By: Jaiwant Singh Jhala, Research Analyst, GSDN
Under President Trump, US–Venezuela relations sharply deteriorated in 2025. The Trump administration escalated economic sanctions and a naval blockade targeting Venezuelan oil exports that sought to squeeze cash flows to Caracas and curb Maduro’s influence. By January 3, 2026, US special forces executed an operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture, a dramatic and rare instance of US direct intervention in a sovereign nation’s leadership. The US described it as a lawful enforcement action against a regime engaged in corruption, drug trafficking, and threats to regional security.
The operation has been celebrated by some US political circles as a strategic victory and reassertion of American power. Others have condemned it as an illegal violation of international law with dangerous precedent. One of the central concerns among international relations experts is how the Venezuela operation affects global norms regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, norms that are especially critical for Ukraine. America’s actions in Venezuela undermine the legitimacy of international law, which is precisely the framework Ukraine and its allies have invoked to denounce Russia’s full-scale invasion. Russia has repeatedly justified its own actions in Ukraine by trying to frame them as security necessities.
Critics argue that when a major power like the United States undertakes a unilateral seizure of a foreign head of state, it erodes the very rules underpinning the global order. If territorial conquest or regime change can be justified by strategic interest, regardless of law, then those norms lose persuasive force against Russian narratives. According to Ukrainian and Western analysts, weakening norms against the use of force makes it harder to rally global condemnation of Russia’s actions and reduces leverage over Moscow. Russia itself has seized on the Venezuela operation as evidence of US hypocrisy and ‘world smashing’ behaviour, which it uses rhetorically to deflect criticism of its conduct in Ukraine.
Another dimension of the debate centers on whether US involvement in Venezuela distracts US from the war in Ukraine. Critics argue that the Trump administration’s prioritization of Venezuela could divert political focus, diplomatic energy, and even military readiness from supporting Ukraine. US policymakers who might otherwise champion increased aid or sanctions against Russia are seen by some as being drawn into managing a crisis in the Western Hemisphere. Although the United States does still provide support to Ukraine, policy analysts note a perceptible shift toward transactional diplomacy and realpolitik approaches that are less focused on robust backing for Ukraine.
For example, Trump has criticized Ukraine’s position in peace talks, echoing Russian talking points that Ukraine is responsible for obstructing negotiations, a stance that aligns uncomfortably well with Russia’s narrative. The capture of Maduro undeniably deprives Russia of a longstanding ideological ally in Latin America. Caracas was one of Moscow’s few unwavering partners in the Western Hemisphere, hosting military cooperation, energy deals, and mutual diplomatic support. Some analysts argue that Venezuela’s fall underscores Russia’s overextension and failure to exercise decisive influence far from Europe, especially when compared with the US’s ability to conduct a rapidly successful operation. This contrast is used by some within the commentariat to suggest Russia’s power is waning, and that could embolden Ukraine’s backers by showing Moscow is not omnipotent internationally.
However, Russia’s reaction to the Venezuelan upheaval has been surprisingly muted, focusing rhetoric on denunciations rather than decisive countermeasures. This reticence suggests Moscow is reluctant to escalate by engaging US forces directly, preferring to keep focus on its central objective, Ukraine. Some commentators interpret this as a sign Russia is prioritizing the war in Ukraine over peripheral commitments. Nonetheless, Russia may still seek to exploit US distractions. If US remains entangled in Venezuela, Russia might calculate that US and European resolve in Eastern Europe could be more pliable. The dynamic of great-power competition often means crises in one region influence outcomes in another, and adversaries study each other’s actions for weaknesses to exploit.
One of Ukraine’s strategic needs has been to maintain and expand its diplomatic backing, especially within European alliances and global institutions. The Venezuela operation complicates this picture. Countries that supported strict norms around sovereignty may be less enthusiastic about echoing those positions if they see powerful states violating those same principles in other contexts. European leaders, for example, have been cautious in their reactions to the Venezuelan action, aware that endorsing it outright would weaken the argument against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine’s war effort depends not only on military supplies but also on unity among Western nations.
A key risk is fracturing that coalition if members perceive US leadership drifting toward unilateral action that disregards shared norms. Moscow is likely attuned to such fractures and may seek to exploit ambivalence or divisions within NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and European partners. At the same time, some experts argue that bold US assertiveness could signal to Russia that US is willing to use force when its interests are challenged. This could potentially strengthen deterrence by showing that aggression carries risks. The Venezuela situation also intersects with global energy markets, an important factor in the Ukraine war. Russia relies heavily on energy revenue to finance its military campaign. Venezuela has some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and disruptions to its production affect global prices.
Sanctions and US actions in Venezuela have choked off some oil exports, which tightens global supply and tends to raise prices, an outcome that indirectly benefits energy exporters such as Russia. Higher oil prices have historically boosted Russia’s revenues, helping to underwrite its war economy even under Western sanctions.
If the United States can eventually stabilize Venezuela’s oil sector under a government willing to cooperate with the West, the global supply picture could improve over time. Increased output from Venezuela could depress prices, reducing Russian revenue streams. But that outcome is far from guaranteed and depends on how Venezuelan politics evolve post-Maduro. Despite many concerns, some analysts see potential indirect benefits for Ukraine arising from the Venezuela episode. The fact that the United States successfully intervened militarily where Russia could not could, in theory, undermine narratives of Russian omnipotence. This narrative, if amplified effectively, can sow doubt in Russia’s strategic calculus and domestic legitimacy. If Venezuela becomes a precedent for US willingness to confront authoritarian regimes, even Putin’s allies, it could signal that America’s resolve on security issues remains strong. Given that deterrence in the Ukraine context partly rests on perceptions of continued US commitment, there may be a psychological or geopolitical benefit to such boldness. However, this interpretation depends on how the intervention is perceived globally, and whether allies see it as legitimate or reckless.
The Venezuelan operation may weaken the universal appeal of international norms that have been central to condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This could blunt diplomatic pressure on Moscow and complicate narrative battles in global institutions. US focus on Venezuela might divert political and diplomatic attention from Ukraine, reducing the bandwidth available for coalition-building and sustained pressure on Russia. Russia may leverage the Venezuela scenario to cast doubt on the consistency of Western commitments, even as some analysts see potential in exposing Russian limitations. The impact on alliances is nuanced, as European caution and global reactions will partly determine whether the Venezuela action strengthens or weakens broader US leadership against Russia.
While the direct connection between Venezuela and the Ukraine war may seem remote, the broader systemic consequences in norms, alliances, and geopolitical perception make the Venezuelan action potentially consequential for Ukraine’s position. The net effect is mixed and likely to evolve over time, depending as much on how US, Ukraine, Russia and Europe respond in the coming months as on the original policy itself.
