Trump’s Venezuela Doctrine Gives Putin and Xi a Free Hand

Spread love

Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis warns that Trump’s Venezuela move legitimises Russian and Chinese spheres of influence—and quietly demotes America from a global power to a regional one.

By TRH World Desk

New Delhi, January 9, 2026 — When former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis sounds the alarm, the world should listen—especially Washington.

Reacting to Donald Trump’s actions on Venezuela, Landsbergis cuts through the complacent narrative that this policy might merely “give ideas” to Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. His conclusion is far more damning: Trump is not deterring authoritarian powers; he is validating the very “multipolar world” doctrine Russia and China have been pushing for decades.

For Vladimir Putin, the idea of a Russian “sphere of interest” has never been subtle. “Long before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin openly declared its intention to rewrite Europe’s post–Cold War security architecture,” wrote Landsbergis in his website. He argued that “Ukraine was not an aberration; it was the logical outcome of a worldview that sees neighbouring sovereign states as negotiable pieces on a geopolitical chessboard.”

China’s ambitions are no different in structure, only geography. “The ‘nine-dash line’ in the South China Sea, persistent pressure on Taiwan, and confrontations with Japan and the Philippines all signal the same principle: Beijing claims a zone of dominance where international law bends to imperial will,” he added.

What Trump is offering, Landsbergis argues, is not a bold new doctrine. It is something far more dangerous—the legitimisation of this approach. “By framing Venezuela through a revived Monroe Doctrine logic, Trump effectively tells Moscow and Beijing that great powers are entitled to dominate their neighbourhoods,” stressed Landsbergis.

The consequences are immediate and profound. Putin and Xi no longer need to disguise their ambitions in defensive rhetoric. “They can now claim moral and strategic symmetry with the United States. If Washington asserts hemispheric primacy, why shouldn’t Russia control Eastern Europe—or China the Western Pacific,” asked Landsbergis.

Even more damaging is the signal sent to America’s adversaries: the United States is content to be a regional power. “In geopolitical terms, perception is reality. If rivals interpret this posture as a retreat from global leadership, they will not pause—they will accelerate,” added Landsbergis.

Expansionist projects long pursued with caution will be advanced with confidence, he warned. Landsbergis exposes the central flaw in Trump’s thinking with a stark metaphor: “If you destroy 50 percent of your castle walls, you reduce your security by 100 percent.”

A “one hemisphere” America does not become safer, he warned. “It becomes predictable, constrained, and strategically smaller,” added Landsbergis. His grim warning to the US was blunt: global threats do not respect regional boundaries, and global influence cannot be defended by voluntary withdrawal.

“The irony is brutal. A doctrine meant to project strength ends up weakening U.S. security, emboldening authoritarian powers, and hollowing out the very idea of a rules-based international order,” added Landsbergis.

If this path continues, Landsbergis stated that history will not remember it as strategic realism—but as an unforced surrender of global leadership.