What Trump’s Venezuela Strike Says About the Collapse of the Global Balance of Power

When U.S. President “Donald Trump” announced military action against Venezuela from Mar-a-Lago, framing it as a “spectacular assault” against narco-terrorism, the language was deliberately theatrical. Yet the substance of the declaration — the capture of Venezuelan President “Nicolás Maduro”, the promise that Washington would “run” the country, and the open reference to exploiting Venezuela’s oil wealth — left little doubt that this was about power, not policing drugs.

Was narco-terrorism really the trigger?

The U.S. has suffered enormously from the drug crisis, with overdose deaths since 2000 nearing 1.25 million. However, nearly 69% of these deaths are linked to fentanyl, whose precursor chemicals largely originate in China, not Venezuela. Venezuela, by most assessments, is only a modest source of cocaine in the U.S. market.

What Venezuela does possess in abundance is oil — the largest proven reserves in the world. Mr. Trump’s assertion that U.S. oil companies, “the biggest anywhere in the world”, would now enter Venezuela stripped away any remaining ambiguity. The intervention, dressed up as counter-narcotics enforcement, appeared far more aligned with strategic and commercial interests.

Why the action strikes at the heart of international law

The U.S. move represents one of the starkest violations of international law in recent memory. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except with authorisation from the UN Security Council or in self-defence under Article 51.

Neither condition applied here. The unilateral use of force signals not just disregard for legal norms, but a deeper erosion of the restraints that have governed great-power behaviour since 1945.

The balance of power — how it once worked

The concept of balance of power emerged in Europe as a mechanism to prevent any one state from dominating others. After World War II, it evolved into a bipolar system, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union acting as counterweights. During this era, neither superpower could exercise force unchecked; each constrained the other, maintaining an uneasy but real peace.

History offers clear illustrations. During the 1971 Bangladesh War, the Nixon administration’s attempt to intimidate India by deploying the U.S. Seventh Fleet was neutralised by a Soviet counter-deployment of warships and submarines. Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Soviet military signals — including airborne divisions on alert — forced the U.S. to declare DEFCON 3 and compelled Israel to halt its advance, saving Egypt’s Third Army.

What changed after the Soviet collapse

The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 removed the only power capable of systematically restraining U.S. military action. The result was a unipolar moment in which Washington increasingly asserted a right to pre-emptive war.

Over the past three decades, regimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria were toppled, and political outcomes reshaped in Egypt — sometimes through direct intervention, sometimes through support for proxy forces. The Venezuela operation fits squarely into this pattern of unilateralism.

Is a new counter-balance emerging?

In the near term, only “China” has the economic and military weight to challenge U.S. dominance. A loose Russia–China alignment could, in theory, contest the existing order, though historical mistrust and divergent strategic interests make a durable alliance uncertain.

The world today resembles neither the structured bipolarity of the Cold War nor a stable multipolar system. Instead, it is marked by asymmetry — one power willing to act without constraint, and others still calibrating their responses.

Where does this leave India?

For India, the Venezuela episode underscores a hard reality. Despite growing strategic convergence with Washington, the U.S. has repeatedly shown insensitivity to India’s core security concerns. New Delhi is far from being a counter-balancer in the global system.

To protect its interests, India will need an imaginative, long-term strategy: building a robust military-industrial complex, strengthening defence capabilities, and reducing external dependence. In a world where balance has given way to brute power, autonomy — not alignment — may become the true measure of strategic strength.

The intervention in Venezuela is therefore not just about one country or one leader. It is a marker of a deeper shift in global order — from constraint to coercion, and from balance to dominance.