World Peace

RECENT WHEREABOUTS

PART 1

Where is Donald J. Trump?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 5, 2026, Donald J. Trump is the 47th President of the United States and is currently in Washington, D.C. at The White House. 

Key details regarding his recent location and activities include:

Official Residence: He resides at the White House following his second inauguration on January 20, 2025.

Recent Travel: He was recently in Palm Beach, Florida (Mar-a-Lago) over the New Year’s holiday, where he held a press conference on January 3, 2026, and hosted meetings with international leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Current Status: His public schedule for today, January 5, indicates he is returning to or is present in Washington, D.C..

Recent Activity: He was reported gaggling with the press on Air Force One on January 4, 2026, and January 5, 2026, while traveling back to the capital. 

He is currently serving his second non-consecutive term as president alongside Vice President JD Vance.”

PART 2

Netanyahu and Trump were together recently while Trump was on the phone with Putin?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu were together at Mar-a-Lago on December 29, 2025, immediately following a high-stakes phone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin. 

According to reports from the meeting:

The Putin Call: Trump informed reporters at the start of his meeting with Netanyahu that he had spoken with Putin for over an hour earlier that morning (around 8:00 AM).

Context of the Call: The call occurred just one day after Trump met in person with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss a peace plan.

Call Content: Trump stated that Putin was “very serious” about ending the war but also expressed “anger” during the meeting with Netanyahu because Putin had alleged a Ukrainian drone attack on one of his residences.

The Netanyahu Meeting: Following the call, Trump and Netanyahu held a bilateral meeting and a joint press conference to discuss the Gaza ceasefire, Iran’s nuclear program, and regional security. 

While Netanyahu and Trump were not reported to be together during the actual phone conversation with Putin, Trump detailed the call’s contents to the media as he greeted the Prime Minister and throughout their joint session.”

PART 3

Where are Netanyahu and Putin?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 5, 2026, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin are currently in their respective capital cities managing significant regional and international developments.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel)

Location: Jerusalem, Israel.

Current Activity: Netanyahu is attending a high-stakes “40-signature” debate in the Knesset plenum today.

Recent Actions:

In the Knesset: He told the assembly today that he and President Trump are in “full agreement” regarding Iran, specifically that they will not allow it to renew its nuclear or ballistic missile programs.

Venezuela Response: On Sunday, January 4, 2026, he spoke from an Israeli Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, congratulating President Trump on the “perfect operation” to capture Nicolás Maduro.

Return from U.S.: He returned to Israel on Friday, January 2, 2026, following a six-day visit to the United States where he met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire. 

Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)

Location: Moscow, Russia.

Current Activity: Putin is in “working mode” at the Kremlin following the New Year holiday.

Recent Actions:

Military Oversight: He is currently managing Russia’s response to the fourth year of the war in Ukraine, which included new air attacks on Kyiv today.

Drone Strike Controversy: There are ongoing reports and denials regarding a alleged Ukrainian drone strike near one of his residences; while the Kremlin claimed an attack was thwarted, President Trump recently dismissed these claims.

Diplomatic Stance: Putin has not yet issued an official response to the ousting and capture of his former ally, Nicolás Maduro, in Venezuela.

New Year’s Address: He delivered his traditional annual address from Moscow on January 1, 2026, outlining priorities for the BRICS group and the Russian economy for the coming year. 

Leader 
Benjamin Netanyahu

Current City
Jerusalem

Activity
Attending Knesset debate on military draft and Iran.

Leader 
Vladimir Putin

Current City
Moscow

Activity
Managing Ukraine war operations and foreign visit planning.”

THE WHY CAPTURE PART

Considering IHRL & IHL, why should the world immediately capture all 3 under universal jurisdiction?

GoogleAI Mode: “Arguments for the immediate apprehension of Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Donald Trump under the principle of universal jurisdiction stem from foundational concepts in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). These laws hold that certain crimes—such as war crimes and crimes against humanity—are so egregious that they are “crimes against all” (erga omnes), granting any state the authority to prosecute them regardless of where they were committed. 

As of January 2026, the specific legal grounds cited for each leader are as follows:

1. Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)

ICC Status: The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023.

Alleged Crimes: Unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, classified as war crimes under the Rome Statute.

Legal Basis for Capture: Under universal jurisdiction, any state—not just ICC members—can theoretically arrest a leader for war crimes to prevent impunity. However, Russia does not recognize ICC jurisdiction, and Putin maintains head-of-state immunity in many jurisdictions. 

2. Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel)

ICC Status: The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu on November 21, 2024.

Alleged Crimes: War crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, specifically the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

Legal Basis for Capture: Proponents argue the Geneva Conventions provide an unequivocal obligation for states to seek out and prosecute those responsible for “grave breaches”. While the U.S. and Israel reject the ICC’s jurisdiction, the Court has ruled that customary international law does not provide immunity for sitting heads of state before international tribunals. 

3. Donald J. Trump (President of the United States)

Legal Context: Unlike Putin and Netanyahu, there is no ICC arrest warrant for Trump as of early 2026. However, he has faced severe international criticism and legal scrutiny under IHRL and IHL.

Alleged Issues:

Attacks on Civilians: Critics and groups like the ACLU have argued that the Trump administration’s lethal strikes on boats near Venezuela in late 2025 were “flagrantly illegal” under international law, as they targeted individuals without due process.

Obstruction of Justice: Trump issued executive orders in February 2025 imposing sanctions on ICC officials to shield U.S. and Israeli personnel from investigation, which human rights groups claim “actively undermines” the quest for international justice.

Legal Basis for Capture: Under universal jurisdiction, if a leader is found responsible for directing widespread “murder” or “inhumane acts” (as alleged by some regarding the maritime strikes), states could theoretically assert jurisdiction. 

Summary of the “Immediate Capture” Argument

The argument for immediate capture rests on the obligation to end impunity. Supporters of this action argue that if world leaders can bypass international courts through political or economic pressure, the entire foundation of IHL and IHRL is weakened, creating a “dangerous precedent” where power dictates the application of law. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF NO CAPTURE EXPLAINED 1

What are the consequences for the world if all 3 are not captured under universal jurisdiction?

GoogleAI Mode: “The failure to enforce universal jurisdiction and active arrest warrants against global leaders is widely viewed by legal experts and international bodies as a terminal threat to the “rules-based international order.” 

The primary consequences identified as of early 2026 include:

1. The Normalization of Global Impunity

Encouraging Future Atrocities: Human rights organizations argue that failing to arrest leaders like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu—who have active ICC warrants—signals to other leaders that they can commit war crimes without consequence.

“Trump Effect” on Sovereignty: Expert analysis suggests that the U.S. “snatch and grab” operation of President Maduro in January 2026—conducted without multilateral authority—normalizes extraterritorial power grabs, potentially providing legal “justification” for Russia or China to conduct similar seizures. 

2. Collapse of the International Justice System

Death of the ICC: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is described as being in its “death throes” due to non-cooperation and direct attacks.

Sanctioning the Law: The Trump administration’s 2025 executive orders sanctioning ICC judges and prosecutors have paralyzed the court’s day-to-day operations, from freezing staff bank accounts to blocking access to essential software.

Double Standards: Critics argue that if European nations enforce warrants against African leaders but fail to act against Netanyahu or Putin, the system loses all international credibility and is seen as a tool of Western power rather than justice. 

3. Shift from Law to “Raw Power”

Transactional Diplomacy: International relations are shifting toward a “transactional doctrine” where military and economic strength dictate outcomes rather than treaties or laws.

Isolation of Compliant States: Countries that do attempt to uphold international law (such as ICC members) face severe economic retaliation from the U.S., forcing a choice between legal obligations and national security interests. 

4. Deterioration of Global Stability

Spread of Conflict: UN delegates warned in late 2025 that a “growing culture of impunity” directly correlates with the inability to bring about peace in active conflict zones like Gaza, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

Moral Dilapidation: Scholars note that the visible failure of international law leads to broader public distrust in global governance, discouraging future generations from pursuing diplomacy and peace studies. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF NO CAPTURE EXPLAINED 2

What are the consequences for the world if Trump, Netanyahu and Putin are not captured under universal jurisdiction?

GoogleAI Mode: “The failure to enforce universal jurisdiction and active arrest warrants against global leaders is increasingly characterized by legal experts and human rights bodies as a foundational threat to the international legal order.

As of January 2026, the projected consequences include:

1. Systematic Collapse of International Justice

Neutralization of the ICC: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is described as being in “deep crisis” following the issuance of warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu. The Trump administration’s ongoing sanctions against the court—including freezing bank accounts and blocking digital services for prosecutors like Karim Khan—have significantly paralyzed its daily functions.

