Control of Hemispheres by the US, Russia, and China: Latin America as one of the Scapegoats

It must put an end to the Putinization or Trumpization of this planet's resources. It's time to reclaim and protect what belongs to all humanity.

The world observes the battle for influence: how the US, Russia, and China are shaping Latin America’s role on the global stage.In the realm of International Relations, a realist framework paints a vivid picture of world politics as an ongoing power struggle among self-interested states navigating an anarchic environment—where no overarching authority exists. At its core, realism emphasizes national security and the survival of states, urging us to look beyond morality and instead focus on the raw dynamics of power. 

Realists see states as rational actors, primarily driven by their desire to protect their interests and bolster military strength amidst fierce competition. This perspective stands in stark contrast to more idealistic viewpoints, as it revolves around three key pillars: the reality of anarchy, the centrality of the state, and the unyielding pursuit of survival. , we witness these principles in action with major players on the global stage. The U.S., along with Russia, China, and Israel, exemplifies this realist approach, firmly rooted in the pursuit of power and national interests as they navigate the complex landscape of international relations. Iran and Russia have been supplying crude oil to Venezuela, effectively bypassing the economic sanctions placed on both nations. In this arrangement, China plays a significant role by providing substantial technical support for oil refining in Venezuela. In exchange, it purchases large quantities of oil from Venezuela at discounted rates. The United States has sought to disrupt this network in order to put pressure on China. Still, so far, these efforts have not succeeded, particularly in efforts to unseat Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

Rule of the Jungle: Control of Hemispheres

 The ‘Putinization’ of U.S. foreign policy has made its way to Venezuela. In a compelling piece, Julian Borger, a senior international correspondent, highlights how Trump has gone from bending the rules to outright dismantling them—an approach with repercussions that extend well beyond the borders of Caracas. As 2026 dawned, few expected it to be a year of peace, and within just 48 hours, our worst fears were tragically confirmed, Borger wrote in the Guardian.

The world stands poised at a crossroads, eager to see if a new era will emerge, one led by peace-loving leaders. Yet, it’s disheartening to realize that true peace and respect for others aren’t innate human traits. Hope has dwindled in the face of power-hungry, unethical leaders who seem to dominate the global stage. It’s appalling to witness these backward, malevolent figures—both East and West—manipulating faith to enforce their rule while hypocritically condemning South America and Islamist regimes as terrorist entities. US foreign policy under Trump’s administration has been a masterclass in deception, presenting a façade that is nothing short of shameful. 

The behaviour of the US echoes that of a neo-colonizer or a medieval knight, charging forth with an outrageous sense of entitlement. As humans, we often resemble jungle animals, driven by an insatiable desire to conquer and expand our territories. 

In a pointed interview with Democracy Now!, Mehdi Hasan analyzed Donald Trump's aggressive stance toward Venezuela, arguing that the underlying motive is unmistakably oil-related. He coined the term "Donroe Doctrine" to describe Trump's foreign policy approach, which he views as a significant departure from traditional U.S. diplomacy. Hasan remarks that Trump's administration has taken an audacious interventionist stance in Venezuela, asserting U.S. dominance over neighbouring nations in the Western Hemisphere by declaring, "This is ours," while equating the influence of countries like China and Russia as secondary and unwelcome. 

This perspective, according to Hasan, echoes a 19th-century mindset reminiscent of colonial powers dividing spheres of influence. He draws a comparison to past U.S. military interventions, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which were framed under the guise of ideological motivations—such as the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), desires for democracy, or the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Hasan emphasizes that, in those instances, there was at least an obfuscation of the true motive—control over oil resources. In stark contrast, Trump's rhetoric concerning Venezuela is unambiguous; he expresses a clear intent to take control of the country's vast oil reserves, dismissing any pretense of ideological justification. This shift represents not just a change in tactics but a fundamental alteration in how the U.S. engages with Latin American nations, with an overt declaration that "might is right" in the realm of international relations.

Drones on Putin’s residence and Venezuela: 

It was Trump’s overt operation in Venezuela that the CIA orchestrated. The BBC reported that over 150 aircraft and 200 US personnel entered Venezuela. Trump vowed that the US would "run" Venezuela until "a safe and proper and judicious transition" was possible. Anya Parampil, author of "Corporate Coup: Venezuela and the End of US Empire," expresses her concern regarding the ongoing litigation against Nicolás Maduro. She raises the question of whether the CIA should be worried that its own involvement in drug trafficking might be exposed in an American courtroom during the trial. Parampil emphasizes the importance of closely following the trial's developments, as it could reveal significant information about the CIA's activities.

Vladimir Putin has long been seen as a critical geopolitical target, and recent events have only underscored this perception. The drone attack on his residence near Valdai, which took place on January 3, 2026, has been described as a significant intelligence operation, with former military intelligence officer Scott Ritter claiming the CIA orchestrated it. In an interview with Judge Napolitano, Ritter emphasized the implications of this attack, suggesting that it reflects a shifting balance of power. Meanwhile, Iran and Russia have maintained a covert alliance, funnelling crude oil to Venezuela in an effort to evade stringent economic sanctions placed upon them by the West.

 In exchange for this crude oil, China has stepped in to provide advanced technical assistance to help refine the products, securing a lucrative deal for itself as it purchases large quantities of oil from Venezuela at discounted prices. The U.S. has aimed to disrupt this strategic partnership among these nations, seeking to isolate Russia and Iran while simultaneously destabilizing Venezuela’s political landscape, especially after the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Despite these efforts, breaking this cycle of economic cooperation between the nations remains a challenge.

