Assessing the Geopolitical and Military Risks Impacting U.S. and International Investments in Post-Maduro Venezuela

The capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces in early 2026 marked a seismic shift in Venezuela's political and economic trajectory, yet the aftermath reveals a landscape fraught with instability, insurgency risks, and geopolitical entanglements that could deter capital inflows for years. For U.S. and international investors eyeing Venezuela's energy sector, the interplay of military resistance, regime loyalism, and external power rivalries presents a complex calculus. This analysis evaluates how prolonged instability and insurgency threaten infrastructure recovery and energy investments, while underscoring the critical role of security expenditures in shaping long-term returns.

Military Instability and Insurgency: A Looming Shadow

Venezuela's military and security apparatus remains a fractured and volatile force, even after Maduro's removal. Hardline regime loyalists, including Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, have vowed to resist U.S. influence, invoking anti-imperialist rhetoric and mobilizing pro-regime militias according to reports. According to a report by Reuters, the Venezuelan military has prepared for U.S. intervention by adopting guerrilla warfare tactics and orchestrating "anarchization" strategies to destabilize urban centers like Caracas as data shows. These measures, which include sabotage of critical infrastructure and the creation of ungovernable zones, could prolong conflict and deter foreign investment.

The U.S. military's own actions-such as strikes on drug-trafficking vessels and the deployment of ground forces-have further inflamed tensions. President Donald Trump's public threats of "armed conflict" and economic coercion have heightened fears of a protracted insurgency, with Maduro's regime leveraging narco-cartels and armed colectivos to sustain resistance as analysts warn. Analysts warn that such dynamics could lead to a collapse of state services, widespread violence, and the fragmentation of Venezuela into competing power blocs according to analysis. For investors, this environment raises the specter of operational disruptions, asset seizures, and exorbitant security costs.

Geopolitical Rivalries and the Oil Factor

Venezuela's oil sector, a linchpin of its economy, remains a strategic battleground for global powers. The U.S. has pledged to revive production through American corporate oversight, with Trump promising billions in investments to repair infrastructure and lift sanctions according to the report. However, this ambition clashes with the entrenched interests of Russia and China, which have condemned the U.S. intervention and signaled support for Maduro's allies as reported. The Russian Foreign Ministry's call for an emergency UN Security Council meeting underscores the high stakes of this rivalry, as does the presence of Russian Igla-S missiles deployed by the Maduro regime as a deterrent according to sources.

The geopolitical tug-of-war complicates infrastructure recovery. Analysts estimate that restoring Venezuela's oil infrastructure could require $15–20 billion in fresh investment, with full recovery costing up to $78 billion according to estimates. Yet U.S. sanctions, coupled with the risk of sabotage and political upheaval, create an environment of uncertainty. A report by Allianz GI notes that even under favorable conditions, production could take years to rebound, given years of underinvestment and corruption according to analysis. For international firms, the dual risks of geopolitical conflict and operational insecurity may outweigh potential returns.

Security Expenditures: A Double-Edged Sword

Security expenditures will be central to Venezuela's infrastructure recovery, but their impact on investment returns is ambiguous. According to data from Discovery Alert, security costs have surged due to the need to protect oil assets from guerrilla attacks and narco-cartel incursions as data shows. These costs not only inflate operational budgets but also deter foreign capital, which is already wary of Venezuela's volatile political climate.

The U.S. has framed its military presence as a stabilizing force, yet its interventions risk exacerbating instability. A 2025 analysis by War on the Rocks highlights the paradox of U.S. involvement: while military assets may deter external threats, they also fuel domestic resistance and regional tensions according to the analysis. For investors, this duality means that security expenditures could either mitigate risks or become a drain on resources, depending on the trajectory of Venezuela's political transition.

Conclusion: A High-Risk, High-Stakes Proposition

For U.S. and international investors, post-Maduro Venezuela represents a high-risk, high-reward scenario. The potential to unlock Venezuela's vast oil reserves is undeniable, but the path to infrastructure recovery is obstructed by military instability, insurgency threats, and geopolitical rivalries. Security expenditures, while necessary, add layers of complexity to cost-benefit analyses.

The viability of energy investments hinges on three factors: the stabilization of Venezuela's political transition, the neutralization of hardline regime loyalists, and the establishment of a secure operating environment. Until these conditions are met, capital inflows will remain constrained, and the promise of Venezuela's oil sector will remain a distant prospect. As the U.S. and its rivals jostle for influence, the true test of Venezuela's economic revival will lie not in its oil reserves, but in its capacity to achieve lasting peace.