Venezuela and the Right of Might
Venezuela and Maduro became the latest proof that slogans collapse when power enters the scene. Anti-imperialist rhetoric filled media and diplomacy, yet no action arrived to change the outcome. Allies stayed distant. An old rule remains at the center of world politics: might is right. This is the lived reality of Darwinian multipolarity.
Recent United States action in Venezuela marks a decisive moment in contemporary geopolitics. The removal of Nicolás Maduro by American force demonstrates that power, rather than abstract principle, continues to shape international outcomes. Appeals to legal norms and multilateral procedure recede once strategic interests assert themselves. This episode confirms a recurring pattern in world affairs: states that command decisive strength define the limits of acceptable conduct, while weaker actors adjust to realities imposed upon them.
This development reinforces a Darwinian logic that governs relations among powers in a multipolar age. Survival, influence, and expansion favor those states capable of sustained coercion and strategic unity. Venezuela stood isolated, and isolation carried consequences. Regional sympathy existed in language and symbolism, yet material assistance failed to appear. As anticipated by geopolitical analysis, solidarity alone carried little weight when confronted by overwhelming force.
South America, like the Islamic world, possesses civilizational depth, shared memory, and cultural continuity. Civilization alone, however, does not constitute a pole of power. A civilization-state requires cohesion, coordinated leadership, and the capacity to project force. In the absence of these qualities, fragmentation prevails. Just as Islamic countries experience repeated humiliation through disunity in conflicts involving Israel, South America revealed its structural limits by offering Venezuela neither protection nor relief.
The outcome revives doctrines long assumed obsolete. The Monroe Doctrine continues to operate as the actual state of affairs rather than a historical relic, just as Eastern Europe remains central to Russia’s strategic environment. Spheres of influence endure even when expressed in restrained language. What gains acceptance in one region acquires legitimacy elsewhere. Power applies principles symmetrically when interests align, reinforcing patterns familiar to earlier imperial ages.
Anti-imperialist rhetoric struggles because it addresses a world that has already passed. The emerging order resembles the nineteenth century more than the late twentieth, shaped by rival empires, clear hierarchies, and contested frontiers. At present, four sovereign poles exercise genuine autonomy: the United States, Russia, China, and India. Each governs its own strategic space. The Venezuelan episode signals the return of an age defined by power, interest, and imperial structure.
https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/venezuela-and-the-right-of-might