In recent years, international politics has witnessed a steady erosion of the liberal assumption that rules, institutions, and norms can restrain great powers. Events surrounding Venezuela, often framed through the lenses of democracy promotion, sanctions, or oil are better understood through a realist framework that prioritizes power, material capabilities, and strategic geography.
Today International liberal Community is confusing rhetoric with reality. “Hans Morgenthau argued that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, chief among them the struggle for power”. Despite decades of liberal optimism, this struggle has not disappeared, it has merely adapted to new material conditions.
For much of the 20th century, oil defined global geopolitics. In the 21st century, however, strategic competition increasingly revolves around “critical minerals” such as copper, lithium, rare earth elements, cobalt, and nickel essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, advanced electronics, and modern military systems.
Control over these resources translates directly into economic resilience, technological leadership, and coercive leverage. States that dominate supply chains do not merely profit, they acquire strategic influence over rivals.
China has emerged as the central actor in this domain. It dominates global processing and refining capacities for many critical minerals, particularly rare earth elements and magnets. This dominance is not accidental but the result of long-term industrial policy, overseas investments, and strategic foresight. During periods of trade tension, Beijing has demonstrated its willingness to use export controls as a tool of statecraft underscoring how economic interdependence can be weaponized.
South America occupies a critical position in this emerging geopolitical landscape. The “Andean mineral belt” stretching across Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and touching the northern edge of Venezuela is among the richest mineral zones in the world.
Peru ranks among the world’s top copper producers, while Chile and Argentina are central to global lithium supply. Chinese state-backed firms have steadily expanded their footprint across the region. In Peru alone, Chinese companies control a substantial share of copper production. The Las Bambas mine one of theworld’s largest accounts for roughly two percent of global copper output and over a tenth of Peru’s total production. Such concentrations illustrate how individual assets can acquire global strategic significance.
From a realist perspective, geography matters because it endures beyond political cycles. Venezuela’s value lies not in its current economic performance which has sharply declined but in its “location at the northern gateway of the Andean resource zone” and its role in hemispheric power balances.
Public debates often frame Venezuela in moral or ideological terms. Yet realism suggests a different reading, states act primarily to prevent rivals from gaining strategic advantages. “John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism holds that great powers seek regional dominance and aim to block peer competitors wherever possible”.
Seen in this light, Venezuela becomes part of a broader contest between the United States and China. Beijing’s expanding economic and resource ties in Latin America represent, from Washington’s perspective, a potential erosion of U.S. influence in its traditional sphere of interest. Whether through investment, infrastructure, or mineral access, China’s presence carries long-term strategic implications.
Recent reports and allegations involving Venezuelan leadership, regardless of their legal outcomes, must therefore be understood within this wider geopolitical context. Realists would caution against interpreting such developments as isolated law-enforcement actions or moral interventions. Instead, they reflect the persistent logic of power politics operating beneath legal and diplomatic narratives.
Liberal institutionalism argues that international rules and organizations can mitigate anarchy. Realism does not deny their existence but questions their independence. Institutions, in practice, tend to reflect the distribution of power rather than constrain it.
When rules align with the interests of powerful states, they are enforced vigorously. When they do not, they are bypassed or reinterpreted. This selective application does not signal hypocrisy alone, it reflects the structural realities of an anarchic international system.
Thucydides’ observation during the Peloponnesian War that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” remains analytically relevant. It is not a normative endorsement of power politics but a descriptive account of how international systems function in the absence of a central authority.
The Venezuelan case illustrates a broader transformation in global politics. Oil is no longer the sole “strategic commodity”. Critical minerals now underpin economic growth, military capability, and technological sovereignty. China’s rise has intensified competition over these resources, compelling other great powers to respond.
For analysts and policymakers alike, the lesson is clear, moral language may shape public discourse, but “hard power shapes outcomes”. States that neglect military strength, supply-chain security, and strategic geography risk strategic marginalization.
The world has not entered a post-power era. It has entered a “new phase of power competition”, where mines, processing facilities, and trade routes matter as much as armies and alliances. Recognizing this reality is not cynicism it is analytical clarity.
The author Akseer Ali Saif is an IR graduate from NDU Islamabad, International Affairs Analyst, specializing in South Asian geopolitics and security strategy. He is the founder of the “Azad Kashmir Humanitarian Forum” independent think tank based in Kotli AJK. He has work experience with TPF, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) & Army Institute of Military History (AIMH).