President Vladimir Putin is often quick to criticize the West, positioning Russia as a supportive ally of the Global South. However, amidst a series of international crises affecting regimes friendly to Moscow, his reactions have been noticeably restrained or entirely absent.
For instance, Putin has yet to publicly address the recent swift U.S. operation to apprehend Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He also refrained from issuing a strong response on behalf of Iran when former President Donald Trump suggested possible military action against the nation amid protests.
Analysts suggest that this silence reflects Russia’s preoccupation with the ongoing war in Ukraine and a cautious approach to not provoke the United States—an attitude that could risk alienating long-term allies and undermining trust in Russia.
With Putin remaining silent, the Russian Foreign Ministry has stepped in to provide soft condemnations in these situations. They stated, “This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela,” referring to Maduro’s extradition to New York on drug trafficking charges. They further expressed alarm at this action, describing it as “deeply concerning and condemnable.”
Soon after, the Ministry issued another statement advocating for Venezuela to maintain its sovereignty and to determine its own fate “without destructive external interference,” although without directly naming the U.S.
What stands out about these recent incidents is how drastically they differ from Putin’s typical reactions. In 2019, amid a crisis in Venezuela linked to disputed election outcomes with U.S. support for Maduro’s opponent, the Kremlin publicly summarized a conversation between Putin and Maduro, where he denounced “destructive external interference” as a violation of international law.
This time, when global leaders criticized Maduro’s capture as a breach of sovereignty, Putin remained silent. Julian Waller, a professor at George Washington University and a Russia analyst at CNA, remarked, “His tendency has been to deliberate for a significant period before he makes decisions or translates them into public statements.”
Another factor may be Putin’s reluctance to promote a narrative that could expose Russia’s weakened support for its global allies. Political commentator Andrey Pertsev pointed out that the Kremlin seems to be adhering to a familiar strategy: remaining silent in the face of an embarrassing setback and hoping the issue fades from public attention.
Since the early 2000s, Putin has frequently utilized the term “color revolution” to describe the idea that the West instigates democratic uprisings in nations favorable to the Kremlin through paid protesters, Western-supported NGOs, and disruptive youth movements. He referenced this concept as recently as 2022, when Russian forces intervened in Kazakhstan to curb civil unrest.
While framing Maduro’s capture as a “color revolution” would be a challenge for even Putin, recent developments in Iran have closely aligned with this narrative. Significant anti-government protests have erupted in Iran—another crucial ally of Russia in both diplomatic and military realms—since late December. Following a brutal crackdown resulting in numerous casualties, Trump briefly mentioned military intervention but later withdrew the idea.
Putin’s involvement in this situation has been limited to a phone call with the leaders of Israel and Iran, where he offered to assist in finding a diplomatic resolution, lacking the harsh criticisms and threats of military action that might have characterized his past responses.
This shift in approach indicates a change in Russia’s foreign policy focus, according to Waller, who noted that Putin seems eager to avoid antagonizing Washington while seeking leverage in Ukraine negotiations. He explained, “There’s a sense that they want to tread lightly around the U.S., as the American decision-making process can be particularly sensitive to slights.”
Waller also warned that Putin’s lack of public support for the Iranian regime could foster skepticism among factions in Iran’s elite who are already suspicious of Moscow. “The absence of Russian backing could have significant implications if the regime endures,” he noted.
For observers, these recent events resonate with Russia’s response to the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in December 2024. After rebel forces overtook government positions, Assad and his family sought refuge in Moscow. This was a significant reputational blow for Russia, which had invested years in bolstering Assad’s rule—only to see it collapse.
Putin offered little recognition of the fact that a key ally had fallen, asserting that the regime’s demise didn’t equate to Russia failing in its objectives in Syria. Since then, he has appeared to distance himself from the narrative surrounding the Assad family’s exile.
The Assad family has maintained a low profile since their relocation to Moscow, with reports indicating that Russian authorities have prevented the former Syrian leader from engaging with the media, and he has not made any public appearances with Putin.