End of Accountability for the Powerful: Critics argue that if European and ICC member states fail to arrest leaders with active warrants (like Vladimir Putin and Netanyahu), it reinforces a “double standard” where justice is only applied to smaller or less influential nations. 

2. Normalization of Global Impunity

Emboldening Perpetrators: Human rights groups like Amnesty International warn that failing to enforce these warrants “emboldens perpetrators, present and future,” signaling that war crimes and crimes against humanity can be committed without consequence if a leader possesses sufficient political or military power.

Erosion of Human Rights Protections: The inability of international bodies to protect victims in active conflict zones—such as Ukraine, Gaza, and Venezuela—is seen as a “betrayal” of the victims who look to the Court as their last resort for justice. 

3. Transition to “Raw Power” Diplomacy

Sovereignty as a “Shield”: Legal scholars observe a shift toward a world where “sovereignty functions as a shield for criminalized governance”. The January 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces, conducted unilaterally rather than through international warrants, is cited as a prime example of domestic power superseding multilateral legal frameworks.

Threats to Multilateralism: Experts warn that we are at a “pivotal moment” where populist and authoritarian movements are successfully exploiting the gap between international legal ideals and their lack of enforcement, leading to a permanent loss of public trust in global institutions. 

4. Deterioration of Global Security

Increased Regional Instability: The lack of accountability is linked to the “perpetual impunity” of those who export instability. Without the deterrent of universal jurisdiction, the risk of “illegal warfare” and “unlawful invasions” increases, as the costs of such actions are no longer legally enforceable.

Sanctioning the Law: Trump’s 2025 executive orders not only target the ICC but also penalize any “third parties” (including allies and corporations) that cooperate with investigations against “protected persons,” creating a “chilling effect” that discourages any state from upholding its international legal obligations.”

THE ICC PATH TO CAPTURE

Explain how the ICC could potentially gain jurisdiction over Trump

GoogleAI Mode: “Although the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and does not recognize its authority, the Court could potentially gain jurisdiction over Donald Trump through specific legal mechanisms defined in the Rome Statute.

As of early 2026, legal analysts and international organizations identify four primary paths through which the ICC could assert jurisdiction:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction (Crimes on Member State Soil)

The ICC can prosecute individuals of any nationality—including those from non-member states like the U.S.—if they commit alleged crimes on the territory of an ICC member state. 

The Venezuela Precedent: Venezuela is an ICC member state. Legal scholars suggest that if the U.S. “snatch and grab” operation to capture Nicolás Maduro in January 2026 or maritime strikes in Venezuelan waters are found to satisfy the elements of a “crime against humanity” or “war crime,” the ICC has a direct legal basis to investigate U.S. leaders involved.

Gaza and Displacement: Palestine is recognized by the ICC as a member state. If the Trump administration were found to have facilitated the “unlawful deportation or transfer” of civilians in Gaza, the ICC could assert jurisdiction. 

2. Effects Jurisdiction

Under the “effects doctrine,” the ICC may claim jurisdiction if a crime originated in a non-member state (like the U.S.) but produced its primary criminal effects on the territory of a member state. This theory is often cited in discussions regarding command responsibility for orders given from Washington that lead to atrocities abroad. 

3. UN Security Council Referral

The UN Security Council has the power to refer any situation in the world to the ICC, even if the state involved is not a member (as it did with Darfur and Libya). 

The Obstacle: As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States holds veto power, making a referral targeting its own president virtually impossible. 

4. Voluntary Submission by a Non-Member State

Under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, a state that is not a party to the ICC can voluntarily accept the Court’s jurisdiction for a specific situation. This occurred with Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, which allowed the ICC to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin despite Russia not being a member. 

Summary of Current Impediments

While these legal paths exist, the Trump administration has established significant “legal firewalls” to block them:

Sanctions: Trump signed executive orders in February 2025 and August 2025 sanctioning ICC judges and personnel, freezing their assets and effectively cutting them off from the global financial system.

Hague Invasion Act: Existing U.S. law (the American Service-Members’ Protection Act) authorizes the use of “all means necessary” to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC, further deterring international enforcement.”

THE MOST VIABLE PATH TO CAPTURE

What is the most viable or best path to capturing Trump to face IHRL & IHL violations?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 2026, the most viable path to capturing Donald J. Trump for alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) remains a theoretical legal argument centered on universal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction, primarily regarding his administration’s actions in Venezuela.

