Big News Alert

Former Trump adviser Fiona Hill has dropped a bombshell revelation: Russia, back in 2019, openly offered to trade Venezuela for a free hand in Ukraine. They saw sovereign nations as mere bargaining chips. Now, in December 2025, after the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, critics argue we might have adopted a strikingly similar "might makes right" approach.

This isn't just about the immediate future of Venezuela. It’s about a fundamental shift in how the United States engages with other nations. The crucial question is whether we are inadvertently undermining our own long-held principles on the global stage.

What Could Go Wrong

The gravest danger stemming from recent U.S. actions is the significant loss of moral high ground. If the United States effectively "takes over" Venezuela, as implied by statements that we will now "run" its policy, how can we credibly condemn Russia’s expansionist ambitions in Ukraine or elsewhere?

We risk validating the very concept of "spheres of influence"—a dangerous notion that undermines self-determination and international law. This precedent could lead to a far more unstable world where powerful nations unilaterally assert control, diminishing the sovereignty of smaller states. The core American values of freedom, justice, and democratic self-governance are directly imperiled when our actions parallel the imperialistic behaviors we so often criticize.

Who Must Answer

President Trump and his administration must provide a clear explanation: why are actions in Venezuela being described as a mere "law enforcement operation" when they appear to fundamentally contradict the international norms and principles we've championed for decades? Is this a significant strategic miscalculation, or a deliberate pivot towards a more transactional, power-based foreign policy?

The American people deserve transparent answers regarding how this approach aligns with our stated commitment to global stability and the sovereignty of nations. We need to understand the long-term implications of these decisions, particularly concerning our reputation as a global advocate for democracy and human rights. Who is being held accountable for these strategic shifts?

Your Call

Fiona Hill, a seasoned expert, explicitly warns that Russia will be "thrilled" if large countries establish spheres of influence, because it effectively legitimizes their own aggressive actions. She powerfully argues that our recent operations in Venezuela make it far more difficult for Kyiv's allies to condemn Russia's designs on Ukraine as "illegitimate."

Is abandoning our principles for what appears to be short-term geopolitical gains in Venezuela truly worth the profound long-term cost to our global credibility and the potential instability this could unleash? Are you OK with this?