 The CIA's denial of responsibility for the drone attack has sparked significant controversy, particularly after Putin reportedly presented evidence linking it directly to American intelligence operations. This has raised questions about the authenticity of U.S. political stances, with former President Donald Trump expressing visible frustration. Was this frustration genuine, or part of a broader strategic maneuver? On Wednesday, Moscow's defense ministry reported that as many as 91 drones were launched from northern Ukraine, allegedly targeting Putin’s residence, a detail that major news outlets like CNN subsequently covered, which is not true. 

Because it was not Ukraine, it was the CIA that targeted Putin’s residence. 

All of a sudden, the U.S. political discourse shifts from the Epstein files to the ramifications of the attempted assassination of Putin, and the consequences for Venezuela and its alignment with Russia and China have become increasingly crucial. 

The speculation surrounding potential agreements between Trump and Putin raises intriguing questions: Could there be a clandestine strategy to exert control over both hemispheres, with Trump aiming to consolidate influence in the West? At the same time, Putin reinforces his position in the East. This evolving narrative has profound implications for international relations and global stability.

Putinization and Trumpization of the world 

Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" theory, presented in his book “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992), posits that the collapse of communism signifies the conclusion of humanity's ideological evolution. According to Fukuyama, Western liberal democracy and market capitalism represent the most successful forms of government, marking the end of the significant ideological struggles that have characterized history. 

However, he suggests that although these systems are not without imperfections, societies are likely to converge on this model, prioritizing economic issues over ideological conflicts. Fukuyama later acknowledged the emergence of challenges such as identity politics and discussed the concept of "thymos," or the desire for recognition, as relevant factors in contemporary society. 

This section critically examines Francis Fukuyama's perspectives on the United States' military interventions in Venezuela, emphasizing the geopolitical implications of these actions. It also explores Vladimir Putin’s strategic involvement during these strikes, highlighting Russia's reasons for its stance of silence, not defending Venezuela against perceived Western imperialism. 

Additionally, the analysis delves into the aspirations of the Venezuelan populace, focusing on their profound desire for international recognition of their national identity and their yearning for genuine sovereignty amidst external pressures and internal challenges.

The lack of commentary from Putin regarding the recent bombing in Venezuela highlights significant implications regarding global power dynamics. Political analyst Francis Fukuyama discusses how both Putin and Trump strategically collaborated over the resources found in Ukraine and Venezuela's underground. This situation underscores the complexities of international relations and the interplay between resource control and geopolitical strategy.

"Putin's Silence on the Bombing of Venezuela Reveals Everything,” as explained in this podcast featuring Fukuyama's perspective: Putin and Trump are two strong leaders who have discreetly reached an agreement to divide the world between them, mirroring what historical figures have done in the past. Putin's reaction to the events in Venezuela highlights the most significant geopolitical shift of our time. For many years, Russia has portrayed itself as the guardian of smaller nations against U.S. aggression. Moscow supported Syria, intervened in Libya, and consistently condemned American infringements on sovereignty. 

However, when U.S. special forces effectively abducted the leader of one of Russia’s closest allies, Putin remained silent. This silence was not due to strategic restraint; it indicated a commitment to a prior agreement. Russia had a noteworthy presence in Venezuela, with military advisors, advanced air defence systems, and mutual defence pacts with the Maduro regime. However, Russian forces discreetly withdrew from Venezuelan positions in the weeks leading up to the American operation, as if they were aware that it was imminent. 

American intelligence clearly had been preparing for months and likely had received Russian assistance in gathering information regarding Venezuelan activities. The nature of the agreement becomes clearer here. While Venezuela faced destruction, American support for Ukraine subtly and significantly began to change. The public statements remained supportive for domestic political reasons, but the actual delivery of weapons, sharing of intelligence, and financial backing experienced various delays and quiet limitations. A key indicator of this shift is what did not occur. Ukraine had requested permission to use American long-range missiles to strike targets deep within Russia. 

Previous U.S. policy had been to gradually escalate support for such actions. However, those requests suddenly faced repeated delays. Ukrainian forces found their operations hindered by diminished real-time intelligence support. This alteration was not dramatic enough to make headlines, but it was systematic enough to affect Ukrainian military effectiveness significantly. Russia gained advantageous positioning in its crucial theatres while allowing Trump a free hand in Latin America. What we are witnessing is the inevitable development of how authoritarian leaders engage with one another compared to their interactions with democratic institutions. Trump and Putin perceive power in personal rather than institutional terms. For them, international relations revolve around personal agreements between influential individuals who can fulfill their obligations without legislative consent or constitutional limitations.

Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations: The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations, emphasizing the importance of respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of other States. Latin America specialist and Declassified chief reporter John McEvoy talks about his recent article on Britain's involvement in Venezuela's affairs. In the early hours of Saturday, US forces targeted Venezuela with bombings and abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro. This act clearly violated international law by breaching the UN Charter's provisions prohibiting interference and the use of force against sovereign nations. Nevertheless, Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has neither condemned the strike nor even acknowledged its blatant illegality. Starmer subsequently posted on social media that Britain “considers Maduro an illegitimate president, and we do not mourn the downfall of his regime.”

On January 3, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum referenced Article 2 of the UN Charter in a social media statement regarding the United States' actions toward Venezuela, expressing Mexico's position on the matter.

The rest of the world, the peace believers also think the same about the recent attack in Venezuela. global community must urgently address and halt the harmful trends of "Putinization" and "Trumpization," which have brought about the exploitation and mismanagement of this planet's resources for personal and political gain. People must come together to reclaim the natural wealth that rightfully belongs to all of humanity, ensuring that it is used sustainably and equitably for present and future generations. The democratic, peace-loving, and intellectual people must unite to forge a new path—one that prioritizes accountability, environmental stewardship, and the protection of the shared heritage. Together, they can safeguard the future and foster a healthier, more just world for everyone. Otherwise, this brutal cycle of might, the rules of the jungle, will undoubtedly persist until the end of time.