Putin, Trump, and the Resurgence of Great‑Power Imperialism: From Ukraine and Venezuela to a Call for Democratic Global Governance

Breaking: Global Powers Redraw Imperial Boundaries as Democratic Global Governance Moves to the Fore

in a striking turn of events, major powers are tilting toward distinct imperial spheres while calls for democratic global governance gain traction. The parallel trend signals a renewed preoccupation with influence, security and the limits of international law.

two Leaders, One Shared Habit: Restoring great-Power Leverage

Observers note a convergence in approach between two long-standing rivals. Each has leveraged military power and nationalistic narratives to pursue strategic aims abroad. In recent years, Moscow has framed its actions in Ukraine as a bid to protect Russian security from Western encroachment. In parallel, Washington has pursued policy moves aimed at reordering regional influence, with a focus on countering regimes it brands as threats to U.S.security. The underlying pattern is a turn to customary imperial logic, even as the global order has slowly built protections against such moves.

Both leaders have moved cautiously to avoid direct confrontation with one another, opting instead to define overlapping yet distinct zones of control. In public discourse,Moscow’s posture toward Europe and Kyiv contrasts with Washington’s posture toward Latin america,creating a de facto corridor of influence that some describe as a modernized version of great-power bargaining.

new U.S. Strategy signals a Shift in spheres

In December, the White House released a National Security Strategy that outlines a framework for the United States to operate in a world where great powers carve out separate imperial domains. Officials emphasize renewed engagement with Russia on strategic stability, while urging partners to press ahead with terms deemed acceptable to U.S. interests in Europe. The document critics European blocs for obstructing paths to a Ukrainian settlement and calls for a recalibrated balance that prioritizes American leadership in Western Hemisphere affairs.

Ultimately, the strategy signals Washington’s preference for a regional order in which Latin America and the broader Americas fall within U.S. influence, while Europe aligns with Washington’s assessment of security threats. Russia, meanwhile, welcomes the recalibrated posture as an possibility to consolidate its own regional sway.

Russian officials publicly welcomed the U.S. shift, framing it as a step in a direction compatible with Moscow’s strategic aims. The official stance underscores a shared view that the current international landscape favors powers that can project force and shape outcomes in their favor.

Venezuela and Ukraine: A common Playbook in Action

Across continents, the same playbook appears: deter resistance, then consolidate influence through a mix of diplomacy and force. Ukraine’s path toward independence from what Moscow viewed as a threat to regional order mirrors Venezuela’s struggle with external pressure and domestic legitimacy. In both cases, the external powers have signaled readiness to intervene as a last resort, while emphasizing diplomatic channels and regional stability as aims worthy of pursuit.

Oil,security calculations and the desire to manage adjacent regions are central to these strategies. While Moscow has supplied support to allied governments in the past, it has shown restraint in meeting some new requests for military hardware amid ongoing tensions. Washington’s posture has emphasized deterrence and the protection of energy interests as leverage in hemispheric affairs.

From Confrontation to Reform: How to Reinvent Global Governance

The return of rough power politics challenges decades of international-law progress. Yet a path forward remains visible through strengthened democratic institutions and legal mechanisms. Advocates argue for expanding the reach and legitimacy of global governance beyond today’s veto-bound Security Council and toward more representative, rules-based oversight.

Key reform avenues include empowering regional and global bodies to enforce norms without being blocked by vetoes. Proposals emphasize extending jurisdiction to international courts and increasing the role of citizen representatives in decision-making processes.The aim is to curb impunity and make collective security more accountable to people, not just to states.

Conceptually, reform also envisions broadening participation in accountability mechanisms and increasing the number of states bound by internationally recognized criminal law. Critics warn that reforms must be carefully designed to preserve stability while reducing the potential for major powers to dominate outcomes.

Table: Key Actors, Positions and Reform Avenues

Aspect	Actor/Proposal	Current Posture	Potential Impact
Imperial Strategy	Russia and the United States	Pursue distinct spheres of influence with limited direct confrontation	Redefined regional orders; increased risk of destabilization if mismanaged
Security Policy	National Security Strategy (U.S.)	Advocates strategic stability with Russia; prioritizes western Hemisphere leadership	Guides diplomacy while enabling regional deterrence; could deepen divides if not inclusive
Democratic Governance	UN Security Council reforms	Veto power entrenched; limited reform momentum	Greater legitimacy and faster responses to modern threats
Global Accountability	ICC and Rome Statute	125 states party; major powers outside the system	Stronger rule of law; reduced immunity for wrongdoing on the world stage

Evergreen Insight: A Realistic Path Toward Safer global order

While power politics persist, the long arc of international law offers a durable counterweight. strengthening democratic institutions, expanding accountability mechanisms, and widening participation in global decision-making can reduce the appeal of unilateral action. The core idea remains: a world where rules and institutions have real teeth is less prone to chaos than one ruled by force alone.

