Introduction
Global politics operates on a logic that often defies moral absolutes: today’s adversary can be tomorrow’s partner, and yesterday’s ally can quickly become a threat. This fluidity is most visible in the phenomenon CISA analysts described as “your enemy is my friend,” where states form alliances not because of shared values but because of shared adversaries. This logic is not merely opportunistic, it is strategic, allowing nations to expand their influence, counterbalance rivals, and secure their interests on the global stage. Few cases illustrate this dynamic as vividly as the triangular relationship between Venezuela, Russia, and the United States. For decades, Venezuela was a key U.S. partner in the Western Hemisphere, supplying oil and enjoying close diplomatic ties (Sullivan, 2024). This relationship unraveled after the rise of Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which recast Venezuela as an anti-imperialist state determined to resist Washington’s dominance (Buxton, 2019). Since then, tensions have escalated, culminating in open hostility, contested elections, and sweeping U.S. sanctions designed to isolate Caracas economically and diplomatically (Department of States, n.d). Into this breach stepped Russia. For Moscow, supporting Venezuela offers more than an opportunity to expand its influence in Latin America, it is a chance to challenge U.S. hegemony in its own “near abroad.” (Atlantic Council, 2019; Blank & Kim, 2015). By aligning with Venezuela, Russia engages in what researchers call symbolic reciprocity: a geopolitical counter-move designed to remind Washington that Moscow, too, can project power close to its rival’s borders (Lugo, 2025; Rouvinski & Jeifets, 2022). This creates a global feedback loop where actions in one region reverberate across continents, intensifying competition and raising the stakes of international diplomacy.
This article explores the geopolitical logic of “your enemy is my friend” by analysing the Venezuela-Russia-U.S. triangle. It examines why Moscow has chosen to back Caracas despite the risks, how this partnership serves as a mirror response to U.S. actions in Eastern Europe, and what this means for global stability. Importantly, it also considers the implications for Africa, where similar dynamics are unfolding as states navigate competing offers of partnership from Western nations, Russia, and China. By unpacking this case, the article seeks to show how proxy politics and symbolic reciprocity are reshaping global alignments and forcing smaller states to recalibrate their foreign policy strategies.
Historical Background: From Partnership to Polarisation
Venezuela’s relationship with the United States has historically been shaped by oil (Big-Alabo & Okafor, 2021). For most of the 20th century, the U.S. was Venezuela’s largest customer, and Caracas was a reliable ally in the Western Hemisphere. The discovery of massive oil reserves turned Venezuela into one of the world’s largest energy exporters, and its government enjoyed preferential trade relations with Washington. The turning point came with the rise of Hugo Chávez in 1999. Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution promised not only to redistribute wealth domestically but also to challenge U.S. influence abroad (Buxton, 2020). He cultivated ties with Cuba, Iran, and eventually Russia, positioning Venezuela as part of a global front against what he called U.S. imperialism. When the United States expressed support for a failed coup attempt in 2002 and later imposed sanctions targeting Venezuelan officials, Caracas doubled down on its anti-Western foreign policy (The Guardian, 2002; The Tricontinental, 2023).
This realignment turned Venezuela into a natural partner for Russia, which was seeking to expand its global footprint after years of post-Soviet retrenchment. The relationship became more formalised during Nicolás Maduro’s presidency, particularly after Washington recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019. For Moscow, supporting Maduro was a way to demonstrate that United State led regime change efforts would not go unchallenged.Russia’s involvement in Venezuela is not driven by ideology alone. It is a calculated geopolitical maneuver aimed at countering U.S. pressure near its own borders, particularly in Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space. This is where symbolic reciprocity becomes central: by supporting a government hostile to Washington just miles from U.S. shores, Russia signals that it can play by the same rules the West plays in Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics.
Moscow has extended loans to Caracas, helped restructure its debt, and provided military support in the form of advisers, technicians, and joint exercises. Russian oil giant Rosneft became instrumental in keeping Venezuela’s energy sector afloat despite U.S. sanctions. Even symbolic act, like the landing of Russian bombers in Venezuela in 2018, carried a clear message: Russia can project power in America’s traditional sphere of influence. This engagement also serves domestic purposes for Russia. It reinforces the narrative promoted by the Kremlin that Russia is a great power capable of resisting U.S. dominance and building an alternative world order. For many in Moscow, the Venezuelan partnership is less about the country itself and more about challenging a unipolar system. Washington has responded with a mix of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and covert pressure on Caracas. The U.S. seeks to protect its traditional dominance in the Western Hemisphere, arguing that Venezuela’s authoritarian drift and economic collapse threaten regional stability. However, its approach has had mixed results. Sanctions have deepened Venezuela’s economic crisis but have not toppled Maduro’s government; instead, they have pushed Caracas closer to Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.
