The year 2026 has dawned not with the quiet optimism of global recovery, but with the thunder of falling structures—both literal and metaphorical. The recent abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States airborne forces marks a definitive rupture in the tapestry of international law that has governed the world since 1945. What analysts are now branding the "Donroe Doctrine"—a synthesis of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and the disruptive, unilateralist foreign policy of President Donald Trump—represents more than just a regime change in Caracas. It signals a "free-for-all" in the global commons, where the Westphalian notion of absolute state sovereignty is being replaced by a raw, transactional exercise of power. As the United States reasserts a hyper-aggressive "shock and awe" posture within its traditional hemisphere, the reverberations are being felt from the frozen coasts of Greenland to the congested tech hubs of Bengaluru, suggesting that the "rules-based order" is no longer a shared reality, but a contested relic.

The Genesis of the Monroe Doctrine: Beyond Monroe

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was originally designed to prevent European colonialism from re-establishing a foothold in the Americas. It was a defensive posture that eventually evolved into a tool for U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. However, the "Donroe Doctrine" of 2026 is a different beast entirely. It does not merely warn off external powers; it actively intervenes to physically remove heads of state deemed "threats to national security" without the pretence of international mandates or UN Security Council resolutions.

The incarceration of Nicolás Maduro and his wife on U.S. soil represents a shift from "soft power" and economic sanctions to "kinetic unilateralism." For decades, the U.S. used the Boland Amendment or covert CIA operations to influence Latin American politics. In 2026, the pretence of "plausible deniability" has been discarded in favour of overt military action. This shift is predicated on the belief that the U.S. must secure its "near abroad" at any cost, especially as global resources like copper and lithium become the new gold. By removing Maduro, the U.S. is not just addressing a political adversary; it is sending a message to the world: the borders of sovereign nations are secondary to the strategic imperatives of the American presidency. This "updated version of shock and awe" uses precision technology and elite airborne units to achieve in hours what used to take years of diplomacy or months of conventional warfare.

The Collapse of the Post-1945 Consensus

Since the end of World War II, the international system has relied on the United Nations Charter, which enshrines the principle of sovereign equality. While this ideal was often violated during the Cold War, the violations were typically accompanied by elaborate legal justifications. Today, the "muted" global response to the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty suggests that the world has moved into a post-legalistic era. The "Donroe Doctrine" thrives because the institutions meant to restrain it—the UN, the ICC, and the EU—are currently fragmented or incapacitated by internal crises.

The silence of the international community is not necessarily a sign of consent, but of exhaustion and pragmatism. Nations are observing a "free-for-all" where the strongest dictates the terms. This erosion of norms has created a vacuum. When the U.S. demonstrates that it can abduct a sitting president with impunity, it effectively gives a "green light" to other regional hegemons. The post-1945 order was built on the idea of collective security; the 2026 order is built on "spheres of influence." In this new world, the "global commons"—be it the high seas, outer space, or international airspace—is no longer a shared resource protected by law, but a competitive arena where the "might is right" philosophy prevails.

The Greenland Gambit and the Franco-American Schism

A startling secondary theatre of this new international disorder is the escalating tension over Greenland. President Trump’s fixation on the island—once dismissed as a rhetorical eccentricity—has evolved into a major diplomatic flashpoint. By antagonising European leaders like Emmanuel Macron over Greenland's strategic value and potential tariffs, the U.S. is effectively treating a NATO ally’s territory as a real estate acquisition. The "Donroe Doctrine" extends here too: the belief that the Arctic is a vital American interest that supersedes Danish sovereignty or European Union trade agreements.

The French support for suspending the EU-U.S. trade deal is a direct consequence of this aggressive posture. It highlights a growing "Transatlantic Divorce." If the U.S. views the world through a transactional lens where Greenland is a commodity to be traded or taken, Europe feels forced to protect its own borders and economic interests through protectionism. This friction puts the entire Gaza ceasefire plan and other Middle Eastern stability efforts at risk, as the U.S. can no longer count on a unified European front. The Greenland issue is a microcosm of the 2026 outlook: a mix of resource anxiety (mining rights for rare earth elements) and a total disregard for traditional diplomatic protocol.

