China's Strategic Victory in Venezuela:
The End of US Dominance?
Introduction
John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent political scientist and architect of "offensive realism," has long argued that great powers operate in an anarchic international system where survival demands relentless pursuit of power maximization. Rooted in his military background with the U.S. Air Force and academic credentials from institutions like Cornell and the University of Southern California, Mearsheimer's work at the University of Chicago emphasizes security dilemmas, great power competition, and the perils of overextension in foreign policy. He critiques liberal internationalism for its idealistic interventions, favouring pragmatic realism that prioritizes national interests over moral crusades.
In a recent video analysis titled "China's Strategic Victory in Venezuela: The End of US Dominance?" Mearsheimer's insights frame U.S. actions in Venezuela as symptomatic of a declining superpower's reactionary impulses.
The video portrays these moves as desperate attempts to counter rising challengers like China and Russia, potentially inverting the Monroe Doctrine—a 19th-century policy aimed at preventing European colonialism in the Americas—by exposing U.S. vulnerabilities rather than asserting dominance. Yet, the query poses a critical question: Does the January 2026 U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represent a strategic trap that weakens America's future while bolstering its adversaries, or could it enable President Donald Trump to rebuild the United States as a preeminent global superpower? This essay examines the action through a Mearsheimer-inspired realist lens, weighing its risks and potential rewards in an era of multipolarity.
Background on the U.S. Action in Venezuela
On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces executed a special military operation in Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a large-scale strike that involved airstrikes and ground operations. Maduro, indicted on narco-terrorism charges, was extradited to New York, where he pleaded not guilty.
The operation resulted in Venezuelan casualties, estimated at 40-80, and included the seizure of Russian-flagged oil tankers linked to Venezuela. Trump described it as a "perfect" law enforcement action supported by the military, announcing U.S. oversight of Venezuela's transition, including control over oil revenues to benefit both nations.
This intervention builds on years of U.S. pressure against Maduro's government, including sanctions since 2017 for human rights abuses and the 2019 recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó. Venezuela's crisis, marked by hyperinflation, shortages, and mass migration since 2013, provided a humanitarian pretext, but realists like Mearsheimer would view it as a bid to secure strategic interests—namely, oil resources and countering Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere.
The action ostensibly upholds the Monroe Doctrine by preventing foreign powers from establishing footholds in America's "backyard," yet critics argue it contradicts the doctrine's anti-colonial spirit by imposing U.S. dominance through force.
A Realist Perspective: Offensive Realism and Great Power Dynamics
Mearsheimer's offensive realism posits that states, uncertain of others' intentions, must maximize power to ensure survival, leading to inevitable competition and conflict. In this framework, the U.S. as a declining hegemon faces a security dilemma: intervening in Venezuela to neutralize threats from adversaries risks overextension, while inaction invites further encroachments. The video highlights how U.S. sanctions and pressure have inadvertently deepened Venezuela's ties with China (through oil investments and infrastructure) and Russia (via military support), inverting hemispheric power dynamics. This multipolar shift challenges America's unipolar assumptions post-Cold War, where it could intervene with impunity.
The operation exemplifies reactionary behaviour in declining powers: escalation to mask weaknesses, as seen in historical cases like Britain's Suez Crisis or the U.S. in Vietnam. Mearsheimer would caution that such moves divert resources from core threats, like China's rise in the Indo-Pacific, exacerbating domestic issues such as debt ($36 trillion) and polarization.
Arguments for the Action as a Strategic Trap for the U.S.
From a realist viewpoint, the Venezuela intervention could prove a trap, accelerating U.S. decline by inviting backlash and overcommitment. Internationally, reactions have been predominantly condemnatory: The UN condemned it as a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting force against sovereign states. Allies like France and the UK criticized the unilateralism, with U.K. opposition leader Ed Davey accusing it of violating international law. Even domestic support is tepid, with only a third of Americans approving and Congress divided, raising War Powers concerns.
This isolation erodes U.S. soft power, alienating Latin American neighbours who issued neutral or silent responses, signaling a shift toward Chinese economic leverage without U.S. political strings. Militarily, the operation—while successful in abducting Maduro—killed dozens and could spark insurgencies or prolonged occupation, mirroring quagmires in Iraq or Afghanistan and keeping him as hostage to issue dictation from Washington to the new government. Realists warn that toppling leaders of sovereign states via force rarely creates stable authority, as legitimacy stems from internal politics, not external imposition.
