Last weekend marked a significant event with the capture and extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, showcasing the thrill that can accompany actions bypassing both national sovereignty and international law.
Engaging in reckless behavior—whether it’s train surfing or driving under the influence—and escaping the consequences can instill a false sense of invincibility, pushing individuals to take greater risks.
Does might truly equate to right?
This question has long surpassed its relevance. Whether one views the actions taken as justified or unjustified, the irreversible outcome stands: Maduro’s fate is sealed, akin to a cucumber transformed into a pickle—transitions that can never revert.
Perhaps Maduro’s reputation as a corrupt dictator warrants his fate; handcuffs seem fitting for someone with such a controversial legacy. However, there are myriad opinions and our view holds little weight in the grander scheme.
What we seek to analyze is the broader significance of these events. The world feels drastically altered from how it appeared at the dawn of January 1, 2026.
News is unfolding rapidly. By forcibly removing a head of state and gaining control over the world’s largest oil reserves, the U.S. has effectively endorsed the recently released Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, now referred to as the Donroe Doctrine. This shift has cut off China’s access to its strategic oil investments in Venezuela.
Michael Burry, the unconventional investor who gained fame for shorting subprime mortgages in 2008-09, stated on Monday that this constitutes a “paradigm shift despite the market’s yawning.” Burry rightly notes that the market’s immediate response appeared muted; Brent crude rose by less than 1 percent, and while stock futures showed some gains on Monday, the surge was modest.
However, this does not negate the potential for significant economic and geopolitical repercussions.
Breaking BRICS in the Hot Sun
Burry contends that the “game just changed” for global energy dynamics and American consumers. Should he be correct, this maneuver could swiftly undermine the influence of BRICS nations, while establishing a reliable energy supply for American industries.
The capture of Maduro and the subsequent U.S. promise to “manage” the country introduce a degree of short-term uncertainty. Yet, if this does not devolve into another military entanglement, it could yield long-term benefits for the U.S. economy.
For instance, drawing from Venezuela’s vast reserves—boasting the largest proven crude reserves worldwide—could lead to a sustained reduction in gas, diesel, and jet fuel prices. Abundant and inexpensive energy is crucial for a thriving economy and what the U.S. requires to delay its impending economic reckoning.
As production and transportation costs decrease, lower fuel expenses permeate the entire supply chain. For American consumers, this could be an effective solution to the inflationary pressures that have plagued the 2020s.
According to Bloomberg, Chevron has scheduled 11 oil tankers to arrive in Venezuela this month. As the sole Western oil company permitted to operate in Venezuela—thanks to a Treasury-issued license—Chevron is expected to ramp up production and transportation of crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts.
This could equally benefit major oil service firms like Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Baker Hughes, which would likely be engaged in upgrading Venezuela’s aging pipelines and refineries to boost production.
There’s also the pressing issue of how the U.S. takeover of Venezuelan oil assets transforms the global balance of power.
Doctrine of Disruption
If Washington successfully channels the world’s largest oil reserves to U.S. refineries, Beijing and Moscow will face significant recalibrations. For years, China has leveraged its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to extend its influence in South America, lending over $60 billion to Maduro’s regime, with loans secured by future oil production. That production is now under U.S. control.
Currently, 4 to 5 percent of China’s oil imports come from Venezuela. Should the U.S. divert this oil to its own ports, China would lose a crucial source of cost-effective oil.
Moreover, this shift will reverberate throughout Latin America, showcasing to other nations that reliance on Chinese financing can be abruptly interrupted by a change in U.S. policy.
Additionally, Russia’s rights to billions of barrels of Venezuelan oil through Roszarubezhneft, a state-owned oil enterprise, are now mired in uncertainty. By gaining control over Venezuelan crude, America diminishes Russia’s influence in the global oil market. As U.S. contractors work to restore and modernize Venezuelan output, Russia’s strategic energy leverage will be eroded.
If U.S. production reaches Venezuela’s peak of 3 million barrels per day, the resultant oversupply could pressure global oil prices downward. A dip below $50 per barrel would severely undermine Moscow’s finances, which have been inflated by ongoing conflict.
Despite the potential economic benefits for America, challenges loom. The U.S. has not only seized a dictator but also taken on a nation grappling with collapse.
Seizing the Orinoco
As any poker player can tell you, a monumental win at the table often means someone else faces a significant loss. In this context, the challenges run as deep as the Orinoco Belt itself. While the allure of decades of $2.00-per-gallon gas is enticing, the complexities of managing a nation in disarray may prove overwhelming.
While President Trump deems this a liberation, leaders in Mexico City, Brasília, and Bogotá perceive it as an act of aggression and a form of recolonization. By invoking the Trump Corollary, the U.S. has signaled to every sovereign nation in the hemisphere that their borders matter only as long as they do not obstruct American interests.
What kind of repercussions could arise?
Will neighboring countries like Colombia or Brazil feel pressured to align more closely with the BRICS bloc for protection? Instead of isolating China, the U.S. may have inadvertently provided Latin American nations with an incentive to formalize mutual defense agreements with Beijing.
Furthermore, the influx of Venezuelan heavy crude does not come without complications. Many U.S. refineries are optimized for light, sweet crude; processing the viscous output from Venezuela will necessitate extensive multi-billion-dollar upgrades to Gulf Coast facilities.
Additionally, by focusing Venezuelan recovery solely on oil, the U.S. risks fostering a heavily concentrated economy. If oil prices remain low, Venezuela could descend further into chaos, potentially necessitating a permanent U.S. military presence merely to maintain basic stability.
In sum, the Donroe Doctrine reflects a high-stakes wager that prioritizes energy dominance over international law. While seizing Venezuela’s reserves might curb inflation and diminish adversaries like China and Russia, it also invites regional backlash and daunting military entanglements.
Ultimately, long after Trump’s tenure has ended, the United States might discover that the true cost of seizing the Orinoco is a hemisphere that remains in opposition.
[Editor’s note: Join the Economic Prism mailing list and receive a complimentary report entitled, “Utility Payment Wealth – Profit from Henry Ford’s Dream City Business Model.” For a special trial offer of MN Gordon’s Wealth Prism Letter, click here.]
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
