The collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria reverberates far beyond the Levant, shaking the foundations of other autocratic regimes. Among these, Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela faces a stark warning: An erosion of external support can dismantle even the most entrenched dictatorships.
Assad’s fall highlights not only the fragility of authoritarian regimes but also the growing impatience of populations living under decades of repression. For Maduro, it underscores how reliance on foreign backers like Russia could lead to a similar unraveling.
Assad’s ouster dismantled a regime notorious for its extreme violence and dependence on external allies, particularly Russia and Iran. When the support of those allies wavered, Assad’s hold on power crumbled.
For Maduro, the parallels are striking. His survival strategy mirrors Assad’s reliance on Moscow, but Russia’s capacity to sustain its client regimes is rapidly diminishing.
The war in Ukraine has severely strained Russia’s resources, with reports indicating more than $200 billion spent and approximately 700,000 casualties suffered. These immense demands have drained Moscow’s ability to prioritize distant allies such as Venezuela, rendering Maduro increasingly vulnerable.
Venezuela has long been dependent on Russia for military equipment, financial support and political backing. Since the mid-2000s, Russia has supplied Venezuela with more than $10 billion in military hardware, including jet fighters and missile systems. Additionally, Russian oil giant Rosneft has invested billions in Venezuela’s oil industry, providing critical lifelines to the regime. With Russia now consumed by the Ukraine conflict, these supports are at risk, leaving Maduro’s government increasingly exposed.
Venezuela also faces mounting internal pressures: economic collapse, mass emigration and persistent political unrest. A weakened Russia compounds these challenges, threatening Maduro’s grip on power. Just as Assad’s fall exposed Iran’s diminished influence, a collapse in Venezuela would highlight Russia’s limitations and further isolate its remaining allies.
Yet Maduro’s continued hold on power raises troubling questions about the world’s tolerance for authoritarian regimes, particularly in light of the recent Venezuelan election, where Edmundo González defeated Maduro but the international community has done too little to support the opposition and ensure a meaningful challenge to Maduro’s rule.
The horrors of Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis — millions displaced, widespread hunger and the systematic erosion of democracy — are well-documented. Yet, the international response has been marked by cautious diplomacy and ineffective sanctions. This contrasts sharply with the urgency elicited by sudden regime collapses like Assad’s.
Part of the explanation lies in the slow, grinding nature of Venezuela’s decline. While Assad’s brutality was immediate and unrelenting, Venezuela’s crisis has unfolded over years, numbing the global conscience. Starving populations, mass displacement and systematic repression have become background noise. This normalization allows Maduro’s regime to persist, exploiting the global preference for negotiation over confrontation.
History offers rare examples of peaceful transitions from authoritarianism, but these are exceptions. In Chile, Augusto Pinochet eventually orchestrated a controlled transition to democracy, ensuring protections for the military and amnesty for himself.
South Africa’s dismantling of apartheid similarly relied on enlightened leadership, with Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk fostering dialogue that de-escalated decades of tensions. Both cases required leaders willing to put national stability above personal power — a quality Maduro conspicuously lacks.
Even these transitions were not without scars. Pinochet’s military retained influence for years, and South Africa continues to grapple with the legacies of apartheid. Still, they offered something Maduro has yet to provide: hope and a chance to rebuild. Maduro, in contrast, clings to power at any cost, indifferent to his people’s suffering and the looming collapse of the state.
Assad’s fall reminds us that authoritarian regimes are inherently brittle. They rely on external support, repression and a passive populace. Once any of these pillars weakens, the structure collapses. Maduro’s reliance on Russia and Cuba mirrors Assad’s dependence on Iran and Russia — alliances that are ultimately unreliable. The world’s normalization of his regime’s horrors risks an eventual collapse that will be even more destabilizing if left unaddressed.
The fall of Assad should reignite urgency to confront enduring authoritarian regimes like Maduro’s. These are not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of authoritarian collapse that destabilizes entire regions. The challenge is to prevent such implosions from leading to further chaos or new forms of repression. For Maduro, Assad’s fate serves as a warning that no regime is immune to the tides of history.
The world cannot afford to adapt to the suffering in Venezuela. The normalization of this crisis must end, and decisive action must replace the complacency of half-measures. Assad’s fall may foreshadow Maduro’s, serving as a reminder that entrenched regimes cannot escape the inevitable reckoning with their own fragility.
Carl Meacham, formerly a senior Republican staff member on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is an international consultant.
