Indian Strategic Studies: 01/13/26

13 January 2026

Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security

Meredith Schwartz and Gracelin Baskaran

Just one day after the U.S. raid in Venezuela and capture of Nicolas Maduro, President Trump turned his sights northward to the island of Greenland. On January 5, President Trump affirmed, “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” Senior Trump aides soon echoed the assertion the United States could seize the Danish territory to support national interests. These recent comments mark a return to rhetoric that made headlines in the early days of 2025, as the newly re-elected President Trump declared the United States could purchase the autonomous Danish territory. The renewed focus on Greenland underscores the Trump administration’s approach to resource security as national security.

Greenland is rich in natural resources including iron ore, graphite, tungsten, palladium, vanadium, zinc, gold, uranium, copper, and oil. But the resources attracting the most attention to the region are rare earth elements (REEs). Vulnerabilities in U.S. REE supply chains for defense and commercial needs have recently been at the forefront of policy issues in Washington. Notably, 2025 was marked by multiple rounds of high-stakes negotiations following Chinese export controls on heavy REEs. Disruptions to these materials exposed Western automotive supply chains to shortages, delays, and pauses in production. President Trump has acted meaningfully to address these prescient supply chain concerns both through public-private partnerships, such as the equity deal with U.S. rare earth company MP Materials, and bilateral agreements with partners including Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Australia to further the development of rare earth capabilities outside of China. Deepening cooperation and commercial ties with mineral-rich countries is expected to be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in 2026.

Israel, Somaliland, And Turkey: Recognition Battleground In The Horn Of Africa

Scott N. Romaniuk

Many regions illustrate the fault lines of contemporary geopolitics, and the Horn of Africa is among the most revealing. Long treated as peripheral to Middle Eastern power struggles, the region has become a critical junction where maritime security, ideological competition, and post-colonial sovereignty converge.

Recent discussions on Israel’s diplomatic recalibration in Africa have brought Somaliland’s status back into focus. What was long a dormant issue has become an active geopolitical fault line, generating divisions between Israel and numerous countries and drawing condemnation within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Plumbing the History of the US Oil Industry in Venezuela

Richard M. Sanders

Coaxing US oil companies back to investing in Venezuela won’t be as easy as it seems to Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump’s remarks following the seizure of Nicolás Maduro made it clear that oil was key to the decision-making process that led to this action and will be integral to US policies as it seeks to shape Venezuela’s future. But as we enter this new phase, we would do well to remember the history here. Oil has long been crucial to US relations with the South American country, which has passed through two major cycles of foreign investment in the sector, followed by nationalizations.

Oil has also been fundamental to Venezuela’s internal politics, providing the resources for a long period of stable democracy, and then, when global prices crashed, paving the way for the leftist “Bolivarian” dictatorship of Hugo Chávez and Maduro, his handpicked successor.

What the Bella-1 Teaches Us About Targeting Shadow Fleets

Jose M. Macias III

After months-long journey marked by suspicious behavior, identity changes, and attempts to evade international scrutiny the United States seized sanctioned Russian oil tanker Marinera, formerly known as Bella-1. According to the U.S. attorney general, a U.S. federal court issued a warrant to seize the ship for transporting sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. The Marinera is a very large crude carrier (VLCC) with a deadweight tonnage range between 200,000 and 320,000. Vessels in the VLCC class are estimated to have a capacity of approximately 2 million barrels of oil.

Notably, Russia approved its flag registration without inspection of the vessel, occurring mid-chase and likely violating Article 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that flag changes cannot occur without a real transfer of ownership or change in registry. The frequent change in ownership and flags is a quintessential trick used by oil runners to keep operating and represents nothing more than new companies on paper, usually in states with minimal jurisdiction oversight. In addition, Russia submitted a rare diplomatic request to the United States that it cease its pursuit of the Marinera. In the early morning of January 7, 2026, Russia reportedly dispatched a submarine to escort the tanker.

Donald Trump Is Bluffing on Annexing Greenland

Andrew Latham

Recent calls by President Trump for the United States to take control of Greenland say more about his negotiating style than about America’s defense needs.

In fact, he is proposing to solve a problem that does not exist, and the utter lack of military or economic rationale strongly suggests this is a bluff rather than a blueprint. No compelling security case can be made for annexation when Washington already has the access that strategists fantasize about and rarely get.

On Greenland, Europe’s Breaking Point With Trump Has Arrived

Dan Perry

For years, Europe has responded to Donald Trump with a mixture of eye-rolling, damage control, and hope that the nightmare would somehow pass. The strategy was pacification: smile through clenched teeth, wait out the tantrums, and reassure one another that institutions would hold. That strategy is now breaking down—and it should.

