Geopolitical risk continues to shape operations in ways that are increasingly complex and interconnected. Events unfolding in one region are no longer contained by geography, with political decisions, military signalling, and resource competition producing second- and third-order effects across global markets, supply chains, and regulatory frameworks. Recent developments involving Venezuela, renewed strategic rhetoric around Greenland, and BRICS-led naval exercises in South African waters offer a timely lens through which to examine how geopolitical risk is evolving and what these shifts may mean for organisations operating across borders.
Venezuela, Arctic Strategy, and BRICS Military Coordination
Geopolitical risk in early 2026 is characterised less by sudden shocks and more by the steady convergence of pressure points across regions. Energy insecurity, strategic competition over geography and resources, and the visible realignment of military and political blocs are all unfolding simultaneously.
Three developments illustrate these dynamics particularly well: the ongoing situation in Venezuela and its energy implications; renewed United States strategic rhetoric around Greenland; and BRICS-led naval exercises taking place in South African waters. These events provide insight into how geopolitical risk is shifting, how power is being signaled, and where future disruption may emerge.
Venezuela and Energy as a Strategic Lever
Venezuela remains a clear example of how natural resource wealth does not equate to stability. Despite holding the largest proven oil reserves globally, the country continues to experience prolonged economic contraction, weakened state institutions, and political isolation.
United States sanctions have been central to this trajectory. Initially designed to target political elites and encourage institutional reform, sanctions have expanded to encompass the energy sector, shipping networks, and financial systems. Recent enforcement actions, including maritime interdictions and tanker seizures, reflect a more assertive approach that moves beyond financial pressure alone. In early January 2026, U.S. forces conducted an operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, after which they were transported to the United States to face federal criminal charges, including allegations of narcotics and related conspiracies. This represents one of the most significant uses of U.S. legal and operational tools to detain a sitting foreign leader and prosecute him under U.S. jurisdiction, underscoring the expanding scope of actions accompanying sanctions policy.
This escalation introduces several risk considerations.
Energy supply remains sensitive to disruption, even where volumes are reduced. Enforcement activity increases exposure for shipping operators, insurers, and intermediaries operating in or near sanctioned jurisdictions.
Sanctions have also altered Venezuela’s geopolitical alignment. As access to Western markets has narrowed, the government has strengthened relationships with China, Russia, and Iran. These relationships are pragmatic rather than ideological, but they reinforce alternative trade routes and financial mechanisms that operate outside Western regulatory influence.
More broadly, Venezuela illustrates how energy has become a strategic lever rather than a purely economic asset. Control over production, transport, and enforcement increasingly sits within national security decision-making. This trend complicates risk assessments for organisations with exposure to energy markets, commodities trading, or maritime logistics.
Greenland and Strategic Geography
Greenland’s growing geopolitical relevance reflects a broader shift in how geography is valued in global security planning. Once viewed as remote and peripheral, the Arctic is now increasingly accessible and strategically significant.
Greenland occupies a critical position along North Atlantic transit routes and plays a role in early warning and surveillance infrastructure. As polar ice recedes, Arctic shipping routes and resource access become more viable, increasing the strategic value of territorial influence.
In addition to geography, Greenland is believed to hold significant rare-earth mineral deposits. These materials are essential to advanced manufacturing, defence technologies, and energy transition infrastructure. Access to secure and diversified supplies has become a strategic priority for major economies.
Recent United States political statements emphasising the need for American control or influence over Greenland have elevated these issues. While often framed as deterrence against Russian or Chinese expansion, such rhetoric introduces additional risk into alliance relationships.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and therefore, linked to NATO. Public discussion of unilateral action places strain on alliance cohesion and creates diplomatic uncertainty. For allies, this raises questions about sovereignty, precedent, and the durability of collective defence commitments.
For organisations operating in Arctic-adjacent industries, infrastructure development, or mineral extraction, these dynamics add layers of political and regulatory uncertainty. Strategic geography is no longer a background factor but a direct driver of risk.
BRICS Naval Exercises and Expanding Security Cooperation
The BRICS grouping has historically focused on economic coordination and development initiatives. Recent naval exercises conducted in South African waters suggest a gradual expansion into security cooperation.
