Could the U.S. Capture Kagame Like Maduro?

Following the reported capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a blunt message that is now shaking capitals far beyond Latin America, including the Great Lakes region.

Rubio framed Maduro’s arrest as avoidable, insisting the Venezuelan leader had received “multiple” chances to step away and refused.

But Rubio’s most consequential warning was not just about Maduro. It was about what the world should understand about Trump’s second term:

Rubio then listed the “red lines” that, in his view, pushed Washington to act:

• Bringing in hostile foreign powers (he cited Iran)

• Seizing American assets

• Flooding the U.S. with criminal networks

• Taking Americans hostage and using them as bargaining chips

Rubio’s conclusion was chillingly direct:

THE NEW QUESTION: Could the U.S. capture Paul Kagame the same way as Nicolás Maduro?

Across Africa, especially in Congo, people are now asking a politically explosive question:

If Washington was willing to carry out such an operation against Maduro, could it do the same to Kagame?

Here’s what Rubio’s speech is really telling the world (and Kigali):

The era of “untouchable leaders” may be shrinking

Rubio’s message is that power no longer guarantees protection when the U.S. views a leader as a direct threat to its interests.

The subtext is clear:

If Washington decides someone is destabilizing regions, sponsoring armed groups, threatening allies, like how Rwanda does with its Proxy war of M23 in Congo, or undermining U.S. strategic priorities, then status, prestige, and international networking will not save them.

“Multiple opportunities” then consequences

Rubio repeatedly emphasized that Maduro ignored exit ramps.

That language has major implications for any leader accused of violating agreements, including Rwanda, which violated the Washington Accords, according to Marco Rubio, especially those under U.S.-backed frameworks.

In the Great Lakes, Rwanda is increasingly accused of:

• backing proxy forces

• destabilizing neighbors

• fueling conflict

• undermining U.S.-mediated agreements

Whether true or denied, Rubio’s framing suggests this:

The U.S. is willing to move from diplomacy to enforcement if it believes a leader is acting in bad faith or playing a Big Boy

Rubio is selling a doctrine: “Trump = action.”

Rubio is not just defending an operation; he’s selling a global doctrine:

Trump is not a negotiating president. He is an enforcement president.

That doctrine is meant to influence every actor currently testing U.S. patience, from Latin America to Africa.

But could the U.S. actually capture Kagame “the same way”?

Let’s be clear and responsible here: What Rubio’s speech does signal is this:

If the U.S. decides a leader is:

• obstructing peace

• committing or enabling atrocities

• threatening regional stability

• undermining U.S.-brokered processes

• violating international obligations repeatedly

Then, Washington may escalate beyond statements and activate Military operations against President Kagame's regime. Why? because Kagame clearly violated the Trump Brokered Washington Peace Accord, according to Rubio's statement from X formerly Twitter

Why This Analysis Matters

This Piece of analysis was written in light of rapidly shifting global norms, where U.S. foreign policy is evolving from diplomacy to direct enforcement. As a Congolese Journalist, the parallels between Rwanda’s continued defiance of international peace frameworks, especially the Washington Accords, and the Venezuelan crisis are too significant to ignore.

If Paul Kagame, like Nicolás Maduro, is seen as a destabilizing force, backing militias, violating U.N. resolutions, and undermining U.S.-led agreements, then it becomes a matter of global interest, not just Congolese suffering. This analysis is not a call for intervention, but a reflection of what the world is now witnessing: that the age of impunity for authoritarian strongmen may be drawing to a close, and Rwanda must take heed.