cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/52511055
The escalation of threats to Venezuela by United States President Donald Trump may be easy to dismiss as one of his random whims, but it is too closely linked to major confrontations to be seen as a regional affair with limited impact on the rest of the world.
Venezuela is turning into a bargaining chip in the game of global superpowers, along with Ukraine.
Not a major power at all, Venezuela still matters globally – not only as a country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but also as a political ally of China, Iran and Russia – countries the US-led West sees as its archrivals. Of these three, Russia is the one which finds itself in the most delicate position when it comes to Venezuela. The US-driven escalation poses risks for the Kremlin, but there are also potential gains to be made.
The main factor is the unexpected thaw which happened in relations between the US and Russia during Trump’s second term as president.
Since Putin’s ascent to power in 2000, the Kremlin has seen the US first as an unreliable partner, then as a full-fledged adversary with an ambition to divide and rule in the ex-Soviet neighbourhood.
But it all suddenly went back to a partnership of sorts when Trump returned to the White House at the beginning of 2025. The US all but terminated its financial aid to Ukraine and adopted the posture of near-neutrality, though it still supplies crucial intelligence to the Ukrainian army. In the latest iteration of its National Security Strategy, the US even dropped Russia from the list of “direct threats”.
There is also the aspect of cynical political calculation. The geopolitical gains from the US launching a military attack on Venezuela potentially exceed the losses.
That is because it would put Russia and the US on an equal moral footing with regard to the war in Ukraine. If the US can dictate its will by means of military aggression in what Americans call “their backyard”, then why can Russia not do the same in its own? The US aggression in Venezuela would justify Russian aggression in Ukraine in the eyes of many, especially in the Global South. Handily for the Kremlin, it would also sow further divisions between the US and Europe as well as feed polarisation within the US itself.
If, in addition to Venezuela, the Trump administration presses forward with its irrational desire to occupy Greenland, the situation would be ideal for the Kremlin. It may even open avenues for post-Ukraine rapprochement with the EU-led part of Europe, currently its main global nemesis.
Generally, the Russians see themselves as the keepers of the old order, ultimate foreign policy conservatives. They see the US-led West as a revisionist force responsible for undoing the post-World War II order and see the war in Ukraine as a way of countering that revision.
But, as their thinking goes, if there is no return to the old order, for which the West is to blame, let us negotiate a new one: an order in which the US does as it pleases in its Western hemisphere, and Russia retains influence over the ex-Soviet neighbourhood.
What the actual fuck? The benefit Russia will receive from a US invasion of Venezuela is moral equivalency? That's it?
Fuck off with this drivel. Find some actual journalists who know how to think.
The US under Trump intensified economic sanctions on Russia. Where's that in the calculus? Maybe the reason the US isn't supplying weapons to Ukraine is because it literally cannot afford the risk of doing so when it is facing other conflicts.
It's not just a moral equivalency, it's an alliance against western democracy. Also, a lot of oil money to be made by some powerful individuals in U.S. in exchange for turning against their own country's values, which, despite an honestly questionable history, has always presented itself (at least on the surface) as the world police acting on behalf of spreading western democracy.
They're keeping the military interventionism (at least on their own continent) because that way they can still claim to be antiwar isolationists. Just like Russia will claim when they attempt to takeover all of Europe.
They're nationalist isolationists (or maybe Continentalists?) because they still want to achieve the conservative ideals of conquest and dominance, but it's supposed to be ok bc it's "their God given territory to take," since it's just sitting there in their own backyard. I'm almost positive there's some bullshit (probably citing natural law) already written to preemptively excuse their global fascist takeovers.
I believe most likely, if Europe falls/is distracted by their own invasion, Putin no longer needs to keep up the facade. At that point he will drop the isolationist rhetoric completely and partner with Iran and China to take over everything Trump claimed on behalf of the U.S. as part of the new American Federation. Similar to what is laid out in this "fictional" novel which preemptively predicted the invasion of Ukraine.
Also, about those "sanctions," it seems a bit odd Trump/Chevron is keeping the oil seized from Russian ghost tankers, considering Chevron's failed attempts to purchase Russia's sanctioned oil assets.
