Editorial News Uncategorized

When Moscow Looks the Other Way: Maduro’s Downfall Leaves Russia Exposed

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-21 00:01:28

Venezuela, Moscow’s Latin American Pillar

To understand the magnitude of the geopolitical disaster that Maduro’s downfall represents for Russia, we must go back to the origins of this strategic alliance between Moscow and Caracas. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, Venezuela has become the spearhead of Russia’s presence in Latin America. This relationship strengthened considerably under Nicolás Maduro, Chávez’s successor, who expanded military and economic agreements with the Kremlin. Russian S-300 air defense systems were deployed on Venezuelan soil, Sukhoi fighter jets were delivered to the local air force, and Russian military advisers trained Venezuelan troops. Venezuela was supposed to be a showcase for Russian-Latin American cooperation, a symbol of Moscow’s ability to project its influence far beyond its immediate neighborhood.

But this alliance was never as strong as it appeared. Venezuela was, above all, a precarious economic partner, plagued by a devastating economic crisis, rampant hyperinflation, and plummeting oil production. Russian investments in Venezuela’s energy sector—particularly by the giant Rosneft—proved largely unproductive. Moscow lent billions of dollars to Caracas, but repayment of these debts remained a distant prospect. On the military front as well, cooperation was more symbolic than substantial. The Russian weapons systems sold to Venezuela were often outdated, and their maintenance left much to be desired. When the United States struck on January 3, these defenses collapsed within hours, demonstrating their ineffectiveness against a modern, well-equipped military power. Russia had sold Venezuela the illusion of protection, but when the moment of truth arrived, that protection evaporated like morning mist.

Maduro’s Ignored Demands

The fall of 2025 marked a turning point in Russian-Venezuelan relations. As U.S. pressure on Venezuela intensified alarmingly—with a massive naval deployment in the Caribbean and increasingly threatening statements from Donald Trump—Nicolas Maduro turned to Moscow for concrete support. According to the Washington Post, the Venezuelan leader sent a personal letter to Vladimir Putin in October requesting the urgent delivery of military drones, missiles, and radar systems to strengthen his country’s defenses. This request was no trivial matter. Maduro sensed the danger closing in and hoped that his Russian ally would come to his rescue, just as it had done for other regimes threatened by the West. But Moscow’s response was an eloquent silence. No drones were delivered. No missiles arrived. No additional radar systems were deployed.

Russia’s tacit refusal to help Venezuela at a critical moment speaks volumes about Moscow’s priorities and actual capabilities. The war in Ukraine has depleted Russia’s military resources to such an extent that the Kremlin can no longer afford to spread its forces too thin. Every drone, every missile, every defense system is now precious and necessary for the war effort against Kyiv. Putin simply could not afford to deplete his stockpiles to save Maduro. But beyond material constraints, there was also a political calculation. Moscow knew that any substantial military support for Venezuela risked provoking a direct confrontation with the United States—a confrontation that Russia was not in a position to win. So Putin made the pragmatic but humiliating choice to abandon his ally. Maduro was left to his fate, and on January 3, that fate materialized in the form of American commandos storming his palace.

Imagine the scene. Maduro writing that desperate letter to Putin, imploring him for help, reminding him of all those years of alliance, all those speeches about anti-imperialist solidarity. And Putin, reading that letter, decides… to do nothing. To abandon him. It’s cold. It’s calculating. And it’s exactly what great powers do when their interests are no longer aligned. But for all of Russia’s other allies watching this unfold, the message is clear: when things really go south, don’t count on Moscow.

Section 3: The Collapse of Venezuela's Defense Forces

Ineffective Russian Systems

Operation Absolute Resolve brutally exposed the ineffectiveness of the defense systems supplied by Russia to Venezuela. The S-300 anti-aircraft batteries, intended to protect Venezuelan airspace against any intrusion, failed to intercept the U.S. cruise missiles and drones that struck key military installations around Caracas. The surveillance radars, also of Russian origin, were neutralized within the first few minutes of the attack by anti-radiation missiles fired from U.S. warships stationed in the Caribbean. The Venezuelan Air Force’s Sukhoi fighter jets did not even have time to take off before their bases were pounded. Within a few hours, the country’s entire air defense system collapsed like a house of cards, leaving the skies wide open to U.S. combat helicopters, which were able to operate with complete impunity.

