Opinion - Venezuela Crisis: Geopolitical Competition, US Strategy, and Domestic Governance Failures

Historically recognized as one of Latin America’s most prosperous states, Venezuela—positioned on the northern coast of South America along the Caribbean basin—has, despite its vast natural resource wealth, experienced a prolonged transformation marked by political volatility, economic collapse, and acute humanitarian challenges. On 3 January 2026, the United States launched a military operation in Venezuela that culminated in the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. forces in Caracas; they were subsequently transported to the United States to face federal criminal charges, a development that propelled Venezuela’s protracted political and economic crisis onto the international stage. This Latin American country has the world's largest proven oil reserves, which amount to more than 300 billion barrels, and this natural resource carries important strategic significance in the dynamics of regional and global power.

The country is 3,000 kilometers from the United States, with the Caribbean Sea in the middle. Until the 1990s, Venezuela exported most of its oil to the United States. Tensions between the United States and Venezuela began after Chavez, who adopted socialist policies, won the election and became president in 1999. Chavez prioritized the nationalization of Venezuelan oil. He also adopted policies such as selling oil to Cuba, establishing good relations with Iran, buying weapons from Russia, and nationalizing energy and telecommunications companies. All of which were criticized by the US administration. Before his death in 2013, Chavez nominated his Vice President, Nicolás Maduro, as his successor. During Maduro's presidency, tensions between Venezuela and the United States deepened.

According to the 'Monroe Doctrine' introduced in 1823, the United States considers the entire American continent, including Latin America, as its own sphere of influence or 'backyard'. Therefore, if energy security can be ensured from the backyard, it will play a role in helping to preserve the existence of a large industrialized and consumerist state like America.

Besides, in Venezuela’s political economy, Russia and China have operated not merely as diplomatic partners but as consequential extra-regional stakeholders whose energy and security engagements shape Caracas’s room for maneuver. Russia’s relationship with Venezuela has been anchored in hydrocarbons cooperation and defense ties. Notably, in November 2025 Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a 15-year extension of Russia-linked joint ventures between PDVSA and Petromost. China, meanwhile, constitutes Venezuela’s most important commercial outlet for crude oil and a key external investor in the sector.

From a U.S. perspective, these deepening Russia–Venezuela and China–Venezuela linkages are strategically inconvenient: they complicate Washington’s coercive leverage, provide Caracas with alternative diplomatic and financial lifelines, and embed Venezuela’s crisis more firmly within a wider contest over influence in the Western Hemisphere.

America has long sought to keep the region under its control through its ‘dollar diplomacy. But when Venezuela began military cooperation with Russia or made a major energy deal with China, America’s sole dominance or ‘hegemony’ was threatened. According to political theorist Carl Schmitt’s ‘Grossraum’ theory, a strong state always wants to prevent the entry of any other great power into its surrounding region. America is doing exactly this; they do not want China or Russia to have a long-term presence in their ‘own backyard’.

To understand this process, we must first delve deeper into the theory of ‘American Exceptionalism’. This philosophical theory, considered the centerpiece of American political discourse, places America at such a height that they believe they have an unwritten God-given right to protect ‘democracy’ or ‘human rights’ anywhere in the world according to their own interests. From this mentality arises the tendency to interfere in the sovereignty of others. America is trying to define this philosophy in a somewhat sophisticated way in the modern era. They have invaded Panama, Vietnam or Iraq, lured by the illusion of freedom. But none of them ended well. Because each time their main target was underground resources.

Similarly, when Chavez wanted to break out of the US sphere of influence and choose his own socialist or self-reliant path, his conflict with America became inevitable. Here, the rhetoric of human rights is used simply as a 'political tool'.