OK, let's go piece by piece. From the article:
Zero mention of sanctions. Immediately disingenuous.
Again, DJT has made no move to alleviate sanctions and, in fact, as recently as October increased sanctions on Russia.
This is the correct line. The cynicism is pure editorializing, not journalism. This is what we were all raised to know as "Yellow Journalism" which our teachers only talked about with regard to things that happened a century ago and never used contemporary examples.
Complete fabrication, not journalism. Russia has absolutely gone out of its way to create mutually beneficial relationships with various countries and it has taken economic, military, and diplomatic actions to defend them.
No, they don't. Syria is a major problem for Russia, still, because of its roots in US-sponsored terrorism. As for Iraq, whatever mutual benefit Russia enjoyed with Iraq was easily a cornucopia compared to the past 30 years.
This is the central claim. There are no other claims as to the benefit to Russia. And as it stands, it's totally specious. A US invasion of Venezuela and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are equivalent in exactly two ways - they are (1) an invasion and (2) of a smaller by a larger. That's where the equivalencies end.
As if the Global South doesn't already justify Russian aggression? The BRICS have not condemned the invasion, and BRICS accounts for over 50% of the world's population. The Global South already sees the Ukraine war as justified.
And finally from the article:
The entire reason for the US to occupy Greenland, far from being irrational, is literally because it is strategically valuable in a military conflict with Russia. That's why there are NORAD assets there. That's why the US setup a base there. The shortest flight path for Russian ICBMs to the US passes over Greenland. It's not irrational, it's very much targeted at Russia.
There. Now that I'm done with ripping up the article as so much yellow journalism trash, let's see if I have enough space to respond to you.
Please. A) the article doesn't say that at all. B) western democracy produced Trump. American Democracy was founded by slave breeders and genociders. DJT and Epstein can't hold a candle to Thomas Jefferson's depravity.
What are you talking about?! This is what the US has been since even before its founding! It has ALWAYS committed mass murder and genocide for resources. It has never stopped doing it. You're living in a fantasy land.
I just threw up in my mouth
I'm sorry what? US military intelligence has consistently reported that Russia has no motivation to do this, no plans to do this, and no ability to do this. Which is it, by the way? Russia is losing 20 soldiers for every 1 Ukranian and doesn't have enough helmets or boots or even guns, or Russia is going to roll Europe? Can't be both. Either Russia is a collapsing or it's a godlike power that can takeover all of Europe.
Again, total cognitive dissonance. Which is it? Are they isolationists or are they intervening in the affairs of others? Can't be both.
Wow. You are fully pilled. There is neither the political desire nor the physical ability to do what you're talking about. There is no evidence for it. You are sourcing fan fiction and don't realize you're participating in a collective psychosis. Engage with reality. I beg you.
Right.... so Russia stands to lose from a US invasion and not gain.
As for your perspective on sanctions, you are grasping at straws. The sanctions have hit insurance, banking, and finance as well as everything else. Billions of dollars have been frozen. Russia cannot engage in billions or even trillions of dollars of transactions that it once did. The article you cite explicitly has the US holding on to seized oil. The part you highlighted shows how US investors who lost money because of sanctions on Russia are the ones being prioritized, not Russian actors. The deal that didn't go through would have transferred a massive amount of assets from Lukoil into the hands of US oligarchs for $0 dollars.
You highlighted it ostensibly because you think it helps make your point, but it really doesn't.
We have two distinct piles of evidence here: (1) Trump and his clique appear to be making decisions that benefit Russia militarily and (2) Trump and his clique are definitely making decisions that harm the Russian economy and all of the people that are part of it. You and many others seem to think that (1) can only be explained by Trump being a Russian asset and you ignore (2) entirely.
Here's my take. The US is militarily cooked. It can't actually engage in Ukraine. It would get trounced. It can't actually engage in Taiwan, it would lose handily. It can't even get involved in Iran right now because it would lose. Instead, the US is continuing to kill peasants, fishermen, average civilians, and indigenous people through shock and awe campaigns on defenseless opponents. There is no way Trump could do militarily what Biden could not do. What about sending more weapons to Ukraine? The US can't make them fast enough. I think that's the truth. The US cannot afford to send weapons into that proxy conflict anymore because they don't have enough to turn the tide and they need everything they have for other conflicts now and in the future. They lost in Ukraine and they cannot win. And Trump is president while the US pulls out. And everyone thinks that makes him a Russian asset. I don't think he could be do anything more even if it turned out he was Zelensky in a fat suit.
