U.S. Troop Mobilisation in the Caribbean & The Return of Hemispheric Primacy

📰 Context

Toward the end of 2025, the United States launched its largest troop mobilisation in the Caribbean in decades, deploying:

a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier strike group
fighter aircraft & surveillance systems
amphibious assault vessels
attack submarines
tens of thousands of troops

The mobilisation signals a coercive power projection strategy aimed at:

intensifying pressure on President Nicolás Maduro
weakening the Venezuelan regime
reshaping power equations in Latin America

The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) 2025 marks a turning point — prioritising Latin America & the Caribbean and reviving the Monroe Doctrine’s geopolitical logic in a 21st-century context.

🧭 Monroe Doctrine — Then vs Now

Monroe Doctrine (1823) traditionally meant:

No external powers should intervene in the Western Hemisphere.

Historically, it enabled:

preventing European colonial revival
justifying covert & overt regime interventions
asserting hemispheric pre-eminence

Examples (UPSC value points):

U.S. role in Cuba crisis
Guatemala (1954)
Chile (1973)
Panama (1989)
Nicaragua interventions

In 2025, the doctrine is re-framed against China’s expanding presence:

digital infrastructure
port projects
mining & rare earth access
Belt & Road investments
political influence networks

Thus, the revised doctrine is less anti-European, more anti-China.

🟣 Why is the U.S. Pulling Back from Europe but Deepening Control in Latin America?

The NSS articulates:

Strategic Shift	Reason
Retreat from European security leadership	NATO states expected to self-finance
Strengthen power in Western Hemisphere	Prevent Chinese strategic footholds
Explore limited reset with Russia	Avoid two-front confrontation
Prioritise China as systemic challenger	Long-term great-power rivalry

This reflects Offshore Balancing Doctrine:

Avoid permanent troop-heavy commitments abroad;
secure one’s own sphere;
intervene selectively when systemic balance is threatened.

Europe becomes a burden-sharing problem.

Latin America becomes a strategic denial zone.

🌍 Structural Reality — End of Unipolarity

Post-1991 unipolar dominance is eroding.

Key rupture signals:

Russia’s annexation of Crimea (2014) exposed limits of Western coercion
The western response was sanctions-heavy but militarily cautious
Russia survived economic pressure — challenging the liberal order’s enforcement capacity

Thus:

Unipolarity has ended — but American dominance has not.

Instead, a three-power global constellation has emerged:

1️⃣ United States → reigning but overstretched hegemon

2️⃣ China → rising systemic challenger

3️⃣ Russia → revisionist military power with nuclear parity

Realist IR theory calls this a return to major-power anarchy.

🟥 U.S.–China Power Transition — The Central Contest

China already possesses:

world’s 2nd largest economy
world’s largest navy (by number of ships)
advanced cyber-warfare & space capabilities
rapidly growing technological sphere

Its GDP is ~66% of U.S. GDP — a level the USSR never sustainably reached.

China seeks:

regional hegemony in East Asia
strategic presence in Indo-Pacific
Eurasian influence via BRI

This produces a structural power transition conflict, similar to:

Germany vs Britain before WW-I
U.S. vs Japan in 1930s Pacific

This is classic Thucydides Trap dynamics:

Rising power challenges status-quo hegemon → long-term systemic rivalry.

The Caribbean mobilisation is therefore:

not just about Venezuela
but a signal to China about hemispheric hard limits

🟦 Where Does Russia Stand?

Russia is:

economically smaller
but nuclear-armed & territorially vast
energy-export dominant
militarily assertive

Its strategic aims:

re-establish post-Soviet sphere primacy
rewrite European security structures
avoid subordination to China
seek limited West–Russia accommodation

After sanctions & Ukraine war, Moscow tilted toward Beijing —

yet it resists becoming a Chinese junior partner.

This makes Russia:

the new “swing great power”
capable of tilting balance between U.S. & China.

This injects bipolar tension inside multipolar reality.

🟡 What Makes Today’s Multipolarity “Fluid”?

Unlike Cold War blocs:

alliances are flexible
economic interdependence persists
value blocs ≠ strategic blocs
hedging replaces alignment

Middle powers now:

diversify defense
multi-align
avoid zero-sum choices

Examples:

India → strategic autonomy + Quad + BRICS
Brazil → regional leadership + non-alignment
Japan & Germany → increased defense spending, hedged diplomacy

Thus:

Multipolarity exists — but lacks stable institutional anchoring.

The order is fluid, transactional & constantly renegotiated.

⚓ Why Latin America Matters Strategically

The U.S. sees the Caribbean–Latin belt as:

its energy gateway
shipping control zone
cyber-network security frontier
migrant & narcotics corridor
ideological buffer space

China’s presence threatens:

dollar dominance
trade route control
telecom & data security
energy asset ownership

The troop mobilisation communicates:

strategic denial — no new great-power foothold
willingness to use coercive force projection

It reflects a return to:

Military primacy + coercive diplomacy + sphere-based order logic

🛰️ Doctrinal Implications of NSS 2025

Three clear doctrinal shifts emerge:

1️⃣ Return to Hemispheric Primacy

“Home region first, rest optional”

2️⃣ Decentralised Global Engagement

Europe = burden-share
Middle East = selective involvement
Indo-Pacific = high-priority theatre

3️⃣ Hybrid Strategic Competition

military coercion
tech-geopolitics
energy security
currency resilience
digital infrastructure control

Great-power rivalry becomes multi-domain.

🇮🇳 Implications for India

Opportunities

wider space for middle-power diplomacy
role in Global South mediation
diversification of strategic partnerships
technology & defense leverage

Challenges

U.S.–China rivalry intensifies Indo-Pacific tension
Russia–China axis strains balancing space
Latin shift may reduce U.S. Europe presence → ripple effects in Eurasia

Likely Indian Strategy

multi-alignment
issue-based coalitions
strategic hedging
emphasis on sovereignty & autonomy

India benefits from fluid multipolarity,

but instability risks remain.

🏛️ UPSC Relevance Mapping

GS-2 — International Relations

Changing world order
Decline of unipolarity
Emergence of great-power competition
Offshore balancing strategy
Spheres of influence in modern geopolitics
Middle-power foreign policy behaviour

GS-1 — World History Linkages

Power transition parallels in 19th–20th century
Rise of Germany vs Britain
Cold War balance structures

Essay Paper Themes

“World order in transition”
“Power without responsibility”
“Strategic autonomy in a fractured world”

🧠 High-Value Keywords for Mains Answers

Use terms like:

Offshore balancing
Fluid multipolarity
Hemispheric primacy
Strategic recalibration
Revisionist vs status-quo power
Realist power-transition politics
Sphere-based order
Middle-power hedging
Swing great power
Systemic rivalry

These fetch extra marks.

📝 Practice Mains Questions (for 10–15 marks)

1️⃣

“The emerging global order is neither bipolar nor multipolar — but structurally fluid with competing great-power spheres.” Examine.

2️⃣

Critically analyse the revival of the Monroe Doctrine in the context of U.S. troop mobilisation in the Caribbean.

3️⃣

How does offshore balancing shape evolving U.S. strategic priorities between Europe, Latin America and the Indo-Pacific?

🟩 Prelims Practice — Concept Check (Advanced)

Which of the following best explains “fluid multipolarity”?

a) Presence of multiple powers with rigid ideological blocs

b) A world where great powers compete within flexible and shifting alignments

c) Bipolar rivalry coexisting with a dominant hegemon

d) Economic interdependence without security competition

Answer: b — shifting alignments + flexible coalitions.

Suryavanshi IAS

Blog Archive

Wednesday, December 31, 2025