This military failure raises embarrassing questions about the true quality of Russian weaponry and Moscow’s ability to effectively equip its allies. The S-300 systems, though considered high-performing in the 2000s, are now obsolete in the face of the latest generation of American technology. The United States has developed specific tactics to neutralize these systems, and the operation in Venezuela demonstrated their effectiveness. But beyond the purely technical aspects, it is Russia’s entire credibility as an arms supplier that is being called into question. If Russian defenses cannot protect an ally from a U.S. attack, what good are they? This question must be haunting the leaders of all countries that have invested heavily in Russian military equipment, from Iran to Syria and several African nations. The fall of Venezuela served as a full-scale demonstration of the relative obsolescence of Russian military capabilities in the face of U.S. firepower.

The Absence of a Russian Military Response

Perhaps even more revealing than the failure of Russian weapons systems is Moscow’s total lack of a military response during and after the U.S. operation. Russia had no means of projecting its military power into Venezuela to counter the attack. Unlike the United States, which maintains military bases and carrier strike groups around the world, Russia has only a limited military presence in Latin America. A few military advisers in Caracas, occasional visits by Russian warships to Venezuelan ports—but nothing that could constitute a credible deterrent against a U.S. intervention. When U.S. helicopters flew over the presidential palace, there were no Russian aircraft in the sky to intercept them. When the missiles struck, there was no Russian response. Moscow was simply absent from the theater of operations.

This military impotence can be explained by several structural factors that severely limit Russia’s ability to project power. First, the Russian Navy does not have a fleet of operational aircraft carriers capable of conducting long-range operations. Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has been undergoing repairs for years and is not operational. Second, the Russian Air Force lacks the in-flight refueling capability needed to deploy fighter jets thousands of kilometers from their bases. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the war in Ukraine has tied up the bulk of Russia’s military resources. Every soldier, every tank, every missile is needed on the Ukrainian front. Putin simply cannot afford to divert forces to Latin America, even to save a longtime ally. Venezuela has been sacrificed on the altar of Russian strategic priorities.

This is where it gets really interesting. Russia presents itself as an alternative to American hegemony, as a protector of nations that want to resist the West. But when it comes time to actually protect these nations, Moscow is nowhere to be found. The weapons systems it sells don’t work. The security guarantees it offers are hollow. And its allies find themselves alone in the face of American power. It’s a harsh lesson for all those who believed in Russia’s promises.

Section 4: Putin's Political Calculation

Preserving the Relationship with Trump

Vladimir Putin’s silence regarding Maduro’s capture is not merely the result of military constraints. It is also, and above all, the result of a deliberate political calculation. For months, the Russian president has been engaged in complex negotiations with Donald Trump in an attempt to end the war in Ukraine on terms acceptable to Moscow. Trump has made it clear that he would exert maximum pressure on any party that refuses to negotiate in good faith. So far, Russia has rejected all U.S. proposals for a ceasefire, hoping to secure better terms. But Putin knows this strategy has its limits. If he provokes Trump by reacting aggressively to the operation in Venezuela, he risks seeing the United States massively increase its military support for Ukraine, supplying Kyiv with even more sophisticated weapons that could change the course of the war. Putin cannot afford that risk.

During his press conference on the Venezuelan operation, Trump was asked about Putin and expressed his dissatisfaction with the ongoing killings in Ukraine. The message was clear: the U.S. president is keeping all options on the table, including escalating support for Kyiv if Moscow does not cooperate. Putin understood this signal perfectly. By choosing not to react vehemently to Maduro’s capture—opting instead for a formal diplomatic protest—the Russian leader sent his own message: he does not want a direct confrontation with the United States; he is willing to sacrifice secondary interests like Venezuela to preserve what truly matters to him—namely, his territorial gains in Ukraine and the survival of his regime. It is a cynical but rational calculation. Maduro was merely a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard, and Putin decided to sacrifice him to protect his position in a far more important game.

Ukraine Above All

The war in Ukraine has become Vladimir Putin’s central obsession and is absorbing all of the Kremlin’s resources and attention. Since the invasion began in February 2022, Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands of soldiers, spent tens of billions of dollars, and suffered considerable human and material losses. The Russian economy has been redirected toward the war effort, with a growing share of the national budget devoted to defense and weapons production. Western sanctions have hit hard, limiting Moscow’s access to advanced technologies and international financial markets. In this context, every resource counts. Every missile, every drone, and every artillery shell is precious for maintaining pressure on Ukrainian forces. Putin simply cannot afford to spread his forces thin by opening new fronts or supporting distant allies such as Venezuela.

