Trump’s Former Russia Expert Recalls Moscow’s Venezuela-for-Ukraine Deal Offer

WASHINGTON D.C., Jan 7 (TNGB) – Fiona Hill, a former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council during Donald Trump’s first presidency, provided detailed accounts of informal overtures from Russian officials in 2019. These suggestions reportedly involved a potential exchange where the United States would gain unrestricted influence in Venezuela if it allowed Russia greater control over Ukraine. Hill shared this during closed-door testimony before congressional committees as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The context of these alleged proposals emerged amid escalating tensions between Washington and Moscow over Venezuela. At the time, Russia had deployed approximately 100 military personnel to support Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faced mounting pressure from the U.S. and its allies. Hill testified that Russian signals came through indirect channels, including conversations with diplomats and articles in Russian media. She described the idea as a “very strange swap arrangement,” linking it to historical doctrines of influence.

In her deposition, Hill reportedly explained that Russian officials invoked a parallel to the Monroe Doctrine, which has historically asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. According to her account, the Russians argued that if the U.S. expected Russia to stay out of its “backyard” in Venezuela, then Washington should reciprocate by withdrawing support from Ukraine, which Moscow views as part of its sphere. This framing allegedly positioned the two countries as equivalent geopolitical pawns in a broader power play.

Hill reportedly conveyed the U.S. rejection of this notion directly during a trip to Moscow. She emphasized that the administration saw no linkage between the situations in Venezuela and Ukraine, stating that “nobody’s interested” in such a deal. The testimony highlighted concerns within the National Security Council about Russian intentions, particularly as they coincided with U.S. efforts to isolate Maduro’s regime through sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Resurfacing in early 2026, Hill’s 2019 statements gained renewed attention following U.S. military operations in Venezuela that led to the capture of Maduro. Analysts suggest this action may reflect a shift in U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s second term, potentially echoing the very dynamics Hill described years earlier. Russian Deputy Security Council Chairman Dmitry Medvedev reportedly commented that the U.S. intervention, while “completely unlawful,” demonstrated consistency in pursuing national interests.

The alleged swap proposal reportedly involved subtle hints from figures like Anatoly Antonov, then Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Hill characterized these as “hint-hint, nudge-nudge, wink-wink” suggestions, stopping short of formal negotiations. She noted uncertainty about whether similar ideas might resurface, pointing to potential influences from Trump’s current advisors, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who might oppose concessions to Russia.

Critics of the Trump administration have cited Hill’s testimony as evidence of Moscow’s attempts to exploit divisions in U.S. policy. Supporters, however, argue that rejecting the deal demonstrated firmness against Russian aggression. The episode underscores longstanding rivalries, with Russia investing billions in Venezuela’s oil sector, creating economic stakes that complicate any withdrawal.

U.S. actions in Venezuela in 2026, including the seizure of sanctioned oil tankers linked to Russia, have reportedly strained relations further. Hill observed that capturing Maduro creates parallels to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, making it challenging for the U.S. to condemn similar interventions elsewhere without accusations of hypocrisy.

The broader implications touch on spheres of influence in international relations. Russia’s presence in Venezuela provided a foothold in the Americas, counterbalancing U.S. dominance. By contrast, U.S. support for Ukraine has been a cornerstone of efforts to counter Russian expansionism in Europe since 2014.

Fact-checkers have verified Hill’s claims as accurately attributed to her testimony, with transcripts confirming the details. No evidence suggests the proposal advanced beyond informal signaling, and U.S. officials consistently denied entertaining it.

As peace negotiations in Ukraine continue amid the ongoing conflict, the resurfaced testimony prompts questions about potential backchannel deals. Experts warn that any perceived U.S. concession could embolden Russia, while maintaining pressure in both regions risks escalation.

Hill’s insights, drawn from her expertise as a Russia scholar, highlight the intricate web of global alliances. Her book and subsequent interviews reinforce the view that Russia seeks to redraw post-Cold War boundaries through such opportunistic proposals.

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela marks a decisive move, reportedly aimed at addressing drug trafficking allegations against Maduro. This development has been met with mixed reactions internationally, with some allies supporting the action as necessary for regional stability.

Russian media has portrayed the events as U.S. imperialism, drawing direct comparisons to Ukraine. Medvedev’s statements suggest Moscow may use the situation to justify its own actions, arguing for equivalence in great-power politics.

Looking ahead, the alleged 2019 proposal serves as a cautionary tale for current policymakers. With Trump back in office, observers are watching closely for any signs of revisited deals, though official statements emphasize independent U.S. interests.

Media reporting for this story: 45% Left | 20% Right | 25% Center | 10% Unrated

FYI, I add facts to stories that often miss them. Join our Substack for ad-free updates on geopolitical negotiations or become a reporter and report any geopolitical negotiations developments yourself.