China, Russia, and the Multi-Polar "Zone of Influence"

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the "Monroe Doctrine" is the precedent it sets for other major powers. If the U.S. can claim a "security zone" that allows for the abduction of foreign leaders in South America, what stops China from asserting a similar "right" over Taiwan? Analysts are hearing "sotto voce" warnings that the Venezuelan operation is being studied closely in Beijing and Moscow. The concept of "National Rejuvenation" in China and the "Russkiy Mir" (Russian World) in Moscow are the ideological equivalents of the Monroe Doctrine.

Russia’s readiness to use frozen assets for "rebuilding" or its continued pressure on its neighbours is bolstered by the perception that the U.S. has abandoned the moral high ground. If the global order is indeed a "free-for-all," then the annexation of territory or the forced "integration" of breakaway regions becomes a matter of military capability rather than international legitimacy. We are seeing the rise of a "Three-Block World": a Western block led by an aggressive U.S., an Eastern block centred on the China-Russia axis, and a fragmented "Global South" trying to navigate the gaps between them. The risk of a miscalculation in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea has increased exponentially because the "guardrails" of international law have been dismantled by the very power that originally built them.

India’s Strategic Autonomy in a Choking World

For India, the 2026 global outlook presents a complex paradox. On one hand, India faces internal challenges like the "traffic chokehold" in Bengaluru and Pune—symptoms of an infrastructure struggling to keep pace with a massive population. On the other hand, the global "copper crunch" and the shift toward Electric Vehicles (EVs) place India in a vital position as a major consumer and potential manufacturer. However, the Donroe Doctrine complicates India's "Strategic Autonomy." India has traditionally relied on a rules-based order to protect its interests in the Indian Ocean and to manage its volatile borders with Pakistan and China. The "Pax Silica"—the peace maintained through semiconductor and technology interdependence—is being tested. As the U.S. becomes more isolationist and interventionist simultaneously, India must decide whether to align more closely with a volatile Washington or to double down on building a regional coalition. The "Donroe" era suggests that the U.S. might not be a reliable security guarantor for India if American interests shift toward the Arctic or the Americas. India’s refusal to allow external interference in its domestic affairs (as seen in the West Bengal Ayushman Bharat controversy or the London tilak dispute) reflects a nation trying to maintain its dignity in a world where "sovereignty" is becoming a luxury for the powerful.

The Copper Crunch and the Resource Wars of 2026

The transition to a green economy was supposed to be a collaborative global effort. Instead, it has become a driver of conflict. The "copper crunch" mentioned in recent reports is a primary motivator behind the "Monroe Doctrine’s" focus on South America. Venezuela, Chile, and Peru are essential nodes in the global supply chain for the EV boom. Securing these resources is no

longer just a matter of trade; it is a matter of "National Security." The U.S. operation in Venezuela can be seen as a "pre-emptive resource grab" to ensure that the American automotive industry isn't left behind by Chinese state-backed enterprises.

This "Mineral Mercantilism" is the economic engine of the new international disorder. When resources are scarce, the incentive to cooperate diminishes, and the incentive to "take" increases. We are moving away from a world of "comparative advantage" to a world of "absolute control." The environmental toll of this scramble is immense, as seen in the "saved banyans of Chevella" burning again—a local Indian tragedy that mirrors the global disregard for ecological stability in the face of industrial desperation. The EV revolution, ironically, is fueling the very types of colonial-style interventions it was hoped would be left in the 20th century.