This exclusive focus on Ukraine has direct consequences for Russia’s ability to maintain its influence in other regions of the world. In Syria, Moscow has had to scale back its military presence and was unable to prevent the fall of the Assad regime to Islamist rebels in December 2024. In Africa, mercenaries from the Wagner Group have been gradually withdrawn or redeployed to the Ukrainian front, leaving a vacuum that other powers are rushing to fill. And now in Venezuela, Russia has demonstrated its inability to protect a key ally. This decline in Russian influence is a direct consequence of the quagmire in Ukraine. Putin has staked his entire international credibility on this war, and he is losing on every other front. Venezuela is merely the latest example of this erosion of Russian power, but it is particularly symbolic because it is unfolding in a region that Moscow considered part of its sphere of influence.

Putin has made a choice—a brutal but logical one from his perspective. He decided that Ukraine was worth more than Venezuela, that his territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe were more important than his alliances in Latin America. One can understand this logic, but one cannot ignore what it reveals: Russia no longer has the resources to match its ambitions. It can no longer play all sides at once. It must choose, and these choices make it predictable and vulnerable.

Section 5: The Economic Impact on Moscow

The Threat to Oil Revenues

Beyond the geopolitical implications, the loss of Venezuela poses a serious economic threat to Russia. Donald Trump has clearly stated his intention to bring Venezuelan oil back onto the international market by lifting the sanctions that have crippled the country’s oil industry for years. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even those of Saudi Arabia. If these reserves are efficiently developed with the help of U.S. companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, they could flood the global market with crude oil and cause prices to plummet. For Russia, whose economy relies heavily on hydrocarbon exports, this prospect is a nightmare. Lower oil prices mean reduced budget revenues, a diminished ability to finance the war effort in Ukraine, and increased pressure on an already weakened economy.

The Russian economy is already under extreme strain. Inflation has reached alarming levels, the ruble has depreciated significantly, and Western sanctions continue to take their toll. Oil and gas revenues account for about forty percent of the Russian federal budget. Any substantial drop in these revenues would have dramatic consequences for Moscow’s ability to maintain its military and social spending. Trump knows this full well, and it is precisely for this reason that he has made Venezuelan oil a priority. By bringing Venezuela back into the American fold and reviving its oil production, Washington can achieve two goals simultaneously: lowering gas prices for American consumers and economically weakening Russia without firing a single shot. It is an elegant strategy that uses market mechanisms as a geopolitical weapon.

Lost Investments

Russia has invested billions of dollars in Venezuela over the past two decades, primarily in the energy sector. The Russian oil giant Rosneft has been particularly active, acquiring stakes in several exploration and production projects and granting massive loans to the Venezuelan government in exchange for oil deliveries. These investments were intended to give Moscow privileged access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and strengthen its economic presence in Latin America. But with Maduro’s fall and the likely arrival of a pro-American government in Caracas, all these investments are now at risk. Venezuela’s new leaders could decide to nationalize Russian assets, terminate existing contracts, or simply refuse to repay the debts incurred by the previous regime. Russia risks losing billions without any effective legal recourse.

This financial loss comes on top of a series of economic setbacks Russia has suffered in recent years. In Syria, the reconstruction contracts promised after the Assad regime’s victory never materialized, and now that the regime has fallen, those prospects have vanished entirely. In Africa, several countries have begun to question their cooperation with Moscow, preferring to turn to other partners. Western sanctions have also cut Russia off from many lucrative markets and sources of technology. Against this backdrop, the loss of Venezuela is yet another severe blow to an already faltering economy. The Kremlin had counted on Venezuela as a pillar of its economic strategy in Latin America, and that pillar has just collapsed. The consequences will be felt for years to come, further weakening Russia’s economic position on the international stage.

Money, always money. That’s what makes the world go round, and that’s what will ultimately bring Putin down. Not moralistic speeches about democracy, not UN resolutions, but brutal economic realities. Russia is losing money in Venezuela, it’s losing money in Syria, and it’s losing money because of sanctions. And meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues to devour its budget. How long can it keep this up? Not forever.

Section 6: The Message to Other Russian Allies

Iran is watching and worried

Maduro’s capture and Russia’s inability to respond send a chilling message to all of Moscow’s allies around the world. Iran, in particular, must be watching these events with growing concern. Tehran has developed a close relationship with Russia in recent years, supplying drones for the war in Ukraine and receiving diplomatic and military support in return. But Iran also faces intense U.S. pressure, particularly following the massive strikes the United States carried out against its nuclear program in June 2025. If Washington were to launch a similar operation against the Iranian regime, would Moscow come to its aid? The Venezuelan example suggests not. Russia has neither the means nor the will to protect its allies against a determined U.S. intervention. This realization must be sparking anxious discussions in the corridors of power in Tehran.

