The Cold War lived on in socialist Venezuela, where, since Hugo Chávez courted the Kremlin in the 2000s, the United States and Russia engaged in what was largely a two-way game of influence. But another player has entered the fray in a big way: the European Union.

U.S. officials, current and former, are chafing against the increasingly assertive role of E.U. foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in the South American country. The most visible play by Borrell, a Spanish socialist, to insert the E.U. into the Venezuela debate: an official monitoring mission dispatched to Caracas to observe local and regional elections on Nov. 21. Critics fear it could lend international legitimacy to an electoral exercise they see as fundamentally flawed.

The elections happen as the pro-democracy movement in the oil-rich, authoritarian state is in danger of crumbling. Internal support for Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader recognized by the United States and several dozen nations as Venezuela’s rightful interim leader in early 2019, is unraveling due to infighting, as well as his lack of progress. Three of the four major opposition parties, Bloomberg recently reported, are now opposed to U.S. efforts to back Guaidó for another year.

As Venezuelans prepare to fill key governorships and mayoral posts, meanwhile, President Nicolás Maduro — Chavez’s handpicked successor — has outplayed the opposition, sowing confusion by fielding “friendly opposition” candidates in some races while succeeding in turning his enemies against each other in others.

Russia lent billions of dollars to Venezuela, became its major arms broker and invested heavily in its all important oil sector. In contrast, the United States during the Trump administration unleashed extreme pressure on Maduro — including harsh sanctions and threats (ultimately idle) to use military force for regime change. Borrell, who once likened Trump’s Venezuela policy to “cowboys in the Far West,” clearly sees a third way: engagement. He has described the E.U. mission to Venezuela as “a path towards credible, inclusive and transparent elections.”

Maduro is widely seen as having effectively stolen the 2018 presidential elections, while gradually leading the country down the path toward full-on authoritarianism. The E.U.’s observers, Borrell has argued, would help give a fair shot to opposition candidates running in their first election in three years, while providing oxygen to the country’s flagging pro-democracy movement.

The Biden administration, which has changed the tone but little of the substance of the Trump policy, has publicly played down any daylight between Europe and the United States. But privately, U.S. officials as well as some members of the Venezuelan opposition told me they fear the E.U. mission may turn out to be a gift to Maduro. The lead up to the vote has been anything but democratic. The elections are taking place after the pro-Maduro courts forcibly removed the heads of major opposition parties and while hundreds of political prisoners remain in jail and opposition candidates have limited access to media.

Those built-in advantages for Maduro could lead to a relatively clean election day for the cameras (and the E.U. observers) — even if that means granting a fiefdom or two to less radical members of the opposition.

“My concern is that the day of the election, the Europeans will say, ‘Well, it looked pretty good,’ when we all know the real problem is that the fraud was already baked in,” one senior U.S. official told me on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The net effect is uncertain. E.U. missions have proven stickers for democracy in the past. The U.S.-based Carter Center is also dispatching a small team of experts for the vote — too small, it says, to technically vet ballots. Rather, the team will assess transparency and the campaign environment. If both the E.U. and the Carter Center cry foul this month, it could in fact undermine Maduro at time when he is enjoying building momentum.