BRICS Snatch Leaders?

In today’s episode of **What’s going on with BRICS**:**BRICS Snatch** **Leaders?** **Kidnapping** **New Normal?**If you’re new to the channel, hey, take a moment, subscribe to the channel, then hit the bell to be alerted about new episodes when they drop.Coming to you today from [location to be filled by owner].### What’s in the News1. **US capture of Maduro – a bold precedent** - January 3, 2026: US airstrikes and special ops raid led to Maduro’s capture on narco-terrorism charges. - Venezuela condemns as “imperialist aggression”; explosions hit military sites, chaos ensues. - Ties to 2025 NSS Trump Corollary – US enforcing Monroe Doctrine in its “backyard.” 2. **Could BRICS do the same to Western leaders?** - Hypothetical: BRICS states (e.g., Russia, China) could fabricate charges (e.g., war crimes in Ukraine/Taiwan) and attempt a snatch-and-grab on Trump, Rubio, Starmer, von der Leyen, Kallas, Luxon, or Merz. - But practicality low: Western leaders heavily protected; operation would require massive resources and risk full-scale conflict. - Precedent: US action echoes past grabs like Noriega (Panama 1989) – shows powerful nations sometimes act unilaterally. 3. **International law on state-sponsored kidnappings** - Illegal under UN Charter Article 2(4) – violates sovereignty and prohibits force against another state’s territory. - Precedents: Israel’s 1960 abduction of Eichmann from Argentina (condemned by UN but trial proceeded); US 1990 Alvarez-Machain case (Supreme Court allowed trial despite Mexico abduction). - Principle: “Male captus, bene detentus” – wrongfully captured, lawfully detained – courts sometimes ignore abduction if jurisdiction holds. 4. **Does this normalize kidnapping under “new rules”?** - Not really – US justifies as self-defense/counter-narcotics, but sets risky precedent for tit-for-tat. - Hypocrisy highlighted: US intervenes in Russia’s (Ukraine) and China’s (Taiwan) spheres, yet invokes Monroe to bar them from Americas. - Quid pro quo risk: BRICS could see it as green light for symmetric actions – e.g., Russia in Eastern Europe or China in Asia. 5. **BRICS response options – direct and indirect** - Direct: SCO condemnation, UN resolutions on sovereignty; joint military aid to Venezuelan resistance. - Indirect: Economic sanctions on US interests; cyber attacks; accelerate de-dollarization to weaken US leverage. - Hypothetical: Proxy operations or abductions in response – but escalation to war possible. 6. **Danger for the US – high stakes blowback** - Risks global isolation: Alienates Latin America, boosts anti-US sentiment. - BRICS narrative win: “US hypocrisy” amplifies multipolar messaging. - Military overstretch: Venezuela resistance ties resources; broader conflicts (e.g., Russia escalates Ukraine) loom. 7. **Western allies’ silence exposes double standards** - No illegality declarations or sanctions from Starmer (UK), Luxon (NZ), Albanese (AU), von der Leyen/Kallas (EU). - Contrast to Ukraine: Swift sanctions on Russia for “illegal aggression.” - Call-out: Sovereignty only matters when it’s not a US ally acting – pure hypocrisy. OK team, so what does all this mean? Well, it means the Maduro capture tests international norms – US flexes power, but risks normalizing grabs that could boomerang on Western leaders, handing BRICS a hypocrisy hammer in multipolar games. High danger ahead. 🌀 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wgowbrics.substack.com