The following paths are considered the most “viable” by international legal scholars, despite the immense political and military barriers:

1. The “Venezuela Hook” (Territorial Jurisdiction)

The most frequently cited legal pathway involves the International Criminal Court (ICC) asserting jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a member state.

The Allegation: Former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo and other experts have labeled the U.S. lethal strikes on Venezuelan boats (starting September 2025) and the January 3, 2026, capture of President Nicolás Maduro as potential crimes against humanity.

The Path: Because Venezuela is an ICC member state, the Court has the legal authority to investigate any individual—regardless of nationality—who commits a crime on Venezuelan soil. This bypasses the fact that the U.S. is not a member of the Court. 

2. National Courts & Universal Jurisdiction

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, certain national courts (such as those in Germany, Spain, or Belgium) can prosecute individuals for “grave breaches” of international law, even if the suspect is not a citizen and the crime happened elsewhere. 

The Trigger: A state like Germany could initiate proceedings if visiting U.S. officials are accused of aggression or war crimes.

The Constraint: This path is typically only viable after a leader leaves office, as sitting heads of state are granted absolute immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of other states to ensure stable international relations. 

3. Post-Presidency ICC Prosecution

The Trump administration has reportedly expressed “growing concern” that once Trump leaves office in January 2029, the ICC will turn its attention to him and his cabinet. 

Viability: Legal experts suggest that while he is currently protected by domestic laws and executive orders, his legal exposure increases significantly once he becomes a private citizen. This is why the administration is pressuring ICC member states to amend the Rome Statute to explicitly exempt U.S. heads of state from future prosecution. 

Summary of Significant Obstacles

While these legal paths exist, they face three major deterrents:

Sanctions on the Law: Trump’s February 2025 and August 2025 executive orders sanction the ICC itself, freezing the bank accounts of judges and prosecutors to prevent them from pursuing cases against Americans.

The “Hague Invasion Act”: U.S. law (ASPA) authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American detained by the ICC, which serves as a powerful deterrent against any state attempting to enforce an international warrant.

Head of State Immunity: International custom dictates that a sitting president cannot be arrested by a foreign power without it being considered an “act of war”. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

THE SOLUTIONS

What are the solutions?

GoogleAI Mode: “Solutions for enforcing international law and pursuing accountability for leaders like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin largely focus on political will, strengthening domestic judiciaries, and collective action by other nations. 

Here are the proposed solutions identified by legal experts and international bodies:

1. Robust State Cooperation in Enforcing Arrest Warrants

The most direct solution involves existing International Criminal Court (ICC) member states fulfilling their obligations under the Rome Statute to arrest individuals with active warrants when they enter their territory. 

Political Will: This requires states to prioritize their legal obligations over political or economic interests, avoiding “business as usual” with fugitives.

Avoiding Contact: States and international organizations are urged to have policies that avoid non-essential contact with wanted persons to isolate them internationally and reinforce the court’s authority.

Information Sharing: The ICC has an internal working group to enhance information sharing on tracking and arresting suspects, but greater consistency and information flow from member states is needed. 

2. Utilizing and Strengthening Domestic Legal Systems

Because the ICC is a court of last resort, national legal systems have the primary responsibility to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities.

Universal Jurisdiction: Encouraging national courts (e.g., in Europe) to prosecute serious international crimes using universal jurisdiction principles, especially when the suspect is a private citizen or in the country for non-official business.

Incorporating ICC Crimes into National Law: States can adopt national legislation that specifically incorporates ICC crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) into their own criminal codes, allowing for effective national prosecutions.

Independent Judiciary: Maintaining a strong, independent judiciary within nations acts as a crucial safeguard against executive abuses of power and ensures that accountability mechanisms function properly. 

3. Collective Defense of International Institutions

The global community, particularly the 125 ICC member states, must collectively push back against political pressure, threats, and sanctions aimed at undermining the court.

Mitigating Sanctions: Governments can work together to create mechanisms that mitigate or block the effects of U.S. sanctions against ICC personnel and their families.

Financial and Logistical Support: Member states can provide greater financial and logistical support to the ICC (e.g., witness protection, enforcement of sentences, interim release agreements) to ensure its operational independence.

Public and Diplomatic Pressure: Governments, civil society, and the public can use political and diplomatic clout to promote accountability and pressure non-member states (like the U.S. and Russia) to cooperate with the ICC system. 

