When I last wrote about the US’s foray into Venezuela, I mentioned American imperialism as always having existed. What makes Donald Trump different is simply the honesty with which he flaunts such imperialism.
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, clearly said in a statement that “utilizing the US Military is always an option” when it comes to acquiring Greenland. Trump’s threats to seize this autonomous territory from Denmark — who happens to an American ally at NATO — blatantly strips all diplomatic veneer away.
The aesthetic of the administration sure has changed. But substantively, this hunger for more, especially when the prospects of new resources is as alive as ever, has never flinched. Previous administrations may have dressed their expansionism better in the language of democracy and humanitarian interventions. Trump chooses to do away with that costume entirely.
Greenland — Is Sovereignty Dead?
It’s all for defence.
Trump does not rule out the possibilities of using military force to seize control in Greenland. Last year, he said may have to “go as far as [he has] to”. Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior advisor, supported this lunacy by questioning Denmark’s right to assert control over the Arctic territory.
Sounds rich coming from a group that considers Venezuelan oil ‘stolen’ American property based on nationalizations that happened decades ago. The US, according to this logic, owns whatever resources it once exploited, with zero regard for international law or sovereign rights.
Decisions are made with the ease of throwing a stone, watching it land next to a rich pit, and then commanding forces to strike because that morning was a bit whimsical and needed more crazy.
Denmark’s active-duty military is much smaller than the NYPD. Trump knows this. And so does Miller. The chances for an immediate military stride is unlikely — but who can be sure of anything in the strange times we live in?
Business Model or Foreign Policy?
Nicolas Maduro’s ‘capture’ on January 3, 2026, wasn’t about the US being a savior of democracy or about tackling drug trafficking. The official justifications may claim these reasons, but Trump just made his objective very clear: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure” of Venezuela’s oil sector. Oil companies are already in touch with the White House over the desired plan of action. It didn’t take long for the race to begin.
The US is treating Venezuela like a hostile takeover, and not as a sovereign nation. The president announced plans for Venezuela to hand over 30-50 million barrels of oil to be sold by the US, with proceeds supposedly benefiting both Venezuelans and Americans. Talk about profit margins.
Trump initially claimed that the US would “run” Venezuela temporarily and “take out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground” to sell to global customers. There is no pretense. And this certainly isn’t a page taken out of dystopian fiction. It’s pure extractive economics that gets paraded as geopolitical strategy. Everybody is expected to play their quiet roles in this mad game.
Under international law — not that it’s of concern anymore — the US has no rightful claim of ownership over Venezuela’s oil reserves, as sovereign states possess the right to control their natural resources under UN principles.
The Noriega Playbook
The United States’ invasion of Panama mid-December in 1989 aimed to depose Manuel Noriega. The pretext offered may sound similar — drug trafficking and racketeering. Noriega, however, was a CIA asset for decades. William Casey, Reagan’s CIA director, famously said: “He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard.”
Noriega's corruption and drug trafficking links were hardly an issue. The US was aware of this as far back as in the 1970s. But when he stopped being a fully controllable and useful puppet in the neighbourhood, Washington decided to act. Any demands for independence from the US, was as good an excuse to grant ‘independence’ for the country’s people.
George HW Bush ordered 24,000 troops to invade Panama, ‘captured’ Noriega — like Maduro today — after he sought refuge in the Vatican embassy. The operation killed several Panamanian civilians. Noriega was convicted in US courts and died in a Panamanian prison in 2017.
This is the fate that awaits any leader who believes they can win the long game with Washington on their own terms. You’re an ally only until you run out of your usefulness. If you’re not useful, you get turned into a criminal who needs to be ousted for a much-needed regime change.
The playbook, like the hunger for territory, remains in place.
The Language of Thuggery
Trump’s rhetoric has made diplomacy embrace its ugliest face yet. Back in September 2025, he told world leaders at the UNGA, “Your countries are going to hell.” Climate change, to this American President, seems more like the “greatest con job ever” than a ticking bomb. He goes so far as to declare: “If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”
Imagine scaling up schoolyard bullying to the expanse of state policy. Trump has called Colombian President Gustavo Petro “sick”. Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum was threatened with military intervention to combat cartels. Then there are the long-drawn compliments he gives himself for solving too many wars at once. The pattern has been quite simple: comply or be humiliated, threatened, and in the worst case, even invaded.
The only sane question to ask is, where is the pushback? Why are global leaders so hesitant to call this out as the naked aggression that it is?
A Tale of Institutional Cowardice
Argentine President Javier Milei celebrated Maduro’s capture, terming it an advancement of liberty. Milei thinks this is “excellent news for the free world.” Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa urged the Venezuelan opposition to “reclaim” their country, and cheered for the collapse of “narco-Chavista.” Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar praised the operation and hailed the US as the “leader of the free world.”
These leaders think their alignment with Washington keeps them safe – Milei’s Trump worship and libertarian economics; Noboa’s anti-narcotics cooperation; Israel’s steady strategic importance.
Meanwhile, Europe’s response to Venezuela revealed exactly how hollow their commitment to sovereignty really is. THe European Union, careful to not name and shame the US or condemn its actions, called for “restraint” and asked for international law to be upheld. Hungary refused to even sign the statement. The Irish Times described the EU's response as "stuttering", noting that Brussels was "mostly holding its tongue to avoid antagonising Donald Trump." When pressed on the legality of the military strikes, European Commission spokeswoman Paula Pinho deflected: questions about legality should be "left to the United Nations."
Britain’s Keir Starmer offered perhaps the most pathetic of all reactions. He said, “I always say and believe we should uphold international law, but I think at this stage [in a] fast moving situation, let's establish the facts and take it from there". What facts need establishing? The United States bombed Caracas, abducted a sitting head of state, and announced it would "run the country." These aren't disputed facts. Starmer was missing a spine to call it what it was.
France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, posted that Venezuelans “can only rejoice” at the regime change. But he soon backtracked by saying that France neither supports nor approves the operation. From a vocal celebration to neutrality — there isn’t much to appreciate in the stance-shifting here.
Germany's Friedrich Merz called the legal assessment "complex" and said Germany would "take time" on the matter — bureaucratic language designed to delay any meaningful response until the moment passes and everyone moves on.
Denmark’s Foreign Minister had the standard diplomatic statement ready for use: “We need to get back on track toward de-escalation and dialogue. International law must be respected.” That was all — from a country whose autonomous territory is actively within Trump’s radar for a siege.
Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, and the threat that Greenland now faces, have both received responses of more depth than all these statements put together. European nations were quick to impose sanctions, expel diplomats, and send military aid when Russia attacked Ukraine. But if the US becomes the ‘violator’, it cannot be named.
Maduro’s capture was a warning. The verbal threats that Greenland now faces is an escalation of this warning.
But these leaders hardly realize that the next knock might land on their own door. Their usefulness to the US is temporary. Their sovereignty is, at best, conditional.
