Is the New Monroe Doctrine Really About Oil, or Is It Something Much Bigger?

Whenever geopolitical tensions flare up, especially involving major world powers, the media often jumps to the most straightforward—and sometimes simplest—explanation: resources. Venezuela, for example, hitting the news with political unrest and military intervention, immediately triggered assumptions about its vast oil reserves . But here's the thing: focusing only on crude oil misses the entire strategic forest for a single, albeit valuable, tree. I’ve found that when you look at the larger picture of American global strategy, what’s happening in South America isn't primarily about the barrels of oil; it’s a focused, deliberate campaign to remove specific rival influences from a key region.

Let's unpack this new strategic doctrine, sometimes called the “Donroe Doctrine” (a blend of Trump and Monroe) . The core objective is astonishingly simple yet profoundly strategic: ensuring that North and South America remain an exclusive American zone of influence, fundamentally rejecting any significant infrastructure, military, or even economic encroachment from China . We see evidence of this everywhere. For instance, the military intervention in Venezuela, while securing oil as a secondary outcome, was fundamentally aimed at rooting out the pro-Chinese regime of Maduro, who had deep ties and signed major business and even potential military cooperation agreements with Beijing just before his capture . What’s interesting is that this isn't just about Venezuela; the U.S. successfully negotiated the transfer of the Panama Canal's operations—once held by a Hong Kong-based company—back into American-friendly hands (BlackRock), showcasing a relentless cleanup of foreign infrastructure in the region.

This leads us to the surprising counterintuitive insight: the primary driver here is not economic gain or resource acquisition, but national security . For the U.S., allowing a near-peer competitor like China to establish deep infrastructure roots or military presence in its immediate hemisphere is simply unacceptable, regardless of how much oil or rare earth minerals are involved . Countries that are currently feeling this geopolitical heat—Columbia, Cuba, and especially Brazil—are likely the next targets for similar strategic pressure, emphasizing that this strategy is a systematic, ongoing cleanup operation rather than a one-off resource grab . Ultimately, understanding this shift requires putting away the old imperialist lenses and looking at the new world order, where the contest is global, but the priority is local—protecting the home turf from foreign strategic taint .

Is Russia the Target, or Just a Geopolitical Tool?

When we turn our gaze eastward to the complex theater of the Ukraine conflict, the conventional narrative often pits the U.S. and NATO directly against Russia. However, if the overarching global strategy is focused on containing China, then the objectives in Eastern Europe start to look very different. According to deep analysis of U.S. strategic documents, the true aim of American involvement in the Ukraine crisis is not to crush Russia permanently, but rather to stabilize it . Now, that’s a surprising twist, isn't it? The U.S. goal is to foster a diplomatic resolution that allows Russia to be rehabilitated and normalized as a state, creating an opportunity for future cooperation.

This perspective suggests that Ukraine itself may unfortunately be seen as a necessary, if difficult, piece of the board to sacrifice or sideline. In this strategic framework, Ukraine is viewed less as a permanent democratic partner and more as a geopolitical liability that needs to be quickly settled through negotiation, even if it requires pressuring President Zelenskyy to compromise . The ultimate strategic prize is the return of Russia as a cooperating, or at least non-hostile, partner—an inversion of the current relationship. We’ve already seen subtle signals of this shift; for example, major corporations like Hyundai are reportedly exploring options to re-engage with their formerly sold-off Russian assets, suggesting they are preemptively aligning with this anticipated strategic pivot.

The reason for this complex maneuver? It mirrors a historical masterstroke. The final objective is to utilize a normalized Russia—which historically has had tense relations with China—as a massive geopolitical counterweight to apply pressure on Beijing . Think back to the Kissinger-Nixon diplomatic strategy that used "Ping-Pong Diplomacy" to align the U.S. with China against the Soviet Union, essentially isolating the USSR and hastening its eventual collapse . From my experience observing historical foreign policy, America’s global strategy often recycles successful historical models; the current push to reintegrate Russia is seen as a way to recreate that powerful containment strategy against the current primary rival, China. The takeaway here is clear: the most significant battle isn't where the explosions are; it’s where the long-term strategic influence is built, and for the U.S., the ultimate global target remains China.

Why is Greenland’s Real Estate Suddenly the Hottest Geopolitical Commodity?

Let's pivot far north, because the strategic map also highlights an often-overlooked, icy region: Greenland. This may sound like a remote, icy afterthought, but its location makes it critically important for U.S. national security. Here’s the surprise: just like with Venezuela, any noise you hear about Greenland being desirable for its rare earth minerals or natural resources is fundamentally secondary; the actual prize is the island’s position in the Arctic.

If you look at a Mercator projection map, the northern routes seem distant, but when you look at a globe—or better yet, a polar projection—the proximity becomes startling . The Arctic Sea Route, which is becoming increasingly navigable due to climate change, drastically shortens shipping times, cutting the distance between places like Yokohama and Northern Europe by an estimated 30% compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal . As the ice melts, this route will eventually become passable year-round, transforming Greenland from a frozen curiosity into a critical global shipping and military chokepoint.

