Several developments have raised tensions. The US sudden military attacks in Venezuela, the capture of its president Nicolas Maduro and his wife Celia Flores through Operation Absolute Resolve and bringing them to a US court, along with the US unilateral decision to sell Venezuela’s oil are some crucial developments since the beginning of 2026. As reported in multiple sources including the BBC and CNN, there are, moreover, several other developments such as the US threats of attacking Colombia and taking control of Greenland. These have unsurprisingly led to criticism and concerns from many around the world including the political leaders of Russia, China and several South American and European countries.
There are various reasons for the concerns over the complicated and far-reaching developments. Though military attacks by one country against another often take place, they are mostly rendered illegal and a violation of international laws. Many within and outside the United States have raised concerns over the sudden military operations in Venezuela and the violation of international norms. There will also be a violation of international laws and norms if Colombia and Greenland — a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark — are attacked. Moreover, US military strikes on the issues surrounding drug trafficking, oil and the occupation of sovereign land by the US can encourage forceful takeover in other regions, including the South China Sea, in realizing the goals of other parties.
Greenland in winter (Credit: https://pixabay.com/).
Conflicts of interest are not surprising. Differing economic and geopolitical interests of nation-states lead to conflicts of interest. Powerful countries carry out military strikes in other countries for their economic and other interests. There are many examples. But if rapid operations are carried out against the presidents of other countries and military operations are made against Venezuela, Colombia and Greenland, there is probably little meaning of established international laws and norms, at least in their implementational sense, and the risk of the collapse of the post- World War II world system will increase. The problem may turn out to be more severe, especially when the aggressor is the United States.
Moreover, these can lead to long-term negative impacts on the US, even if it gets some immediate benefits such as oil and land. The United States has established itself as a crucial arbiter of ending conflicts and bringing peace and a strong voice for international laws and norms. The US administration has made several praiseworthy moves — even since 2025 —and mediated the Gaza War and border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia and a peace deal between DR Congo and Rwanda, along with its ongoing peace efforts on the Ukraine War. The employment of force on Venezuela, Colombia and Greenland will reduce its trust and moral standing and impact its overall standing in the international arena.
The positive side is that the US has by this time made some changes in its approach. While the US administration has invited Colombia to White House, it has kept options to talk with Venezuela. But there are several challenges. The repeated expression and emphasis of the US administration on the economic and geopolitical desires regarding several parties and strong disagreements of other parties including Denmark over Greenland, along with several geopolitical issues, can pose challenges and make the situation unsurprisingly different, no matter how much such desires are reasoned.
Powerful countries including the United States have the capacity to carry out military strikes and forcefully achieve many of their goals — both reasoned and unreasoned. But talks are always better than conflicts and the use of military means and it is desired that talks-based solutions be reached by the parties. Talks can address concerns and reduce the chance of conflicts. Talks can also bring benefits not only for the US but also for other parties.
Amir M Sayem
Chief Editor
Dhaka Opinion Magazine
