Waqas Abdullah

Earlier today, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was captured and flown out of Venezuela after the US carried out a large-scale strike. US President Donald Trump said in a press conference that the U.S. would "run" Venezuela temporarily during the transition, and "get the oil flowing." These recent actions by US toward Venezuela reflect a broader strategic shift in Washington’s global posture, one that connects developments in Latin America with parallel moves in the Arctic and beyond. When examined alongside the U.S. government's increasing attention to Greenland, these actions reveal a consistent pattern: the prioritisation of geography, energy resources, and strategic positioning in an era of intensifying great-power competition. Venezuela and Greenland, though geographically distant, are increasingly linked within the same geopolitical logic shaping American foreign policy.

At the heart of U.S. engagement with Venezuela lies the country’s unparalleled energy potential. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at over 300 billion barrels, making it a long-term prize in global energy geopolitics. While years of sanctions and institutional decay have reduced production, the strategic value of these reserves has not diminished. On the contrary, as global energy markets face volatility due to conflicts, supply disruptions, and energy transitions, control over future oil access has regained significance. U.S. actions toward Venezuela suggest not only an attempt to influence political leadership but also to shape how and by whom Venezuela’s energy resources will be managed in the decades ahead.

This logic mirrors Washington’s growing interest in Greenland, a territory that has become central to Arctic geopolitics. Greenland’s vast untapped reserves of hydrocarbons, rare-earth minerals, and other critical resources essential to advanced technologies have drawn increasing U.S. attention. Just as Venezuela represents energy security in the Global South, Greenland represents strategic depth in the Arctic, both serving as buffers against rival powers such as China and Russia. In both cases, the United States is acting to prevent adversarial actors from consolidating long-term influence over resource-rich territories that could shape future global supply chains.

Security considerations further bind these cases together. In Venezuela, Washington has justified its actions by pointing to alleged links between state actors and transnational criminal networks, as well as the growing presence of Russia, China, and Iran. Similarly, in Greenland, U.S. policymakers have expressed concern over Chinese investment, Russian Arctic militarisation, and the strategic vulnerability of the North Atlantic corridor. These concerns reflect a broader American doctrine focused on denying rivals access to strategically sensitive regions rather than merely promoting democratic norms.

The regional consequences of U.S. actions in Venezuela are already unfolding. Neighbouring countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, and Caribbean states are directly affected by shifts in Venezuela’s stability. Increased pressure on Caracas risks intensifying migration flows, straining social services, and destabilising border regions. Guyana, already embroiled in a territorial dispute with Venezuela over the oil-rich Essequibo region, finds itself in a more precarious position as U.S. involvement reshapes regional power balances. For Caribbean nations, heightened U.S. military activity and enforcement operations raise concerns about trade disruption, security escalation, and reduced strategic autonomy. Geopolitically, Washington’s posture toward Venezuela sends a powerful signal across Latin America. While some governments may quietly welcome U.S. assertiveness, many perceive it as a return to interventionist practices that undermine regional sovereignty. This perception risks pushing states toward diversified partnerships with China, Russia, and other non-Western actors, reinforcing the very multipolar dynamics the United States seeks to manage. Venezuela thus becomes both a practical and symbolic arena in the contest over influence in the Global South.

The linkage between Venezuela and Greenland also highlights how resource politics are increasingly globalised. Control over oil in the Caribbean basin and critical minerals in the Arctic feeds into the same strategic competition shaping energy security, technological dominance, and military logistics. The United States appears intent on securing advantageous positions in both regions before rivals can translate economic engagement into political leverage. This approach reflects a shift from reactive diplomacy to preemptive geopolitics.

For the United States, these strategies carry significant risks. Direct involvement in Venezuela may restore short-term leverage but could entrench long-term instability, resistance, and reputational damage. Similarly, heavy-handed influence in Greenland risks alienating local populations and European partners while reinforcing narratives of resource-driven power politics. In both cases, unilateralism threatens to weaken multilateral institutions and international norms.

For Venezuela, the consequences are existential. External pressure intersects with internal political fragmentation and economic exhaustion, deepening polarisation within society. While some Venezuelans may view U.S. involvement as a pathway toward political transition, others interpret it as an erosion of sovereignty linked directly to resource exploitation. Without addressing structural governance and economic reforms, control over oil alone will not guarantee national recovery. Ultimately, U.S. actions in Venezuela, when viewed alongside its strategic posture in Greenland, illustrate a wider transformation in global geopolitics. Energy reserves, critical minerals, and geographic chokepoints are once again central to power projection. What may appear as isolated policy decisions are, in reality, interconnected moves in a larger struggle to shape the future international order.

The impact of these actions will extend well beyond Venezuela’s borders, influencing regional stability in Latin America, reshaping Arctic governance, and redefining how states navigate sovereignty in a multipolar world. Whether this strategy leads to stability or deepens global fragmentation remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Venezuela’s oil reserves and Greenland’s strategic resources have become focal points in a geopolitical contest that will shape global power dynamics for decades to come.

 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan (THRIP)

_________________________________ 

Waqas Abdullah is a geopolitical analyst and anthropologist with expertise in Middle Eastern and Indo-Pacific politics. A Türkiye Bursları Scholar, he is pursuing a Master’s in International Relations at Selçuk University Konya, Türkiye. His work focuses on climate refugees, human security, and regional cooperation.