The Donroe Doctrine and Its Impact on Global Politics

Exploring the implications of the new Donroe Doctrine on international relations and global security dynamics in 2026
GopiGopi
6 mins read
Geopolitics in 2026: Shifting Power, Shrinking Norms
Not Started

1. Recasting the Monroe Doctrine: The Emergence of the ‘Donroe Doctrine’

The alleged abduction and incarceration of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces at the start of 2026 is presented as evidence that the Monroe Doctrine (1823) is not only alive but has been radically reinterpreted. The action signals a shift from diplomatic and economic coercion to direct military enforcement of U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere.

This development matters for global governance because it suggests a weakening of the principle of state sovereignty, a cornerstone of the post-1945 international system. By justifying unilateral intervention as a security imperative, the U.S. risks normalising extra-territorial coercive actions.

The muted global protests further reinforce the perception that international norms against the use of force are eroding. If left unchecked, such precedents may lower the political cost of similar actions by other major powers.

This reflects a governance logic where power, rather than multilateral norms, becomes the primary regulator of international conduct; ignoring this shift risks accelerating a breakdown of rule-based global order.

Implications:

  • Normalisation of unilateral military interventions
  • Reduced deterrence against violations of sovereignty
  • Increased instability in regions labelled as “zones of influence”

2. The Post-1945 International Order and the Rise of ‘Spheres of Influence’

The limited international response to U.S. actions is interpreted as tacit acceptance that the post-1945 liberal international order is weakening. The idea of a “free for all” in the global commons is gaining traction, where power hierarchies override legal constraints.

This creates conditions where countries such as China and Russia may feel emboldened to assert claims over territories they consider strategically vital. The article implicitly links this trend to China’s long-standing claim over Taiwan.

For global development and peace, this shift undermines predictability in international relations. Smaller states, in particular, face heightened vulnerability when great power competition overrides multilateral safeguards.

When global governance mechanisms lose credibility, strategic competition intensifies, and ignoring this dynamic risks greater conflict spillovers across regions.

Challenges:

  • Weakening of international law enforcement
  • Increased strategic uncertainty for middle and small powers
  • Decline in effectiveness of multilateral institutions

3. U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 and Western Hemisphere Primacy

President Trump’s National Security Strategy (November 2025) explicitly states the U.S. intent to reassert dominance in the Western Hemisphere and deny external powers military or strategic footholds. The Venezuelan operation is portrayed as a deliberate execution of this doctrine.

This approach frames security in zero-sum terms and revives “shock and awe” tactics adapted for the 21st century. Implicit threats toward countries such as Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and even Greenland, indicate an expansive interpretation of U.S. security interests.

Such a posture affects global governance by blurring the line between defence and coercion. It also complicates alliance management, particularly within NATO and transatlantic relations.

Strategic doctrines that prioritise unilateral dominance over cooperative security risk long-term instability and alliance fatigue if their consequences are ignored.


4. Europe, NATO, and the Ukraine Conflict

The NSS criticises Europe for strategic complacency and calls on it to assume primary responsibility for its own defence, while hinting at a recalibration of relations with Russia. This reflects a U.S. desire to reduce its security burden in Europe.

The Ukraine conflict is described as stalemated, with prospects of a negotiated settlement that may dissatisfy both sides. Alternatively, prolonged conflict risks escalation and geographic spread within Europe.

For governance, this underscores the challenge of balancing deterrence, diplomacy, and burden-sharing within alliances. Europe’s security architecture remains in flux.

If Europe fails to adapt strategically, unresolved conflicts like Ukraine could erode regional stability and weaken collective security mechanisms.


5. West Asia: Fragile Calm and Renewed Fault Lines

West Asia presents a mixed picture, with Israel’s military campaign temporarily paused but underlying tensions unresolved. The situation in Gaza remains volatile, with violence capable of resuming at short notice.

Simultaneously, internal unrest in Iran and pressure on the Khamenei regime have intensified. Iran’s declaration of fighting on four fronts—economic, psychological, military, and counter-terrorism—highlights systemic stress within the state.

The possibility of renewed U.S.-Israeli intervention raises concerns of regional destabilisation, affecting energy security and regional development.

Ignoring the interconnected nature of West Asian conflicts risks cyclical violence that undermines long-term peace and economic recovery.


6. Afghanistan–Pakistan Region and Democratic Regression

Northwest Asia, particularly Afghanistan, is witnessing a resurgence of militant groups such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban, exacerbating insecurity along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border. This directly affects regional stability.

