Zohaib Tariq
On January 3, 2026, the United States opened an unprecedented chapter in hemispheric geopolitics by launching a direct military strike inside Venezuela. The operation, Operation Absolute Resolve, involved coordinated air and special operations against multiple Venezuelan military installations around Caracas, including La Carlota Air Base. It culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, who was transported to the United States. Conducted without United Nations authorization, the strike immediately raised questions about international law, regional stability, and the future trajectory of the global order.
Beyond its dramatic execution, the operation carries far-reaching strategic and geoeconomic consequences—most notably the conspicuous absence of military responses from Russia and China, Venezuela’s principal external backers.
Why Russia and China Chose Restraint
The immediate question following the strike was why neither Moscow nor Beijing intervened militarily. Part of the answer lies in an old strategic axiom attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. More pragmatically, both powers appear to have calculated that escalation would be strategically counterproductive.
Despite strong diplomatic reactions—Russia condemned the strike as an “unacceptable assault on sovereignty,” while China labeled it a violation of international law—neither moved beyond rhetorical protest. This restraint reflects calculation rather than acquiescence. Russia, deeply engaged in its war in Ukraine, lacks both the military bandwidth and the logistical reach to project power into the Western Hemisphere without risking direct confrontation with NATO. Any attempt to challenge the United States militarily in Venezuela would likely trigger a broader conflict—one Moscow neither seeks nor can sustain. Strategic patience, in this context, reflects realism rather than retreat. There is also a critical geoeconomic dimension. Prior to the U.S. intervention, nearly 70 percent of Venezuela’s oil exports were destined for China. With that supply now disrupted, Beijing will need alternative sources. The most immediate substitute is Russia. Increased Russian energy exports to China would generate additional revenue for Moscow, helping offset the economic pressures of the Ukraine war. In perhaps Machiavellian terms, one has to surrender a Pawn to protect the Queen.
China’s restraint is similarly calculated. Beijing’s global strategy prioritizes economic influence over military confrontation. Holding more than $60 billion in Venezuelan debt and standing as the country’s largest trading partner, China’s primary concern is protecting long-term investments rather than risking them in a direct clash with Washington. Instead of escalation, Beijing has reverted to diplomatic pressure and multilateral rhetoric, urging respect for international law rather than outright confrontation with the U.S. and NATO.
In short, both Moscow and Beijing appear more invested in preserving a stable geoeconomic environment than provoking a superpower confrontation. Their restraint, however, does not signal passivity; it signals a shift toward indirect competition—one likely to shape global politics more profoundly over time.
A Regional Security Dilemma in the Americas and Beyond
The U.S. strike has unsettled long-standing assumptions underpinning hemispheric security. For nearly two centuries, the Monroe Doctrine symbolized U.S. primacy in the Americas. Yet, unlike 1823, today’s world is decisively multipolar. Power is diffuse, economic interdependence is deep, and alternatives to U.S. leadership are increasingly available.
Across Latin America, a quiet but consequential question is now being asked: If Washington can strike Caracas, who might be next? This uncertainty is already reshaping regional calculations. In Latin America itself, reactions have been swift. Mexico has condemned the U.S. strike as a violation of the U.N. Charter, while Colombia—home to the largest Venezuelan diaspora—has strengthened border defenses. These responses suggest more than diplomatic disapproval; they point to an emerging regional security dilemma in which states increasingly feel compelled to secure their interests beyond the traditional U.S. orbit.
Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos captured this unease. Warning that extreme global integration risks moral collapse when weaponized, Carney criticized the use of “tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.” His comments reflect a growing perception that U.S.-led systems are increasingly being used as tools of pressure rather than public goods. Canada’s recent trade deal reducing tariffs on Chinese imports, particularly electric vehicles, illustrates this shift. Even countries traditionally embedded within U.S.-led economic frameworks are hedging, diversifying partnerships, and seeking alternatives to overdependence on Washington.
In addition to the Americas, Europe as well is showing similar recalibration. France, which only months earlier warned Beijing with tariffs, has since adopted a more conciliatory tone. President Emmanuel Macron has publicly welcomed increased Chinese foreign direct investment in Europe, particularly in strategic sectors, emphasizing growth, technology transfer, and industrial cooperation.
Geoeconomic Shifts and China’s Expanding Influence
Ironically, the strategic vacuum created by U.S. military intervention may end up benefiting China—and, to a lesser extent, Russia. Beijing’s presence in Latin America has expanded steadily through infrastructure projects, development loans, and deepening trade ties. As confidence in U.S. predictability erodes, countries from Argentina to Chile may increasingly view China as a more reliable long-term partner.
Some analysts have suggested that the world could witness an extension of what might be termed “Marco Polo economics”—a modern Silk Road stretching into Latin America and potentially even North America and Europe. While Chinese investments in places like Greenland or Mexico remain speculative, the underlying trend is unmistakable: when U.S. hard power is exercised unilaterally, states gravitate toward economic partnerships with fewer political conditions. This shift is already visible. Latin American trade data show sustained growth in Chinese imports and investment, particularly in strategic sectors such as mining, agriculture, and technology. The region’s integration into Asia-linked supply chains has deepened, making China indispensable to many national economies—a reality Washington must now confront.
Strategic Risks for the United States
For the United States, the costs of the Venezuela strike may extend well beyond tactical success. First, Washington risks alienating European allies who view the operation as a dangerous precedent undermining international law. European governments now face a classic catch-22 challenge: the uncomfortable choice between supporting U.S. security objectives and defending multilateral norms while simultaneously seeking economic security alternatives, which become a challenge with American tariffs against Europe over Greenland, which also might push Europe to the Chinese camp.
Second, the strike may inadvertently shape China’s strategic calculus elsewhere. If Beijing interprets U.S. actions in its perceived backyard as legitimizing unilateral military solutions, it could draw lessons for contested regions such as the Taiwan Strait—a possibility already being examined by strategic analysts.
Conclusion
The U.S. attack on Venezuela is not an isolated episode; it represents a structural shift in the global order. It challenges entrenched assumptions about hemispheric security, accelerates geoeconomic realignments, and raises fundamental questions about the durability of international norms in an increasingly multipolar world.
The status quo ante will not return. The more pressing question is whether U.S. policymakers are prepared to adapt to a world in which power is no longer sustained by military dominance alone, but negotiated through credibility, restraint, and economic statecraft.