To gain a more comprehensive understanding of Venezuela’s contemporary predicament, it is necessary to examine the natural “resource curse” theory as a conceptual framework. The resource curse is a theoretical perspective that suggests that countries rich in natural resources struggle with external adversaries to achieve sustainable economic growth, stable political structures, and effective governance despite their wealth; this is particularly evident in economies dependent on strategic raw materials such as oil. This is because natural resources shape the economic and political structures of these countries in ways that are not aligned with the strategic interests of outsiders. External powers then intensify military and political intervention to shape the region in their favor.

For example, the United States initially justified the invasion of Iraq by citing weapons of mass destruction, but after the war it was discovered that the real target was Baghdad's oil fields. The same picture can be seen in the case of Venezuela. Furthermore, economic sanctions imposed on a country can restrict its relations with international markets, leading to indirect control of its resource revenues by outsiders; this can be interpreted as a deliberate narrowing of the economic arteries in resource-rich countries.

This competition for natural resources is what sociologists call ‘neo-colonialism’. Here, the territory is not directly occupied, but rather the resources of that territory are exploited through international law, trade agreements and local governments.

In modern geopolitics, occupying a country with military force alone is no longer a sustainable solution. In the past few decades, America has placed more emphasis on ‘soft power’ and psychological warfare than ‘hard power’.

The first step in psychological warfare is to isolate the target country internationally and portray its leader as a ‘monster’ or ‘dictator’. In the case of Venezuela, the Western media has consistently promoted the country's destruction solely due to misrule, while carefully ignoring the harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United States. These sanctions, which have been going on for years, are in fact a kind of "silent war" that is taking away the purchasing power of ordinary people and ultimately forcing them to take to the streets.

Now if we ask why, despite having so much wealth, they were unable to sustainably develop their country, economy or military power? Where the US and Israel must pay so much to occupy a small territory like Gaza, while it has become so easy to remove the leadership of Venezuela, making the country practically uninhabitable? This question is not just about Venezuela, it is about the relationship between resources, leadership, talent and geopolitics.

Venezuela's biggest mistake began when they thought that oil would never run out. While oil prices were high, they made no effort to diversify the economy. Agriculture, industry, technology, and none of the sectors were strongly developed. The country practically became an oil-addicted economy, where almost everything became dependent on imports. Their whole model was that money would come from selling oil, and with that money everything would be bought from outside.

This situation was further complicated by nationalization during Hugo Chavez's time. Chavez brought all big businesses, oil companies, and even the economic and administrative structures under complete central control. Initially, this reduced poverty to some extent, benefited people, and reduced tax burdens. But in the long run, this excessive centralization gave rise to terrible corruption. The people did not know anything about it, and the government did not have to be held accountable. And that is when the state basically began to collapse.

And after Nicolas Maduro came to power, the incompetence of the leadership, unlimited corruption, and the breakdown of the state apparatus all together weakened Venezuela. When oil prices fell sharply after 2012, the completely oil-dependent economy fell into hyperinflation. Daily necessities went beyond the reach of people.

It was during this time that Venezuela suffered its most terrible loss, and that was the emigration of talented people. About 7.7 million people left the country. That is, one in five Venezuelans left the country. The United States took advantage of this internal weakness. Starting in 2017, Venezuela was suffocated step by step with economic sanctions, oil embargo, and financial reserve freeze.

The country had resources, but there was no way to use those resources. Oil cannot be sold, money cannot be transferred, weapons cannot be bought. It is exactly the situation where you have land but cannot sell it, need medical treatment but cannot use the money.

At this time, Venezuela's diplomatic failures also became clear. They could not build a strong alliance within Latin America. As a result, Venezuela was isolated internationally.

Venezuela’s oil wealth, instead of securing prosperity, became the source of its collapse due to poor governance, lack of diversification, and talent loss, leaving the country vulnerable to foreign pressure. Though formally independent, its economy and security are heavily constrained by external influence. Ordinary citizens pay the highest price through corruption, sanctions, and instability. The case warns that resources alone do not guarantee state survival—real strength lies in people, institutions, and strategic capacity.

Author: Subah Mutahhara Samiha

Researcher at International Institute of Law and Diplomacy