Spheres of influence

So, the new year started with a bang in Venezuela with US President Donald Trump’s bold mission to unseat Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and bring him to “justice” in New York.

In a previous life, I worked as editor of a business magazine covering Venezuela - a once-prosperous but now failed state, mired in corruption. I’m not qualified to comment on whether Maduro is guilty of heading a drugs trafficking ring and the other crimes of which he’s accused, but he is undoubtedly a deeply unpleasant, amoral and dishonest politician who rigged elections and jailed or exiled his political opponents. 

The description equally fits his longtime ally, Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Notably, Putin did not lift a finger to help Maduro - providing further evidence, if it were needed, that Moscow is no longer a reliable partner on the global stage. Maduro is the second of Putin’s key allies to be deposed in the space of little over a year, after the fall of former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who also failed to gain the Kremlin's support in his hour of need. Nor did Putin respond last summer when Iran, another of Russia’s strategic partners, came under attack from Israel, and is highly unlikely to support Teheran as the Islamic regime grapples with domestic protests and US threats.

Of course, Moscow is incapable of offering its allies military support, being mired in its brutal war of attrition in Ukraine. But Russia’s failure to respond is also symptomatic of an important shift in the global world order, in which spheres of influence led by strong (megalomaniac, even) leaders are replacing the post-World War II consensus of rules-based international order. 

Trump has already quipped about the ‘Donroe Doctrine’, his own version of the historical Monroe Doctrine, which established the Western Hemisphere as the US sphere of influence in return for staying out of European affairs. 

According to Fiona Hill, a former Russia advisor to Trump during his first term, the Kremlin had suggested just such a deal back in 2019. She testified in a congressional hearing that in April that year, the Kremlin raised the idea of giving up its influence in Venezuela in return for being allowed to do as it pleased in Ukraine. “You have your Monroe Doctrine. You want us out of your backyard. Well, you know, we have our own version of this. You’re in our backyard in Ukraine,” Hill told the hearing, paraphrasing the Russian officials' proposal.

A shift in the global order towards spheres of influence would mark a sea change in Russia’s foreign policy. Moscow has, for decades, sought to gain influence in Latin America, and Venezuela was its biggest conquest. The two countries have cooperated in dozens of energy and other industrial projects, and Putin and Maduro signed a new strategic partnership as recently as May 2025. 

While, on the face of it, the US action in Venezuela marked a key strategic defeat for Russia, the Kremlin’s response was somewhat muted. This is not entirely surprising. For starters, Moscow might not want to draw attention to the reputational damage suffered by its defence industry, which supplied the air defence systems over Caracas that completely failed to respond to the US threat.

The Russian reaction may also be tinged with embarrassment that the US appeared to have succeeded with such ease in removing an incumbent leader, while Russia’s attempts back in February 2022 to get rid of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky failed so spectacularly. While Maduro stood in the dock in New York, Zelensky’s Ukraine continued to repel Russian advances in a bloody war that has so far lasted almost four years and racked up one and a quarter million Russian casualties. “All of Russia is asking itself why we don’t deal with our enemies in a similar way,” wrote the prominent Russian ultranationalist Aleksandr Dugin.

But most of all, Putin must be rubbing his hands at the idea of a Donroe Doctrine. If Trump focuses more attention on Latin America, his peacemaking attempts in Ukraine and threats to put pressure on Moscow may dwindle away. It’s clear that Putin already thinks he has the upper hand in his dealings with Trump, successfully seeing off a raft of threats, deadlines and negotiations.

“Many amateur (and actual) psychiatrists have diagnosed Trump, but only Putin has successfully handled him as a ‘useful idiot’. Although he has pushed Trump too far on occasion, the man in the Kremlin feels secure in his relationship with the man in the Oval Office,” writes John Bolton, the former US national security advisor and US ambassador to the UN.

Oleksiy Sorokin, deputy chief editor of the Kyiv Independent, puts forward an alternative viewpoint. Washington’s seizure of Maduro shows the Kremlin’s weakness, he believes, exposing Russia as “a regional power overplaying its hand”. Sorokin continues, “Russia doesn’t appear to be in a strong position. Its allies are failing, its adversaries are emboldened, and its army isn’t performing. I think those in the White House are really close to getting it - ‘the Emperor has no clothes’”.

Photo by Jørgen Håland on Unsplash