How energy control, China’s debt diplomacy and calibrated power are reshaping global competition

A heated US Senate debate on Venezuela this week has offered India a revealing window into the evolving nature of global geopolitics, where control over energy, debt leverage, sanctions and strategic signaling increasingly replace conventional military confrontation.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented Venezuela as a case study of modern great-power competition. His remarks highlighted how oil access, political transition and economic pressure are now central tools in shaping geopolitical outcomes—an approach that closely mirrors challenges India faces across the Global South and the Indo-Pacific.

Rubio described the Maduro-era Venezuelan state as a strategic hub for China, Russia and Iran, arguing that Beijing, in particular, used discounted oil supplies to expand its influence in the Western Hemisphere. According to Rubio, China was receiving Venezuelan crude at sharply reduced prices, not through cash payments but as repayment for debt, effectively converting energy resources into long-term political leverage.

For Indian policymakers, this narrative resonates strongly. New Delhi has repeatedly raised concerns about China’s use of opaque loans, cheap energy deals and infrastructure financing to gain strategic footholds in vulnerable economies—often undermining market transparency and sovereign decision-making.

At the heart of Washington’s Venezuela strategy lies tight control over oil flows. Rubio stressed that the US has imposed what he termed a “quarantine, not a blockade,” allowing Venezuelan oil to reach global markets only under strict oversight. Revenues, he said, are monitored to ensure funds are directed toward stabilising Venezuela’s basic governance and public services.

This approach carries direct relevance for India, one of the world’s largest energy importers, which has had to carefully balance sanctions regimes on countries like Iran and Russia against its domestic fuel security needs. The Venezuela episode underscores how access to energy is increasingly governed by geopolitical considerations rather than pure market dynamics.

Rubio emphasised that the arrangement is temporary, designed to prevent economic collapse while avoiding long-term dependency. He also highlighted shifts away from adversarial reliance, noting that Venezuela has replaced Russian inputs in its oil sector with US supplies—an example of how strategic realignments are being engineered through economic instruments.

Beyond Latin America, Rubio framed the operation as a broader signal to China, particularly amid rising tensions over Taiwan. While cautioning against direct comparisons, he acknowledged that US actions send a message to adversaries worldwide about Washington’s capacity to act decisively when its interests are at stake.

For Indian strategic analysts, this reinforces a growing reality: sanctions, supply chains, debt and energy chokepoints are now primary theatres of competition, with military force serving more as deterrent signaling than an immediate option.

Rubio outlined a phased US roadmap for Venezuela—stabilisation, recovery and political transition—placing emphasis on order and gradual reform rather than abrupt regime change. This approach aligns with India’s long-standing emphasis on sovereignty, stability and incremental political evolution in conflict-prone regions.

While acknowledging risks in working with imperfect interim authorities, Rubio pointed to early reforms, including changes to investment rules and the release of detainees, as signs of cautious progress.

The Venezuela debate, therefore, is less a regional episode and more an early blueprint of a world where power is exercised through energy control, economic leverage and strategic restraint—a reality India must continue to navigate with care.