How the ouster of Maduro, Russia’s ally, benefits Moscow

Russia’s response to the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been cautious, with Moscow weighing the potential geopolitical benefits and opportunities of unilateral U.S. action against the loss of an important regional ally in Latin America.

Moscow initially condemned the US strikes against Venezuela on Saturday, as well as the subsequent capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the “aggressive actions” of the United States, saying they constituted “an unacceptable attack on the sovereignty of an independent state.” But the Kremlin has not issued an official response to the ouster, nor has Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Maduro was an ally of Putin and Venezuela has long-standing ties with Russia; Caracas supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the two countries have shared energy ties and military cooperation. The allies also had a common interest in countering U.S. geopolitical, military, and economic influence in the region.

Still, Maduro’s departure is not bad news for Russia, and Moscow will likely look for ways to leverage the crisis in Venezuela for its own benefit.

First of all, the Venezuelan crisis comes at a delicate moment in Moscow’s relations with Washington. He is likely wary of cutting ties with the White House at a time when he is trying to curry favor with the administration to obtain the most favorable terms for a possible peace deal in Ukraine.

But events in Venezuela provide a welcome diversion on that front, with Russia benefiting from any relaxation of efforts – or pressure – to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, or to conclude a ceasefire as part of any deal.

While Russian forces appear to have an advantage on the battlefield, particularly in terms of numbers, and are gradually advancing in eastern Ukraine, a ceasefire does not appear to be in Russia’s interests.

“The Kremlin’s response to the US operation in Venezuela has so far been boilerplate,” analysts at the Institute for the Study of War noted Sunday, adding that the Kremlin “will likely have to balance its responses between maintaining its credibility as a partner of other states and its continued efforts to meet the needs of the Trump administration.”

Analysts have also expressed concern that Trump’s capture of Maduro and criminal charges against him could give Russia carte blanche to do the same to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom Moscow frequently describes as a “criminal” without presenting evidence to support its accusations.

“He [Trump] gives Putin permission to go as far as he wants with Zelensky,” Sarah Lenti, a political consultant and former director of the White House National Security Council, told CNBC on Monday.

“The president said Maduro was a criminal and therefore had the right to take [and] capture it. And we know that President Putin has often called Zelensky, incorrectly, I believe, a criminal. And so he sets a precedent and says it’s OK for countries to oppose the political sovereignty of another nation,” she said in comments to CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition.”

“I think this sets a very bad precedent for countries that China and Russia seek to encroach on, whether it’s Taiwan or Ukraine,” Lenti added.

Ideologically, Trump’s intervention in Venezuela and the foreign policy stance behind it — a desire to reassert U.S. power and dominance in the Western Hemisphere — resonate with Russia.

Putin is also widely seen as wanting to restore Russia’s sphere of influence in Europe and Central Asia, lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, an event Putin has described as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century.

There has been speculation that Trump’s new focus on restoring US hegemony in the West could allow Russia to do the same in its own backyard. But several analysts told CNBC that the U.S. intervention in Venezuela showed countries like Russia and Iran that Trump was willing to act if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

“What he is doing in Venezuela is certainly going to be seen and heard very clearly in Iran and Russia,” Amrita Sen, founder of Energy Aspects, told CNBC on Monday.

“Whether it’s the need to take Trump seriously, or ‘Don’t write him off when he says, ‘I’m going to do

Marko Papic, a strategist at BCA Research, argued that Russia has no negotiating leverage with the United States when it comes to allies like Venezuela.

“If the United States has carte blanche in its sphere of influence, do other great powers have carte blanche in theirs? The answer is “no”. There is nothing Russia could have offered America in Venezuela. …There was no need for any deal between Russia and the United States [as] the United States has carte blanche in its Western Hemisphere,” he stressed.

Analysts are keen to stress that Maduro’s ouster will not be welcomed in Moscow, as it removes an important ally and a bulwark against US influence and aspirations in Latin America.

“With the fall of Maduro, another client state of Russia bites the dust, reducing the value of a Kremlin security guarantee to little better than zero,” Tina Fordham, founder of Fordham Global Foresight, said in an analysis Monday.

“To make matters worse from the Kremlin’s perspective, the US operation effortlessly destroyed the vaunted Russian S-300 air defense systems that had been installed in Venezuela, after also failing to provide air protection in Syria and Iran,” she noted.

Correction: Tina Fordham is the founder of Fordham Global Foresight. An earlier version misstated the company name.