This creates a paradox: the more Washington tries to isolate Venezuela, the more it incentivizes alternative alliances. This mirrors Russia’s own experience with Western sanctions after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, where economic pressure failed to reverse Moscow’s behavior but instead reinforced its turn toward China and the Global South. In both cases, pressure policies have produced unintended consequences, suggesting that geopolitics operates on a logic of escalation rather than resolution.
Implications for Africa: A New Arena of Proxy Politics
The Venezuela-Russia-U.S. triangle is not an isolated case; it offers important lessons for Africa, where similar dynamics are taking shape. Across the continent, governments are navigating offers of military aid, infrastructure investment, and political backing from competing powers, the U.S., European Union, China, and increasingly Russia through groups like Wagner (now rebranded as part of the Russian state’s security apparatus). African states, particularly the Alliance of Sahelian States, risk becoming the next stage for symbolic reciprocity, where great powers test each other’s resolve. Just as Venezuela became a platform for Russia to respond to U.S. actions elsewhere, Africa is becoming a stage where geopolitical competition plays out through security partnerships, mining concessions, and information campaigns. This has profound implications: while it can provide African states with leverage and bargaining power, it can also trap them in cycles of dependency and make them pawns in global rivalries. For Africa to benefit from these shifting alliances, policymakers must move beyond reactive diplomacy and develop long-term strategies that prioritize sovereignty, economic diversification, and regional cooperation. Otherwise, the continent risks repeating Venezuela’s experience, caught between global powers and paying the price for a conflict not of its own making.
Conclusion
The case of Venezuela highlights a crucial reality in contemporary geopolitics: alliances are rarely about shared values and more often about shared enemies. The maxim “your enemy is my friend” captures the logic that underpins Russia’s embrace of Maduro, just as it explains Washington’s support for opposition figures who challenge Chavista rule. This is not a morality play but a contest for influence, where the survival of regimes, access to resources, and control of strategic narratives matter far more than democratic ideals or humanitarian concerns. This dynamic exposes the paradox of tolerance in international relations: while liberal democracies preach a rules-based order, they are quick to suspend those rules when their strategic interests are threatened. Conversely, authoritarian regimes like Russia’s claim to defend sovereignty but interfere in the domestic politics of others when it serves their purpose. The result is a global order in which principles are secondary to power.
For Africa, this is both a warning and an opportunity. The continent is becoming a new arena where the logic of symbolic reciprocity may intensify, from Russian military partnerships in the Sahel to U.S. counterterrorism initiatives and China’s infrastructure diplomacy. African governments must therefore resist the temptation to be mere chess pieces in a wider great-power game. Instead, they should leverage competing offers to strengthen domestic institutions, promote regional integration, and ensure that alliances serve the long-term interests of their citizens. Ultimately, the Venezuela-Russia-U.S. triangle reminds us that geopolitical friendships are conditional, transactional, and easily reversible. In an era of renewed great-power rivalry, smaller states must develop the strategic foresight to turn global competition into an advantage, rather than a trap.
Reference
Atlantic Council,. (2019). Russia. www.atlanticcouncil.org. September 17, 2025. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/russias-intervention-in-venezuela-whats-at-stake/
Big-Alabo, D., & Okafor , N. (2021). United States-Venezuela Relations and EconomicDevelopment From 2017-2020. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (I, 5(6), 135-145.
Blank, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). Russia and Latin America: The New Frontier for Geopolitics, Arms Sales and Energy. Problems of Post-Communism, 62(3), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2015.1019817
Buxton, J. (2019). Continuity and change in Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. Third World Quarterly, 41(8), 1371–1387. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1653179
Department of State ,. Venezuela-Related Sanctions – United States Department of State. www.state.gov. September 17, 2025. https://www.state.gov/venezuela-related-sanctions
Lugo, O. (2025). Putin and Maduro. americasquarterly.org. September 17, 2025. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/putin-and-maduros-perfect-harmony-tests-trumps-watch/
Rouvinski, V., & Jeifets, V. (2022). Rethinking Post-Cold War Russian–Latin American Relations. Taylor & Francis.
Sullivan, M. P. (2024). Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations. refworld.org. https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/uscrs/2014/en/98569
The Guardian,. (2002). Venezuela coup linked to Bush team | World news | The Guardian. www.theguardian.com. September 17, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
The tricontinental. (2023). The Strategic Revolutionary Thought and Legacy of Hugo Chávez .. thetricontinental.org. September 17, 2025. https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-61-chavez/
