When the Rule of Law Becomes Optional: Lessons from Putin and Trump

Democracy rests on the rule of law—especially when military force is used. For democratic governments, how power is exercised matters as much as why. Consistency with international law is not optional; it is foundational to democratic credibility.

Two recent cases highlight this issue. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been widely condemned as illegal under international law and a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. In contrast, U.S. military actions near Venezuela in 2025—described by U.S. officials as counter-drug operations and sanctions enforcement—have raised legal concerns among experts who say they may violate the same rules.

The situations are not the same. Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed Ukrainian territory. The United States has not invaded Venezuela. But the cases share an important similarity: a powerful state using force in or near a resource-rich country, justified through security arguments, while legal scrutiny is applied differently.

International law is clear. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter bans the threat or use of force against another country’s territorial integrity or political independence. The United States and its allies have relied on this principle to condemn Russia’s actions, calling them a war of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter. That standard is meant to apply to all states, without exception.

In Venezuela, the legal picture is more contested. In 2025, the United States carried out maritime strikes, seized oil tankers, and ordered a blockade of sanctioned Venezuelan oil shipments. These actions directly targeted Venezuela’s oil exports, the backbone of its economy, in a country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves. While U.S. officials argue these measures are lawful enforcement actions, critics say the use of force risks crossing legal limits.

The concern is not motive, but consistency. In both Ukraine and Venezuela, force was justified through security claims, and economic resources were directly affected. The key difference remains Russia’s territorial conquest versus U.S. pressure tactics that have not yet escalated into invasion, though a ground invasion has not been ruled out by Trump. 

Applying international law selectively carries consequences. When legal standards are enforced against rivals but weakened at home, global norms erode, civilian protections weaken, and democratic credibility suffers. Former U.S. military lawyers have warned that weakening these rules also puts U.S. service members at risk. 

Authoritarian governments often undermine the rule of law by applying it selectively. Russia under President Vladimir Putin has done this by invoking legal arguments against opponents while ignoring them when inconvenient. Democracies risk losing moral authority when they follow a similar pattern.

The lesson from Ukraine is simple: international law matters most when it constrains power. If the United States wants to lead against authoritarianism, it must apply the same legal standards to itself that it demands of others.