In retrospect, many now see Venezuela not as a turning point but as a warning. It is a glimpse of a more transactional, unpredictable US foreign policy, and a reminder that reliance carries risk, especially when Washington moves unilaterally.
Greenland, too, underscores Europe’s dependence, though the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, is now preparing Europe’s response to any military action on Greenland. As part of the Kingdom of Denmark, yet embedded in American defence planning, it shows just how Europe’s sovereignty blurs at the frontiers of great-power rivalry.
Venezuela may not have changed European capabilities, but it sharpened the argument. It reinforced the case for more autonomous decision-making. This is not because Europe wants to abandon the US alliance, but because it may not always have the choice.
That point was reinforced again this week when US forces intercepted two oil tankers in moves that were swift and consequential, though not on the oil tanker sanctioned by the US in 2024 for distributing illicit Russian oil and sailing only this week through the Channel. When rules are broken and escalation risk is real, who acts? Once more, it is Washington, though the UK provided military support such as RAF surveillance aircraft and naval backing. By and large, though, Europe just watched, assessed, and coordinated its language. It was not a failure of diplomacy so much as a reminder of capability and who still calls the shots.