Iranian leaders have long believed that their alliance with Russia offered them some protection against the United States. They have invested in Russian weapons systems, developed close military ties with Moscow, and coordinated their policies in the Middle East. But if these weapons systems prove as ineffective as Venezuela’s, and if Russia proves equally powerless to intervene, then what is the point of this alliance? Iran could find itself in the same situation as Maduro: abandoned by its Russian ally at a critical moment, facing U.S. military might without any external support. This prospect must terrify the regime in Tehran, which has already suffered severe blows with the destruction of part of its nuclear infrastructure. Venezuela’s downfall demonstrates that Russian security guarantees are worth very little when the United States truly decides to act.

Syria: A Disturbing Precedent

The case of Syria offers another troubling example of Russia’s inability to protect its allies. In December 2024, the regime of Bashar al-Assad—which had been supported by Moscow for years—collapsed in the face of an offensive by Islamist rebels. Russia, which had invested heavily in Syria since 2015 with airstrikes, military advisers, and a naval base in Tartus, was unable to prevent this debacle. Russian forces were forced to withdraw hastily, abandoning their positions and leaving Assad to his fate. This Syrian precedent, now combined with the collapse of Venezuela, paints a troubling picture: Russia can no longer maintain its influence in distant theaters of operation, it can no longer effectively protect its allies, and it is forced to focus on its most vital interests, which are primarily concentrated around Ukraine and its immediate vicinity.

For Russia’s other allies—from Belarus to Armenia, including several countries in Africa and Central Asia—these events must prompt a serious reassessment of their relations with Moscow. If Russia cannot protect Venezuela—a longtime ally with which it had substantial economic and military ties—how could it possibly protect them? This question must be haunting the leaders of these countries. Some are already beginning to diversify their partnerships, seeking more balanced relationships with other powers such as China, Turkey, or even Western countries. Russia’s credibility as a protector and reliable partner has been seriously undermined. Venezuela is not only a geopolitical defeat for Moscow; it is also a wake-up call for all those who were counting on Russian support. That support turns out to be an illusion when it is truly put to the test.

If I were a leader allied with Russia right now, I’d be losing a lot of sleep. Because what just happened in Venezuela could happen to me tomorrow. Putin won’t come to my rescue. He can’t. He’s too busy with his war in Ukraine, too economically weakened, and too militarily constrained. The alliance with Moscow was supposed to be a safety net. But that safety net has just shown that it offers no protection at all when things get really serious.

Section 7: The International Response

Europe: Between Relief and Unease

Europe’s reaction to the U.S. operation in Venezuela has been marked by a revealing ambivalence. On the one hand, many European leaders have expressed satisfaction that Maduro—whom they consider a dictator—is being brought to justice. The European Union has never recognized the legitimacy of the Venezuelan regime following the disputed elections of 2018, and it has supported the democratic opposition led by figures such as Maria Corina Machado. From this perspective, Maduro’s downfall is a victory for democracy and human rights. But on the other hand, the manner in which this downfall occurred raises deep unease. A unilateral military intervention by the United States—without a UN mandate, without consultation with allies, and resulting in the capture of a sitting head of state—raises troubling questions about respect for international law and national sovereignty.

This unease is particularly acute for European countries that support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. How can they condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the name of respect for sovereignty and international law, while accepting or applauding a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela that violates those very same principles? This contradiction has not escaped Moscow’s notice, and it is quick to highlight it in its propaganda. The Kremlin accuses the West of hypocrisy, asserting that international rules are applied only selectively, according to the interests of Western powers. This accusation resonates in many countries of the Global South, which view the West’s apparent double standards with skepticism. The operation in Venezuela—as morally justified as it may seem against an authoritarian regime—significantly complicates Europe’s position and weakens its rhetoric on a rules-based international order.

China Remains Silent

China, another major partner of Venezuela and a strategic rival of the United States, has adopted a stance of cautious silence in the face of Maduro’s capture. Beijing has invested heavily in Venezuela over the past two decades, lending tens of billions of dollars to the regime in exchange for oil shipments. China had substantial economic interests in the stability of the Venezuelan regime. Yet, contrary to what one might have expected, Beijing did not react vehemently to the U.S. operation. Official Chinese statements were measured, calling for respect for international law but without explicitly condemning the United States. This relative silence is revealing in several respects. First, China, like Russia, has no military means to project its power into Latin America to counter U.S. action. Second, Beijing is engaged in a complex relationship with Washington and does not wish to exacerbate tensions over a secondary ally like Venezuela.

