Poonam Sharma
The sudden manner in which the attack occurred, and the way President Nicolás Maduro was taken into custody, gives the impression of a political kidnapping rather than a lawful arrest. The immediate reactions from his family and supporters reinforce this perception. For many observers, the images and sequence of events evoke uncomfortable historical parallels — particularly the final chapters of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya nearly two decades ago.
In each of those cases, the actions were framed as necessary interventions justified by moral, legal, or humanitarian claims. Yet with hindsight, those explanations appear insufficient to explain the scale and finality of what followed. Venezuela now seems to be entering a similar chapter, where legality and legitimacy blur under the weight of power politics.
Such actions are often justified through symbolic narratives or moral pretexts — something akin to an “Ides of March” moment — where timing, optics, and symbolism matter as much as facts. This time, the narrative circulating prominently involves drugs and criminal networks. However, these explanations appear superficial when placed against the broader geopolitical backdrop. The deeper reasons lie in long-term strategic calculations, both backward-looking and forward-oriented, that demand closer examination.
For Bharat, this development is not a distant spectacle. It is a serious and troubling signal that reflects a hardening and increasingly aggressive posture in global geopolitics — one where power is asserted openly and consequences are absorbed later.
Energy, Currency, and the Cracks in the Dollar System
When we step back and examine what happened in Venezuela, its links to a wider global discourse become evident — particularly those involving energy security, currency dominance, and the strategic realignments around Saudi Arabia.
The United States is acutely aware that its reserve currency status has weakened. By several estimates, the dollar’s share in global reserves has declined by nearly 10% by 2025, reaching one of its lowest levels since the post–Bretton Woods oil arrangements were consolidated.
The historic oil deal with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s created what became known as the petrodollar system. Under this framework, oil was traded almost exclusively in US dollars, compelling nations across the world to hold dollars to meet their energy needs. This structure allowed the United States to finance deficits, print currency, and sustain economic dominance with minimal immediate constraints.
Today, that structure is under visible strain. The dollar’s global usage has reportedly fallen to around 43%, triggering concern in Washington that the United States may gradually lose its position as the world’s uncontested financial hegemon. De-dollarization efforts, alternative payment mechanisms, and regional currency arrangements have further deepened these anxieties.
Against this backdrop, a new strategic approach appears to be taking shape. The logic is straightforward: if countries want oil, they must increasingly buy it through US-controlled channels, ensuring continued global demand for dollars. Such a shift would marginalize traditional suppliers like Russia and could even reduce Saudi Arabia’s leverage in the long run.
The United States, under this model, moves closer to becoming a practical monopoly player in global oil supply chains. This would compel even major economies such as China, Bharat, and others to continue operating within dollar-denominated energy routes, regardless of political differences.
This is not merely an economic maneuver. It is a survival strategy aimed at preserving American dominance in a world where financial supremacy is no longer guaranteed.
Venezuela and the Logic of Power
This brings the focus back to Venezuela. The country holds approximately 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — among the largest in the world — enough to influence global energy markets for decades. Control over Venezuelan oil would not simply reshape regional politics; it would alter the balance of global energy power and potentially secure strategic advantages for the United States well into the next century.
The legal actions and charges currently being discussed appear weak, inconsistent, and in some cases contradictory. Allegations cited in charge sheets, including references to incidents allegedly linked to Bharat, do not withstand close scrutiny. Many claims appear exaggerated or selectively framed, raising questions about whether legal processes are being used to manufacture consent rather than establish accountability.
This pattern is not new. It reflects a broader reality in international relations where legal norms often bend under the pressure of strategic interests. In practice, international law frequently appears subordinate to raw power — a reality best summarized by the blunt maxim: “Might makes right.”
Recent emergency declarations across several US states, transportation shutdowns, and signs of rising domestic instability further intensify the urgency behind Washington’s external actions. When internal vulnerabilities grow, external assertiveness often increases — a pattern visible across history.
Bharat in an Era of Open Power Politics
The larger implication of these developments extends far beyond Venezuela. The United States has now demonstrated that, in pursuit of its national interests, it is willing to act militarily and unilaterally, even defying long-standing doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine, which once promised to safeguard Latin American interests from external domination. What is unfolding instead resembles a gradual re-colonization of resource-rich but politically vulnerable nations.
There is also growing speculation about future actions elsewhere, including territories like Greenland, suggesting that traditional norms of sovereignty are being reinterpreted under the logic of strategic necessity.
For Bharat, this moment raises difficult and unavoidable questions. Diplomacy, as traditionally practiced, appears to be losing its restraining power. The global environment is increasingly shaped by open assertions of force rather than negotiated restraint. The assumption that goodwill, partnerships, or moral positioning alone can ensure security is being steadily eroded.
Bharat finds itself in a world where emerging power blocs are taking shape, potentially led by a trio of dominant players — the United States, Russia, and China. Bharat’s place within this evolving order remains uncertain, contested, and fragile.Bharat must respond to persistent border disturbances with credible military assertion, signalling both resolve and deterrence. At the same time, its foreign policy must reflect strength and strategic clarity, demonstrating the capacity to firmly manage and contain destabilising behaviour originating from neighbouring states such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. In the current global climate, restraint without strength risks being misread as weakness, and Bharat’s responses must therefore combine diplomatic engagement with unmistakable strategic resolve.
What is clear is that reliance on face-value friendships or symbolic diplomacy may no longer be sufficient. The international system is signaling that strength, rather than sentiment, defines relevance. Whether Bharat should, and will, adapt to this reality.
What we are witnessing today is not merely a regime-change operation in Venezuela. It is a systemic effort to preserve dollar supremacy, energy control, and geopolitical dominance — with not only Venezuela, but multiple resource-rich yet politically weaker nations, positioned at the center of this intensifying global power struggle.
