Moscow condemned U.S. actions in Venezuela as illegal under international law—but added a notable caveat, calling them “consistent” with U.S. strategic interests. The message wasn’t approval, but realism.
Russia is signaling it understands power politics. By acknowledging U.S. logic, the Kremlin recognizes Washington’s drive to secure influence in its hemisphere—especially with Venezuela’s massive oil reserves at stake.
Key Takeaways:
Legal Objection: Russia maintains that U.S. intervention violates sovereignty.
Strategic Realism: Calling the move “consistent” implies the U.S. is acting rationally as a superpower.
Energy Chess: Venezuela’s oil makes this about global energy leverage, not ideology.
Implications:
Lower Risk of Escalation: Russia’s measured tone suggests no push for direct confrontation.
Possible Diplomatic Shift: Moscow may be open to negotiating spheres of influence.
Oil Market Impact: With no hard retaliation signaled, geopolitical pressure on oil prices could ease.
The narrative claims the U.S. action against Venezuela was the result of **25 years of state collapse and criminalization**, not a sudden decision.
Under Hugo Chávez, power was centralized, democratic institutions weakened, and the military became deeply involved in the economy and drug trafficking. By the time Nicolás Maduro took over in 2013, corruption was entrenched, the economy collapsed, and **drug trafficking became essential to regime survival**.
In 2020, the U.S. formally indicted Maduro for narco-terrorism, shifting its approach from diplomacy to criminal enforcement. Years of sanctions and pressure failed to remove him or stop drug flows.
Venezuela was seen as a strategic target due to weak international backing, disputed elections, and vast oil reserves. When pressure failed, the narrative claims direct action followed, leading to Maduro’s capture.
Overall, the situation is framed as a struggle over **drugs, oil, and global power**, with long-term geopolitical consequences.