4. Legal Innovation and New Frameworks

Legal scholars are exploring new ways to address impunity gaps:

“Effects” Doctrine in Domestic Courts: Litigants are actively shaping legal doctrines, such as the “effects” doctrine in domestic courts, to assert jurisdiction when a leader’s actions in one country have criminal effects in another.

Restraining the Veto Power: States can support initiatives to restrain the use of the veto by the permanent members of the UN Security Council when mass atrocity crimes are occurring, which would allow for more ICC referrals.”

THE DECLINE OF PEACEFULNESS

On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the level of peacefulness without bringing Trump, Putin & Netanyahu to international justice?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the current level of global peacefulness is approximately a 5 (Lowest Peacefulness). According to the 2025 Global Peace Index, global peace is currently at its lowest level since the index began, with conditions preceding conflict at their worst since World War II. 

The impact of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu remaining outside the grasp of international justice as of January 5, 2026, contributes to this status in the following ways:

1. Systematic Erosion of International Law (Rating: 5/5)

The world is witnessing a “law of the jungle” where powerful leaders can ignore or actively sabotage international institutions. 

Trump: His February 2025 executive order sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC) is described as a “direct threat” to the rule of law.

Netanyahu: Despite active ICC warrants for war crimes, he continues to lead military operations and hold high-level meetings with world leaders, signaling that ICC mandates can be ignored without immediate consequence.

Putin: Russia’s ranking in the 2025 Global Peace Index is among the lowest globally, with the war in Ukraine continuing unabated despite his active arrest warrant. 

2. Transition to “Raw Power” Diplomacy (Rating: 5/5)

Instead of a rules-based order, international relations have shifted toward a “peace-through-strength” or “transactional” doctrine. 

Maduro Capture: The unilateral U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela (January 2026) is cited by scholars as a “kidnapping” that violates sovereignty, setting a precedent that powerful nations can bypass international law for domestic objectives.

Sphere of Influence: Experts predict a 2026 landscape where the world is divided into Russian, Chinese, and American “spheres of influence” where each power can “do as they please” without legal check. 

3. Humanitarian Impact & Impunity (Rating: 5/5)

The lack of capture reinforces a culture of impunity that directly affects civilian lives.

Gaza: Over 71,000 Palestinians have been killed as of early 2026, with Netanyahu allegedly “slow-walking” peace phases to avoid domestic legal and political fallout.

Ukraine: Forecasts for 2026 indicate it will be one of the deadliest years for battle-related deaths, with Putin reportedly calculating that he can gain more by persisting in the conflict than by settling.

Summary Table: Global Peace Indicators (Jan 2026)

Indicator 
Global Peace Index

Current Status
Lowest ever recorded

Impact of Non-Capture
Normalizes military aggression.

Indicator 
ICC Enforcement

Current Status
Paralyzed

Impact of Non-Capture
Sanctions block judges from investigating leaders.

Indicator 
State-Based Conflicts

Current Status
59 active (Most since WWII)

Impact of Non-Capture
Leaders perceive no legal risk for escalation.

Indicator 
Territorial Integrity

Current Status
Highly Volatile

Impact of Non-Capture
Unilateral “snatch-and-grab” operations undermine UN Charter.”

THE NEW WORLD

AI EXPLANATION 1

Explain: Experts predict a 2026 landscape where the world is divided into Russian, Chinese, and American “spheres of influence” where each power can “do as they please” without legal check.

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, foreign policy experts describe a “geopolitical turning point” where the post-World War II rules-based international order has been replaced by a “new normal” of spheres of influence. This landscape is characterized by a “great power bargain” between the U.S., Russia, and China, allowing each to dominate their respective regions without external legal or military interference. 

This divided landscape is defined by three primary power centers: 

1. The American Sphere: The “Donroe” Doctrine 

The Trump administration has revitalized a 19th-century geostrategic perspective, often dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine” (a blend of Donald Trump’s name and the Monroe Doctrine). 

Regional Dominance: The U.S. is prioritizing control over the Western Hemisphere, asserting that it will no longer tolerate Russian, Chinese, or Iranian influence in the Americas.

Unilateral Action: The January 3, 2026, capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is cited by analysts as the clearest evidence of this doctrine. By acting unilaterally, the U.S. signaled it would “do as it pleases” in its region, regardless of traditional international law.

Internal Expansion: Beyond Latin America, the administration is reportedly seeking control over resources in Greenland and exerting heavy pressure on Canada and Mexico. 

2. The Russian Sphere: Post-Soviet Hegemony

Encouraged by America’s focus on its own hemisphere, Russia is aggressively consolidating power over what it considers its “historical entitlement”. 

