US military action in Venezuela is seen as both a blessing and a curse for Russia’s Putin

U.S. Capture of Maduro Creates Complex Ripple Effects for Russia

The lightning U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro presents both opportunities and challenges for Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces failed in their attempt to capture Ukraine’s capital and topple its leadership in the early days of Moscow’s invasion nearly four years ago.

Maduro’s ouster highlights another setback in Russia’s efforts to maintain its global alliances, following the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier this year and U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in 2023. The American move to establish control over Venezuela threatens to deprive Russia of a strategic foothold in the Western Hemisphere, along with billions of dollars invested in Venezuelan oil fields.

Yet President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela have also created unease among Western nations while providing the Kremlin with fresh talking points to defend its war in Ukraine. Russian officials have publicly criticized the U.S. operation as a violation of international law while privately recognizing the decisive nature of the American action.

“Even though Trump’s action is completely unlawful, he cannot be denied a certain consistency — he and his team are very aggressively upholding their country’s national interests,” said Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president who serves as Putin’s deputy on the presidential Security Council.

The U.S. has already begun asserting its control over Venezuelan assets, seizing two sanctioned oil tankers linked to the country on Wednesday, including one flying under a Russian flag in the North Atlantic.

Putin has remained silent on the Venezuela situation, allowing his diplomats to denounce the action while the Kremlin evaluates its implications for Russia’s global strategy. The development comes as Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark threatens to create divisions within NATO at a critical moment for Ukraine peace negotiations.

Since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, Putin has consistently justified his actions by portraying Ukraine as part of Russia’s sphere of influence where Western encroachment cannot be tolerated. He has drawn explicit parallels to how the U.S. would respond to foreign military presence in the Western Hemisphere.

“We have made it clear and unambiguous that further eastward expansion of NATO is unacceptable,” Putin said before launching the full-scale invasion. “Are we the ones placing missiles near the U.S. borders? No, it’s the U.S. that has brought its missiles to our doorstep.”

Evidence suggests Russia previously explored the possibility of an arrangement where it would refrain from involvement in Latin America if the U.S. would grant Moscow greater freedom of action in Europe. Fiona Hill, who oversaw Russia and Europe on Trump’s National Security Council during his first term, revealed that Russian officials had indirectly proposed such a deal.

“They hinted many times that Russia could cede its influence in Venezuela to the U.S. in exchange for a sphere of influence in Europe,” Hill told The Associated Press. She added that the previous Trump administration rejected these overtures, but questioned whether current officials might be more receptive to such an arrangement.

Before Maduro’s capture, Russia began evacuating diplomats’ families from Venezuela, raising speculation about potential coordination between Moscow and Washington. Sam Greene, a Russia expert at King’s College London, suggested on social media that Moscow’s apparent withdrawal from Venezuela might be part of “a tacit agreement, by which Washington, Moscow and Beijing agree not to deter one another against interventions in their putative spheres of influence.”

Russia’s investments in Venezuela represent significant financial and strategic interests. The Kremlin has poured billions into Venezuela’s oil industry and supplied Caracas with advanced weapons systems including air defense missiles and fighter jets. Russian nuclear-capable bombers have visited Venezuela several times, most recently in 2018, in shows of military cooperation.

These moves parallel Russia’s efforts to revitalize Soviet-era relationships in Latin America. After initially scaling back engagement with Cuba following the USSR’s collapse, Moscow has in recent years intensified trade and military contacts with the island nation, sending warships to make port calls as tensions with the West increased.

Military analysts note, however, that Russia faces overwhelming logistical challenges in establishing any permanent military presence in the Western Hemisphere, limiting its ability to project power in the region compared to its capabilities in neighboring countries like Ukraine.

The U.S. action in Venezuela has inadvertently strengthened Moscow’s rhetorical position on Ukraine. Russian officials quickly seized on the opportunity to highlight what they see as Western hypocrisy regarding interventions in sovereign nations.

“After its action in Venezuela, the U.S. has nothing to formally reproach our country for,” noted Medvedev, drawing a direct comparison to Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

Fiona Hill observed that Maduro’s capture makes it more difficult for countries to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine because “we’ve just had a situation where the U.S. has taken over—or at least decapitated the government of another country.”

While the U.S. has cited an indictment accusing Maduro of facilitating cocaine shipments to justify its action, Russian commentators have emphasized the precedent-setting nature of the operation.

Fyodor Lukyanov, a Moscow-based foreign policy expert with Kremlin connections, remarked that “if we consider what’s happening from the perspective of setting a precedent, then we couldn’t ask for anything better.”

Russian nationalist voices have gone further, suggesting the U.S. move in Venezuela creates urgency for Moscow to accelerate its offensive in Ukraine. “Ukraine under our full control is our pass to the Great Powers club,” wrote Alexander Dugin, a hard-line ideologue influential in nationalist circles.

As the situation develops, the long-term implications for global power dynamics and the Ukraine conflict remain uncertain, with both Washington and Moscow potentially recalibrating their approaches to spheres of influence around the world.