Russia, America, and the New Rules of Intervention: A Shifting Global Order
The recent events in Venezuela, where a perceived attempt to remove Nicolás Maduro unfolded with notable U.S. involvement, haven’t just reshaped the political landscape of South America. They’ve sent ripples through the Kremlin, prompting a quiet but significant reassessment of Russia’s own foreign policy strategies. While official statements from Moscow have been restrained, analysis suggests a complex mix of frustration and, surprisingly, a degree of strategic calculation.
The Kremlin’s Discomfort: A Mirror to Ukraine?
The speed and decisiveness of the U.S. action in Venezuela – or the *perception* of speed and decisiveness – clearly struck a nerve. As reported by POLITICO, Russian hardliners openly questioned why Moscow doesn’t adopt a similar approach in its own sphere of influence. Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent neo-imperialist philosopher, explicitly called for Russia to “do it better than Trump, and faster.” Even Margarita Simonyan, a Kremlin mouthpiece, admitted to a sense of “jealousy.”
This reaction is particularly poignant given Russia’s experience in Ukraine. Putin’s initial aim in 2014 – and arguably still a long-term goal – was a swift regime change in Kyiv, replacing Zelenskyy with a pro-Kremlin leader. Four years later, the conflict remains unresolved, a stark contrast to the (attempted) surgical operation in Venezuela. This disparity highlights a critical difference: the U.S. enjoys a level of military projection and regional influence that Russia currently lacks.
Beyond Embarrassment: Unexpected Benefits for Moscow
However, the Kremlin’s response isn’t solely driven by envy. Bobo Lo, a former deputy head of the Australia mission in Moscow and author of “Russia and the New World Disorder,” argues that the U.S. intervention, while embarrassing, offers several unintended benefits to Russia. He suggests it diverts attention from Ukraine, reduces pressure on Putin to compromise, legitimizes the use of force in pursuing national interests, and undermines the “rules-based international order” – a concept Russia has long challenged.
This last point is crucial. The U.S. action provides Russia with ammunition to argue that if Washington can intervene in its “backyard,” Moscow is equally justified in acting in its “near abroad” – a justification frequently used to defend its actions in Ukraine and Georgia. Fiona Hill, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institute, echoed this sentiment in the New York Times, highlighting the double standard Russia will exploit.
The Rise of Pragmatic Interventionism?
The Venezuela situation isn’t an isolated incident. We’re witnessing a potential shift towards a more pragmatic, and potentially more assertive, form of interventionism globally. The traditional constraints of international law and sovereignty are being increasingly challenged by powerful nations pursuing their perceived strategic interests. Consider China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, or the increasing use of private military companies by various states to conduct operations below the threshold of open warfare.
Did you know? The use of private military companies (PMCs) has increased by over 300% in the last decade, according to a report by the International Peace Institute.
This trend is fueled by several factors: the decline of U.S. hegemony, the rise of multipolarity, and a growing disillusionment with international institutions. States are increasingly willing to bypass these institutions and act unilaterally, or through proxies, to achieve their goals. This creates a more unstable and unpredictable international environment.
Implications for the Future: A More Fragmented World
Looking ahead, we can expect to see:
- Increased Competition for Influence: Great power competition will intensify, particularly in strategically important regions like Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.
- A Rise in Proxy Conflicts: States will increasingly rely on proxies – non-state actors, PMCs, or allied governments – to advance their interests, avoiding direct military confrontation.
- Erosion of International Norms: The principles of sovereignty and non-intervention will continue to be eroded, leading to a more fragmented and anarchic international system.
- Focus on Hybrid Warfare: States will increasingly employ hybrid warfare tactics – combining conventional military capabilities with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion – to achieve their objectives.
Pro Tip: Understanding the geopolitical dynamics of key regions is crucial for businesses operating internationally. Conduct thorough risk assessments and develop contingency plans to mitigate potential disruptions.
FAQ: Navigating the New Interventionist Landscape
- Q: Is this a return to Cold War-style geopolitics?
A: Not exactly. While great power competition is increasing, the current landscape is more complex and multipolar than the Cold War era. - Q: What role will international organizations play in this new environment?
A: Their role will likely be diminished, as states are increasingly willing to act unilaterally. However, they may still serve as forums for dialogue and negotiation. - Q: How will this affect smaller nations?
A: Smaller nations will be more vulnerable to external interference and will need to carefully navigate the competing interests of great powers.
The events in Venezuela serve as a stark reminder that the international order is in flux. Russia’s reaction, a blend of frustration and strategic calculation, offers a glimpse into the evolving dynamics of great power competition. The future will likely be characterized by increased interventionism, a fragmentation of international norms, and a more unpredictable global landscape.
Want to learn more? Explore our articles on geopolitical risk analysis and the future of international security.
Related reading