US Strikes on Venezuela

US Strikes on Venezuela: A Disturbing Precedent in Energy Geopolitics

On 5th January 2026, the United States conducted military strikes on Venezuela, invoking the Monroe Doctrine to justify the action. Ostensibly aimed at addressing "regional stability," this move lays bare an array of contradictions in U.S foreign policy. Venezuela holds 18% of the world’s proven crude oil reserves—a staggering figure dwarfed only by its political instability and economic collapse in recent years. Yet, despite the headlines, India’s energy security stands relatively unaffected, with imports from Venezuela accounting for a mere 0.3% of India’s total crude imports in FY 2025. This statistically marginal role, however, belies larger geopolitical concerns that tie Latin America’s energy landscape with global economic realignments.

The Monroe Doctrine Redux: Justifying Imperialist Overreach?

Central to the strikes is the resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy framework originally announced by President James Monroe in 1823. The doctrine’s assurances seemed anti-colonial in principle—non-colonization of American continents by European powers and non-interference in their political affairs—but its history reveals a more interventionist trajectory, especially with the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904. This corollary asserted the U.S. right to militarily intervene in Latin America under certain conditions, enabling decades of justified American dominance in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti.

Fast forward to 2026, the doctrine’s latest iteration seeks to counter China’s expanding footprint in the Western Hemisphere. With China accounting for over half of Venezuela’s remaining crude oil exports, and serving as a major investor in the nation’s battered refineries, the strikes seem less about combatting local instability and more about undermining Chinese strategic gains globally. Here lies the irony—while the U.S. accuses China of resource-driven diplomacy in the Global South, its own actions validate similar motives.

India-Venezuela Trade: A Dwindling Partnership

From an Indian perspective, Venezuela’s significance has diminished dramatically over the years. In FY 2025, Indian imports from Venezuela stood at merely $255.3 million, accounting for less than 1% of global oil supplies. This sharp drop—an 81.3% decline from $1.4 billion in FY 2024—reflects India’s compliance with U.S sanctions on Venezuelan oil since 2019. India’s crude basket diversification strategy has further reduced exposure to risky suppliers, strengthening its reliance on producers from the Middle East and North America.

Even in non-energy trade, Venezuela’s role is effectively negligible. India’s total exports to the country in FY 2025 amounted to just $95.3 million, dominated by pharmaceuticals—an industry where India retains strategic autonomy for supply-side advantages, despite wider trade constraints.

Structural Tensions: Energy Security Meets Geopolitical Pressure

The strikes reveal systemic pressures in energy geopolitics. On one side, the U.S has signed major petroleum product trade commitments with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the UK—markets where demand far outstrips U.S crude production or refining capacity. The dependence on external oil supplies and potential scarcity risks necessitates dominant control over exporters like Venezuela.

But Venezuela’s oil is far from easily accessible. Its crude is "extra-heavy," requiring specialized refineries that few countries can operate. Despite holding the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela still accounts for just 1% of global oil production, primarily due to infrastructure decay, sanctions, and political instability. The real risk here is not an oil price surge but systemic exploitation of unstable regimes, a trend that U.S foreign interventions have historically perpetuated.

What India Can Learn from China’s Venezuelan Strategy

China presents a starkly different approach to securing Venezuelan oil. Instead of military involvement, Chinese state-owned firms have built refineries locally, enabling the processing of Venezuela's extra-heavy crude. Beijing combines economic partnerships with long-term investments in infrastructure, carefully avoiding the optics of geopolitical aggression. This contrast underscores the shortcomings of U.S interventionism, which leans on coercion rather than collaboration.

India, while geographically distant from these tensions, must internalize the lesson: security for critical resources cannot rely solely on bilateral trade but must consider multi-dimensional investments that build domestic refining capacity and reduce reliance from geopolitically tenuous exporters.

Assessing India’s Strategic Response

While the current U.S-Venezuela escalation may not directly affect India’s energy security today, its implications ripple far beyond immediate trade figures. Should sanctions on Venezuela relax post-conflict, India could emerge as a natural buyer of their crude, offering flexibility in refining processes at state-owned refiners such as IOC and BPCL.

However, India must proceed cautiously. Aligning too overtly with one hegemonic power risks undermining its non-aligned posture—a key pillar of foreign policy since the Cold War era. Success here hinges on balance: protecting strategic autonomy while tactically deepening roots with diverse suppliers across Latin America, Africa, and the Gulf regions.

Questions for UPSC Exam Preparation

Prelims

• 1. Which of the following nations currently holds the largest proven crude oil reserves globally?

  A. Saudi Arabia B. Venezuela C. Russia D. United States
  Correct Answer: B. Venezuela

• 2. The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to:

  A. Prevent the colonization of Asian countries by European powers B. Ensure U.S. allegiance to NATO principles C. Restrict European intervention in Latin American political affairs D. Support Latin America’s socialist movements during European colonial rule
  Correct Answer: C. Restrict European intervention in Latin American political affairs

Mains

Critically evaluate whether U.S military intervention under frameworks like the Monroe Doctrine serves as a legitimate geopolitical strategy or undermines international law and sovereignty in a multipolar world.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions