Venezuela, Washington, and the Question of Power: Is the United States a Saviour or a Villain?

The story of Venezuela and the United States is not a simple geopolitical disagreement. It is a case study in modern power politics - oil, ideology, security alliances, and the age-old question of who gets to decide a nation’s future. Venezuela today sits at the intersection of global energy interests, democracy debates, and military strategy. And the United States stands accused - by some - of rescuing a failing state, and by others of orchestrating a textbook case of foreign interference. The truth lives in the tension between those two realities.

Relations between Washington and Caracas have deteriorated steadily since the late 1990s, when Venezuela embraced a socialist and anti-US foreign policy under Hugo Chávez. Over time, the US response evolved from diplomatic pressure to economic sanctions, and eventually to direct intervention. Sanctions targeted Venezuela’s financial system and oil industry - the backbone of its economy - while Washington simultaneously supported opposition leadership and questioned the legitimacy of the Maduro government. These tensions escalated dramatically between 2025 and 2026, when US military and economic actions intensified into what many analysts now describe as one of the most consequential interventions in Latin America in decades.

By early 2026, the United States executed a large-scale military operation that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and the restructuring of Venezuela’s political leadership. US officials framed the operation as a law-enforcement and anti-narcotics mission tied to regional security and governance concerns. Critics, however, described it as an unprecedented breach of sovereignty and a direct intervention in the domestic politics of a sovereign state.

To understand the duality of this intervention, one must examine the humanitarian and economic context that preceded it. Venezuela experienced one of the most severe economic collapses in modern history. GDP contracted dramatically, hyperinflation surged into the millions of percent, and the country’s oil-dependent economy imploded under a combination of mismanagement, falling oil prices, and sanctions. Food and medicine shortages became widespread, healthcare systems deteriorated, and more than seven million Venezuelans fled the country, creating one of the largest migration crises in the Western Hemisphere.

From one perspective, US involvement appears almost inevitable in the face of such collapse. Supporters of intervention argue that Washington stepped in to stabilize a failing state, dismantle criminal networks linked to narcotics trafficking, and create conditions for democratic restoration. Following the 2026 intervention, political prisoners were released, restrictions on protests eased, and economic reforms began, including efforts to revive Venezuela’s oil sector and prepare for elections. Many Venezuelans expressed cautious optimism as political liberalization and reconstruction plans took shape.

Sanctions were gradually eased, and US and international companies began re-engaging with Venezuela’s energy sector. New licenses allowed exploration and production activities, while reconstruction plans aimed to rebuild infrastructure and stabilize the economy. Oil exports resumed and foreign investment discussions reopened, suggesting that US involvement had created a pathway - however controversial - toward economic recovery.

From this angle, the United States can be framed as a crisis manager stepping into a governance vacuum. For citizens exhausted by years of political repression and economic hardship, external intervention appeared to offer a chance at stability and reform. In this narrative, America is cast as the reluctant saviour, using its economic and military power to restore order where domestic institutions had failed.

Yet this interpretation is only half the story. Critics argue that US policy toward Venezuela has always been shaped as much by strategic interest as by democratic concern. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and access to those resources has long been a central geopolitical consideration. Years of sanctions crippled Venezuela’s oil exports and government revenues, significantly weakening the state’s capacity to function. While sanctions were intended to pressure political elites, they also contributed to widespread economic suffering among ordinary citizens, exacerbating shortages of essential goods and accelerating migration.

The 2026 military operation intensified this debate. International observers and several governments condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty. US naval deployments, oil seizures, and military strikes in and around Venezuelan territory drew criticism from human rights organizations and global leaders who viewed the actions as excessive and destabilizing.

Even within Venezuela, reactions were mixed. Some citizens welcomed political change and economic reopening, while others protested what they perceived as foreign domination. When a global superpower removes a sitting leader and reshapes a nation’s economy, the line between liberation and control becomes difficult to define.

Oil remains central to this complexity. Venezuela’s reserves account for a significant share of global proven oil supply, yet production collapsed over the past decade due to infrastructure decay, corruption, and sanctions. Following US intervention, American and allied companies began re-entering the Venezuelan energy market, positioning themselves to benefit from the country’s eventual recovery. This has fueled arguments that economic interests - particularly energy security - are inseparable from Washington’s political strategy in the region.

The geopolitical dimension extends beyond bilateral relations. Venezuela maintained strategic ties with Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba - countries often positioned in opposition to US and NATO-aligned interests. While NATO itself did not directly intervene militarily in Venezuela, the alliance’s broader strategic architecture shaped the context of US decision-making. As the dominant force within NATO, the United States often acts to maintain Western influence and counter rival geopolitical blocs. Venezuela’s alignment with US adversaries therefore elevated its significance beyond regional politics, placing it within a wider contest for global influence and security positioning.

From a NATO-aligned perspective, Venezuela represented a potential security risk and a foothold for rival powers in the Western Hemisphere. From the opposing perspective, US actions reflected an attempt to reassert Western dominance over a resource-rich nation that had pursued independent alliances. In this sense, the Venezuela crisis cannot be understood solely as a domestic political struggle; it is part of a broader geopolitical chessboard shaped by alliances, energy markets, and ideological competition.

The uncomfortable duality remains: is the United States a saviour or a villain? The answer depends largely on which values one prioritizes - stability or sovereignty, humanitarian intervention or non-interference. Venezuela demonstrates that great powers rarely intervene without strategic interest, yet failing states rarely recover without external pressure. Economic sanctions, military operations, and political recognition strategies blur the boundaries between assistance and coercion.

The deeper lesson is not simply about America. It is about the nature of power in a globalized world. When a nation collapses internally, external actors inevitably move to shape its future - whether for humanitarian, strategic, or economic reasons. Venezuela shows that intervention can simultaneously rescue and reorder a nation. It can create pathways to reform while raising profound ethical and legal questions about sovereignty and self-determination.

In the end, the Venezuela case forces a difficult reflection on modern geopolitics: can any superpower intervene in a weaker state without reshaping it to serve its own interests? The answer remains unresolved. What is clear, however, is that global politics rarely operates in moral absolutes. It operates in competing interests, layered motives, and complex consequences - where a single action can be viewed, at once, as both salvation and interference.