After the end of the Cold War, Latin America remained in a secondary position on Washington’s foreign policy agenda for a long time. However, in recent years, the region has drawn attention not only because of classic problem areas such as migration, drug trafficking, or energy security but also as a new front in great power competition. One of the most visible examples of this transformation can be seen in the current military tension in the Caribbean. The increasing U.S. military presence off the coast of Venezuela reflects not only bilateral disputes between the two countries but also a concrete sign of the geopolitical repositioning that is taking shape on regional and global levels.
Since August 2025, the United States has deployed eight warships, ten F-35 fighter jets, and one nuclear submarine to the Caribbean Sea. The Pentagon describes this military buildup as “part of a large-scale operation against international drug trafficking.” However, trust in this statement is quite limited in Latin America. The dominant opinion among the region’s public is that Washington uses these operations as a tool to strengthen its regional influence and to apply indirect pressure on the Venezuelan government.
The statements of Venezuela’s Defense Minister, Vladimir Padrino López, reflect the government’s deep concern about these developments. The Venezuelan Army has intensified its coastal defense exercises, and state television has shown footage of militia forces trained with Russian-made Igla-S portable air defense systems. These activities can be seen not only as a symbolic show of strength but also as an effort to make Venezuela’s military cooperation with Russia more visible and to increase its deterrence capacity.
The U.S. has long tried to justify its military presence against Venezuela within the framework of “international security” and “the fight against drugs.” However, after reports emerged that at least 43 people had died and ten ships had been sunk during U.S. Navy operations, the credibility of this narrative began to be seriously questioned. In international law circles, such operations are seen as inconsistent with the principle of self-defense and, in some cases, even close to being defined as “war crimes.” In this context, it can be said that Washington’s interventionist military policies stand in a serious gray area in terms of international legal norms. The U.S. approach to maintaining order has historically been viewed with suspicion in Latin American societies, which place great importance on the principle of sovereignty.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro described the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean as “the beginning of a new eternal war.” This statement is not only an emotional reaction but also a clear reflection of Venezuela’s ideological position. According to Maduro, although Washington presents different reasons in each period, its main goal never changes: to weaken or overthrow independent and anti-American governments. This argument strengthens Venezuela’s effort to revive its Bolivarian political legacy, which is defined by an “anti-imperialist” tradition. This ideological framework, institutionalized during the Hugo Chávez era, aimed to limit U.S. influence in the region and to become part of a multipolar international order. However, today the Maduro government continues this legacy under much more difficult conditions. The country faces a deep economic crisis, oil production has almost collapsed, and millions of Venezuelans have been forced to leave their homeland. Despite this, government officials see military resistance as the last defense line of national sovereignty.
The U.S. defines the Maduro administration not only as an authoritarian regime but also as “a center of international organized crime networks.” This discourse has become the main justification for Washington’s economic sanctions against Venezuela and its military presence in the region. However, this harsh approach seems to have created a counter-effect on a regional level. For example, although Brazil uses careful language in its official statements, former Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said that U.S. military interventions “could revive South America’s historical traumas and risk re-polarizing the continent.” Indeed, every U.S. military move in Latin America recalls the coups, occupations, and covert operations experienced throughout the 20th century. The historical memory stretching from Nicaragua to Chile and from Cuba to Guatemala produces a deep distrust toward Washington’s military actions in the region. Therefore, the U.S. Navy’s presence off the coast of Venezuela is seen not only as a security measure but also as a historical warning in the collective memory.
Another factor that makes the regional equation more complex is the statement made by the Estado Mayor Central (EMC) group, a faction of Colombia’s FARC organization. EMC announced that it would fight on Venezuela’s side in case of a possible U.S. intervention. This declaration shows that non-state actors can still build ideologically based networks of solidarity in the regional security environment. Therefore, the Venezuela crisis has turned into not only a power struggle between states but also a multi-layered security problem where cross-border ideological solidarities have reappeared.
Venezuela’s exclusion from the Western world has led the country to seek new strategic partnerships. In this context, China and Russia quickly filled the emerging gap. China signed new investment agreements with the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA on energy infrastructure, while Russia provided technical support to modernize the country’s defense systems. Russian military advisers and Cuban intelligence experts have taken active roles in the restructuring process of the Venezuelan Army. These developments reshape geopolitical competition in the Caribbean not only along the U.S.–Venezuela axis but also within a wider U.S.–China–Russia triangle. From Washington’s perspective, the military presence in the Caribbean is now not only directed against the Venezuelan government but also serves as a deterrent policy tool against the growing influence of China and Russia in the region. However, this strategic message has, contrary to expectations, increased anti-American feelings in Latin American societies. Historically sensitive to foreign interventions, the people of the region see each new U.S. military exercise not as a security measure but as a violation of sovereignty.
Although Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, it faces serious difficulties in its energy infrastructure because of the collapse in production capacity and U.S. sanctions. Despite this, countries such as China and India are trying to continue the oil flow by developing indirect trade channels with the Venezuelan government. The Maduro administration sees integrating its economy into the BRICS bloc as an exit strategy. This trend also shows an important turning point in the economic structure of Latin America. Traditionally dependent on exports to the U.S., the dollar-based financial system, and IMF prescriptions, the region is increasingly moving toward a multipolar model of economic cooperation. However, this transition is painful. Chinese loans and Russian military support are not enough to solve Venezuela’s structural economic crisis. Nevertheless, these supports give the Venezuelan government a limited “strategic breathing space.”
The current military tension in the Caribbean brings back a fundamental question about Latin America’s historical destiny: Can the region move beyond being a field of great power competition? Today, the U.S. security discourse, Venezuela’s resistance rhetoric, and the increasing economic and military influence of China and Russia create an interwoven, multi-layered geopolitical picture in Latin America. While each actor tries to protect its own interests, the region is turning into a laboratory of a new global confrontation. The Venezuela case can now be seen not only as a single crisis but as a micro-level reflection of a post-hegemonic world. In this process, Latin American countries have the potential to move beyond being a passive geography and to create their own regional vision. However, for this to happen, the states of the region must develop a common strategic vision and redefine the concept of independence not only as a historical legacy but as a current political goal. Otherwise, this silent tension in the Caribbean could once again turn into a destiny shaped by foreign interventions in Latin America.
