Kathrine Frich
Russia’s muted reaction to Trumps actions in recent weeks has surprised many observers
Instead of outrage, Moscow has chosen restraint, even as a long-standing partner was abruptly removed from power.
Behind that calm tone, analysts see a calculation. What looks like a loss for the Kremlin could, in fact, open space for a longer-term strategic gain.
Quiet response
The Kremlin’s response to the U.S. special operation in Venezuela was notably restrained by its usual standards.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry called for the release of Nicolas Maduro, using phrases such as “blatant neocolonial threats” and “foreign armed aggression,” while former president Dmitry Medvedev labeled the operation “illegal.”
At the same time, Medvedev, now deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, praised Donald Trump’s consistency and his determination to defend U.S. national interests.
Russian President Vladimir Putin himself made no direct public comment.
Moscow also moved quickly to back Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim leader, doing so just two days after Maduro was taken to New York.
Old alliance
Russia’s ties with Venezuela date back to 2005, when Putin forged a close relationship with Hugo Chávez. Cooperation deepened under Maduro, including arms sales, loans and joint military exercises.
From 2006 to 2019, Russia provided Venezuela with around $17 billion in credits.
“The unipolar world is collapsing and ending in all aspects,” Maduro said in 2018, calling Russia a pillar of a multipolar order.
That history made Moscow’s limited reaction all the more striking.
Strategic patience
One reason, analysts say, is that the Kremlin does not want to damage relations with Washington while seeking leverage over the war in Ukraine.
Drawing attention to Venezuela would also underline Russia’s limited ability to protect distant allies.
Even prominent pro-Kremlin voices acknowledged discomfort.
“All of Russia is wondering why we don’t do the same with our enemies,” wrote Aleksandr Dugin, urging Moscow to act “like Trump.” Margarita Simonyan admitted Russia had reasons “to be envious.”
Useful precedent
According to Bobo Lo, a former Australian diplomat quoted by Politico, the operation distracts attention from Ukraine and reduces pressure on Putin to compromise.
It also “justifies the use of force in pursuit of vital national interests or spheres of influence.”
Fiona Hill, a former U.S. National Security Council official, said Moscow could argue that if Washington uses force in its “own backyard,”
Russia can do the same in its “near neighborhood.” She noted that as early as 2019, Russia hinted it might trade “Venezuela” for Ukraine.
Force over law
For Kremlin critics such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the key outcome is not the loss of an ally but the validation of a world order based on power rather than rules.
“Through his actions, Trump is essentially supporting a model of world order in which force is more important than international law,” he said.
That message was reinforced when White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said, in defending U.S. claims over Greenland, that “we live in a world that is governed by force, by power.”
For Moscow, analysts say, that is a familiar language.
Sources: Digi24, Politico