China’s restraint contrasts with Beijing’s usual rhetoric on defending national sovereignty and upholding international law. But it also reflects a pragmatic calculation. China knows that Venezuela is in the U.S. backyard and that any attempt to exert significant influence there would face fierce opposition from Washington. Beijing prefers to focus its efforts on regions where it can exert more direct influence, such as Southeast Asia, Africa, or the Pacific. Venezuela is simply not a high enough priority to risk a confrontation with the United States. China’s pragmatic stance further deepens the isolation of the ousted Venezuelan regime and underscores the lack of meaningful international support. Neither Russia nor China—the United States’ two main rival powers—has been able or willing to defend their Venezuelan ally. This harsh geopolitical reality demonstrates the limits of what is sometimes called the anti-Western axis.

China’s silence is almost as telling as Russia’s. Beijing talks a lot about multipolarity, respect for sovereignty, and resistance to American hegemony. But when the United States actually takes action—when it seizes a head of state allied with China—Beijing remains silent. Because deep down, China knows what Russia knows as well: they cannot win a direct confrontation with Washington. So they abandon their allies and hope that no one will notice their weakness. But everyone notices.

Section 8: Implications for Ukraine

A Dangerous Precedent

The U.S. operation in Venezuela sets a troubling precedent that could have repercussions for the conflict in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky made no secret of his enthusiasm over Maduro’s capture, openly suggesting that the United States could apply the same method to Vladimir Putin. After all, the Russian president is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes, just as Maduro was wanted by U.S. authorities for narco-terrorism. If Washington can send special forces to capture a sitting head of state in Venezuela, why couldn’t it do the same in Russia? This question, as provocative as it may be, raises fundamental issues regarding the limits of military action and respect for national sovereignty. For Ukraine, which is desperately fighting against Russian aggression, the idea of direct U.S. intervention against Putin is obviously appealing. But it also opens a dangerous Pandora’s box.

The problem is that Russia is not Venezuela. It is a nuclear power with thousands of nuclear warheads and sophisticated delivery systems. Any attempt at direct military intervention on Russian soil to capture Putin would risk triggering a catastrophic nuclear escalation. The United States is well aware of this, and it is precisely for this reason that it has never seriously considered such an operation. Venezuela had no credible deterrent capability, which allowed Washington to act with relative impunity. But Russia, despite all its conventional weaknesses, retains this capability for assured mutual destruction, which makes any direct attack unthinkable. Nevertheless, the Venezuelan precedent undermines international norms against unilateral military interventions and could encourage other actors to attempt similar operations in different contexts. This is a troubling development for the stability of the international order.

Strengthening Ukraine’s Position

Paradoxically, Maduro’s capture and the Russian impotence it reveals could strengthen Ukraine’s position in its negotiations with Moscow. Russia’s display of weakness in Venezuela sends a clear message: Moscow is no longer the superpower it claims to be; it can no longer protect its allies; and it is increasingly isolated on the international stage. This reality could prompt certain countries that were still hesitant to support Ukraine to take the plunge. If Russia cannot even defend Venezuela against a U.S. intervention, how could it effectively threaten Europe or other regions? This perception of Russian weakness could also encourage Ukraine’s Western allies to increase their military support, on the grounds that the risk of escalation with a weakened Russia is more manageable than previously thought.

Furthermore, the economic consequences of Venezuelan oil returning to the market will directly weaken Russia’s ability to finance its war in Ukraine. Lower oil prices mean less revenue for Moscow, which will inevitably result in reduced arms production, difficulties paying soldiers, and increased pressure on the already faltering Russian economy. Ukraine could thus benefit indirectly from the U.S. operation in Venezuela—not through direct military intervention, but through the economic and political weakening of its adversary. This is a form of indirect economic warfare that could prove just as effective as arms deliveries. Zelensky and his team have fully grasped this dynamic, and they intend to capitalize on it in the coming months to secure better terms in any potential peace negotiations.

Zelensky is right to smile. Not because he really thinks the Americans are going to capture Putin—that will never happen. But because what happened in Venezuela demonstrates something essential: Russia is weak. Weaker than we thought. And that weakness is a weapon for Ukraine. Every time Putin shows his powerlessness, every time he abandons an ally, every time he backs down, it strengthens Ukraine’s position. Because it proves that Russia can be defeated, that it is not invincible, that it has limits.

Section 9: The Loss of Influence in Latin America

A Crumbling Stronghold

Latin America was supposed to be a pillar of Russia’s strategy for projecting global influence. Since the days of Hugo Chávez, Russia had cultivated close ties with several countries in the region, from Venezuela to Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. Moscow presented these ties as proof of its ability to challenge U.S. hegemony in its own backyard. Joint military exercises were organized, arms contracts were signed, and economic agreements were concluded. Venezuela, in particular, served as a showcase for Russia’s presence in Latin America, with massive investments in the energy sector and substantial military cooperation. But with Maduro’s fall, this entire edifice is crumbling. Venezuela will likely swing over to the American camp, Russian investments will be lost, and the Russian military presence in the country will be eliminated.