Ukraine and Beyond: Vladimir Putin is emboldened to expand his sphere of influence throughout the former Soviet Union. With the U.S. reportedly pressing Kyiv toward territorial concessions, Russia views its regional dominance as increasingly unchecked.

Tactical Acceptance: Experts suggest a tacit agreement where the U.S. grants Russia its regional sphere in exchange for cooperation or non-interference in American interests elsewhere. 

3. The Chinese Sphere: Economic and Regional Supremacy

China has utilized the U.S. “America First” pivot to solidify its influence in Asia and the Global South through technology and infrastructure. 

The “Electrostate”: By mastering 21st-century technologies (AI, drones, and the “electric stack”), China has established a commercial and industrial foundation for its sphere that soft power alone could not deliver.

Regional Focus: China is seeking greater control over its region, specifically emphasizing dominance over Taiwan, while the U.S. signals a diminishing interest in fighting to defend the island. 

Consequences of a “World Without Checks”

Normalization of Power Grabs: The ouster of Maduro is seen as a “repudiation of legal constraint,” normalising similar territorial or regime actions by Russia and China.

Erosion of Alliances: Traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are left “scrambling” to provide for their own defense as they can no longer rely on Washington as a stabilizer against regional hegemons.

Heightened Volatility: Without a universal legal framework, the risk of “miscalculations” and opportunistic attacks increases, as strategic restraint has largely collapsed.”

AI EXPLANATION 2

Explain: “Experts predict a 2026 landscape where the world is divided into Russian, Chinese, and American “spheres of influence” where each power can “do as they please” without legal check.”

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, foreign policy experts describe a “geopolitical turning point” where the post-World War II rules-based international order has been effectively replaced by a “new normal” of spheres of influence. This landscape is characterized by a “great power bargain” or tacit understanding between the U.S., Russia, and China, allowing each to dominate their respective regions without external legal or military interference. 

This divided landscape is defined by three primary power centers: 

1. The American Sphere: The “Don-roe” Doctrine 

The Trump administration has revitalized a 19th-century geostrategic perspective, often dubbed the “Don-roe Doctrine” (a blend of Donald Trump’s name and the Monroe Doctrine). 

Regional Dominance: The U.S. is prioritizing control over the Western Hemisphere, asserting that its interests take precedence and that it will act unilaterally when deemed necessary.

Unilateral Action: The January 3, 2026, capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is cited by analysts as the clearest evidence of this doctrine. By acting without the authorization of the UN or other international bodies, the U.S. signaled it would “do as it pleases” in its region.

Internal Expansion: Beyond Latin America, the administration is reportedly seeking control over resources in Greenland and exerting heavy pressure on Canada and Mexico for bilateral concessions. 

2. The Russian Sphere: Post-Soviet Hegemony 

Encouraged by America’s focus on its own hemisphere, Russia is aggressively consolidating power over what it considers its “historical entitlement”. 

Ukraine and the “Backyard”: Vladimir Putin is emboldened to expand his sphere of influence throughout the former Soviet Union. With the U.S. showing little appetite for maintaining the European balance of power, Russia views its regional dominance as increasingly unchecked.

Tactical Acceptance: Experts suggest a bleak optimism in Moscow that the U.S. intervention in Venezuela deals a final blow to the rules-based order, ushering in a world where power, rather than law, shapes outcomes. 

3. The Chinese Sphere: Economic and Regional Supremacy

China has utilized the U.S. “America First” pivot to solidify its influence in Asia and the Global South through technology and infrastructure. 

The “Electrostate”: By mastering 21st-century technologies (AI, drones, and the “electric stack”), China has established a commercial and industrial foundation for its sphere that soft power alone could not deliver.

Regional Focus: China is seeking greater control over its region, specifically in South Asia and the South China Sea, while the U.S. signals a diminishing interest in maintaining its global-spanning role. 

Consequences of a “World Without Checks”

Normalization of Power Grabs: The ouster of Maduro is seen as a “constitutional moment for international law” that creates a fresh precedent for the use of military force by any major power seeking regime change in its neighborhood.

Erosion of Alliances: Traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are left “scrambling” to provide for their own defense as they can no longer rely on Washington as a stable counterweight to regional hegemons.

Heightened Volatility: Without a universal legal framework, the risk of “miscalculations” and opportunistic attacks increases, as strategic restraint has largely collapsed.”