Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Summary
A former Trump advisor's 2019 revelation about Russia's proposed Venezuela-Ukraine swap re-emerges post-Maduro's ousting.
Full Story
𧊠Simple Version
Back in 2019, while Donald Trump was President, his advisor Fiona Hill noted that Russia subtly, repeatedly hinted at a "deal." Moscow suggested the U.S. could do whatever it wanted in Venezuela if Russia got a free hand in Ukraine.
Basically, this was a geopolitical swap meet: the U.S. gets to call the shots in its backyard (Venezuela, invoking the old Monroe Doctrine), and Russia gets to reshape its neighborhood (Ukraine). Trump's administration initially rejected this, stating the two countries were unrelated.
Fast forward to December 2025. After the U.S. "stealth operation" to capture NicolĂĄs Maduro, Hill's comments have resurfaced. Now that the U.S. is "running" Venezuela policy, and President Trump is also eyeing Greenland and threatening Colombia, Hill argues that U.S. actions make it incredibly difficult to condemn Russia's similar "designs" on Ukraine.
She implies that the U.S. has essentially proven Russia's "might makes right" philosophy in international relations, thereby weakening the moral argument against aggression.
âď¸ The Judgment
This situation, while perhaps not ABSOLUTELY DEMOCRACY-ON-FIRE BAD, certainly hovers in the murky, ethically compromised space of BAD. It's a bureaucratic nightmare for anyone trying to uphold consistent international principles.
Why Itâs Bad (or Not)
The core issue here is the rather inconvenient concept of "consistency." When you accuse one nation of aggressive, illegitimate intervention, and thenâseven years laterâyour own nation appears to engage in something remarkably similar, it creates... shall we say, "diplomatic awkwardness."
- Infraction #1: The Hypocrisy Hook. The U.S. has long championed national sovereignty. Yet, the recent operation in Venezuela, described by the Trump administration as a "law enforcement operation" to "capture Maduro" (Source: The Associated Press), looks a lot like an intervention. This makes it challenging to credibly condemn Russia's actions or intentions in Ukraine as "illegitimate." It's like calling out your neighbor for loud music while your own speakers are rattling the windows.
- Infraction #2: The "Might Makes Right" Mantra. Fiona Hill astutely points out that Russia will be "thrilled" with the idea that large countries simply get spheres of influence. This essentially validates Moscow's worldview that power, not international law, dictates global boundaries and actions. It's a dangerous precedent, opening the door for any powerful nation to justify its territorial ambitions.
- Infraction #3: The Unintended Consequence Cascade. While dismissing Russia's initial "swap" idea was correctâUkraine and Venezuela are unrelatedâthe subsequent actions have inadvertently created the very equivalence that was initially rejected. The U.S. sought to remove Maduro using a "stealth operation" (Source: The Associated Press), and now faces questions about its moral standing.
"The U.S. has just had a situation where it has taken overâor at least decapitated the government of another countryâusing fiction." â Fiona Hill, former White House national security aide (Source: The Associated Press)
đ Real-World Impact Analysis
For the citizens of Ukraine, this makes their fight for sovereignty even more complex. If powerful nations are seen as operating under a "might makes right" principle, it undermines international support and the rule of law designed to protect smaller nations. For Venezuelans, while Maduro is gone, the method of intervention might set a worrying precedent for future external influence.
This situation dramatically increases the "corruption risk" of international diplomacy itself. If major powers can simply assert spheres of influence through unilateral action, it bypasses multilateral institutions and international law. This provides cover for other nations to engage in less transparent, more self-serving interventions, justifying them with the "whataboutism" of U.S. actions. It's a race to the bottom for global ethics.
The immediate goal of ousting Maduro might have been achieved, but the long-term cost is a significant erosion of the U.S.'s moral authority on the global stage. By appearing to act outside established international norms, the U.S. has inadvertently strengthened the arguments of revisionist powers like Russia, creating a future where condemning aggression becomes a game of "do as I say, not as I do." This sets up decades of diplomatic headaches and makes building broad coalitions against authoritarian actions much harder.
đŻ Final Verdict
The U.S. operation in Venezuela, however well-intentioned, has stumbled into a geopolitical minefield. It inadvertently provided Russia with a powerful rhetorical weapon, making it profoundly difficult to maintain a consistent moral high ground against similar aggressions.
This isn't just a misstep; it's a significant downgrade to humanity's collective political "health score," eroding the very principles meant to prevent larger nations from simply doing what they please. The gavel slams, but the echoes sound suspiciously like "told you so" from certain corners of the Kremlin.