Pakistan’s internal political trajectory is marked by increased military dominance, with Field Marshal Asim Munir overshadowing the civilian leadership. This signals democratic backsliding despite formal constitutional structures.

U.S. re-engagement with Pakistan through arms supplies alters regional power equations, with implications for South Asian security dynamics.

When security considerations override democratic governance, institutional erosion follows, increasing long-term instability.


7. China’s Strategic Position in 2026

China is portrayed as having navigated U.S. economic pressure effectively in 2025, leveraging its control over global supply chains and rare earth exports. This enhanced its strategic resilience.

China’s expanding presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean challenges traditional U.S. dominance and reshapes maritime geopolitics. The Eastern Pacific is no longer seen as an exclusive U.S. sphere.

For global governance, China’s rise underscores the transition toward a multipolar economic and strategic order.

Failing to account for China’s adaptive strategy risks misreading future power balances and trade dynamics.


8. India’s Strategic Dilemmas in a Fragmented World Order

India enters 2026 facing strategic ambiguity. Continued imports of subsidised Russian oil have drawn U.S. criticism, straining India–U.S. relations despite broad strategic alignment.

India’s relative isolation in conflict zones like West Asia reflects the costs of great power competition. U.S. support for Pakistan’s military leadership further complicates India’s security environment.

At the same time, mini-lateral initiatives such as I2U2 and the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor offer selective opportunities for engagement.

India’s governance challenge lies in balancing strategic autonomy with economic and security partnerships; ignoring this balance risks marginalisation.


9. Terrorism Outlook for 2026

While India may avoid major terror attacks in 2026, terrorism remains a persistent threat. Instability in West Asia, upheaval in Iran, and militant regrouping in Africa create fertile ground for extremist networks.

Groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda are better positioned in certain regions, with potential spillovers into Asia and Africa.

Terrorism thus remains a critical national security concern requiring sustained vigilance and international cooperation.

Underestimating diffuse and decentralised terror threats risks reactive rather than preventive security responses.


Conclusion

The geopolitical trends outlined for 2026 point toward a world marked by unilateralism, weakened multilateral norms, and intensified great power competition. For India and the global community, adapting governance and security strategies to this evolving order will be essential to safeguard stability, development, and institutional resilience.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The 'Donroe Doctrine' is a contemporary iteration of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) adapted to the foreign policy style of the Trump administration.

Original Monroe Doctrine: Articulated in 1823, it asserted that the Western Hemisphere was under U.S. protection, warning European powers against interference in the Americas. Its purpose was primarily to safeguard newly independent Latin American states and assert U.S. strategic influence.

Modern iteration: The 'Donroe Doctrine' has expanded this principle into a more aggressive, interventionist posture. The 2026 Venezuelan operation, where U.S. airborne troops abducted President Nicolás Maduro, is emblematic. The updated doctrine emphasizes U.S. unilateral action to secure strategic interests in the Western Hemisphere, including explicit threats to countries like Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and even Greenland. This approach reflects a combination of 'shock and awe' tactics and the reassertion of U.S. dominance, in line with the November 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy, which stresses preventing non-Hemispheric powers from challenging U.S. interests.

The Venezuelan operation in 2026 is widely considered a challenge to international law because it violates the principle of national sovereignty.

Sovereignty and non-intervention: Under the UN Charter and customary international law, the sovereignty of states is inviolable. The forcible removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by U.S. troops constitutes an overt breach of these norms, undermining the principle that states must not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations.

Global implications: Such actions create a precedent for other major powers, like China and Russia, to undertake similar interventions in their spheres of influence, as is already feared with Taiwan and Eastern Europe. The muted international response signals a weakening of post-1945 global governance and a shift toward a 'free-for-all' in geopolitics, with established norms increasingly disregarded.

Strategic signaling: The operation also sends a clear message about the U.S.’s willingness to unilaterally enforce its strategic priorities, reinforcing perceptions of unpredictability and aggressive power politics, which can destabilize regional and global security.

The November 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) under Trump has significant implications for global geopolitics in 2026.

Western Hemisphere focus: The NSS emphasizes reasserting U.S. pre-eminence in the Americas and denying non-Hemispheric powers the ability to threaten U.S. vital interests. This has manifested in the Venezuelan operation and implicit threats toward other nations in the region. Such a posture signals a more interventionist and unilateral U.S. approach.

