John Mearsheimer warns Trump’s Venezuela policy is pure imperialism, not the Monroe Doctrine

John J. Mearsheimer, the renowned international relations theorist and pioneer of offensive realism, recently appeared on Glenn Diesen’s YouTube program to provide a searing assessment of US foreign policy. The University of Chicago professor addressed the US approach to Venezuela, Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, and the existential crisis currently facing NATO.

Not the Monroe Doctrine, but a case of imperialism

In evaluating whether the Trump administration’s stance on Venezuela aligns with US national interests, Mearsheimer offered a sharp distinction between historical policy and current actions.

“When discussing American interests in the Western Hemisphere, it is vital to understand the foundations of the Monroe Doctrine,” Mearsheimer explained. “The doctrine was designed to keep the militaries of other great powers out of the Western Hemisphere and ensure US hegemony here. However, this recent operation in Venezuela has nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine. There is currently no threat of China or Russia establishing a military alliance with Venezuela or deploying military forces there. Therefore, this operation is not about the great power competition at the heart of the Monroe Doctrine; rather, I believe it is a textbook case of old-fashioned imperialism.”

Mearsheimer argued that this instance is purely about the US seeking to dictate Venezuela’s internal politics. “If you listen to President Trump, his primary concern is who controls Venezuela’s oil. He believes that Venezuelan oil is American oil and that he should decide how it is utilized. This is naked imperialism or neo-colonialism. It bears no relation to the Monroe Doctrine.”

Recalling the long history of US intervention in Latin America, Mearsheimer noted that what makes Trump’s actions particularly “audacious” compared to his predecessors is his refusal to justify them through diplomatic or liberal rhetoric. “Trump says quite clearly: we will run Venezuela, and Venezuela’s oil is our oil. In the past, the US attempted to mask its imperialist interventions in the Western Hemisphere with liberal or idealistic language. Trump feels no such need.”

Annexing Greenland would face little resistance

Mearsheimer indicated he would not be surprised if Trump moved to annex Greenland, noting that the administration is heavily focused on the exercise of military power. He observed that while Trump has launched strikes in seven countries since taking office, these have primarily been “pinprick” operations—bombing and withdrawing rather than maintaining a long-term presence. “In Venezuela, they believe they can solve the problem by kidnapping the president and appointing the vice president in his place,” Mearsheimer remarked.

Regarding Greenland, Mearsheimer asserted that the US military would face no difficulty in annexing the territory and emphasized that Europeans would be incapable of mounting a resistance. He noted that Trump holds little respect for European leaders, making it highly probable that he would pursue an annexation he views as “cheap” and easily achievable.

A fatal blow to the liberal international order

Mearsheimer described the support provided by the US and Europe to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ongoing actions in Gaza as a “fatal blow” to the liberal international order. When viewed alongside the actions of the Trump era, Mearsheimer argued, it becomes clear just how deep a crisis the international system is currently facing.

Addressing why Europe has failed to challenge Trump, Mearsheimer offered a blunt explanation: “First and foremost, the Europeans want the US to remain in Europe, so they strive to maintain good relations. They are terrified by discussions of the US withdrawing its military presence or breaking away from NATO. They want to keep the US in Europe and preserve the integrity of NATO. European leaders believe the path to this is through appeasing Trump; therefore, even when he does something they oppose, they support him—they essentially kneel. What they fail to understand is that Trump is a bully; if you show weakness, he will slap you and treat you with contempt.”

NATO may remain in name only, losing all influence

Discussing the argument that the situation in Ukraine combined with a potential occupation of Greenland could fundamentally shake the NATO alliance, Mearsheimer suggested the following scenario: “The alliance might survive in name, but it will lose its efficacy and will no longer resemble the institution that existed between 1949 and 2025. In this case, NATO could become a mere shadow of its former self, leading to its ultimate ruin.”

Mearsheimer believes Europeans will do anything, however desperate, to prevent this outcome. Consequently, he predicts that if Trump were to move on Greenland, European leaders would swallow their pride and fail to offer any meaningful resistance.