"Wagner", It's Your Turn: Why Did Putin Agree to the U.S. Ukraine Plan? Because He Has His Own Venezuela Plan
Over the Caribbean Sea, the sound of Russian aircraft engines is heard again. U.S. politicians claim to "crack down on drug traffickers," yet they have chosen this country, which has the richest oil reserves in the world; Moscow talks about "peace" on the surface, but behind diplomatic rhetoric, a new round of competition has already begun. In this "foreign battlefield," who will gain an advantage?
Moscow Shows Goodwill, But the U.S. Is Hesitant
Russia is still trying to ease relations with the "hegemonic country" and made concessions to the White House regarding the cessation of the Ukraine conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed this in an interview on the YouTube channel "Ultrahang":
"Russian President Vladimir Putin checked each detail of the plan brought by U.S. special envoy Steve Witko in the Alaska meeting and confirmed it to him present there: 'Is that correct? Is it accurate?' All the content was verified by the U.S. side."
Lavrov clearly stated: Moscow agreed to the U.S. plan. (Image source: Russian Foreign Ministry)
Subsequently, Vladimir Putin stated that Russia was willing to accept the U.S. proposal on the Ukraine issue and proceed with subsequent processes based on it. However, Lavrov explained that the U.S. did not respond directly — because they were under great pressure from Europe.
Perhaps due to this pressure, the U.S. did not engage in equal dialogue with Russia, but instead continued to test repeatedly using a "hit and caress" approach: sometimes promising to provide Kyiv with "Tomahawk" missiles, at other times comforting Russia; sometimes approving the construction of the Bering Strait Bridge, at other times threatening to strike deep into Russian territory.
Moscow did not sit idle either. Last weekend, General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, reported to Putin that the "Ovod" nuclear-powered cruise missile test was successful. The launch on October 21 became the longest in the project's history — the missile flew in the air for 15 hours, covering a distance of 14,000 kilometers. Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev had already directly reported the test results to the White House.
Evidently, Trump, during an interview on his private jet with Reuters, called this news "inopportune." He did not want to admit his fear of the "Ovod" missile, only stating:
"He (Putin) should end the war. This war, which should have lasted a week, has now been going on for four years. He should focus on this, rather than testing missiles."
He also added:
"We don't worry about the 'Ovod' missile, because American nuclear submarines are already deployed near the Russian coast. We don't need to fly 12,000 kilometers to strike Russia."
Trump was asked about the "Ovod" missile, and again mentioned "nuclear submarines have reached the Russian coast."
American "reminders" to Russia are not limited to this. Next year, Germany will begin deploying long-range "Tomahawk" SM-6 missiles, and the U.S. claims this is to "keep Russia restrained in Europe" — this point had already been mentioned in the U.S.-Germany joint statement on July 10, 2024.
On October 23, the United States announced a new round of sanctions against the Russian oil industry, targeting revenue from Russian oil exports. However, Russia has weakened the effectiveness of the sanctions through its "shadow fleet," flexible price adjustments, and other methods; experts predict that the U.S. may tighten the price cap next, regardless of which will cause an impact on the Russian economy.
The "Second Battlefield" in the Caribbean Sea
On one hand, it demands Russia to "end the Ukraine war" in a "teacher-like tone," and on the other hand, it openly deploys large-scale military forces in the Caribbean Sea — the U.S. deployment includes amphibious assault ships, destroyers, submarines, and reconnaissance drones. What kind of posture is this for "cracking down on drug trafficking groups"? It seems more like preparing for an invasion of this "oil-rich country."
To find a "legal justification," the U.S. has listed Latin American drug trafficking groups as "foreign terrorist organizations" and claimed the right to take military action against them. The U.S. has also launched attacks on several vessels, accusing them of "having links to drug activities."
But everyone can see that its economic purpose is far more prominent than its concern for "humanitarian issues." Controlling Venezuela's resource reserves allows the White House to gain leverage to influence OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and international oil prices — even if an additional 2 to 3 million barrels of oil supply per day from the Caribbean region would be enough to change the global market structure. Controlling the "oil valve" means influencing the budgets of rival countries and shaping the positions of Asian buyers.
