Trump’s ‘Power Moves’ Leave Putin Silent: Why Russia Isn’t Retaliating Despite US ‘Aggression’

Trump’s aggressive moves in Venezuela, Greenland and beyond stun the world, while Putin and the Kremlin hold an unusually cautious silence, signalling careful calculations at a time of rising global tensions.

New Delhi: For many years, any show of American military power outside the United States led to an immediate and angry response from Russia. That familiar pattern looks absent at the beginning of 2026. Washington celebrated the capture of Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro, seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker and issued threats over control of Greenland. The Kremlin responded with restraint. Russian state commentators followed the same line. The silence stood out.

This calm hints at change in stand for a government that long presented itself as a defender against Western-led regime change and asset seizures. Moscow invested heavily in places such as Venezuela and the Arctic to counter American influence. President Vladimir Putin offered no public remarks on these developments. His only public appearance since the new year came during a televised Orthodox Christmas service on January 6. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov and major state television channels also avoided sustained discussion during the holiday period.

The restraint appeared deliberate. Moscow seemed keen to avoid damaging fragile talks with Washington over Ukraine. US President Donald Trump opened 2026 with a dramatic show of force. Orders went out for Maduro to be taken into custody and flown to New York on drug trafficking charges. Statements followed describing Venezuela as temporarily under American control.

Russian state television reduced current affairs programming during the holidays, though analysts close to official media framed Maduro’s removal as serving Russian interests. Some online commentary suggested that American dominance in its own sphere legitimised similar ambitions elsewhere.

Pro-Kremlin voices described these actions as a working example of a new US national security doctrine released the previous December. Russian officials praised that document, especially its focus on spheres of influence and the special rights of major powers.

Foreign policy analysts close to the Kremlin pointed to this strategy while explaining Washington’s behaviour, adding that influence zones were once again becoming central to global politics.

Senior Russian lawmakers acknowledged discomfort at a strategic level while expressing confidence about long-term gains. Messages on social platforms talked about reduced external pressure and new room for manoeuvre on the global stage. Some commentators even expressed grudging admiration for the speed and decisiveness of Washington’s actions, a style Russia once imagined for itself in Ukraine before that conflict became a prolonged war entering its fifth year.

Behind the messaging sat a simpler reality. Maduro’s arrest delivered a blow to Moscow. Russia invested heavily in Venezuela for decades. Resources and attention diverted to Ukraine weakened its position there. Analysts specialising in Eurasian security assessed that Moscow avoided criticism because the Kremlin had no desire to anger Trump. Larger priorities loomed. The central aim involved influencing Trump’s stance on Ukraine or preventing a fully hostile turn. That approach showed signs of success over the past year. Maintaining it mattered.

Foreign policy voices in Moscow echoed the same assessment. Secondary theatres such as Venezuela held less weight than relations with Washington. Ukraine was the core issue.

On January 6, Russia’s foreign ministry welcomed the appointment of Venezuela’s interim leader Delcy Rodríguez. The statement framed the move as a step toward stability under external pressure. Emphasis followed on Venezuela’s right to decide its own future free from destructive outside interference. The United States went unnamed.

The seizure of the Russian-flagged tanker Marinerа drew another measured response. Moscow requested the safe return of Russian crew members. Officials stated that agreement came quickly. Criticism focussed on violations of international maritime law and the boarding of a Russian-owned vessel on the high seas. Demands for the tanker’s return never surfaced. No threats of force appeared, despite reports of Russian naval presence in the area. Retaliation against American or other foreign vessels received no official mention.

Hardline voices reacted angrily. Accusations of weakness circulated. Calls for military retaliation appeared in public statements and Telegram channels. Some argued that seizing a tanker in neutral waters amounted to an attack. Others framed naval blockades as acts of war. None of this rhetoric influenced official policy.

Greenland added another layer. Earlier statements from the Kremlin indicated close monitoring of developments. US claims over the Danish territory were described as a bilateral matter between Washington and Copenhagen. When Trump repeated his intention to control Greenland on January 7, Moscow issued no formal response. Pro-Russian commentators appeared almost pleased. They framed the move as proof of European weakness and used it to justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Putin’s special envoy posted his statement online, mocking European hesitation and hinting at future ambitions elsewhere. The tone signalled approval of power-based politics. Risks still existed. Russia invested heavily in Arctic military and economic infrastructure. Putin pledged to strengthen Russia’s global leadership role there. His foreign policy concept ranked the Arctic second only to relations with former Soviet states, including Ukraine.

As normal work resumed on January 12, expectations grew that Putin would eventually address the geopolitical turbulence of the holiday period. For now, channels between Moscow and Washington are open. Trump’s foreign policy moves did not appear to close doors. Silence, in this moment, served a purpose.