The Personalisation of Foreign Policy: The Trump Factor

One cannot analyse the "Donroe Doctrine" without looking at the personality of Donald Trump. His approach to foreign policy is famously "zigzag," characterised by rapid-fire wins, sudden withdrawals, and highly personal interactions. The anniversary remarks celebrating a "year of wins" underscore a presidency that measures success by the disruption of old norms. By claiming credit for ending the India-Pakistan conflict or suggesting that Norway controls the Nobel Prize, Trump utilises a "Post-Truth Diplomacy" that keeps both allies and enemies off balance.

This personalisation of policy means that international relations are no longer conducted between "States" but between "Leaders." The abduction of Maduro is the ultimate expression of this: a personal confrontation between two heads of state, resolved by a strike team. This "CEO-style" governance of global affairs prioritises "Higher Risks" (as echoed in Deepinder Goyal’s resignation from Eternal/Zomato to take higher risks) over steady-state stability. The danger of this approach is its lack of institutional memory and its reliance on the whims of a single individual, making the global order as volatile as a speculative stock market.

The Crisis of Domestic Governance: From A.P. to London

While the "Donroe Doctrine" reshapes the macro-geopolitical landscape, the micro-level issues of governance and identity continue to boil. The road mishap in Rajamahendravaram, the suspension of the Karnataka DGP, and the "religious discrimination" case in a London school over a tilak all point to a world where local identities are in friction with state systems. In a "free-for-all" world, marginalised groups often feel the need to assert their identity more aggressively.

The controversy over the Ayushman Bharat scheme in West Bengal illustrates how even benevolent social programs become battlegrounds for federalist tensions. When the central authority is perceived as overreaching or "taking over" local jurisdictions, the domestic "sovereignty" of states within a nation is tested. This mirrors the international Monroe Doctrine: the struggle between a powerful centre and a resistant periphery. Whether it is a school pupil in London or a student in Andhra Pradesh, the individual is increasingly caught between the gears of large-scale political manoeuvring and the breakdown of traditional social contracts.

Navigating the "Free-for-All"

The "Donroe Doctrine" of 2026 represents a terrifying maturation of unilateral power. By abducting a sovereign leader and treating international territory like Greenland as a pawn in a trade war, the United States has signalled the end of the "rules-based" era. We have entered a "broken international order" where the global commons is a battlefield, and "sovereignty" is only as strong as the military that defends it. For the rest of the world—the "muted" protesters and the nations in the "zone of influence"—the challenge is to survive this transition without losing the core values of justice and human rights.

As we look toward the remainder of 2026, the outlook is indeed a "mixed bag." The technology for sustainable space access and the "Pax Silica" offer hope for a prosperous future, but the reality of "shock and awe" tactics and "copper crunches" suggests a return to a more primitive, predatory form of geopolitics. The "Donroe Doctrine" is not just a policy; it is a symptom of a world that has forgotten how to cooperate. To rebuild the order, the world must move beyond the "free-for-all" and rediscover the necessity of a shared global responsibility, lest the darkness of the 1860s—the "darker side of Madras" and the age of unchecked empires—becomes our new 21st-century reality.

.    .    .

References:

• Narayanan, M. K. (2026). "The ‘Donroe doctrine’, a broken international order." The Hindu.
• US Department of State. (2026). "Hemispheric Security and the Updated Monroe Framework."
• European External Action Service (EEAS). (2025). "The Strategic Importance of Greenland and Arctic Sovereignty."
• Ministry of External Affairs, India. (2025). "Annual Report on Global Congestion and Urban Infrastructure."
• Global Mineral Outlook. (2026). "The Copper Crunch: Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in the EV Era."
• United Nations Charter. (1945). "Article 2(4): The Prohibition of the Use of Force."
• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2026). "Sustainable Access to Space and Reusability Metrics."
• Amnesty International. (2026). "Human Rights Implications of Extraterritorial Abductions."
• Foreign Policy Institute. (2026). "The Rise of Neo-Expansionist Spheres of Influence: A Comparative Study."
• The Hindu Group. (2026). "Editorial Values and the Future of Digital Journalism in a Polarised World."