The latest rhetoric this week out of Washington, openly entertaining the use of force to seize Greenland, has snapped what remained of the illusion that this is merely bluster. It is something worse: a declaration that allied territory is a prize and that treaties are optional when power is available.

Been There, Done That: Lessons From Past Interventions

Nadia Schadlow

President Trump’s shifting statements on Venezuela - alternating between suggestions of prolonged U.S. involvement and signals of a rapid exit - underscore a familiar dilemma in American statecraft. Whether Washington ultimately stays, leaves quickly, or attempts something in between, the United States once again faces the enduring challenge of how military pressure, political authority, and economic stabilization intersect in moments of intervention.

This uncertainty is not new. In virtually every American intervention, civilian and military leaders have struggled to translate the application of force into a sustainable political order. Debates over duration, scope, and exit strategies have accompanied U.S. actions abroad from the outset. Success has never been automatic.

Will Venezuela Change Trump’s Approach to War?

Ravi Agrawal

Every year, FP runs an essay titled “10 Conflicts to Watch” in partnership with the International Crisis Group, an independent body that raises the alarm about war. This year’s article lists many of the usual hot spots, including Israel and Palestine, Ukraine, Sudan, and a few lesser-known conflicts such as the ones in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Myanmar.

On the latest episode of FP Live, I spoke with one of the essay’s co-authors, Comfort Ero, the CEO and president of the Crisis Group. We began by discussing the fast-moving developments in Venezuela after the United States captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Jan. 3 and brought them to New York, raising questions not only about the future of Venezuela but also about the legality of the operation and the future of international law. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box atop this page. What follows here is a lightly edited transcript.

The U.S. Venezuela Operation Will Harden China’s Security Calculation

Tong Zhao

The United States’s attack on Venezuela has raised questions about domestic checks on power and signaled a challenge to international law and longstanding norms of sovereignty and the use of force. The priority given to securing U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and other resources further underscores the material interests underlying the operation. Combined with President Donald Trump’s open flirtation with territorial ambitions elsewhere—toward Greenland, if not Canada—the episode has reinforced growing international concern that the administration has taken a significant illiberal turn in foreign policy, shifting away from rule-based order to raw power projection.

Many international analysts argue that illiberal states already disregard international law, so U.S. norm-breaking has little effect on their behavior. A close reading of Chinese expert analyses and Beijing’s existing security mindset suggests otherwise.

The Real Reason China and Russia Won’t Try a Maduro-Style Raid

Decker Eveleth

In the wake of the United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, some observers and U.S. officials have warned that this may have given Moscow and Beijing a green light to pursue similar operations in Ukraine and Taiwan.

Just as the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro’s rule in Venezuela, Russia and China do not recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine’s and Taiwan’s respective independence. If China, for instance, were to seize Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, or if Russia were to capture Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, on what grounds could the United States reasonably object?

Highlights From The Times’s Interview With President Trump

In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, President Trump acknowledged that the United States could be entangled with Venezuela for years to come, reveled in the success of the military operation he ordered there, discussed his health and conveyed how emboldened he feels to exercise his power around the globe.

“My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Mr. Trump said during a lengthy conversation with the Times reporters Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Tyler Pager, Katie Rogers and David E. Sanger. The president also answered questions about the Russia-Ukraine war, Greenland and NATO, and reacted to a video of the killing of a U.S. citizen by an ICE agent that happened just hours earlier.

How to Keep Gaza's Recovery from Becoming an 80-Year Project

Shelly Culbertson

When wars end, attention must turn to what comes next: the daunting work of rebuilding. In Gaza, that effort will be at the scale of European cities ruined during World War II or Iraqi and Syrian cities laid waste in the war against the Islamic State.

A precarious cease-fire and the 20-point peace framework have stirred hope, but this is also a moment for sober realism. The destruction in Gaza is staggering: Approximately 70 percent of all buildings are damaged or destroyed, 90 percent of residents have been displaced, and essential infrastructure is devastated. With entire neighborhoods flattened, hospitals and schools unusable, and utilities barely functioning, Gaza will need to be rebuilt almost from its foundations at an estimated cost of more than $70 billion.

The Russian Oreshnik Strike on Lviv: A Sign of Putin’s Bigger Frustrations & Challenges in 2026

Mick Ryan

Overnight in Ukraine, Russia launched yet another series of coordinated aerial strikes on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. These strikes are a nightly feature of contemporary life in Ukraine. And like the many raids against the Ukrainian people since 2022, the overnight drone and missile attacks resulted in death, destruction and misery for people across Ukraine.

The image below shows the Russian aerial strikes against Ukraine since the beginning of 2026.

