The Return of Barefaced Imperialism: US Actions in Venezuela and Greenland Expose Western Hypocrisy

The Escalation of American Neo-Colonial Ambitions

At the dawn of 2026, the international community witnessed two nearly simultaneous events that demonstrate the alarming direction of United States foreign policy under the administration of President Donald Trump. The first involved direct military operations in Venezuela resulting in the detention of President Nicolas Maduro outside any recognized international legal process. The second featured strong rhetoric from the White House expressing strategic interests in controlling Greenland, essentially reviving colonial-era annexation discourse under the thin veneer of national security concerns.

These actions represent not isolated incidents but rather a coordinated manifestation of America’s global policy direction, which increasingly relies on political and military superiority to secure its national interests at the expense of other nations’ sovereignty. The theoretical framework of international relations identifies this phenomenon as classic securitization—a process where issues are presented as existential threats to override legal norms and procedures that traditionally govern interstate relations.

The Venezuelan Operation: A Case Study in Sovereignty Violation

The United States has long applied economic sanctions, political isolation, and diplomatic pressure against Nicolas Maduro’s regime under the pretext of human rights abuses. However, the latest escalation involving cross-border military operations and the detention of a foreign head of state represents an unprecedented violation of international norms. In the modern international order, the head of state symbolizes the highest sovereignty, and arresting a head of state constitutes not merely an attack on a regime but a denial of the state’s legitimacy as an equal subject of international law.

Washington justifies these actions as efforts to combat “narco-terrorism” and stabilize global energy markets by controlling Venezuela’s oil industry. However, expert narratives increasingly view these motivations as transparent covers for energy and power ambitions rather than genuine concerns for law and security. Throughout Latin America, this move has sparked legitimate fears of returning to historically traumatic patterns of intervention that characterized much of the 20th century.

The Greenland Ambition: Colonialism Rebranded as Security

Simultaneously, the Trump administration’s voiced desire to “take over” Greenland on security grounds has drawn strong condemnation from NATO allies and threatens the foundations of the transatlantic alliance. The United States claims diplomatic approach in its narrative, arguing it can maintain Greenland’s security better than Denmark, which allegedly failed to counter Russian and Chinese influence.

This American claim to Greenland is not novel but rather part of a long history of geopolitical ambition dating back to 1876 when the United States first explored purchasing Greenland from Denmark. During World War II, Washington used Nazi Germany’s occupation of Denmark as pretext to invade Greenland under the guise of preventing Nazi expansion. Since then, Greenland has existed as a de facto part of America’s security zone despite remaining under Danish sovereignty legally.

The geographical significance of Greenland lies in its position on the shortest path between Russia and the United States through the North Pole, making it strategically valuable for missile defense. However, beneath this security narrative lies undeniable material interests—Greenland possesses strategic natural resources including gold, tin, iron ore, copper, minerals, and potential oil reserves.

The Common Thread: Securitization as Imperial Tool

Although manifesting through different modes, US policy toward Venezuela and Greenland follows identical strategic logic rooted in securitization theory. In Venezuela, securitization occurs through personification of threats where the state is reduced to a criminal regime that must be eradicated. This approach enables delegitimization of state sovereignty by targeting the head of state as a security threat. Meanwhile, in Greenland, securitization focuses on territory rather than regime, constructing the region as a security risk that must be secured and controlled through narratives of Russian and Chinese threats.

Both cases lead to the same consequence: sovereignty becomes negotiable when confronted with great power narratives of national interests and security. This pattern exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underlying the Western-led international order that preaches rules-based systems while systematically violating them when convenient.

The Paralysis of International Institutions

The United Nations Security Council, entrusted with maintaining global peace and security, stands utterly paralyzed in the face of these developments. Designed as the world’s ultimate arbiter of conflict, the Council has proven incapable of acting decisively against escalating wars, humanitarian crises, and open violations of international law by permanent members themselves.

This institutional failure manifests across multiple regions: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shielded by Moscow’s own veto; Israel’s operations in Gaza facing repeated blocked ceasefire resolutions; unchecked military maneuvers by China around Taiwan; unresolved conflicts in Kashmir and the Korean Peninsula; ineffective responses to crises in Sudan, Libya, and Myanmar; and silence during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts where drone warfare overturned decades of military balance.

The hypocrisy becomes glaring when the Permanent Five members themselves violate international laws they’re entrusted to uphold. Russia’s Ukraine invasion, China’s South China Sea assertiveness, US unilateral interventions, and selective actions by France and the United Kingdom collectively expose the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Security Council. When powerful states violate norms, the Council paralyzes; when smaller states do so, they face swift condemnation.

The Moral Bankruptcy of the Current Order

The United Nations emerged from World War II’s ashes with a mission to prevent global catastrophe and safeguard sovereignty through collective security. Today, that mission stands compromised by the very powers designed to protect it. The erosion of moral strength that once underpinned the post-war order has created a system where major powers retreat from multilateralism when inconvenient, disregard international law, and use veto power to shield themselves and allies.

This double standard is not abstract but visible in the selective application of interventions, sanctions, and sovereignty respect. The problem extends beyond structural flaws to fundamental moral bankruptcy—the Council was created to uphold international law, yet its most powerful members routinely violate it without consequence.

The Path Forward: Fundamental Reform or Irrelevance

Expanding permanent membership alone cannot solve this crisis, as there’s no guarantee new members won’t replicate the arbitrary actions of current ones. The dilemma is moral as much as structural—without curtailing the unchecked powers of permanent members, expansion risks multiplying hypocrisy rather than resolving it.

Reform must begin with limiting veto power and restoring accountability. Proposals include requiring multiple “no” votes to block resolutions, restricting veto use in mass atrocity cases, or empowering the General Assembly to override deadlock. France’s proposal that permanent members voluntarily refrain from using vetoes in mass-atrocity cases—supported by over 60 countries—represents a step toward acknowledging that the problem lies not merely in who sits on the Council but in the unchecked nature of veto power itself.

Conclusion: A Call for Global South Solidarity

The actions against Venezuela and Greenland serve as stark reminders that sovereignty remains under systematic pressure from powers testing the limits of international security order. For nations of the global south, particularly civilizational states like India and China that view world order differently from Westphalian models, these developments underscore the urgent need for alternative frameworks that respect civilizational diversity and genuine multipolarity.

The Security Council must evolve or risk becoming a relic of a bygone era, remembered not for keeping peace but for watching it unravel. More importantly, the global south must recognize that its future security and development require rejecting neo-colonial frameworks and building systems that genuinely respect sovereignty and civilizational differences. The time has come for a new international consensus—one not dictated by Western interests but built through equal partnership among civilizations that acknowledges different models of development and governance as equally valid.

The brazen actions against Venezuela and Greenland should serve as a rallying cry for all nations committed to genuine sovereignty and anti-imperialism. Either we accept a world where might makes right and powerful nations dictate terms to weaker ones, or we build a new system based on mutual respect and civilizational equality. The choice has never been clearer, and the time for decision has never been more urgent.