A “strange swap” from 2019 is back in the spotlight—and it raises urgent questions about U.S. values and global power.
The Venezuela-for-Ukraine deal sounds like something from a cold-war thriller: Russia steps back in Venezuela, and the United States steps back in Ukraine. But according to Fiona Hill—who served as a top Russia and Europe adviser in Donald Trump’s White House—Russian officials did float that idea in 2019. And the fact that it’s resurfacing now is a warning sign about where “great power” politics can lead if voters and lawmakers don’t demand clear limits and accountability. Hill described the pitch as a “very strange swap arrangement between Venezuela and Ukraine.” (AP News)
What Fiona Hill said—and why it’s resurfacing now
Hill’s account matters for two reasons: first, it offers a window into how the Kremlin frames global politics. Second, it forces Americans to ask whether U.S. policy is guided by principle—or by transactions.
The “very strange swap” in plain English
Here’s the core of Hill’s claim: Russian officials signaled they could ease up on their backing of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro if Washington would give Moscow what it wanted in Ukraine—more freedom to dominate its neighbor.
Hill said the idea was raised repeatedly, not as a formal written offer, but as a push through informal channels and public messaging. She told the Associated Press that Russia’s then-ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, “hinted many times” at a bargain. (AP News)
And Hill didn’t mince words about the “wink-wink” nature of it:
“Before there was a ‘hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, how about doing a deal?’ But nobody (in the U.S.) was interested then,” Hill said. (AP News)
How the Monroe Doctrine got pulled into it
Hill also described Russia leaning on an old concept Americans know well: the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823-era idea that the Western Hemisphere is largely off-limits to European meddling. (U.S. State Department, Office of the Historian)
The Kremlin’s message, as Hill relayed it, was essentially: You claim a “backyard” in the Americas; we claim a “backyard” in Eastern Europe. That logic isn’t new. What’s new is how openly it’s being normalized again.
Hill’s earlier testimony during the 2019 impeachment inquiry also referenced this “swap” concept, which has been publicly documented in released materials. (House Foreign Affairs Committee release; Hill transcript excerpts PDF)
Quick refresher: Why Venezuela and Ukraine were both flashpoints in 2019
To understand why Russia would even propose a trade, it helps to remember what was happening on both fronts.
Venezuela: A standoff with real stakes
In 2019, Venezuela was in a political crisis, with Nicolás Maduro clinging to power and the U.S. and allies recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president, as Hill recalled. (AP News)
Russia, meanwhile, had reasons to keep Maduro afloat: geopolitical influence close to U.S. shores, and leverage against Washington in a broader global contest.
Ukraine: Pressure, leverage, and a rules-based order under strain
That same year, Ukraine was central to the first Trump impeachment inquiry—focused on allegations that U.S. military aid and a White House meeting were used as leverage for political investigations. Hill’s testimony was part of that record. (House Foreign Affairs Committee release)
From Moscow’s point of view, Ukraine is not just another foreign policy file. It is central to Russia’s desired sphere of influence.
Featured snippet: What is a “Venezuela-for-Ukraine deal”?
A Venezuela-for-Ukraine deal is a proposed spheres-of-influence trade, where Russia would reduce support for Venezuela’s government if the U.S. reduced support for Ukraine—treating both countries as bargaining chips rather than sovereign nations.
Why this matters now: “Spheres of influence” is back—and it’s dangerous
Hill warned that big powers embracing spheres of influence sends one loud message: might makes right. (AP News)
The human cost gets erased first
When superpowers talk about “swaps,” real people disappear from the conversation. And both Venezuela and Ukraine involve mass displacement.
- Venezuela: UN-linked tracking reports nearly 7.9 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants worldwide as of late 2025. (UNHCR—Venezuela situation; R4V platform)
- Ukraine: UNHCR reporting shows over 5.7 million refugees from Ukraine globally, plus about 3.7 million people displaced inside the country. (UNHCR data portal document; UNHCR—Ukraine emergency)
These are not abstract numbers. They represent families who lost homes, schools, and stability—often because powerful actors treated their country as a board game.
It undercuts America’s credibility—especially on Ukraine
If the U.S. argues that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is illegitimate, but also signals that the U.S. can “run” another country’s future by force or fiat, it becomes harder to defend a consistent standard.
Hill raised this credibility problem directly in her comments to the AP, warning that U.S. actions can make it harder for Kyiv’s allies to condemn Russia’s ambitions as illegitimate. (AP News)
What the facts do—and don’t—prove
A responsible read of Hill’s account requires two truths at the same time: take the warning seriously, and avoid jumping ahead of the evidence.