Global outcry over Trump’s Venezuela
intervention intensifies, protests in
Paris, Rome& Athens
Economically, controlling Venezuelan oil may yield short-term gains, but it risks global energy disruptions and retaliatory sanctions from adversaries. Trump's simultaneous withdrawal from UN agencies further signals retreat from multilateralism, potentially weakening alliances like NATO and inviting rivals to fill voids. In Mearsheimer's terms, this overextension in a peripheral theater distracts from existential competitions, hastening relative decline.
Strengthening Adversaries: Opportunities for China and Russia
The action may inadvertently empower U.S. rivals by providing propaganda fodder and strategic openings. China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba swiftly condemned it as "aggression" and "economic warfare," pledging continued support for Venezuela. Analysts argue it hands them a "hall pass" to pursue interventions in their spheres, such as Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the South China Sea, justifying actions as defensive against U.S. hypocrisy.
For China, the operation disrupts oil ties and infrastructure projects but exposes U.S. vulnerabilities, allowing Beijing to portray itself as a reliable partner for the Global South. Russia, protesting tanker seizures, could escalate military cooperation elsewhere, viewing the move as a defeat for its influence but a catalyst for anti-U.S. coalitions. Some see it as emboldening adversaries by demonstrating U.S. willingness for "flexed muscles" approaches, potentially accelerating arms races or cyber escalations. Mearsheimer would note that in multipolarity, such unilateralism unites foes, as seen in muted Latin American responses favouring Chinese investment over U.S. hegemony.
Potential for Success: Rebuilding U.S. Superpower Status Under Trump
.
Nicolás Maduro supporters march
in Caracas on Jan 7, 2026 after the U.S.
military abducted the Venezuela leader
Conversely, the operation could mark a realist triumph if it reasserts U.S. primacy without prolonged entanglement. By removing Maduro—a symbol of defiance—and securing oil, Trump aims to deter adversaries from using Venezuela as a "base of operations." Instead of fake news of celebrations in Venezuela people came out in million in support their elected leader Maduro who is now by all definition of international law is a hostage in the hands of the U.S. government yet fake news masters suggesting local support for them, which mean potentially enabling a stable transition under U.S. guidance but this is not case what we the streets of Venezuela telling us after the event.
Proponents and day dreamers argue it weakens China and Russia by severing their ally, signalling that Latin America remains under U.S. colonial sphere of influence per the Monroe Doctrine.
Trump's "America First" approach—boosting military budgets to $1.5 trillion and withdrawing from "woke" treaties—could streamline resources for power projection. If the intervention yields economic benefits (e.g., stable oil flows) and deters further encroachments, it might rebuild U.S. credibility as a "mighty superpower," countering decline narratives. Markets remained stable post-operation, suggesting limited immediate fallout. In offensive realist terms, decisive action could shift the balance, forcing adversaries to recalculate risks. However, success hinges on avoiding quagmires. Mearsheimer's pragmatism warns against ideological overreach; Trump's framing as "law enforcement" may mitigate backlash, but sustained occupation could undermine gains.
Conclusion
The U.S. abducting (by all definition of international law this is abduction and hostage) of Maduro embodies the tensions of a transitioning world order, where offensive realism demands power maximization amid uncertainty. While it may yield tactical victories—reasserting hemispheric dominance and weakening immediate threats—it risks becoming a strategic trap by alienating allies, overextending resources, and emboldening global adversaries like China and Russia.
Mearsheimer's video presciently warns of such reactionary policies as signs of decline, potentially accelerating multipolarity rather than reversing it.
Trump's bid to rebuild America as a global superpower could succeed if the intervention remains limited and yields tangible benefits, but history suggests overambitious actions often hasten downfall.
In a non-partisan assessment, the operation's long-term impact likely tilts toward weakening U.S. position unless paired with domestic renewal and strategic retrenchment elsewhere. As Mearsheimer might conclude, survival in anarchy favours caution over bravado.
No comments:
Post a Comment