By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to Fiona Hill, a former Trump administration advisor, Russian officials proposed a swap in 2019 where the Kremlin would withdraw support for Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela in exchange for the US allowing Russia a free hand in Ukraine. This idea, which surfaced again after the recent US operation to capture Maduro, was communicated through articles referencing the Monroe Doctrine. Hill stated that Russian officials, including the then-ambassador to the US, hinted at this arrangement, but the US showed no interest. Hill further noted that the current situation makes it more difficult for Ukraine’s allies to condemn Russia’s actions, and the Kremlin may be pleased by the US’ actions in Venezuela.
Read the original article here
Trump’s former Russia adviser says Russia offered US free rein in Venezuela in exchange for Ukraine. It’s a jaw-dropping proposition, but when you really think about it, some of the pieces start to fall into place. The core of this story, as it’s being pieced together, centers on a potential swap proposed by Russia back in 2019. Essentially, the deal was this: the United States gets free rein in Venezuela, and in return, Russia gets a free hand in Ukraine. The source? Fiona Hill, a former top Russia advisor during the Trump administration.
This alleged offer wasn’t just whispered behind closed doors. Apparently, the Russians, according to Hill, were using articles in the Russian media to invoke the Monroe Doctrine, essentially signaling a desire for mutually recognized spheres of influence. The Russian ambassador even hinted at it directly to Hill, suggesting a “wink wink, nudge nudge” sort of deal. The whole thing was framed as, “If you let us do what we want in our backyard (Ukraine), we’ll let you do what you want in yours (Venezuela).” And the supposed benefits for the U.S.? Control over Venezuela, potentially, and perhaps a victory of sorts by removing Maduro.
Of course, the big question is, “Why would Russia even want to make such an offer?” Venezuela is aligned with Russia, but the reality might be that Russia’s influence in the region has always been limited. Plus, the offer was made long before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, so the stakes were different then. It’s a calculated move based on the idea of strategic trade offs. Russia, at the time, was likely looking to avoid direct confrontation with the US. But, perhaps, they also saw an opportunity to secure a critical geopolitical prize, Ukraine, in exchange for conceding a region where their influence wasn’t absolute.
It seems Trump initially rejected the offer. But the narrative takes a turn. Fast forward to today, and we see something called the “Donroe Doctrine,” a phrase Trump himself has adopted, referencing the Monroe Doctrine. And what is the Donroe Doctrine? The official narrative states it as allowing the US free hand in its sphere of influence, by extension, Russia and China would be allowed great latitude in theirs. And suddenly, the pieces of the puzzle begin to connect.
The timing of this is also important. This proposed deal, back in 2019, was before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It seems that if this offer from Russia had been accepted then, it may have possibly prevented an outright war. Now, the geopolitical landscape shifts again. The U.S. now has the ability to go after Venezuela, and Russia now has an opportunity to take over Ukraine.
Interestingly, several sources have also suggested that this idea of dividing the world into spheres of influence may not be limited to just the U.S. and Russia. One report indicates that Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping may have been considering a three-way division, with China controlling Asia and Russia controlling Europe. This brings to light the idea of a “new world order,” where countries are, in a sense, tradable assets.
What’s concerning is the potential implications of this kind of thinking. It’s not about resolving conflicts, but about rearranging the world map to suit the interests of a select few. The moral implications are profound, as it potentially means giving up on democratic principles and basic human rights for the sake of supposed “realism.” It would also redefine the role of the U.S. as a global superpower, and possibly diminish it in the long run.
The details of the potential deal between Russia and the U.S. are complex, and it’s important to remember that this narrative is still being pieced together. However, if this story is true, it raises serious questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy during the Trump years and the long-term impact on global stability. It’s a story of spheres of influence, and a dangerous game of chess with the future of the world as the board.