This loss of Venezuela has a ripple effect on Russia’s entire presence in Latin America. Moscow’s other allies in the region are watching recent events with concern and drawing their own conclusions. If Russia was unable to protect Venezuela, how could it protect them? Cuba, already weakened by decades of the U.S. embargo and the loss of its main source of support from Venezuela, finds itself even more isolated. Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua must be wondering whether it should reconsider its relations with Moscow. Even countries that had maintained a certain balance between the United States and Russia—such as Brazil and Argentina—will likely move closer to Washington now that it is clear Moscow cannot offer any real protection. Latin America was one of the few places where Russia could still claim to exert significant influence outside its immediate neighborhood. That influence has just evaporated in a matter of days.

The Return of the Monroe Doctrine

The U.S. operation in Venezuela also marks the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, the principle of U.S. foreign policy that regards Latin America as a zone of exclusive U.S. influence. For decades, this doctrine had been downplayed, as the United States preferred to speak of partnership and cooperation rather than domination. But with Donald Trump, the rhetoric has changed. The U.S. president makes no secret of his intention to regain control of what he considers the United States’ natural backyard. The intervention in Venezuela is the most spectacular demonstration of this. Washington has sent a clear message to all external powers attempting to exert influence in Latin America: this region belongs to the United States, and any attempt to establish a hostile presence there will be met with all necessary measures, including military force.

For Russia, this revival of the Monroe Doctrine spells the end of its ambitions in Latin America. Moscow has neither the military means nor the political will to challenge the United States within its own sphere of influence. Geographical distance, the lack of military bases in the region, and the overwhelming superiority of U.S. naval and air power make any direct confrontation impossible. Russia may well protest diplomatically; it may well denounce U.S. intervention as a violation of international law, but these protests ring hollow in the face of the reality of the balance of power. Venezuela was the last significant bastion of Russian influence in Latin America, and that bastion has just fallen. Moscow will now have to settle for limited trade relations with a few countries in the region, with no ability to project any real political or military influence. This is a major strategic setback that illustrates the general decline of Russian power on the world stage.

The Monroe Doctrine. I thought it was a relic of the nineteenth century, an outdated concept in our globalized world. But no. Trump has just resurrected it with a brutality that leaves no room for doubt. Latin America is American territory. Period. And if you try to set foot there—whether you’re Russia, China, or anyone else—you’ll regret it. It’s a return to a very crude vision of geopolitics, where power trumps law, where might makes right.

Section 10: Lessons for the Future

The End of Multilateralism

The U.S. operation in Venezuela may mark a turning point in the evolution of the international order. For decades, the world operated under a multilateral system in which major decisions were supposed to be made collectively, through institutions like the UN, and in which international law was supposed to apply equally to all. This system was never perfect—far from it—but it at least provided a common framework. With the capture of Maduro, the United States has demonstrated that it is prepared to act unilaterally, without an international mandate, without consulting its allies, guided solely by its own interests and its own conception of justice. This marks a return to a more brutal form of international relations, where military and economic power determines what is permitted and what is not. Russia, which itself violated international law by invading Ukraine, can hardly complain about this development, but it is nonetheless a victim of it.

This erosion of multilateralism has profound consequences for the future of global governance. If major powers can intervene militarily wherever they please, capture heads of state, and overthrow regimes without any significant legal or diplomatic consequences, then the very concept of national sovereignty loses its meaning. We are entering an era in which only countries powerful enough to defend themselves can hope to maintain their independence. Weaker countries will have to choose sides and hope that their protector will indeed be capable and willing to defend them when the time comes. The case of Venezuela shows that even long-standing alliances offer no guarantees if the protector lacks the means or the will to intervene. It is a more dangerous, more unpredictable world, where rules matter less than brute force. Russia helped create this world by invading Ukraine, and now it is suffering the consequences in Venezuela.

The Need for a Strategic Reassessment

For Russia, Venezuela’s downfall should trigger a fundamental strategic reassessment of its position in the world. Moscow must accept a reality it has long refused to acknowledge: it is no longer a superpower capable of projecting its power on a global scale. It is a regional power—admittedly an important one—but with limited capabilities beyond its immediate neighborhood. This acknowledgment does not mean abandoning all international ambitions, but it does imply focusing resources on essential priorities. For Russia, this means concentrating on Ukraine, on stabilizing its immediate periphery, and on preserving its vital interests in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Far-flung adventures in Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East are luxuries that Moscow can no longer afford.