Global ripple effects: Europe, criticized for losing its strategic edge, is nudged to assume responsibility for its own defense while aligning with U.S. interests. The NSS’s stance emboldens geopolitical maneuvers elsewhere, including China’s activities in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and influences regional conflicts in West Asia, Ukraine, and South Asia. For instance, India faces pressure due to its Russian oil imports, while Pakistan is perceived as a favored ally, receiving advanced military support.

Strategic uncertainty: By redefining U.S. priorities and reinforcing a power-centric international approach, the NSS increases uncertainty for middle powers like India, requiring nuanced diplomacy and strategic hedging to safeguard national interests amid growing global unpredictability.

India’s strategic and economic vulnerability in 2026 stems from multiple external and regional factors.

External pressures: U.S. actions, such as endorsing Pakistan’s military leadership and threatening tariffs due to India’s import of subsidized Russian oil, create political and economic constraints. Additionally, China’s robust trade and tariff posture, along with its control over global supply chains and growing presence in the Indian Ocean, limits India’s leverage.

Regional instability: West Asia is marked by persistent volatility—conflicts in Iran, Gaza, and the broader Middle East—and a fragile peace in Israel. Afghanistan and Pakistan remain security concerns due to terrorist activity and political instability, posing direct threats to India’s national security.

Implications: These factors collectively limit India’s ability to hedge against external threats, reduce diplomatic flexibility, and amplify economic uncertainties. While mini-lateral initiatives like I2U2 and India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor provide some opportunities for strategic engagement, India must carefully navigate an increasingly multipolar and unpredictable global order.

Several instances in 2026 illustrate how major powers are asserting influence under the evolving global order.

United States: The Venezuelan operation exemplifies aggressive U.S. unilateralism, asserting security pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere. Implicit threats toward Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico demonstrate a willingness to extend influence through military means and strategic coercion.

China: Beijing strengthens its strategic position by controlling critical supply chains, leveraging rare-earth exports, and expanding influence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. These measures allow China to counterbalance U.S. pressure and reinforce its regional supremacy.

Regional dynamics: In West Asia, the U.S. and Israel maneuver to destabilize the Iranian regime, while Pakistan gains military backing, reflecting power realignment. Europe is urged to take responsibility for its own defense, highlighting the U.S.’s conditional support. Collectively, these examples demonstrate the increasing volatility of the post-1945 international order, requiring middle powers like India to adopt adaptive strategies.

The strategic actions of the U.S. and China in 2026 have complex implications for India’s foreign and economic policy.

Foreign policy implications: The U.S.’s assertive posture and endorsement of Pakistan challenge India’s security calculus, while China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia demands greater strategic vigilance. India must balance alignment with the U.S. in areas like counterterrorism and technology partnerships, while simultaneously maintaining a stable relationship with China to avoid economic disruption and regional conflict.

Economic implications: U.S.-imposed tariff threats and reliance on China-controlled supply chains create vulnerabilities in trade, technology imports, and critical infrastructure. China’s ability to manipulate global supply and rare-earth exports limits India’s leverage. This necessitates diversification of trade partners, strategic stockpiling, and active engagement in regional economic corridors to safeguard growth.

Policy approach: India must pursue a nuanced strategy combining multi-alignment, strengthened regional partnerships, and proactive diplomacy. Initiatives such as I2U2 and the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor provide avenues to mitigate risks, but careful calibration is required to maintain strategic autonomy in a volatile global environment.

The 2026 geopolitical scenario offers several lessons for India in safeguarding its national security and economic interests.

Lesson 1 – Strategic hedging: India must hedge against unilateral actions by major powers. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela and support to Pakistan highlights the need for diversified defense and diplomatic strategies, including engagement with multiple global and regional players to avoid over-reliance on any single power.

Lesson 2 – Economic resilience: China’s dominance in supply chains and trade demonstrates the risks of over-dependence. India must accelerate efforts to diversify trade, invest in domestic manufacturing, and build strategic reserves of critical resources.

Lesson 3 – Multi-lateral engagement: Mini-lateral initiatives such as I2U2 and the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor exemplify proactive engagement with like-minded nations to mitigate global uncertainties. Participation in such frameworks enhances India’s influence and creates buffers against regional instability.

Lesson 4 – Security preparedness: Persistent threats from West Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan underline the need for robust intelligence, counterterrorism capabilities, and regional cooperation. Strategic foresight, coupled with calibrated diplomacy, will be essential to navigate 2026’s volatile environment and protect national interests.

Attribution

Original content sources and authors

Sign in to track your reading progress

Comments (0)

Please sign in to comment

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!