What we know
Based on Hill’s public comments and the documented record:
- Hill says Russian officials repeatedly floated a Venezuela/Ukraine “swap” concept. (AP News)
- She describes it as informal signaling, not a formal written offer. (AP News)
- She says she was dispatched to deliver a clear U.S. message: “Ukraine and Venezuela are not related to each other.” (AP News)
- Her 2019 testimony record includes discussion of this “swap” concept and related context. (Hill transcript excerpts PDF; House Foreign Affairs Committee release)
What we don’t know (and shouldn’t assume)
- We do not have public proof of a signed, official “trade” agreement.
- We do not know the full internal deliberations across agencies, allies, and backchannels.
- We should be cautious about social media certainty. Even fact-checkers have emphasized the quote is real, while broader claims about an executed “swap” remain unverified. (Snopes)
Fair counterarguments—and why they fall short
It’s worth engaging the best arguments from those who prefer transactional diplomacy.
Counterargument 1: “Great power deals prevent bigger wars”
Some argue that carving out spheres of influence reduces conflict by clarifying boundaries.
Response: It can also invite aggression. If autocrats believe the world is divided into “yards,” they will push fences outward. The lesson of the last decade is that ambiguity plus opportunism often ends with civilians paying the bill.
Counterargument 2: “Ukraine is far away; the U.S. should focus on the Western Hemisphere”
This view says U.S. priorities should be local, not global.
Response: Americans can prioritize the hemisphere without granting Russia “a free hand” anywhere else. The U.S. is capable of walking and chewing gum: defending democratic norms while also tackling migration, security, and economic pressure closer to home.
Counterargument 3: “The Monroe Doctrine is U.S. tradition”
Yes, it’s a piece of history. (U.S. State Department, Office of the Historian)
Response: Tradition is not a blank check. Modern foreign policy should be guided by law, alliances, and human rights—not nostalgia for 19th-century power maps.
What policymakers—and citizens—should do next
If Americans don’t want foreign policy reduced to “swap arrangements,” we need guardrails that outlast any one administration.
1) Demand transparency on backchannel diplomacy
Congress should require regular reporting on major diplomatic engagements that touch:
- U.S. commitments to allies (including Ukraine)
- Any discussions of “spheres of influence”
- Any policy shifts tied to unrelated theaters (e.g., Venezuela linked to Europe)
2) Recommit to a consistent standard: sovereignty matters
A clear public principle helps prevent quiet drift:
- No trading away another nation’s right to choose its future
- No “free hands” for authoritarian expansion
- No blank-check interventions justified by slogans
3) Pair security policy with humanitarian realism
When leaders debate Venezuela and Ukraine, they should also address the displacement reality:
- Support regional partners hosting Venezuelan refugees and migrants. (R4V)
- Sustain humanitarian and protection funding for Ukrainians uprooted by war. (UNHCR—Ukraine emergency)
4) Keep the public engaged—because silence is a policy choice
Here are concrete steps readers can take this week:
- Call your House member and Senators and ask if they support hearings on “spheres of influence” bargaining.
- Share credible reporting (not memes) with friends and family.
- Support reputable humanitarian groups working with displaced people.
- Vote in every election, including primaries, where foreign policy accountability often starts.
Conclusion: A “swap” mentality is how democracies lose the plot
Fiona Hill’s warning—about Russia floating a Venezuela-for-Ukraine trade—should not be treated as gossip or cable news fuel. It’s a civic test. If powerful countries start treating smaller nations as negotiable pieces, the world becomes less stable, more violent, and more cynical. And once that logic takes root, it rarely stays “over there.”
The U.S. can protect its interests without abandoning its principles. But that only happens when citizens demand clarity, lawmakers enforce oversight, and leaders resist the easy temptations of deal-making that ignores human consequences.
Call to action: If you found this breakdown useful, share it, leave a comment with what questions you want answered next, and ask your elected officials to reject any foreign policy built on “swap arrangements.”
Sources (selected)
- Fiona Hill account and context: AP News
- 2019 transcript release page: House Foreign Affairs Committee
- Hill transcript excerpts: House Intelligence Committee PDF
- Venezuela displacement data: UNHCR—Venezuela situation, R4V
- Ukraine displacement data: UNHCR—Ukraine emergency, UNHCR data portal document
- Monroe Doctrine background: U.S. State Department, Office of the Historian
- Quote verification context: Snopes