This strategic reassessment should also include a reevaluation of the nature of Russia’s alliances. Venezuela has demonstrated that alliances based solely on a shared opposition to the United States are not sufficient. What is needed are real economic interests, deep cultural ties, and, above all, a concrete ability to support one another in the event of a crisis. Russia must be more selective in choosing its partners, prioritizing quality over quantity. It must also be more realistic about what it can offer these partners. Promising protection that cannot be delivered is worse than promising nothing at all, as it destroys credibility. The Kremlin must learn from the Venezuelan failure and adjust its strategy accordingly. This likely means retreating to more defensive positions, focusing on vital interests, and accepting the fact that Russia can no longer aspire to the status of a global superpower that it held during the Soviet era. It is a bitter pill for Vladimir Putin to swallow, but it is the reality.

There is something tragic about Russia’s decline. Not tragic in the sense that I pity it, but tragic in the classical sense of the term. A great power that refuses to accept that it is no longer what it once was, that clings desperately to symbols of past greatness, that makes promises it cannot keep. And that ends up being publicly humiliated when reality catches up with its illusions. Venezuela is the moment when the curtain falls and everyone sees that the emperor has no clothes.

Section 11: Long-Term Impacts

A More Dangerous World

Events in Venezuela and Russia’s helpless response are contributing to a more dangerous and unstable world. When major powers demonstrate that they can act with impunity—overthrowing regimes and capturing heads of state without facing significant consequences—it encourages other actors to attempt similar actions. China might feel emboldened to act more aggressively in Taiwan or the South China Sea. Turkey might intensify its interventions in Syria or Libya. Iran might become bolder in its actions in the Middle East. Each of these actors is observing what has happened in Venezuela and drawing its own conclusions about what is and isn’t possible. Russia’s lack of response sends a clear message: if you’re strong enough, you can do whatever you want. If you’re weak, your allies will abandon you.

This dynamic creates an international environment where the arms race is accelerating, alliances are becoming more fragile, and smaller countries feel increasingly vulnerable. If even a country like Venezuela—with its vast oil reserves and alliances with Russia and China—can be overthrown in a matter of hours by a U.S. intervention, then what country can feel safe? This widespread insecurity is driving nations to seek more robust security guarantees, either by developing their own military capabilities or by aligning themselves with more reliable protective powers. But as the Venezuelan case demonstrates, even these guarantees can prove illusory. The result is a world where mistrust reigns, tensions mount, and the risk of conflict increases. Russia, by proving incapable of protecting its allies, has contributed to this growing instability.

Putin’s Legacy

Russia’s powerlessness in the face of Maduro’s capture will be part of Vladimir Putin’s legacy. The Russian president came to power in 2000 with the promise of restoring Russia’s greatness and returning it to superpower status. For a time, he seemed to be succeeding. The intervention in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in 2015—all these events gave the impression of a resurgent Russia, capable of defying the West and shaping world events according to its will. But this impression was misleading. The war in Ukraine has exposed the deep-seated weaknesses of the Russian military. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria has revealed the limits of Russian influence in the Middle East. And now, the loss of Venezuela demonstrates Moscow’s inability to protect its allies in Latin America. Putin’s legacy will not be that of a restorer of Russian greatness, but that of a leader who overestimated his country’s capabilities and led Russia into a series of costly failures.

In the years to come, historians will analyze this period and will likely identify Maduro’s capture as a symbolic moment in the decline of Russian power under Putin. It is not the most significant event in and of itself—the war in Ukraine will have far more profound consequences—but it is a revealing moment that crystallizes a reality that many still refused to see. Putin’s Russia is not the superpower it claims to be. It cannot protect its allies. It cannot project its power beyond its immediate neighborhood. It cannot compete with the United States on the world stage. All the displays of force, all the fiery rhetoric, and all the propaganda cannot mask this fundamental reality. Venezuela has laid bare Russia’s impotence, and this image will remain etched in people’s memories. For Putin, it is a personal and political humiliation from which he will likely never fully recover. His dream of restoring Russia’s greatness has been shattered on the rocks of geopolitical reality.

Putin wanted to be the new Peter the Great, the one who would restore Russia’s place among the great powers. But he will go down in history as the one who presided over Russia’s decline, the one who dragged his country into a disastrous war in Ukraine, the one who abandoned his allies, and the one who demonstrated to the entire world that Russia was now nothing more than a shadow of its former self. It is a monumental failure, and Venezuela is just one symbol among many.