Beyond trade, Greenland's strategic value for military defense is paramount. If China or Russia launches a missile toward North America, the trajectory would likely cross the Arctic, meaning military assets placed in Greenland are perfectly positioned for early detection and interception . Given the current political climate where the U.S. cannot rely entirely on Canada as a permanent partner—I’ve noticed many Canadians are becoming more politically left-leaning and wary of conservative American policies —securing Greenland ensures a dependable, permanent military foothold. The U.S. is almost certain to acquire full operational or long-term lease control over Greenland, likely through economic incentives ("fattening the population with money") offered to the local inhabitants and Denmark . Though the international community might grumble—Europe, after all, was notably quiet during the Venezuela situation —this move is viewed as a necessary step for continental security. This strategic necessity dictates that Greenland is not just an asset, but an essential piece of the puzzle in reinforcing American hemispheric dominance and establishing the northern defense line.

Is Trade War Tariff Inflation a Myth, and Will Deflation Be the True Threat?

Let's shift gears completely and talk about the economy, specifically the impact of trade tariffs—the core of the ongoing economic rivalry. Most mainstream economists and news analysts have repeatedly argued that trade war tariffs must inevitably lead to inflation, based on the simple premise of increased import costs . They claimed the 2018 tariffs would trigger price hikes, and when those effects didn't immediately materialize, they claimed it was merely "delayed" until the following year . However, the data reveals a truly stunning, counterintuitive reality: tariffs consistently lead to deflationary pressure, not inflationary pressure.

Think about the U.S.-China trade conflict in 2018. While most experts predicted economic collapse and inflation, the U.S. economy actually performed surprisingly well that year. It wasn't until 2019 that economic growth suddenly cratered . This pattern, I’ve learned, is a predictable historical trend: tariff deflation has an approximately one-year lag . When the U.S. imposes tariffs, it dampens demand and forces foreign producers to absorb the costs through price cuts to remain competitive, creating immediate deflationary pressure that intensifies the next year . Even the Federal Reserve’s own research, documented in a December report, supports this astonishing conclusion. When charting 150 years of U.S. tariff events, the data points overwhelmingly show a negative correlation between rising tariffs and inflation (see the stark, downward-sloping regression line).

What’s even more confusing for traditional economists is that while tariffs lead to lower inflation, the same Fed data shows that tariffs lead to higher unemployment . If unemployment is up and the economy is struggling, logic dictates that inflation should be falling, not rising, which contradicts the popular narrative of "tariff-induced inflation" . This deflationary environment is only intensified by the competitive pressure from countries like China, which are currently flooding global markets with extremely cheap manufactured goods, such as electric vehicles, contributing to massive global oversupply and depressing prices everywhere—a dynamic that is essentially a form of economic warfare executed through industrial capacity . Therefore, rather than fearing the consensus view of sustained inflation, we should be preparing for a period where deflationary forces become significantly stronger, challenging traditional economic models and investment strategies.

If Deflation is Coming, Should I Sell All My Assets?

Given the strong argument for impending deflationary pressure, it’s natural to wonder how this affects your personal investment strategy. If paper money isn't losing value to inflation, does that mean the asset party is over? Not necessarily, and here’s where another common misconception—that "asset prices are only driven by liquidity"—needs to be addressed . This idea that central banks pumping money is the sole driver of stock, housing, and crypto prices is largely a political argument, not a factual one; the reality is that the Fed’s balance sheet has actually shrunk in recent years, yet key asset prices continued to rise.

The real key is understanding that today's market strength is highly concentrated, not broad-based. For instance, in real estate, it’s not the entire market booming, but only the most desirable, high-demand residential areas, like prime areas in New York, California, Texas or certain major Asian metropolitan zones; commercial real estate and peripheral areas are often struggling or "dead" . Similarly, in the stock market, most of the growth is carried by a small number of dominant tech companies, with the majority of other stocks lagging far behind.

This brings us to a crucial asset: gold. Many view gold as the ultimate inflation hedge, but data suggests a much stronger correlation with a different factor: U.S. military spending . Gold acts primarily as a hedge against geopolitical risk . As major powers increase their defense budgets—the U.S. is planning to boost its defense spending significantly, perhaps nearing $1.5 trillion—investors flock to gold as a safety mechanism against global instability and potential conflict . Therefore, even if deflation reigns supreme, the intensifying global tensions and ongoing strategic competition between the U.S. and China will likely sustain high demand for assets tied to security and concentrated value. My personal take is that market shocks, such as a negative court ruling on tariffs, should be viewed as buying opportunities; creative human intervention will quickly find workarounds, and the underlying strategic trajectory—the China pressure—will remain unchanged.