When President Barack Obama won the U.S. presidential election in November 2008, the African continent erupted in celebration. This was not unconnected with his ancestral lineage traceable to Kenya, a nation in the continent. Rallies, public gatherings, naming of streets and monuments after him were all over. While that was on, a renowned diplomat, Nigeria’s former ambassador to the United States, Late Professor Jibril Aminu was interviewed and asked his view on the election victory. He said Africa should expect less because America is America regardless of who occupies the White House. He explained that international politics is driven by cold calculations, shifting interests and silent betrayals not sentiment. He supported his submission with practical examples.
In 1960, Nigeria got its independence and in 1962 the Democratic Republic of Congo collapsed into chaos. Mutiny, assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, secession of mineral-rich Katanga and civil war. Nigeria joined the UN mission, contributing troops, commanders, logistics and medical support. This was one of Nigeria’s most important early peacekeeping commitments. In 1967, when Nigeria faced its own existential crisis following the declaration of the Republic of Biafra, DR Congo was among the first to recognize the breakaway state. The lesson was clear that alliances are conditional not sentimental.
Venezuela is a major South American nation located on the northern coast of the continent, bordered by Colombia to the west, Brazil to the south, Guyana to the east and the Caribbean Sea to the north. It covers about 916,000 square kilometres, making it one of the largest countries in the region, with an estimated population of around 28 million people. Historically, Venezuela was a Spanish colony and became independent in 1811 under the leadership of Simón Bolívar, one of Latin America’s most important liberators.
The country possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, along with significant deposits of natural gas, gold, iron ore and other minerals, making it strategically important in global energy markets. Over the years, Venezuela has built close political and economic ties with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Turkey, largely as a counterbalance to U.S. influence, while maintaining a complicated relationship with Western powers. These resources and alliances have placed Venezuela at the centre of regional politics and international strategic competition.
Recently, the president of the United States, Donald Trump made statements about Venezuela, signifying a possible impasse. In the morning of Saturday 3rd January, 2026 the capital of Venezuela woke up with American raids with air strikes across locations and by afternoon the news was that the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro was ousted and flown to the United States. The dramatic capture of the Venezuelan President and his wife following United States air strikes sent shockwaves across the international community.
In a moment that will likely redefine modern geopolitical relations, a sitting Head of State was removed from power without a conventional war, without prolonged fighting and with no single public shot fired by the nation’s armed forces in his defense. The world watched as the United States announced that it would steer Venezuela’s affairs pending the formation of a new government, while global institutions and foreign capitals issued swift condemnations and statements of concern.
Beyond the headlines and the immediate diplomatic outrage lies a deeper and more troubling question. How did a country long supported by powerful allies and guarded by one of the largest militaries in Latin America, collapse with such speed and silence? Why did Venezuela’s closest partners, particularly Russia and China, choose restraint over resistance? And what does this episode reveal about the fragile nature of military loyalty, the limits of diplomatic alliances and the evolving structure of power in today’s international system?
Every administration depends on three critical pillars for survival; effective security, strong economic capacity and the support of the people. National security is rooted in loyalty to the sovereignty of the state. This is why disobedience to lawful military orders is regarded as a grave offence, often resulting in court-martial and severe punishment. Against this background, how did the very forces entrusted with protecting the life of Venezuela’s president become involved in a conspiracy against their own nation? What could have driven them to betray their country in favour of a foreign power? And why would they choose to act in direct violation of the oath they swore to uphold?
Following the incident, the world watched in tense anticipation, waiting to see how the military, sworn to defend the nation’s sovereignty with their very lives would respond. The Chief of Defence Staff offered public condemnations and dished out threats, the Vice President, newly installed as acting president, spoke of concern for the safety and location of the removed leader. Yet, these declarations proved to be nothing more than hollow rhetoric. The burden of resistance fell solely on the masses, who stood exposed, frustrated and protesting.
I cannot overlook the failure of Venezuela’s closest allies, especially Russia and China, to act decisively. Even if full military intervention was not possible, they could have at least secured the safety of the president and his family, just as done to Bashar Al-Assad. It is reasonable to suspect that Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and China’s strategic concerns over Taiwan weakened their willingness to respond. While the absence of a formal defense pact with Venezuela has been offered as justification for their inaction, this explanation is insufficient. Powerful nations always have options and they could have demonstrated meaningful support in some visible forms.
For decades, the world’s balance of power was shaped by two dominant superpowers; the United States and Russia with China later emerging as a formidable third force. Each of these powers pursues its own strategic interests, often in competition with the others. Several analysts now suggest that the serious allegations of compromise involving Venezuela’s closest allies may be part of a broader pattern of geopolitical bargaining. The language of betrayal is increasingly being used and recent communications appear to support the claim that such concessions were discussed and possibly agreed upon.
If this interpretation is accurate, it raises the possibility of Russia consolidating control over Ukraine and China moving decisively on Taiwan. In an international order increasingly dominated by the three great powers, strategic deals may be struck behind closed doors while smaller states suffer the consequences.
Then, what is the fate of Africa in the present global order? The nations of the Gulf of Guinea including Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Gabon, Angola, Republic of Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo must regain strategic clarity, exercise restraint and caution in their decisions. They possess resources that the world’s major powers desperately need at this moment. Traditional Western powers such as France, Britain, Germany, etc now play a far less decisive role as real influence is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the trio.
The enduring lesson for all nations is both simple and unsettling, sovereignty is preserved not through goodwill, shared history or friendship, but through preparation, unity and strategic foresight. For Africa, especially the resource-rich states of the Gulf of Guinea, this is a time for sober reflection. In a world where power is transactional and alliances are conditional, survival belongs to those who understand that peace is not given by others, but secured from within.
Yusuf Alhaji Lawan writes from Hausawa Asibiti Ward, Potiskum Yobe State. He can be reached via [email protected].