Russian officials have made extraordinary claims that former Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro was betrayed by members of his own inner circle during the January transition, with Moscow saying it "knows the names" of those responsible for the regime's collapse.
The allegations, reported by Venezuelan exile media Infobae, represent a remarkable admission from Russia, one of Maduro's closest international allies throughout his authoritarian rule.
The claims raise urgent questions about who within the Chavista regime facilitated the January transition that saw Delcy Rodríguez assume the acting presidency after Maduro's departure from power. Russian sources did not publicly identify specific individuals but suggested the betrayal came from high-level officials with access to sensitive state security information.
For Venezuelans watching from exile and those still inside the country, the Russian accusations carry significant weight. Moscow maintained deep intelligence and military ties with the Maduro government throughout the crisis years, providing advisors, equipment, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Russian officials would likely have had visibility into internal regime dynamics that outside observers could not access.
The betrayal narrative also serves Russian geopolitical interests. By portraying Maduro's fall as the result of internal treachery rather than popular rejection or international pressure, Moscow can frame the Venezuelan collapse as an intelligence failure rather than an ideological defeat of the authoritarian model it supported.
In Venezuela, as across nations experiencing collapse, oil wealth that once seemed a blessing became a curse—and ordinary people pay the price. The regime fractures that allowed the January transition emerged from years of economic catastrophe, international sanctions, and the humanitarian emergency that drove over seven million Venezuelans into exile.
Venezuelan political analysts warn that identifying alleged betrayers could endanger individuals still inside Venezuela, where security forces loyal to different factions continue to operate. The safety of sources and potential dissidents within the military and intelligence apparatus remains a critical concern as the country navigates its fragile transition.
The Russian allegations also complicate the already difficult task of national reconciliation. If senior Chavista officials did facilitate the transition—whether through quiet negotiations, withdrawal of support, or active coordination with opposition forces—their role in Venezuela's future government remains deeply contentious.
For now, Moscow's claims remain unverified, but they signal that Russia views its Venezuelan alliance as damaged by internal regime failures rather than by the country's economic and humanitarian collapse. The question of who "betrayed" Maduro may matter far less to ordinary Venezuelans than rebuilding their shattered country.
