Yaren Çolak Imperialist aggression reared its head once again in the early days of 2026. Following the forced detention of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, US President Donald Trump unleashed a wave of threats extending from regional countries to Iran. This intervention, which descended upon the streets of Caracas, was the latest manifestation of the desire to design the world with bombs. The tension between the US and Venezuela stems from Hugo Chavez's rise to power in 1999 and his challenge to the Monroe Doctrine, which Washington views as its ‘backyard’ in Latin America. The crisis, which deepened in 2019 during the post-Chavez Maduro era with Juan Guaidó's declaration as ‘interim president,’ has now reached a military threshold. From Moscow's perspective, Venezuela represents a strategic stronghold established within the US's sphere of absolute influence through energy and defence cooperation. Therefore, any move against Venezuela is seen as a direct attack on Russia's sphere of influence in the region. QUESTIONS REMAIN ON THE RUSSIAN FRONT To view the US attack on Venezuela and Maduro's abduction merely as a violation of law obscures the true dimensions of the issue. In Turkey, the mainstream media has opted for its usual reflex of following a Western-centric agenda on this issue too, content to reproduce the narrative served up by Washington rather than questioning what is happening. However, looking at this picture from Moscow rather than the West opens up a completely different discussion. In the Russian press and political discourse, the debate quickly shifted from the question ‘What did the US do?’ to ‘Why couldn't Russia prevent this, what happened inside Venezuela, and who was eliminated?’ Imperialist aggression carried out through South American countries is directly Russia's concern... THE ISSUE IS NOT JUST CARACAS Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov's description of this intervention as a return to 19th-century imperialism actually sums up the general sentiment in Moscow. Two main lines emerged in the Russian press: the rapid collapse of the Venezuelan state apparatus and the questioning of Russia's deterrence limits in light of this collapse. From 3 January onwards, Russian newspapers ran headlines such as ‘Who sold out?’ and ‘Where did we go wrong?’, with the prevailing view being that the events had dealt a heavy blow to Russia's standing in the world. The issue was no longer just what was happening in Venezuela, but what Russia could and could not do. Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev described the situation on 4 January as ‘the law of the strongest’ (lex fortissimum). Medvedev's question, ‘Can they govern Venezuela from afar?’, was actually an indirect criticism of Russia's own capacity. The Kommersant newspaper addressed the issue alongside Ukraine and Gaza. This interpretation indicated that Venezuela was not an isolated crisis, but rather a global picture in which Russia was being tested on multiple fronts simultaneously. Amidst these heated debates, it was striking that the Russian Foreign Ministry considered Delcy Rodriguez's assumption of the role of interim president following Maduro's detention to be a ‘legal’ step. The politicians' statements about ‘lawlessness’ and “aggression” were seen by the public as ‘insufficient’ responses. The fundamental question in Moscow also hinged on this: As a power positioned against the US on a global scale, why did Russia settle for such a limited response in this challenge? GLOBAL CLAIMS AND THE NARRATIVE OF DETERRENCE Experts seeking answers to this question, while discussing different scenarios, converged on a common point: in Venezuela, the limits of Russia's global claims and military-political deterrence were exposed. Analyses appearing in the Russian press, particularly in opposition newspapers, characterised Moscow's current policy and stance as a sign of weakness in foreign policy. The failure of diplomatic condemnations to change the situation on the ground subjected Russian foreign policy to a barrage of criticism within the country as well. For Russia, Venezuela is not merely the loss of a distant ally; it is a serious turning point where both its prestige on the global stage has been shaken and the narrative of a ‘strong state’ is being questioned internally. Moscow now has to contend not only with imperialist manoeuvres external to the country, but also with this rising sense of ‘inadequacy’ regarding its own strategic capacity. Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Moskova’nın Venezuela sınavı , published in BirGün newspaper on January 8, 2026.