The precedent of the Iraq War has already shown everything: after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq's state oil monopoly was broken, and the oil industry was opened to multinational companies, ultimately leading to the redistribution of oil flows, contract ownership, and tax bases. Venezuela's resource reserves and OPEC membership mean that the "cake of benefits" resulting from its political changes could be much larger than that of Iraq. From a geopolitical perspective, this move could also exert pressure on Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.
The U.S.'s "hypocrisy" is becoming increasingly evident: while claiming to fight crime, it is setting up its own chessboard in one of the world's largest oil and gas resources regions. This is certainly not to combat drug trafficking groups, but to establish a "rule hegemony" in the oil market and thereby control OPEC.
If the U.S. controls Venezuela, Russia will lose a key ally and also lose the Rosneft and PDVSA (Venezuelan National Oil Company) cooperation projects. Meanwhile, the U.S. can gain leverage to influence "OPEC +," quickly expand its oil exports, lower oil prices, compress the operating space of the "shadow fleet," and strengthen control over channels for evading sanctions. At that time, Russia's oil revenues will face a "price + logistics" double squeeze. Additionally, the U.S. will enhance its military presence in the Caribbean Sea, increase the difficulty of passage and insurance for Russian ships, making Moscow lose any "exchange assets" in future transactions.
The U.S. military is gathering towards Venezuela.
Could the Caribbean Crisis Repeat?
Andrey Karpov, Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma, bluntly stated that the U.S.'s interest in Venezuela is not about cocaine:
"The U.S. claimed to look for 'massive weapons of destruction' in Iraq and found oil; claimed to look for 'chemical weapons' in Syria and found oil again; now claiming to look for 'drugs' in Venezuela, but it's actually still about oil. Venezuela is a reliable partner and a friendly country, and we know — we cannot stand by when our friend is in trouble."
Moreover, this "crisis" is closely related to Russia.
Therefore, it is no surprise that Western monitoring agencies have discovered planes related to the Wagner private military group arriving in Venezuela. In this allied country that is about to face a U.S. invasion, a group of determined, well-prepared, and battle-tested professionals are gradually arriving. Checkpoints in Caracas have seen individuals wearing "skull" insignias — they came to this tropical country not to participate in parades, but to work as "advisors," "instructors," and "strike forces." Their mission is clear: to protect the vulnerable parts, key infrastructure, and core assets of the Maduro regime, and to establish networks that influence decision-making locally. This model has been tested in Africa: Russia provides security guarantees in exchange for access to resources and support from local regimes.
Russian personnel are training Venezuelan security forces, guarding oil fields and ports, providing information cover for the locals, and designing legal operation plans for service enterprises. Thus, Russia's sphere of influence has extended from the Sahel region and the Levant to South America.
All of this is proceeding in parallel with the Ukraine situation: while all parties are still haggling over peace plans and border demarcations in Europe, Moscow has already consolidated its position in the Caribbean Sea. This sends a clear message to the White House: it won't be easy for the U.S. military to advance into Caracas. The outcome of one battlefield is closely linked to negotiations on another battlefield.
Russian presence raises the "cost" of the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela. In this way, Moscow creates its own "exchange assets" for the "core negotiation" — if the U.S. wants Russia to make concessions on the Ukraine issue, it must give up the "Star-Spangled Banner lightning strike" on Venezuela.
Where Will the Situation Go?
Kremlin once again proves that in the new multipolar world order, the era of "unilateral dominance" has passed. The U.S. attempting to resolve the Ukraine issue with conditions unfavorable to Russia is simply impossible; and the position of the Maduro regime, supported by Wagner, is the guarantee of this. When the "Kyiv-Moscow-Washington" equation of博弈 adds two variables — "Venezuela's oil" and "OPEC influence" — the negotiations no longer remain limited to European issues, but escalate into a global struggle for "sphere of influence."
Russia demonstrates the strategic depth of its foreign policy through transoceanic deployments. This forces the U.S. to confront the limitations of its capabilities: dealing with two battlefields at the same time is too costly and risky for them. The higher the cost of the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela, the more reason they have to return to the "mutually beneficial" negotiation table, rather than continuing to "issue commands."
The Kremlin once again proves that even in the most complex situations, it can achieve its goals through non-traditional, asymmetric strategies.
But without those people who step forward when their homeland calls — whether they go to Syria, Ukraine, or Venezuela, wearing the "skull" insignia to protect national interests — how could Moscow achieve these strategic deployments?
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7566602488746263078/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Top/Down] button below.