New Geopolitical Chessboard: Energy and Freedom; Who should dominate global energy?

In every era of human history, a single resource has defined the structure of power. In ancient times it was land. In the industrial age it was steel and coal. In the twentieth century it was oil. And now, in the twenty‑first century, as artificial intelligence becomes the engine of global transformation, the world is entering a new phase where energy—abundant, reliable, scalable energy—determines not only economic strength but the very conditions under which nations and their citizens will live.

What we are witnessing today is not a series of isolated geopolitical events but a deliberate rearrangement of the global chessboard, where energy is the central square and the future of freedom hinges on who controls it.

The recent capture of Nicolás Maduro is one example of this broader strategic realignment. It is tempting to view such an event as a standalone action, a headline to be consumed and forgotten. But that is not how great powers operate, and it is certainly not how strategic thinkers interpret the world. In chess, no master evaluates a move in isolation.

As AI becomes the backbone of economic productivity, military capability, and global influence, the nations that control energy will control the pace of AI development. And the nations that control AI will shape the future.

This is why the global competition between the United States and China is not simply ideological or economic—it is structural. Both nations possess the talent, the capital, and the technological infrastructure to lead the AI revolution. But only one will have the energy capacity to sustain it. Energy is the bottleneck. Energy is the leverage. Energy is the deciding factor.

China has openly expressed its ambition to reshape the global order through a centralized, authoritarian, communist framework. Its leaders have stated their intention to push the United States into the background and assert control over global economic systems.

Their actions abroad reflect this ambition. In Africa, Chinese companies extract minerals essential for electric vehicle batteries, often under conditions that damage the environment and exploit local labor. The benefits flow overwhelmingly to China, while the host nations bear the cost. This is not partnership; it is dependency.

The United States, historically, has operated differently. After World War II, the U.S. did not seize Europe or impose a colonial administration. Instead, it invested billions of dollars to rebuild devastated nations, restore their economies, and strengthen their sovereignty. The Marshall Plan remains one of the most significant acts of international generosity in modern history. It was not perfect, but it demonstrated a model of power rooted in partnership rather than domination.

These contrasting models matter because the nation that dominates global energy will shape the conditions under which other nations must operate. If China were to control the world’s energy supply, it would gain the ability to dictate terms—economic, political, and technological—to nations dependent on that energy. If the United States controls energy, the global system is more likely to remain open, cooperative, and oriented toward mutual benefit. The question is not simply which nation will be more powerful. The question is which model of power will define the world.

NOW the raid makes sense -

https://factually.co/fact-checks/finance/china-venezuela-oil-for-loans-evolution-since-2015-e5b45f

Before 2015 China had become Venezuela’s dominant external financier through large, opaque oil-backed loans—estimates put total lending since 2007 around $50–$60 billion—yet after the oil-price collapse and Venezuela’s production decline Beijing largely stopped issuing new major loans and grew wary of extending fresh lines [1] [4] [7]. Multiple analysts and a 2025 academic review document that by and after 2015 Chinese policy banks and investors curtailed new lending because of perceived mismanagement in Caracas and the country’s diminishing capacity to service debt [3] [2].

2. Debt relief, grace periods and crude-in-kind repayments Rather than immediate legal enforcement or asset grabs, China pursued adjustments: grace periods, rollovers and arrangements that converted loan servicing into oil deliveries or escrow-controlled receipts, effectively turning many obligations into in-kind repayments [6] [8] [9]. Reuters and AidData reporting describe escrow arrangements and contractual off-take formulas stipulating hundreds of thousands of barrels per day to Chinese buyers until loans were serviced, while Beijing reportedly granted a grace period on about $19 billion of loans in 2020 [6] [5] [8].

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.