Sudden geopolitical turmoil has shaken the global financial markets. Just after the New Year 2026, a large-scale military operation disrupted Venezuela's stability, and the Trump administration announced it would take temporary control of the country. When this news broke, something interesting happened—the market's reaction was not as uniformly expected as we had anticipated.

Let's look at the data. The day after the incident, US crude oil futures opened down 1%, dropping to $56.76 per barrel. Brent crude oil also didn't fare well, falling to $60.08 per barrel. You might find it strange—shouldn't a geopolitical crisis push oil prices higher? But instead, oil actually declined. In contrast, spot gold followed the script, opening with a gap up and briefly breaking through $4,370 per ounce, with an intraday increase of 0.87%. As for Bitcoin, it remained firmly above $90,000, performing quite calmly.

Why is that? From the event itself, the US claimed it would promote the reconstruction of Venezuela's oil resources, which could mean more crude oil supplies being released in the future, possibly already priced in by the market. The Venezuelan Vice President subsequently announced the country was entering a state of emergency, but this did not trigger strong safe-haven demand.

Gold, on the other hand, is acting according to traditional safe-haven logic. In the short term, geopolitical risks indeed drove many investors toward this longstanding safe-haven asset. But there is a subtle contradiction: international law experts generally believe that the US's actions lack UN Security Council authorization and may violate the UN Charter. However, because the US holds veto power in the Security Council, actual international sanctions are difficult to implement. So, what the market is digesting seems to be both a safe-haven demand and a limited expectation of the event's impact.

The most interesting is Bitcoin's performance. As an emerging safe-haven asset, it neither surged nor plummeted but maintained relative stability. This suggests that the market has divided opinions on the long-term impact of this event, or that the crypto asset market has developed its own independent pricing logic.