This interpretation makes (1) and (2) link up. Actually, the US is still an opponent of Russia, Trump is still the president of the US, and the president has to follow through on what the dominant strategy of the US national security planners say. And I think what they're saying is "we've lost Ukraine and do not have the means to win it without risking every other strategic goal we have, and we refuse to do that. You'll have to make do with sanctions"
Dec 12, 2025: A Year After Assad’s Fall, Russia Preserves Syrian Energy Influence
Right...
It certainly can't as long as you ignore the entire point of the article.
But no, I get your point. Nothing to see here. Clearly Russia is a harmless gentle giant. Or at least not an obvious arm in the fascist axis threatening global democracy.
Are you actually Pete Hegseth? Because that's like word for word what he claims too. Which is odd. We are the department of war. We have all the power of shock and awe. Except when it comes to defending other western democracies. Or even joining in with the E.U. to truly defend democracy rather than playing world police.
It's really easy to come to conclusions you were taught since grade school, isn't it?
You think I learned in school the president of the U.S. would one day be tag teaming with dictator of Russia in order to betray his own nation and participate in a global fascist take over?
Idk what schools they're teaching that in, but
A. it definitely isn't something I learned in "ultra liberal" rural West TN, I just pay attention and think critically.
B. What you're dismissing as propaganda, (that Atlantic article about the novel which literally predicted the invasion of Ukraine years before it happened) was written by a dissident who fled Russia due to of threats to her life, and has been trying to warn people about this for several years while battling constant disinformation by people who want to (very poorly) attempt to gaslight others into believing these invasions that followed the novel being published, are not documented facts or somehow simply coincidences we should simply ignore.
LOL. You're so cooked.
No, our school age propaganda taught us that Russia is our mortal enemy and the enemy of democracy. Fuck, it was the entire premise of Command and Conquer Red Alert (what if the Russians were the real fascists?)
Russia had been appeasing and then matching US escalation in Eastern Europe and particularly Ukraine for a long time. No need for this dissident novelist to warn everyone through "fiction". Russian military build was open and obvious. You're living in a fantasy world of spy games between the good democratic guys and the evil fascists, never asking once why the US saved thousands of Nazis, with the help of the Vatican, to not only flee the country but integrate them throughout the Western hemisphere while the Soviets did nothing of the sort. Never once stopped to ask why West Germany had openly Nazi political leaders take over under the Allies watch while East Germany was accused of totalitarianism because it kept purging Nazis and their sympathizers.
Look, Russia today is not Soviet Union. They're a liberal capitalist hellscape in the same philosophical category as the US. But the US is clearly the enemy of democracy everywhere, having overturned a dozen or more democratic governments all over the world.
This article is the topic though. And this article is total fucking trash.
jfc Oh ok 👌
You don't say... Speaking of what you're taught in schools about Russia and the Soviet Union, I'll just leave this here
I'm sure you won't need it though since you clearly hold all the information to back your beliefs.
Again, you might want to look into the documented history of who was involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who happens to be in control of the U.S. right now and has been plotting this shit for decades?
Oligarchy in modern day Russia is a feature, not a bug. You seem to be missing the point intentionally to help spread more disinformation, but regardless, if you're allowed to take Putin's piece out of your mouth for a second, you might realize there are no good guys in this scenario.
So your argument is that this article is fine because journalism is when you moralize and make false equivalencies and just generally write your own opinion without actually doing any journalism because Russia bad. That's your whole argument. Someone tried to warn us about the pending invasion of Ukraine that we all knew was coming, because Russia is so evil that no one could possibly know what they're up to and need fiction writers that are "dissidents" to tell us what's happening behind the iron curtain.
This article is trash and there's no way to defend it so you have to resort to arguing that trash articles that fit the narrative are fine because Russia bad.
And if you think I've spread any disinformation here, go ahead and call it out. I'll be happy to back it up with sources instead of vague literary allusions to YA murder fantasies.