by Piyush Chaudhary
“The U.S. intervention in Venezuela reveals the global struggle over oil, selective international law, and the human costs of geopolitical power, with Russia and China challenging unilateral dominance.”
On Jan. 3, 2026, the U.S. launched a high-profile operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and bringing them to New York to face charges of terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Official statements framed the mission as a fight against criminal networks and authoritarian governance. But beneath the surface, the event is part of a broader geopolitical struggle: a contest over resources, a selective application of international law, and the enduring hierarchies of global capitalism.
VENEZUELA’S OIL: WEALTH AND VULNERABILITY
U.S. intervention in Venezuela reveals a broader geopolitical struggle. Image: Desinformémonos.
Venezuela is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the country possesses 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 17 % of the world’s total. Yet this enormous endowment has not translated into economic stability. Production collapsed from over three million barrels per day in the early 2000s to roughly 1.1 million barrels per day by 2025.
From a Marxian perspective, this illustrates a phenomenon known as unequal development: countries rich in resources can remain economically fragile if global capital and foreign powers dominate the conditions under which resources are extracted and sold. Venezuela’s oil is not merely an economic commodity; it is a tool of geopolitical leverage. Whoever controls Venezuelan oil can influence domestic governance, regional trade, and even global energy markets.
SANCTIONS AND STRUCTURAL COERCION
Even before the January operation, Venezuela had endured years of U.S. sanctions targeting its oil industry, financial systems, and key government officials. Analysts link these measures directly to the collapse of oil exports, government revenue, and public services.
The human cost has been profound. Between 2013 and 2025, Venezuela’s GDP contracted by over 75 %, and hyperinflation eroded the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. By 2025, 7.1 million Venezuelans had fled the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in the Western Hemisphere. Marxian analysis frames sanctions not as neutral tools, but as structural mechanisms of coercion, where ordinary citizens disproportionately bear the cost of policy aimed at elites and strategic objectives.
RUSSIA AND CHINA: STRATEGIC COUNTERWEIGHTS
Venezuela’s global significance is not limited to its oil. Its partnerships with Russia and China have created geopolitical counterweights to U.S. influence. China, over the past two decades, became a major creditor to Venezuela, providing tens of billions in loans in exchange for oil shipments. These arrangements allowed Venezuela to maintain some financial autonomy outside Western banking systems, even as U.S. sanctions tightened.
Russia also maintained deep ties with Venezuela. Russian energy companies invested in joint ventures with the state oil firm PDVSA, and Moscow provided military equipment and training. Russian officials publicly opposed external interference, framing sanctions and intervention as violations of sovereignty.
The engagement of Russia and China reflects a multipolar contest for resources and influence. For these powers, Venezuela represents not only energy security but also leverage in a region traditionally dominated by the U.S. For Washington, the same alliances are perceived as threats to its geopolitical primacy, heightening the stakes of intervention.
SELECTIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Protest in Zacatecas, Mexico, against U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Photo: Desinformémonos
The language surrounding the Venezuela operation also illustrates the selective application of international law. U.S. authorities labeled parts of the Maduro government as involved in “narco-terrorism,” justifying military and legal action. Yet under Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, unilateral force against another sovereign state is prohibited except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization.
Marxist theorists argue that international law is often instrumentalized to reinforce hierarchies. Powerful states can interpret legal norms flexibly to suit strategic interests, while weaker states face strict enforcement. In other words, legality often follows power, rather than principle.
ACCUMULATION BY DISPOSSESSION
Marxist David Harvey’s concept of accumulation by dispossession helps explain the underlying economic logic of such interventions. By weakening Venezuela’s domestic oil infrastructure through sanctions and limiting its access to global finance, external powers restructure control over resources without formally transferring ownership. Post-intervention reports suggested that U.S. energy firms could play a role in rehabilitating Venezuelan oil facilities.
This process demonstrates that interventions are not simply ideological or legal acts but they are material strategies that reshape resource access and redistribute benefits toward dominant capital holders.
SOVEREIGNTY IN AN UNEQUAL SYSTEM
The Venezuelan crisis underscores the limits of nominal sovereignty. While international law treats states as formally equal, enforcement depends on economic and military power. The U.S., as the largest global economy and military actor, can act with relative impunity. Smaller or non-aligned states attempting similar actions would face immediate sanctions, isolation, or military retaliation. In practice, sovereignty is conditional, shaped by structural inequalities in global capitalism.
THE HUMAN DIMENSION
It is critical to remember that these geopolitical and economic contests have real consequences for people. Millions of Venezuelans continue to face shortages of food, medicine, and basic services. Migration has placed strains on neighboring countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador, creating a regional humanitarian crisis. Understanding Venezuela solely as a story of law, crime, or regime change misses the human costs embedded in these structural dynamics.
LOOKING BEYOND THE HEADLINES
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela is more than a single policy action; it offers a window into how global capitalism really works. Oil, sanctions, and military influence combine with selective interpretations of international law, creating advantages for powerful states while leaving resource-rich countries like Venezuela exposed and vulnerable. The involvement of Russia and China highlights a multipolar struggle over resources and influence, showing how global hierarchies are constantly contested.
From a Marxian perspective, these events are not random; they are shaped by underlying structures of power and wealth. Control over resources, economic leverage, and geopolitical strength often drive decisions more than ideology or morality. Venezuela’s crisis, then, is not just a story about one nation; it is a story about power, resources, and inequality in today’s global system.
About the Author:
Piyush Chaudhary is a political science student at Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, University of Delhi, and a researcher focused on global governance, international relations, and political economy. He writes on issues of power, resources, and inequality, exploring how structural forces shape contemporary world politics.
Thank you for this clear exposition. The relationship between Venezuela and the US has strong parallels to the Palestinian struggle against the State of Israel backed by the US. Only there the” resource” is a plan to destroy an entire ancient civilization and culture by genocide and to profit at every step of the way.