin America.

More broadly, the operation has revived the shadow of the exploitative "Monroe Doctrine" that seeks to treat the Western Hemisphere as Washington's backyard. Trump's claim that the US would "run" Venezuela and allow major US oil companies to re-enter the country laid bare the US plans.

In recent years, a series of US actions — from threatening to control the Panama Canal and imposing arbitrary tariffs on Latin American nations to renaming the Gulf of Mexico — has made regional countries aware that pinning their development aspirations on Washington is unrealistic and even perilous. At the 2025 summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, calls for solidarity grew stronger, and the host nation Honduras urged members to unite in addressing shared regional challenges such as US tariffs and immigration policies. The Venezuela operation is likely to accelerate that trend, not reverse it.

Third, the US risks getting trapped in a costly situation in Venezuela. Washington mistakenly assumed that a "decapitation" operation could force Venezuela into submission, underestimating both the country's resolve to resist and the complexity of what followed. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez denounced the US assault as an "unprecedented military aggression", declaring that the US aim was not the so-called "war on drugs" but rather "regime change" and seizure of "energy, mineral, and natural resources". Rodríguez also rebuked the US intent to "run" Venezuela, emphasizing that the nation will never again be anyone's colony.

External aggression often produces unintended results. In Venezuela, internal cohesion has been strengthened rather than weakened by the US operation and its leadership is determined to resist intervention. It would be difficult for Washington to establish a pro-US regime in Caracas. If the US resorts to harsher economic blockades, political isolation and military action to exert pressure on Venezuela, it will get mired in a costly and protracted standoff. In short, the operation may have opened another chapter in the long history of US intervention that produced instability rather than order.

The author is an assistant researcher at the Institute of Latin American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.