The step taken by Moscow and Caracas on August 22, 2025, constituted not merely a technical cooperation between the two countries but also a manifestation of their deepening strategic partnership.[i] Prepared under the authority granted to the Russian Ministry of Justice, this agreement has been announced as a framework enabling convicted individuals to serve their sentences in their home countries. Yet, the initiative has gone far beyond a matter of judicial cooperation, reflecting instead the political alliance of the two states and the solidarity front they seek to establish vis-à-vis the West.
In international law, the transfer of sentenced persons has been developed as a mechanism aimed at facilitating inmates’ proximity to their families and easing their rehabilitation processes. Similar agreements have been implemented in many countries within the framework of the Council of Europe’s 1983 Convention. However, the initiative between Russia and Venezuela carries the character of a political message rather than a humanitarian arrangement in the classical sense. Indeed, cooperation between Moscow and Caracas has increasingly assumed a strategic dimension, with measures in the field of justice forming an extension of this trajectory.
The case of Alexander Ante and Jose Aron Medina Aranda, which preceded the emergence of the agreement on the agenda, demonstrated the potential for the political use of such an arrangement. These two former Colombian soldiers, apprehended in Venezuela and transferred to Moscow, are being prosecuted on charges of acting as mercenaries.[ii] Russia’s prosecution of these individuals on the grounds of their alleged participation in the war in Ukraine has revealed that the issue carries not only a legal but also a geopolitical dimension. This example has demonstrated that the agreement could be employed in similar cases in the future. Consequently, it has become evident that the transfer mechanism may be utilized not merely for humanitarian purposes but also for political objectives.
In recent years, Vladimir Putin and Nicolás Maduro have intensified their relations in the spheres of energy, defense, and diplomacy. Russia has provided Venezuela with military equipment and security support, while Caracas has, in return, granted Moscow preferential partnerships in the energy sector. Within this context, judicial cooperation has emerged as a new pillar of the alliance. The two leaders have aimed to construct a joint front against Western sanctions, and the agreement has acquired symbolic significance in this framework. Thus, what might appear to be a merely technical arrangement has, in reality, reinforced the consolidation of the two countries within the anti-Western bloc.
The European Union and the United States have imposed severe sanctions on both Russia and Venezuela. Consequently, the implementation of this agreement has demonstrated the two countries’ determination to construct ‘alternative orders’ in defiance of the West. In particular, Washington’s long-standing pressure on Caracas has drawn the Maduro government closer to Moscow, with the agreement being interpreted as a tangible outcome of this rapprochement. Moreover, Russia has employed such initiatives to expand its influence in Latin America. In this sense, the agreement constitutes a challenge to the West’s policies of isolation.
Venezuela’s relations with Colombia, Brazil, and other neighboring countries have often been marked by tension. In particular, the transfer of former Colombian soldiers to Russia has been closely monitored in Bogotá, generating new debates at the regional level. Venezuela’s involvement not only in its own domestic legal affairs but also in the fate of third-country nationals has provoked diplomatic frictions among its neighbors. Accordingly, it has become evident that the agreement will generate regional repercussions. Furthermore, this process has triggered new political polarizations in Latin America, coinciding with Russia’s growing influence in the region.
For the Maduro government, the agreement has also served as an important instrument in domestic politics. Amidst Venezuela’s economic crisis and waves of migration, the government’s legitimacy has become increasingly contested. Every act of cooperation with Moscow has been employed as a tool of propaganda to demonstrate that the regime is not isolated in the international arena. Within this framework, collaboration in the field of justice has reinforced the government’s narrative of ‘external support.’ Thus, the agreement has expanded the political maneuvering space of the ruling authorities in Caracas.
Although prisoner transfer agreements are well-established mechanisms in international law, this initiative has raised several questions. Foremost among them have been concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary in the contracting states. Both Russia and Venezuela have faced widespread criticism for subjecting their courts to political pressure. Accordingly, whether the transferred prisoners would in fact receive a fair trial has become a matter of debate within international legal circles. As a result, it is the political background of the agreement, rather than its technical justifications, that has come to the forefront.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has profoundly shaped Moscow’s foreign policy priorities. In this context, Venezuela has emerged as a significant diplomatic partner for Russia. The transfer of Colombian soldiers to Moscow on charges linked to the ‘Ukraine conflict’ has rendered the agreement a direct extension of the war itself. In doing so, Venezuela has assumed an active role in Russia’s global struggle, thereby altering Caracas’s international position. Thus, the agreement has represented not only a form of judicial cooperation but also a component of war diplomacy. This process has further illustrated how Latin American countries have been indirectly drawn into the Ukraine war. By aligning itself with Moscow, Caracas has openly challenged the West’s war narrative. Hence, Venezuela has made a strategic choice both to safeguard its own regime and to secure a place on the global stage alongside Russia.
The prisoner transfer agreement expected to be signed between Russia and Venezuela may appear to constitute judicial cooperation at a technical level, yet in essence, it represents a political and strategic move. The case of the former Colombian soldiers has illustrated how such a mechanism could be instrumentalized. The agreement has revealed the construction of an alternative framework of cooperation against the West and is expected to generate new debates at the regional level. For Caracas, the initiative has functioned as a tool of domestic legitimation, while for Moscow it has served as a means of expanding its influence in Latin America. From the perspective of international law, questions have been raised regarding fair trial guarantees and political interference. Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the agreement is not merely technical in nature but constitutes a geopolitical strategy.
In conclusion, this step taken by Moscow and Caracas has constituted a clear indication of their determination to forge a common bloc against the West. The initiative has confirmed the shifting dynamics of the international order and the emergence of new alliances. Accordingly, Russia–Venezuela cooperation may be regarded as a strategic partnership that is likely to become further institutionalized in the future.
[i] Ruiz, Luis Alejandro. “Russia and Venezuela Sign Agreement for the Transfer of Detainees.” Guacamaya, guacamayave.com/en/russia-and-venezuela-sign-agreement-for-the-transfer-of-detainees/, (Date Accessed: 31.08.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