The BRICS Plus naval exercise, hosted by South Africa and involving participants including China, Russia, and Iran, has been officially described as focused on maritime security and interoperability. While not framed as a military alliance, joint exercises carry inherent strategic messaging.
Notably, Iran did not participate directly in the exercises despite being listed among BRICS-aligned partners in previous security engagements. This absence is likely to have been deliberate, reflecting diplomatic sensitivities linked to ongoing domestic unrest and reports of violent repression within Iran. Excluding Iran reduced the risk of the exercises being interpreted as an endorsement of internal actions, while allowing other participants to maintain the broader signalling associated with BRICS security cooperation.
Subsequent reporting indicates that Iran had formally withdrawn from the exercise several days prior to its commencement. However, media coverage published this week suggests that an Iranian naval vessel did in fact participate in elements of the exercise. In response, the South African government has reportedly launched an internal inquiry into how Iranian participation was permitted despite a request from President Cyril Ramaphosa for Iran to withdraw. The development has drawn a strong reaction from the United States Ambassador, who publicly criticised Iran’s involvement. This episode has introduced additional diplomatic sensitivity for South Africa and highlights the reputational and alliance risks associated with hosting multinational security engagements in a contested geopolitical environment.
Such exercises serve multiple purposes. They enhance operational familiarity among participating forces, demonstrate political alignment, and signal presence in strategically important maritime regions.
The location of these exercises is significant. Waters around southern Africa connect major shipping routes linking Asia, Europe, and the Americas. These routes underpin global trade and energy transport. Any signalling of coordinated presence in these corridors has implications for shipping confidence, insurance risk, and geopolitical perception.
South Africa’s role as host highlights its ongoing balancing act. Engagement with BRICS security initiatives reflects its desire to maintain strategic autonomy and diversified partnerships. At the same time, it raises questions among Western partners regarding alignment and long-term foreign policy direction.
For organisations operating across African, Indian Ocean, and South Atlantic trade corridors, the emergence of visible BRICS security cooperation introduces additional considerations into regional risk analysis.
A More Fragmented Risk Environment
What connects Venezuela, Greenland, and BRICS naval exercises is not geography, but structure. Each reflects a shift away from a predictable, rules-based international environment towards a more fragmented, multipolar system.
Several common themes are evident.
- Strategic resources are increasingly securitised. Oil, rare earth minerals, and maritime routes are treated as instruments of national power rather than commercial assets.
- Alignment is becoming more fluid. States are consolidating relationships through issue-based cooperation rather than formal alliances, creating overlapping and sometimes competing frameworks.
- Risk is increasingly indirect. Many impacts experienced by organisations arise not from conflict itself, but from secondary effects such as sanctions enforcement, regulatory changes, reputational exposure, and disrupted logistics.
- Traditional country-by-country risk assessments are no longer sufficient. Risk now emerges at the intersections between jurisdictions, alliances, and supply chains.
Implications for Organisations Operating Internationally
For organisations with international exposure, these developments reinforce the importance of proactive geopolitical risk assessment.
Key considerations include:
- Mapping exposure across supply chains, shipping routes, and counterparties
- Monitoring sanctions developments and enforcement trends, including secondary exposure
- Assessing political alignment and foreign policy direction in key jurisdictions
- Understanding reputational risk linked to operating in contested or highly politicised environments
Geopolitical risk increasingly shapes regulatory environments, market access, and operational resilience. Integrating geopolitical awareness into strategic planning is no longer optional.
Closing Observations
The current geopolitical environment is defined by sustained pressure rather than isolated shocks. Venezuela demonstrates how energy insecurity and sanctions enforcement continue to influence global risk. Greenland highlights how strategic geography can strain even long-standing alliances. BRICS naval exercises signal that alternative centres of coordination are becoming more visible and more confident.
These developments are unlikely to reverse in the near term. For organisations navigating this environment, the challenge lies in recognising early signals, understanding how seemingly distant events connect, and anticipating how geopolitical shifts translate into operational and strategic risk.
