Empire Resurgent: The U.S. Invasion of Venezuela, Oil Politics, and the Global Reckoning

Baba Yunus Muhammad

On the morning of January 3, 2026, the world was jolted by news that reverberated far beyond the boundaries of South America: the United States military launched a dramatic air and ground assault on Venezuela that ended with the capture and forcible removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, to American custody. U.S. officials, in a televised announcement, openly spoke of “running” Venezuela temporarily while they oversaw a political transition — language that underscored the operation not as law enforcement, humanitarian intervention, or diplomacy, but as outright occupation and regime control.

What unfolded that day is not an isolated headline in a remote corner of the world. It is a tectonic shift in global power dynamics, a stark return of gunboat diplomacy, and a resuscitation of colonial‑era logic in the 21st century. This is a moment that demands sober and unapologetic analysis.

The Crime: A Clear Violation of Sovereignty and International Law

The United States’ military assault on Caracas — including airstrikes on military bases and strategic infrastructure — and the capture of Venezuela’s head of state are incompatible with the charter of the United Nations, which the United States itself helped shape after World War II to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral power projection. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state without Security Council authorization or a genuine claim of self‑defense. There is neither a Security Council mandate nor a credible claim of imminent threat justifying this invasion.

U.S. officials have attempted to cloak the operation in the language of law enforcement by pointing to indictments against Maduro and Flores in a federal U.S. court. But no domestic criminal charge — no matter how serious — grants one country the right to send invading armies into another, topple its leadership, and transport that leadership to foreign soil for trial. This action stands in stark violation of international law, a breach equated by diplomats and legal experts to some of the most controversial invasions of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Venezuela’s Government: Not Overthrown, Resistance Brewing

Contrary to narratives of a collapsing regime, the Venezuelan state — though severely shaken — has not been dismantled. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez immediately assumed the role of acting president, invoking constitutional continuity and denouncing the U.S. assault as an act of kidnapping and aggression. This transition within the Venezuelan government is a critical point: the United States has not inherited a void of power, but rather supplanted one sovereign authority with its own forces.

On the ground, ordinary Venezuelans have responded with a surge of grassroots resistance that defies simplistic portrayals of passive defeat. In cities and towns across the country, community networks, worker cooperatives, student groups, and local militias have begun organizing to defend their neighborhoods, protect essential services, and oppose what they see as a foreign occupation. There are reports of emergent defense councils in barrios where residents mobilize supplies, coordinate communication, and, in some areas, confront foreign troops with slogans asserting Venezuela’s sovereignty and dignity. These are not incidental skirmishes — they point to a growing, decentralized resistance movement that rejects foreign domination in all its forms.

In a country scarred by years of economic hardship and political polarization, this resistance is not simply a continuation of Maduro’s political faction. It represents a broader rejection of external imposition, a sentiment shared by many Venezuelans who have lived through decades of geopolitical tug‑of‑war between great powers.

The True Motive: Oil, Empire, and the Economics of Intervention

At the heart of this crisis lies oil — not abstract notions of democracy or human rights, but the raw calculus of energy and power. Venezuela sits atop the largest proven oil reserves in the world, a fact that has shaped its destiny for a century. Since the U.S. withdrew from the Venezuela oil market under sanctions in the 2010s, Caracas turned to alternative partners, most notably China and Russia, as well as Iran, for financial lifelines, investment, and markets for its crude.

American political leaders have openly discussed integrating U.S. oil companies into Venezuela’s energy sector as part of the so‑called “transition” — language that strips away pretense and reveals the naked economic calculus of the operation. U.S. President Trump’s advisors spoke of rebuilding Venezuela’s broken oil infrastructure and getting the oil flowing again — under terms favourable to U.S. capital.

This is not a fringe interpretation. The historical record is replete with examples where strategic resources — whether oil in Iran in 1953 or Chile in 1973 — have served as catalysts for American intervention. The rhetoric around “energy security” in U.S. political discourse has long overlapped with strategic calculations about reducing dependence on rival powers, particularly China.