Russia’s aerial strikes against Ukraine since 1 January 2026. Source: Ukrainian Air Force

In the lead up to last night, the President of Ukraine warned his citizens that the evening could see significant Russian strikes against his country. He stated that:

The Shock Waves of Venezuela How Maduro’s Capture Could Transform Latin America

Will Freeman

On January 3, U.S. forces did something many observers thought impossible: they quickly captured and arrested Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s wily, seemingly coup-proof autocrat. For years, Maduro had proved himself an expert in authoritarian survival—crushing at least nine military mutinies and outlasting American economic pressure. But early Saturday morning, he fell practically without a fight. Delta Force helicopters took limited fire as they flew low over Caracas rooftops to Maduro’s bunker, where U.S. troops stormed inside, grabbed him and his wife, and whisked them to an aircraft carrier. Hours later, both were behind bars in New

Trump wants to own Venezuela’s oil, but its largest oil customer is speeding toward clean energy

Ella Nilsen

President Donald Trump wants the US to sell Venezuela’s oil. But who would buy it?

China has long been one of Venezuela’s biggest customers for oil. But its hunger for that oil is waning, as the country pulls off a stunningly fast transition to electric vehicles.

That transition means China’s oil imports likely won’t be seriously disrupted by the recent US military operation in Venezuela and Trump’s push for American companies to revitalize the oil infrastructure there, experts told CNN. China will probably be able to procure the oil it needs from Russia or Iran.

But there’s little doubt on the long-term trajectory of China’s oil demand: Analysts say it will trend downward. Many have projected the country has either already reached ‘peak oil’ or will very soon.

What Silicon Valley Gets Wrong About National Security

Margaret Mullins

In the summer of 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense, Les Aspin, and William Perry, then the deputy secretary of defense, hosted a dinner at the Pentagon for defense industry leaders. The Cold War was over, they informed the gathering, and the federal budget would not support them all. With no looming Soviet threat justifying ever-rising defense budgets, consolidation would be necessary.

Just after it happened, this meeting was dubbed the “Last Supper” by the CEO of the Martin Marietta Corporation, a major aerospace and defense firm that went on to merge with the Lockheed Corporation in 1995. Other similar mergers would follow. The gathering has since become a convenient origin story for why the U.S. defense industrial base lost the ability to meet the military’s needs and the defense acquisition process became so onerous. According to this narrative, the Defense Department simultaneously meddled with and neglected the industry, creating the inflexible behemoths that dominate the sector today while cutting off pathways for emerging technology companies to compete.

Marco Rubio says he will meet Danish officials to discuss Greenland next week

Miranda Bryant and David Smith

The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, says he plans to meet Danish officials next week to discuss Greenland as a crisis escalates within Nato over Donald Trump’s threats to take over the Arctic territory. An urgent meeting had been requested by the foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark, which has said that any invasion or seizure of the territory by its Nato ally would mark the end of the western military alliance and “post-second world war security”.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Rubio did not directly answer a question about whether the Trump administration was willing to risk the alliance by potentially moving ahead with a military option to gain control of Greenland. “I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention, I’ll be meeting with them next week,” he said. “We’ll have those conversations with them then, but I don’t have anything further to add to that.” Every US president retains the option of addressing national security threats through military means, he said.

Intelligence, power, moral clarity: Trump's Venezuela masterstroke

Peter Laffin

To be sure, the American public did not sign up for a prolonged war and will not abide by one. Trump’s America First base would sharpen its knives against him. The same precision and resolve that defined the initial raid must be maintained for the remainder of the larger mission.

Yet, despite the precariousness of the situation, the calculation behind the move remains sound. The strategic benefits outweigh the risks. And the moral basis for intervention is powerful.

First, the moral case. Despite telling a New York judge that he is a “decent man,” Maduro is a full-fledged monster, even for an authoritarian despot. He ordered beatings and killings of political opponents and tortured protesters. His corrupt mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy sparked hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass migration from the country. His ties to drug cartels turned Venezuela into a dangerous narco-state that flooded America’s streets with drugs, empowering some of the most evil and vicious organizations the world over. And in 2024, he rigged the national election to retain power, with evidence revealing that he lost in a landslide.

What We Know About U.S. Seizures of Oil Tankers

Jenny Gross and Genevieve Glatsky

A frame grab from a video posted on social media by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, showed a helicopter flying over Centuries, another oil tanker, which was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard on Saturday.Credit...Agence France-Presse, via U.S. Homeland Security Secretary

The seizure by U.S. forces of a Russian-flagged oil tanker on Wednesday, part of an effort to choke off most Venezuelan exports of crude, ended a two-week pursuit on the high seas and escalated a confrontation with Moscow. U.S. authorities led by the Coast Guard intercepted the vessel, the Marinera, in the waters between Scotland and Iceland, the U.S. military said. The operation was part of the Trump administration’s blockade of some tankers transporting oil from Venezuela.

