Piracy in international waters, a foreign military coup designed to establish direct political control, and the abduction of a head of state – an act in relation to which the US President himself has said that the word "kidnapping" is "not a bad term" for what he'd done.

These are surely not the actions of the so-called leader of the free world, the moral compass of a country once at the heart of an internationally agreed rules-based world order, but the tactics of a deranged bully, the very epitome of a rogue leader of a rogue nation. 

Following their unprecedented intervention, the United States' Secretary of State declared that, although his country was not at war with the former sovereign nation of Venezuela, it would be sure to retain "multiple levers of leverage" (as if there were other tools of leverage than levers) if the South American nation's remaining leaders failed to make what the White House considered to be "the right decisions."

His boss Donald Trump added that Venezuela's new leader, Delcy Rodriguez, would "pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro" if she "doesn't do what's right".

The US president, who has for years raged against his country's military interventions in the internal politics of other nations – and against his predecessors' predilections for what he called "forever wars" – one who has previously preferred a strategy of economic coercion – is now openly stating that he is "running" Venezuela.

Much of the world has had to ask whether Donald Trump, whose increasingly febrile hold on reality has become painfully evident in recent months, has finally lost his mind, at last going crackers over Caracas.

Indeed, even the UK's right-wing Daily Express newspaper has voiced concern over Mr. Trump's apparent lapses "in and out of consciousness" during a press conference in the immediate wake of his attack on Venezuela, while US General Dan Caine presented the details of the operation: "Trump's eyes appeared to drift shut as he bounced up and down on his tiptoes".

And the BBC's business team have made it clear that, despite Oval Office claims to be defending America in a war on drugs, they believe that "Trump wants Venezuela's oil" – while its international editor has said that these events could set a "precedent for authoritarian powers across globe."

Related News

The blockade as global dictatorship: From contained extraterritoriality to worldwide extension

News from Nowhere: The President's Brain Is Missing

Yet, despite cries of protest from his own party's backbenchers, the United Kingdom's Prime Minister has refused to condemn this act of military hostility, saying that – although he considers himself a "lifelong advocate of international law" – he wants to "get all the material facts together" before expressing an opinion.

(But, at the same time, at least Keir Starmer had the gumption to suggest that Greenland should decide its own fate after Mr. Trump's renewed threats to annex it.)

While the BBC reported that "government sources insisted the UK was not involved in the strikes and it was not for them to comment on the actions of other countries" (pause for ironic laughter), one British government minister argued that "it's for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for what they've done".

But, harking back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, former Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry has supposed that America's actions are clearly all about securing Venezuelan oil, has argued that "you can’t walk into a smaller country and take its resources, tell its leadership what to do or throw the leaders in jail" and has declared that "just because larger countries can walk into smaller ones doesn’t mean they are allowed to".

Meanwhile, there have been suggestions – for the moment at least, relatively light-hearted ones – that Downing Street's reticence to criticize Washington may extend beyond heightened tariff anxieties towards possible fears that Sir Keir may eventually meet the same fate as Nicolas Maduro himself, mouldering away in a New York prison cell while Trump puppet Nigel Farage seizes power in Westminster.

Everyone, after all, is terrified of the random caprices of the current American administration. Last year, the Nobel committee was thought to have been cunningly diplomatic when it decided to award its Peace Prize to the leader of Venezuela's opposition, a figure whom Trump had previously supported… a move considered reasonably politic in mitigating the wrath of the Oval Office's world-class narcissist as Mr. Trump and his spokespeople had of course vociferously advocated that the accolade should go to the most orange man in the White House instead.

The American president had in fact been obliged to make do with the strange consolation of the first ever Peace Prize handed out, in a gesture of fawning absurdity, by FIFA, the International Association Football Federation.

It may now come as some surprise that the acting leader of Venezuela approved by Trump is not his old ally the new Nobel laureate but an associate of the deposed Mr. Maduro, but various commentators have pointed out that, assuming he's after the oil, rather than acting in the interests of regional stability and Venezuelan democracy, then a continuity candidate kept firmly under his thumb might look like the American president's best bet… and certainly not someone who beat him to his well-earnt Nobel prize.

Donald Trump seems set on securing his place in the history books – at whatever cost – and, having reduced his nation's moral authority and influence to an all-time low, and having undermined global stability and security and made the world an even less safe place, he may at least have achieved that, although not in the way he seems to believe he deserves.

But at least the Nobel committee must be mightily relieved that they'd be sensible enough not to bow to pressure to give their Peace Prize to that puerile, petulant pugilist.