politics

OK, let's go piece by piece. From the article:

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”.

Zero mention of sanctions. Immediately disingenuous.

Given all the above, it is hardly the best time for the Kremlin to spoil a difficult but all-in-all good working relationship with Trump’s administration over something as distant and unrelated to Russia’s core interests as Venezuela.

Again, DJT has made no move to alleviate sanctions and, in fact, as recently as October increased sanctions on Russia.

Yes, Russia would make all the expected noises. Its United Nations envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, has claimed that by threatening Venezuela, the US is engaging in “aggressive neocolonialism”. He said it is “cynically imposing its order as it tries to retain global domination and the right to exploit other country’s riches with impunity”.

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.

But Russia would not go out of its way to save a friendly Latin American government. Russian support for Venezuela will always be directly proportional to the US pressure exerted on Russia in connection with Ukraine.

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.

The potential fall of Nicolas Maduro’s government is not going to be the end of the world for the Kremlin. [...] Iraq and Syria both serve as good examples.

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.

it would put Russia and the US on an equal moral footing with regard to the war in Ukraine

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.

The US aggression in Venezuela would justify Russian aggression in Ukraine in the eyes of many, especially in the Global South

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:

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.

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.

It’s not just a moral equivalency, it’s an alliance against western democracy

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.

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

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.

the world police acting on behalf of spreading western democracy

I just threw up in my mouth

Just like Russia will claim when they attempt to takeover all of Europe.

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.

isolationists (or maybe Continentalists?) because they still want to achieve the conservative ideals of conquest and dominance

Again, total cognitive dissonance. Which is it? Are they isolationists or are they intervening in the affairs of others? Can't be both.

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

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.

Russian oil companies have joint ventures with the Venezuelan oil monopoly, PDVSA

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"