Decoding Russia's response to US military action against Maduro

This article is authored by Pravesh Kumar Gupta, associate fellow (Eurasia), Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi.

Russia's response to the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 2, 2026, has been characterised by strong verbal condemnation but limited to diplomatic channels, without indications of military escalation or direct intervention. This aligns with Moscow's longstanding alliance with Caracas, dating back to the era of Hugo Chávez, involving arms sales, loans, and mutual geopolitical support. However, the reaction appears measured, possibly influenced by Russia's ongoing commitments in Ukraine and a desire to avoid further straining relations with the US under the Trump administration.

Vladimir Putin (AFP)

The Russian government issued strong condemnations of this act. The Russian foreign ministry quickly issued statements denouncing the US operation as an ‘act of armed aggression’ and an ‘unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent State.’ They described the pretexts used by Washington, primarily combating drug trafficking and enforcing indictments against Maduro, as ‘untenable’ and driven by ‘ideological animosity.’ Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov expressed outrage, urging the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, whom Russia recognises as the ‘legally elected president’ and first lady of a sovereign nation. Foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova echoed this, calling the actions ‘deeply concerning’ and condemning the use of ‘excessive military force.’

Russia has called for an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to address the incident and demanded clarification from the US on the forced removal and arrest of Maduro. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has criticised the act, and reports suggest that the Security Council may take action against the US unilateral actions against Venezuela. However, action under Article 5 of the UN Charter can only be initiated upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Clearly, no such recommendation is possible since the US holds veto power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Additionally, Lavrov spoke with Venezuelan vice president Delcy Rodríguez to reaffirm Moscow's support for the remaining government in Caracas and advocate for de-escalation through dialogue between Washington and Venezuela. This follows prior expressions of solidarity, such as President Vladimir Putin's phone call to Maduro in December 2025 amid escalating tensions, where he pledged support against US threats.

Russian state-controlled media, like RT and Sputnik, amplified these criticisms, framing the US actions as violations of international law and emphasizing Russia's commitment to Venezuela's sovereignty. However, coverage has been relatively subdued, focusing on cooperation rather than fiery rhetoric. Despite the sharp language, Russia's response has been notably restrained compared to its reactions in other geopolitical flashpoints. There are no reports of military mobilisation, such as deploying assets to Venezuela (where Russia has previously conducted joint exercises and stationed advisors), or economic retaliatory measures.

Russia's measured response to this crisis can be analysed in several ways. The foremost reason is the recalibration of US-Russian relations under President Trump. Since he came into power, the US has adopted a softer tone towards Russia and has made efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine, favouring Russian concerns. The 2025 United States National Security Strategy also discussed managing relations with Russia. In this context, Russia is not in a position to sacrifice the progress made so far in the normalisation of US-Russia relations.

Secondly, while it currently seems unlikely for Russia to support Venezuela militarily, one key reason is that its military is heavily engaged in Ukraine. This ongoing conflict requires significant resources, limiting Russia’s ability to take on new commitments elsewhere, including in Latin America. US officials, including secretary of state Marco Rubio, have pointed out that the preoccupation with Ukraine reduces the probability of escalation in other regions. With Russian forces stretched thin and facing international sanctions, the prospect of providing military assistance to Venezuela appears impractical. As global dynamics shift, it’s crucial to monitor how Russia's focus on Ukraine influences its relationships with nations like Venezuela, which may look to ally against US influence. This situation highlights the complexity of international relations as both countries navigate their strategic interests amid ongoing geopolitical challenges.

On the contrary, some observers argue that Russia could indirectly benefit from the upheaval. Maduro's capture exposes the vulnerabilities of Russian-supplied defences (e.g., S-300 systems) and alliances, but it might also divert US attention from Europe and create opportunities for Moscow in a realigning global order. Venezuela's vast oil reserves remain a point of interest, with Russian officials highlighting potential for continued economic ties. Critics, especially western commentators, highlight the irony in Russia's sovereignty arguments, given its actions in Ukraine and Crimea. This ‘doublespeak’ could undermine Moscow's credibility but serves to rally domestic and allied audiences.

European double standards are evident in how the crises in Venezuela and Ukraine are approached. In Venezuela, European nations have supported Juan Guaidó and challenged Nicolás Maduro's sovereignty, advocating for intervention under the guise of promoting democracy. In contrast, Europe has condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine, particularly the annexation of Crimea, emphasising territorial integrity and sovereignty. This inconsistent application of principles raises questions about Europe’s genuine commitment to democratic values and international norms. Critics argue that such selectivity undermines Europe's credibility and reflects the complexities of geopolitical interests in play.

Russia's stance reinforces its multipolarity narrative, positioning itself as a defender of multipolarity against American hegemony. It may strengthen ties with other Maduro allies like China, Iran, and Cuba, who have issued similar condemnations. However, if the US installs a new regime in Caracas, Russia risks losing influence in Latin America, including access to Venezuelan oil and a strategic foothold near the US The muted response might signal a pragmatic shift under Putin, prioritising core interests over peripheral alliances. Ongoing UN discussions could provide a forum for escalation, but early signs point to rhetoric over action.

This article is authored by Pravesh Kumar Gupta, associate fellow (Eurasia), Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi.