OPINION | US action in Venezuela is an exercise of raw power; India should be wary

It's just the beginning. China and Russia will display a similar approach

The recent arrest and extradition of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US special forces represents far more than an extraordinary act of coercive diplomacy. It signals a profound shift in the United States’ conception of the world order: a move away from universal, law-based rules toward an approach defined strictly by geography and power.

For India, this transition is a warning. As major powers become more assertive within their own backyards, the autonomy of nearby states is increasingly restricted, forcing New Delhi to fundamentally adapt its foreign policy and security calculations.

Security vs. Influence: A fading distinction

To understand this shift, we must distinguish between two concepts often conflated in diplomatic circles.

A ‘sphere of security’ reflects a great power’s legitimate intent to prevent hostile military alliances or forces from appearing near its borders.

A ‘sphere of influence’ is far more intrusive, asserting a prerogative to direct the internal political choices of neighbouring states. As the noted scholar Jeffrey Sachs has noted, global conflict often arises when legitimate security concerns are used to justify this type of intrusive control. Once that line is crossed, sovereignty becomes conditional, and smaller states lose their real autonomy.

The US intervention in Venezuela exemplifies this breakdown. While Washington cited security threats like trafficking and the presence of Chinese and Russian assets, the results went much further. By removing a sitting president and bringing the Venezuelan oil sector under US planning, America moved from ensuring security to asserting total control.

The domestic and global incentive

This turn toward dominance is driven not just by strategy, but by domestic economic pressures. Venezuela’s vast energy reserves intersect with American concerns about supply security, inflation, and industrial competitiveness. Framing intervention as a "security necessity" allows leaders to pursue oil control and migration management without the constraints of multilateral legitimacy. This fusion of internal politics with external coercion makes spheres of influence highly attractive to domestic leaders, even as they create global instability.

This approach is now codified in the 2025–26 US National Security Strategy, which designates the Western Hemisphere as America’s top strategic focus. The Venezuela episode shows that such rhetoric reflects a genuine belief that geography grants special rights, even at the expense of sovereignty. This is not unique to America.

US is not an exception

John Mearsheimer, a prominent realist, observes all great powers seek regional dominance: the US in the Americas, Russia in Eastern Europe, and China in East Asia. The Cold War’s end masked but did not end this persistence.

This dynamic is now visible. When the United States claims special rights in its hemisphere, it cannot credibly oppose similar moves elsewhere. Russia says its actions in Ukraine are about security. China considers Taiwan and the South China Sea to be its vulnerable areas. These cases differ morally, but all use security to override neighbours’ sovereignty.

This shift has serious implications for the international system. Institutions like the UN rely on state equality and law-based restraint. When great powers act unilaterally as a necessity, these principles erode. The UN persists but becomes less relevant.

The multi-faceted implications for India

For India, the implications of a world carved into spheres of influence are multifaceted and concerning. While such a system might appear to grant New Delhi more freedom in South Asia, it actually favours the strongest regional power, increasingly China. This limits India’s ability to act independently and restricts its strategic choices.

Perhaps more concerning is the potential shift in US priorities. As Washington becomes preoccupied with its own hemisphere and its direct competition with Beijing, it may begin to tolerate greater Chinese pressure on India. This could include:

Border Tensions: A willingness to overlook incursions to avoid a major escalation with Beijing.

Grey-Zone Tactics: Tolerance for regional influence campaigns and cyber activities that undermine Indian interests.

Strategic Deprioritization: Indian security interests may be sidelined within the broader contest between the world’s two largest powers.

Conclusion: The return of raw power

Venezuela’s case warns the whole world. Universal norms are fading. Power-based hierarchies are rising. In this environment, partnerships are increasingly determined by strategic interests rather than shared values. Global governing entities, that empower smaller states and that rely on state equality and law-based restraint, are becoming less relevant as great powers act unilaterally out of perceived necessity.

For India, the path forward is clear: it must enhance its self-reliance, strengthen its military deterrence, and expand its own regional influence. Relying on a "rules-based order" that major powers themselves now overlook is no longer a viable strategy. The case of Venezuela serves as a warning that universal norms are fading and power-based hierarchies are rising. India must adapt carefully, strengthening its stance in a world where raw power has returned to the forefront of history.

(Anil Raman is a Research Fellow at the Takshashila Institution.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.