Especially when no nation wants to touch this (e.g., Starmer being very quick to say that the UK wasn’t involved, etc.), it only reinforces that any power willing or able to make a bold move like this will likely not face much opposition (also see Russia in Ukraine).

> A worry is the step will encourage other regimes that feel they have might to remove leaders they do not like and replace them with marionette-like figures

Go type "list Russian regime change operations from the last 20 years" in chatgpt.

Can't rule out Leopold's Congo scenario, as the first comments do not look good:

* resource extraction focus

* dismissal of local leadership (Machado "does not have the following or respect" -- Nobel hurting?)

* no transition plan to self-governance (perhaps it is early)

* military occupation ("not afraid of boots on the ground", "military will protect oil operations")

These things happened today subsequent to Venezuela:

North Korea ‘has fired ballistic missile towards the Sea of Japan’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/03/north-korea-ha...

UK and France carry out strikes against Isis target in Syria https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/uk-france-s...

It's not just encouraging, it's almost making it a necessity. Putting aside one's respect for law may be a matter of responsibility when your competitors are gaining advantage by not playing by the rules.

The UN permanent security council members are (or were meant to be) precisely the countries that are so powerful they can choose to invade you and nobody can stop them. The hope was that by letting them veto you, they'll veto you instead of invading you.

Xi Jinping is probably sending thank you cards to Trump right about now.

That's the point of being a permanent member of UN Security Council -- it's a position of power, not of subordination.