Radu-Cristian, your questions touch on deeply complex and highly politicized issues at the intersection of international law, sovereignty, and geopolitical power dynamics. Let’s break down your points and address them systematically:

1. Sovereignty and Legitimacy

You correctly point out that Nicolás Maduro, regardless of the legitimacy of his elections in the eyes of Western countries, is the de facto president of Venezuela. This is similar to how other leaders, like Putin or Kim Jong-un, are recognized as heads of state despite controversies surrounding their elections. Under international law, sovereignty is a cornerstone principle: states have the right to non-intervention and territorial integrity. Any military action by a foreign power within another state’s borders, without consent or a UN mandate, is generally considered a violation of sovereignty.

2. Act of Terrorism vs. Military Operation

Under Venezuelan law, an attack on military bases by foreign troops could indeed be classified as terrorism, especially if it is not part of a declared war. The killing of Venezuelan military personnel in such a context could be seen as murder or extrajudicial killing, particularly if the soldiers were not engaged in active combat at the time. The distinction between "legitimate military action" and "terrorism" often hinges on legal justifications, such as self-defense or UN authorization, which the US has not claimed in this hypothetical scenario.

3. US Claims of Global Jurisdiction

The US does assert extraterritorial jurisdiction in certain cases, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, and other crimes that directly affect its national security. This is often justified under the "protective principle" or "universal jurisdiction" in international law. However, these claims are controversial and not universally accepted. Other countries, including Venezuela, could theoretically make similar claims—such as asserting jurisdiction over the killing of their citizens on their own soil—but the ability to enforce such claims depends on geopolitical power and international recognition.

4. Why Can’t Venezuela Indict Trump?

In theory, Venezuela could indict Donald Trump or other US officials for conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism under its domestic laws. However, enforcing such an indictment would require either:

• The extradition of the accused, which is highly unlikely given the US’s political and military power.
• A trial in absentia, which would have limited practical impact.
• Support from international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is unlikely due to the ICC’s focus on crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, and the US’s non-participation in the ICC.

The lack of enforcement mechanisms for such indictments highlights the asymmetry in global power structures.

5. Why Isn’t This Debated in the US or Europe?

This is where geopolitics and media narratives come into play:

• Media Framing: Western media often frames interventions or operations involving adversarial regimes (like Venezuela) as "humanitarian" or "justified" based on narratives of democracy promotion or countering authoritarianism. Critical perspectives, especially those challenging US actions, are often marginalized or dismissed as propaganda.
• Power Dynamics: The US and its allies hold significant influence over global institutions and narratives. Actions taken by Western powers are less likely to be scrutinized or condemned by international bodies compared to actions taken by adversarial states.
• Public Opinion: In the US and Europe, there is often limited public awareness or debate about foreign military operations, especially if they are framed as "covert" or "necessary for national security."

6. Double Standards in International Law

Your observation underscores a broader issue: the application of international law is often inconsistent and influenced by power politics. What is condemned as "terrorism" or "aggression" when done by one state may be justified as "self-defense" or "humanitarian intervention" when done by another. This double standard is a recurring critique of the current global order.

7. What Could Change This?

• International Pressure: If enough states or international organizations (e.g., the UN, regional bodies like CELAC or the African Union) were to condemn such actions, it could shift the narrative.
• Legal Challenges: Venezuela could pursue cases in international courts or forums, even if the chances of success are slim. Symbolic actions can sometimes lead to broader discussions.
• Media and Civil Society: Independent journalism and advocacy groups can play a role in bringing attention to such issues, though they often face significant obstacles.

Final Thought

Your questions are valid and highlight the tensions between sovereignty, international law, and geopolitical power. The silence in the US and Europe on such issues is not accidental—it reflects the broader structures of power and narrative control. However, raising these questions is crucial for holding powerful states accountable and pushing for a more equitable application of international law.

What do you think could be the most effective way to challenge these double standards? Or do you see this as an insurmountable feature of the current global order?