Why the intervention in Caracas is better understood through geopolitics than oil interests
Following the U.S. armed operation in Caracas and the transfer of Maduro’s regime to U.S. territory, public reactions split sharply between support and condemnation.
Most of the criticism revolved around two claims.
First, that the action violated public international law and bypassed the United Nations.
Second, that the real objective was Venezuela’s oil.
Both readings contain elements of truth.
But neither is sufficient to explain what happened.
Public international law lacks effective enforcement mechanisms.
In practice, that turns it into an incomplete normative system.
As for the United Nations, created in 1945, it only played a decisive role in one major international armed conflict, the Korean War between 1950 and 1953.
Since then, its influence has been largely declarative and bureaucratic.
That reality has led even long-time supporters of multilateralism to question the UN’s structure and practical relevance.
The oil-only explanation is also too narrow.
Western companies may well increase output in Venezuela.
But reducing the operation to a resource grab reflects an ideological reflex more than a strategic assessment.
The decisive factor is geopolitical.
The United States is engaged in a structural contest with China for global influence, trade, technology, and power projection.
Within that framework, China’s expanding footprint in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region traditionally viewed in Washington as a core strategic area, is perceived as a serious warning sign.
Russia also plays into this equation.
Despite economic decline, it retains significant military capabilities and has deepened ties with China, in part as a consequence of the war in Ukraine.
The Beijing–Moscow axis challenges U.S.-led international order, and its growing presence in the Western Hemisphere cannot be treated as a minor issue.
From this vantage point, the Venezuela operation looks less like an energy-driven move and more like an attempt to reset power balances, send strategic signals, and limit rival penetration in a critical region.
The familiar “oil pirates” narrative may be politically useful.
But it explains little about the current world.
What is at stake is not only energy.
It is influence, alignments, and strategic control in an increasingly fragmented global environment.
The outcome will depend on whether the United States can sustain that strategy over time.