The United States’ forcible removal of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro from power has reignited a debate over international law and sovereignty. But this risks obscuring a more consequential fact: global energy markets are not governed primarily by liberal market logic, but are shaped by geopolitical strategy.

For decades, many assumed that energy markets, though imperfect, ultimately responded to supply, demand and price signals. That assumption is becoming harder to sustain. Energy functions less as a neutral commodity and more as a strategic asset, deployed alongside sanctions, trade restrictions and security partnerships.

Venezuela’s removal from the global energy system did not begin with recent events; it has been developing for years. Recent developments confirm, rather than create, this reality.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Yet its production and export capacity have long been constrained, not by geology but by sanctions, financial isolation and political confrontation. As a result, Venezuela has been marginalised in global energy flows. This has reshaped supply chains, redirected investment and altered strategic calculations.

From a political economic perspective, major confrontations rarely begin with open conflict. They are typically preceded by precautionary adjustments: efforts to secure alternative supplies, reduce exposure and manage risk. Energy sits at the centre of this process. The US tendency to treat energy flows as a geopolitical variable rather than a market outcome reflects this logic, and will deepen particularly as its economic rivalry with China grows.