Why Russia Has Remained Notably Restrained Over Maduro’s Ouster in Venezuela
January 8, 2026
In a dramatic turn of events on January 3, 2026, U.S. special forces conducted a pre-dawn raid in Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple was swiftly transported to New York, where Maduro pleaded not guilty to federal charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy, drug trafficking, and weapons possession. Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was promptly sworn in as interim leader, ensuring governmental continuity amid the shockwaves.
Russia, a key ally of Maduro’s regime with deep military, economic, and ideological ties—including arms sales, oil expertise, and support during past crises—initially condemned the U.S. action as a violation of sovereignty and an “act of armed aggression.” The Kremlin demanded Maduro’s release and expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan government. However, Moscow’s response has been markedly restrained: no threats of military intervention, no significant mobilization, and a quick acknowledgment of Rodríguez as the legitimate interim authority while emphasizing stability and ongoing cooperation.
Analysts attribute this muted reaction to several pragmatic factors.
First, Russia’s limited leverage in the Western Hemisphere plays a central role. Venezuela lies firmly within the U.S. sphere of influence, and Moscow lacks the military projection capability to challenge American forces there effectively—unlike in Syria or regions closer to its borders.
Second, Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine severely constrains its resources. Committed to a prolonged conflict on its doorstep, the Kremlin cannot afford to open new fronts or escalate tensions with the U.S., especially under a Trump administration seeking potential rapprochement on other issues.
Third, some Russian observers see indirect strategic benefits in the U.S. action. It undermines the U.S.-led “rules-based international order” that Moscow has long criticized as hypocritical, potentially validating Russia’s own assertions of great-power spheres of influence.
Finally, economic interests factor in. While losing direct influence over Venezuelan oil fields is a setback for Russian firms like Rosneft, outright confrontation yields little when the U.S. hold appears consolidated. Instead, Moscow has pivoted to engaging Rodríguez’s government to preserve ties.
In essence, Russia’s diplomatic outrage masks a realist acceptance of the fait accompli. By avoiding escalation, the Kremlin prioritizes higher-stakes conflicts and potential dealings with Washington, reflecting the cold calculus of power in a multipolar world. As events unfold, this restraint underscores Moscow’s focus on survival and opportunism over ideological solidarity.
About The Author