For readers seeking a broader view, consult credible sources on current strategy, international law and parliamentary oversight, including analyses from major outlets and official documents from the U.S. governance and international bodies. BBC coverage offers context on official statements, while the U.S. national Security Strategy outlines the administration’s framework for governance in a volatile era. For legal avenues, see the ICC and the Rome Statute, and for a primer on the UN charter and reforms, visit the UN Charter overview.

Reader questions

• Question 1: Should the United Nations Security Council’s veto power be limited or reformed to curb great-power dominance?
• Question 2: Can democratic global governance-through expanded ICJ jurisdiction and a stronger UN Parliamentary Assembly-prove more effective at preventing conflicts than traditional power politics?

What do you think? Share your views in the comments and join the conversation about shaping a more accountable,rules-based world order.

Engage with us: Do you see a viable pathway to democratic global governance that can coexist with strong national security? How would you prioritize reforms to deter aggression while safeguarding stability?

Resource‑rich regions (energy in Ukraine and oil in Venezuela) and maintaining spheres of influence against perceived encirclement.

1. Past Roots of Great‑Power Imperialism

• 19th‑century balance‑of‑power politics – The Concert of Europe established a precedent for major states to intervene in weaker nations to preserve thier own strategic interests.
• Cold War legacy – super‑power rivalry entrenched the idea that global influence can be bought,sold,or seized through proxy wars,military aid,and economic coercion.
• Post‑1991 resurgence – With the collapse of bipolarity, the United States and Russia have each pursued “regional hegemony” projects that echo classic imperial tactics, now amplified by digital disinformation and hybrid warfare.

2. Vladimir Putin’s Imperial Playbook in Ukraine

Year	Key Action	Strategic Objective	Outcome
2014	Annexation of Crimea	Secure Black Sea naval base; signal willingness to redraw borders	International sanctions; de‑facto control of peninsula
2022‑2025	Full‑scale invasion of Ukraine	Prevent NATO eastward expansion; create a “land bridge” to Russian‑aligned states	Stalemated front lines; massive civilian casualties; unprecedented Western military aid to Ukraine
2023	“Donbas Integration” referendums	Legitimise de‑facto annexation under the guise of self‑determination	Limited recognition (Russia, Belarus, few allied parliaments)

– Hybrid tactics: cyber attacks on Ukrainian power grids, disinformation campaigns on social media, and the use of “private military companies” (e.g., Wagner Group) to blur state duty.

• Economic levers: exploitation of energy exports to Europe as a bargaining chip, leveraging the “energy weapon” narrative during winter months.

3. Donald Trump’s Neo‑Imperial Approach

• “America First” ideology – Prioritised unilateral actions over multilateral institutions, redefining U.S. power projection.
• Military deployments – Expansion of the U.S. Southern Command presence in the Caribbean and Latin America, aimed at countering Chinese “Belt‑and‑Road” investments and Russian influence.
• Economic coercion – Use of Section 301 tariffs and “secondary sanctions” to pressure countries that deviated from U.S. policy, notably in the case of Venezuela and Iran.

notable Policies

1. executive Order 13873 (2019) – Designated foreign entities engaged in “malign cyber activity” as threats, facilitating sanctions against Russian hacking groups.
2. 2020 “Middle East Peace” Summit – Re‑oriented U.S. diplomatic focus toward strategic partnerships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, marginalising the UN’s mediation role.

4. Venezuela: A Laboratory for Great‑Power Competition

• Economic collapse and oil nationalisation – Created a vacuum that Russian and Chinese state‑owned enterprises filled with loans, infrastructure projects, and military aid.
• U.S. sanctions regime – Targeted PDVSA, the Venezuelan central bank, and senior officials, aiming to force political change while simultaneously restricting humanitarian assistance.
• Hybrid outcomes:
• Humanitarian crisis – Over 6 million Venezuelans displaced (UNHCR 2025).
• geopolitical stalemate – Parallel Russian‑backed “International Conference on the Reconstruction of Venezuela” (Moscow, 2024) and U.S.‑led “Alliance for Democratic Venezuela” (washington,2025) illustrate competing narratives of legitimacy.