 China and Russia: Strategic Partners or Casualties of Great Power Rivalry?

The U.S. assault on Venezuela did not take place in a vacuum but on a world stage already fractured by geopolitical competition. China and Russia — each with deep political, economic, and, in Russia’s case, military ties to Caracas — reacted swiftly and with alarm.

Beijing described the operation as a blatant violation of international law and condemned the use of force against a sovereign state, framing it as “hegemonic behaviour” that threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. China has been Venezuela’s largest creditor and oil customer for years, with Chinese firms embedded in the country’s energy infrastructure — often through loans tied to future oil deliveries.

For Moscow, the U.S. action struck at a partner in the Western Hemisphere — a region long dominated by American influence. Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the assault as “armed aggression” and demanded reconsideration and the release of Maduro and his wife, underscoring the perception that this was less about drugs or law enforcement and more about geopolitical exclusion.

But the reactions of China and Russia also expose the limits of their influence. Neither power has moved to militarily defend Venezuela, illustrating that while they are significant economic and diplomatic partners, they do not — at least not yet — possess the capacity or political will to directly counter U.S. military action in the Western Hemisphere.

The result is a sobering realignment: U.S. military dominance remains unchallenged in its own hemisphere, forcing rival powers into rhetorical condemnation and diplomatic protests — tools that, while important, offer little protection against boots on the ground.

Regional and Global Backlash: What the World Is Saying

The invasion has sparked a global outcry. Governments across Latin America — from Mexico to Brazil — have condemned the U.S. action as an affront to sovereignty and regional stability. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the bombings a “serious affront” that crossed an unacceptable line, urging the international community to respond vigorously. Neighboring Colombia mobilized security forces and warned of worsening humanitarian crises. International organizations like the European Union and the United Nations have expressed alarm, with calls for restraint and adherence to international law.

Even in Western capitals aligned with the United States, there is unease. Diplomats and legal scholars warn that this operation sets a dangerous precedent: if a powerful state can invade and seize a sovereign government under tenuous legal pretexts, then the post‑World War II international order — founded on the equality of states and the prohibition of force — is fundamentally undermined.

The Human Cost: Crisis Amid Crisis

The violence of the military strikes has already claimed lives and deepened fears among Venezuelans who remember decades of turmoil and hardship. Beyond the immediate loss of life, there are growing concerns about displacement, refugee flows into neighboring countries, and the fragmentation of communities already stretched thin by years of economic crisis.

Amid humanitarian concerns, ordinary people are caught between foreign soldiers and homegrown resistance fighters, struggling to secure food, medicine, and shelter. The struggle is not merely political; it is existential for families and communities whose lives have already been disrupted by economic sanctions, political instability, and a health system in crisis.

A Turning Point: Where Do We Go from Here?

The invasion of Venezuela marks a pivotal moment in global politics. It is a stark reminder that great powers still operate by the logic of force and domination, even in an era that purports to uphold law and human rights. The action has shattered any illusion that international norms automatically protect smaller nations from coercion.

But within this crisis lies a deeper truth: Venezuelans themselves — beyond the polarizing figure of Maduro — are asserting their agency and resisting external domination. The rise of local resistance movements, community defense efforts, and broad rejection of foreign imposition reflects a profound desire for self‑determination that no foreign army can extinguish.

The world now faces a choice. Will it defend the notion that all nations — from Caracas to Kinshasa to Abuja — have an equal right to determine their own futures? Or will might make right, justifying invasions on strategic calculations and calling it order?

What happened in Venezuela is not merely geopolitical theatre. It is a crisis of international justice, sovereignty, and moral imagination. And its consequences — human, political, and ecological — will be felt for generations.

Author Bio

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum, a journalist, and an activist focusing on African governance, economic justice, and human rights. His work combines incisive critique with rigorous analysis, advocating for accountability, citizen empowerment, and the defense of African sovereignty.