US has right to take over any country for its resources: Miller

Julia Conley

“Belligerent” was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration’s right to take over Venezuela – or any other country – if doing so is in the interest of the US.

To Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with “a very good definition of imperialism” as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.

“This is what imperialism is all about,” Sanders told CNN‘s Jake Tapper. “And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.’”

US will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation

MATTHEW LEE and FARNOUSH AMIRI

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration will withdraw from dozens of international organizations, including the U.N.'s population agency and the U.N. treaty that establishes international climate negotiations, as the U.S. further retreats from global cooperation.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order suspending U.S. support for 66 organizations, agencies, and commissions, following his administration’s review of participation in and funding for all international organizations, including those affiliated with the United Nations, according to a White House release.

A Close Call for U.S. Commandos and an Emboldened Trump

Eric Schmitt and Greg Jaffe

President Trump described the operation to capture President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela as a “perfectly executed” display of American military power.

But Mr. Trump’s account of the audacious raid left out key details that underscored the risks U.S. troops faced as they approached Mr. Maduro’s fortified compound and how close the high-stakes operation came to taking a turn for the worse.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, U.S. Army helicopters skimmed 100 feet above the sea and then over Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, racing toward their target. Their stealthy pathway had been cleared by an American cyberattack that darkened the city, and by radar-evading U.S. fighter jets that pounded Venezuela’s Russian-built air defenses.

Adapting the Combat Training Centers for the Drone Battlefield

Bill Edwards, Greg Hoyt

“It felt like you were being hunted versus hunting,” said Col. Scott Wence…I didn’t have any experience talking through how you defeat this,” (CSM) Donaldson said. “None of us did.”

Is the U.S. Army paying attention to the lessons learned in conflict zones around the world? sUAS (small unmanned aerial systems, i.e., drones) have transformed modern warfare, and it is time our training reflects that reality. The Combat Training Centers (CTCs) are uniquely positioned and should lead this evolution by integrating drones into base defense (defense) and call-for-fire / indirect fire training (offense) as a core skill for every leader and soldier in a direct combat specialty and across the entire force.

This technology has been proven, the benefits are clear, and our adversaries are already operating this way. Incorporating drones at the CTCs is not about catching up; it is about staying ahead and ensuring our soldiers are fully prepared for the modern battlefield. To be fair, there is a significant amount of effort taking place in this space, but are we truly leaning into it?

Why the US Air Force Is Turning to Artificial Intelligence for Mission Planning

Stavros Atlamazoglou

During the recent “DASH-3” tests, new AI programs consistently outperformed humans at a series of combat decision-making tasks—and did not suffer from “hallucinations” of false data. Artificial intelligence can be a valid option for military commanders when planning combat missions, a recent US Air Force test showed.

AI Outperformed Humans in Simulated Combat Scenarios

During the Decision Advantage Sprint for Human-Machine Teaming (DASH-3) test series, the US military paired with partners from Canada and the United Kingdom to test the potential of AI in enhancing decision-making and improving operational efficiency. As part of the test, the Air Force pitted military personnel from the US, Canada, and the UK against AI tools from several different companies. Each team had to solve hypothetical combat management problems, including airstrike planning, intelligence gathering, and ground support.

The Limits of Artificial Intelligence in Professional Military Education

Matthew Woessner

As the nation grapples with how to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) into military education, it must resist the temptation to frame the debate as a binary choice—either banning AI from the classroom or adopting permissive rules that allow students to use the technology as a substitute for genuine reading, writing, research, and reasoning. In my article, “A Guide to Collaborating With AI in the Military Classroom,” I argue for a middle way in which professional military education (PME) strategically adopts AI, while ensuring that students do not become overly dependent on the technology for problem-solving. My thesis is that, in order to partner effectively with a machine, students must first develop substantive knowledge, core skills, and independent judgment. An overly permissive approach to AI will seriously undermine PME’s mission to prepare leaders to fight and win America’s wars.

In a resounding rejection of this middle way, Professor Jim Lacey of Marine Corps University published an article titled “Transitioning Professional Military Education to All AI—All the Time,” in which he dismisses the notion that an overreliance on AI can have a deleterious effect on student learning. According to his account, the rapid adoption of AI across PME is the only responsible way forward. Lacey states that the views of professors who have “opted for obsolescence” hold opinions that are no longer relevant, and critics who argue that AI might undermine critical thinking will be “pushed into history’s trash bin.”

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)