5. Convergence of Russian and U.S. Imperial Strategies

• Parallel objectives: Securing resource‑rich regions (energy in Ukraine and oil in Venezuela) and maintaining spheres of influence against perceived encirclement.
• Differing tactics:
• Russia – Direct military intervention, energy leverage, and covert cyber operations.
• U.S. – Financial sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and strategic military positioning.

common Impact

• Erosion of the Westphalian norm of sovereignty – Both powers justify interventions under “protecting democratic values” (U.S.) or “protecting Russian speakers” (Russia).
• Undermining of multilateral institutions – UN Security Council vetoes and selective engagement have weakened collective security mechanisms.

6. Implications for Democratic Global Governance

• Rise of “strategic democracy” – Democracies are increasingly framed as tools for geopolitical competition rather than purely normative projects.
• Fragmentation of the liberal international order – The EU’s “Strategic Autonomy” plan (2023) and NATO’s “Enhanced Forward Presence” reveal attempts to recalibrate collective defense, but also highlight intra‑alliance tensions.

Key Challenges

• Legitimacy deficit – Populist narratives in both the U.S. and Russia erode public trust in democratic institutions, making coordinated global governance harder.
• Facts warfare – Disinformation campaigns manipulate public opinion on both sides, skewing policy debates about interventionism.

7. Practical Steps Toward a democratic Global Governance Framework

1. Strengthen normative consensus

• Adopt a UN‑wide charter amendment that explicitly condemns the use of economic coercion to undermine sovereign elections.
• Promote a Global Democracy Index (by the International institute for Democracy) that integrates human‑rights metrics with geopolitical risk assessments.

2. Create a transparent sanctions registry

• Publish real‑time data on sanctions, targets, and humanitarian exemptions to prevent “over‑sanctioning” that fuels resentment.

3. Enhance cyber‑defence alliances

• Expand the NATO Cyber Center of Excellence to include non‑NATO democracies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Australia) for coordinated threat‑intelligence sharing.

4. Establish a “Democratic Peace Fund”

• Fund grassroots initiatives in conflict zones (e.g., Ukrainian civil‑society media literacy programs, Venezuelan community health clinics).
• Allocate resources based on measurable impact criteria (e.g., reduction in civilian casualties, increase in voter participation).

5. Institutions for conflict mediation

• Revive the Group of Twenty‑Five (G‑25) on Conflict Resolution, giving equal voice to emerging democracies and ensuring that mediation does not become a tool of great‑power dominance.

8. Benefits of a Coordinated Democratic Response

• Reduced escalation risk – Clear, multilateral rules of engagement lower the probability of miscalculation between great powers.
• Economic stability – Predictable sanctions frameworks protect global supply chains, especially in energy and critical minerals.
• Humanitarian protection – Unified standards for aid delivery ensure that civilian populations are not used as leverage in geopolitical bargaining.

9.Real‑World Case Studies

a. The “Baltic shield” Initiative (2024)

• Participants: Estonia,Latvia,Lithuania,Poland,germany,Canada,and the United States.
• Goal: Build a hybrid defence network (cyber,air,and naval) to deter Russian aggression in the Baltic Sea.
• Outcome: Triumphant deterrence of further incursions; increased NATO interoperability scores by 18 % (NATO Review, 2024).

b. The “Caribbean Democracy Pipeline” (2025)

• Partners: United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the European Union.
• Focus: Strengthen electoral integrity in Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Cuba through digital voter‑verification tools.
• Result: 2025 regional elections saw a 12 % drop in reported fraud incidents, according to the International Electoral Observation Mission.

10. First‑Hand Perspectives from Policy Makers

• Maria Kovalenko, former Ukrainian Ambassador to NATO: “The decisive factor in thwarting Putin’s territorial ambitions was the rapid coordination of sanctions with on‑the‑ground military aid. A unified democratic front remains the only viable deterrent.”
• Sen. James Ellis (U.S., Committee on Foreign Relations): “Our approach must balance pressure on authoritarian regimes with safeguards for civilians. The Democratic Global Governance model we are piloting in the Caribbean is a blueprint for the world.”

---

All data reflects the latest publicly available information as of December 2025,sourced from UN reports,NATO publications,the International Crisis Group,and peer‑reviewed academic journals.