Conclusion: The Twilight of an Illusion

The Reality Behind the Curtain

The capture of Nicolás Maduro by the United States and Russia’s deafening silence in the face of this event mark the end of an illusion carefully maintained for years—the illusion of a resurgent Russia, capable of defying the West, protecting its allies, and shaping the world order according to its will. This illusion shattered against the brutal reality of January 3, 2026. When American helicopters flew over Caracas, when missiles struck Venezuelan military installations, when special forces extracted Maduro from his palace, Moscow was powerless to do anything. Nothing. Not a military intervention. Not a credible threat. Not even a vehement protest from Vladimir Putin himself. Just a bureaucratic statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a phone call from Sergey Lavrov. That was all Russia could offer its longtime ally at the very moment he needed it most. This powerlessness reveals a truth that many still refused to accept: Russia is no longer a global superpower.

The reasons for this weakness are numerous and interconnected. The war in Ukraine has depleted Russia’s military and economic resources, leaving Moscow without the means to intervene elsewhere in the world. Western sanctions have hit the Russian economy hard, limiting its ability to finance costly military operations. The lack of military bases in Latin America and the weakness of the Russian navy make any projection of force in the region virtually impossible. But beyond these material constraints, there is also a political calculation. Putin chose not to react aggressively to Maduro’s capture because he did not want to provoke a confrontation with the United States that could jeopardize his negotiations on Ukraine. Venezuela has been sacrificed on the altar of Russia’s strategic priorities. This is a rational choice from a certain perspective, but it is also an admission of powerlessness. Russia can no longer play all its cards at once. It must make choices, and these choices reveal its limitations.

A Major Geopolitical Turning Point

The U.S. operation in Venezuela and Russia’s helpless response mark a major geopolitical turning point whose repercussions will be felt for years to come. For Moscow’s allies around the world—from Iran to Syria, including several countries in Africa and Central Asia—the message is clear: do not count on Russia to protect you when things get really tough. This realization will likely trigger a wave of strategic realignments, with countries seeking new partners or attempting to draw closer to the West. For the United States, this is a strategic victory that demonstrates its ability to act with determination and effectiveness. For Ukraine, it is an encouraging sign that Russia is weaker than previously thought and that victory is possible. For the international order, it is another step toward a world where might prevails over right and where rules are applied only selectively.

But it is above all for Russia itself that this event is most significant. The fall of Venezuela may mark the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin’s global ambitions. After losing Syria, after becoming bogged down in Ukraine, and after seeing its influence in Africa erode, Moscow is now losing its main ally in Latin America. Russia is turning inward, focusing its limited resources on defending its most immediate vital interests. It is no longer the expansionist power that dreamed of recreating a sphere of influence comparable to that of the Soviet Union. It is a weakened regional power, with limited capabilities, struggling to maintain its position in the face of more powerful adversaries. Putin’s silence in the face of Maduro’s capture rings like an admission of this reality. It is the twilight of an illusion, the moment when the curtain falls and everyone can see what lies behind it: a diminished, vulnerable Russia, increasingly isolated on the international stage.

I think back to all those years when Putin paraded across the world stage, presenting himself as the alternative to American hegemony, promising protection and support to all those who wanted to resist the West. And now I look at Maduro in an orange prison jumpsuit, abandoned by his Russian ally, handed over to American justice. It is a powerful image. An image that says everything there is to know about the true state of Russian power in 2026. Putin can continue to give speeches, issue threats, and act tough. But when the moment of truth arrives, when an ally truly needs help, Moscow isn’t there. And everyone can see that now. Venezuela isn’t just about the fall of a dictator. It’s the revelation of a weakness that Russia will never again be able to completely hide.

Sources

Primary Sources

The Atlantic Council, “The U.S. Capture of Maduro Reveals Russia’s Weakness,” by John E. Herbst, published January 5, 2026. Reuters, “Maduro Pleads Not Guilty to Drug Charges, Saying He Was ‘Kidnapped,’” published January 5, 2026. The Moscow Times, “Russia Demands Release of Maduro After U.S. Military Strikes Venezuela,” published January 3, 2026. Le Monde, “The U.S. Operation in Venezuela: A Double-Edged Sword for Vladimir Putin,” by Claire Gatinois and Benjamin Quénelle, published January 4, 2026.

Secondary Sources

CNN, “January 3, 2026 — Maduro in U.S. Custody,” live coverage from January 3, 2026. The Washington Post, reports on Maduro’s request for military aid from Putin in October 2025. BBC News, “Spies, Drones, and Blowtorches: How the U.S. Captured Maduro,” published in January 2026. The New York Times, “What We Know About Maduro’s Capture and the Fallout,” published on January 3, 2026. CNBC, “How the ousting of Russia’s ally Maduro benefits Moscow,” published on January 5, 2026.

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating