Rumor has it that Trump & Putin exchanged Venezuela for Ukraine

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

Edit 7th January 2026: Sources from the New York Times, National Interest, ABC News on page 3 that confirm that such a proposal was indeed made. Page 3:

 

According to rumors, Trump and Putin did not discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine during their meeting in Alaska, but rather a division of states and oil fields. (And perhaps also a part of Poland or Lithuania?) According to this, Trump would allow Putin to take Ukraine, while Putin would refrain from supplying Venezuela with long-range weapons and Trump would be allowed the invasion of Venezuela in order to seize and develop oil fields there. It would be less of a land invasion and more of a water zone invasion.
This is known as the Venezuela theory and is supported by reputable philosophers such as Richard David Precht, among others.  

The following points support the theory:
 - A few weeks after the Alaska meeting, Putin attacked government buildings in Kiev for the first time in three years. It was speculated that the Biden administration approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the sense that the US would not send ground and air forces, but that Biden drew a red line that government buildings would not be attacked, which Putin adhered to. This is no longer the case after the Alaska meeting.

- For the first time, Putin sent drones to Poland, a NATO country, which even flew over Warsaw and penetrated deep into the country, far from the border. Trump then reacted “like a gawker” (who may even be cheering Putin on?). It is speculated that Putin got Trump's permission to do so. 
- Trump sent the Navy to the waters of Venezuela and the Caribbean and is taking an activist approach there. Trump already proposed an invasion of Venezuela during his first term in office.
- Historically, it is common for major powers to divide the world among themselves.
- Trump allowed the Department of Defense to be alternatively also called Department of War as second name.

Arguments against the theory:
- The meeting in Alaska lasted only three hours. That is too short a time to seal such an important decision.
- Putin did not help his ally Armenia, which is very close to Russia, against the invasion by Azerbaijan so it is speculated that Putin would not help Venezuela either any way, and Trump would not need Russia's permission.
- An invasion of Venezuela would spark controversy that would have global effects

I was initially skeptical about this theory until I read about the Tonkin incident. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident )

In 1964, the US sent ships to Vietnam, initially only outside territorial waters in international passages, which is legal. But then the US accused Vietnam of firing on American ships, declared war on Vietnam, and invaded it. Vietnam was virtually destroyed and remains considerably poorer than China and South Korea to this day. It later emerged that Vietnam had never attacked the US ships first. Doesn't all this seem somehow familiar to us?

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Ayesha Erotica

[JRCF29 8,230]

"Rumor has it" and it's literally just a conspiracy theory you read somewhere online. No sources? 

[Pablo 8,595]

A rumor is a rumor, still waiting for the war to end in 24 hours like Trump has lied about over and over 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-war

[Ma Ma Pa Pa Pa 997]

This rumor is as credible as Gaga's south american leg of mayhem ball

[Lord Mayhem 3,448]

Why does this not have a rumor tag or source? 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

11 minutes ago, JRCF29 said:

"Rumor has it" and it's literally just a conspiracy theory you read somewhere online. No sources? 

As I've written, it's made by famous honorary professor of philosophy Richard David Precht ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_David_Precht )

Source: https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/die-venezuela-theorie-teilen-sich-putin-und-trump-gerade-heimlich-die-welt-auf_f2bea768-be14-4cd8-a12f-9fb683fdbaf3.html

Focus Online is not a conspiracy site, it is a major news site since 1996.

Translation: "Trump and Putin may actually have made a deal at their summit in Alaska that no one had previously thought possible: The US is grabbing Venezuela, and Putin, in return, is grabbing Ukraine. Recent events support this theory. Donald Trump dominates the world stage – at least the Western one. However, his most important foreign policy step from a European perspective, the meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, threatens to become a mini-footnote in history. Because the results or even changes resulting from the president's summit with the Russian leader are not visible. Or are they?

There is a speculation that has been circulating since the Alaska summit. A speculation that started out as a conspiracy theory, but has been gaining plausibility in recent days. It is a speculation that is probably being whispered about in Washington, laughed about in Moscow, and is certainly already being seriously warned about in Caracas. The theory was born in Germany from the fog of political talk shows, but it is now taking on very tangible geopolitical contours: It is the Venezuela Theory. Did Trump and Putin make a secret deal in Alaska? It states that Trump and Putin may have unofficially agreed to a deal at their much-publicized summit: Putin would be given a free hand in Ukraine – in return for Trump receiving the green light to target Venezuela. Not out of charity, not for humanitarian reasons, not to curb the drug trade, but because of the world's largest oil reserves, which are stored in the Latin American country. It would be a horse-trading deal the likes of which only two men who see politics as a big deal could make. This theory first made its way into the public eye in a podcast, of all places.

TV talk show host Markus Lanz discussed the intertwined interests of America and Russia with philosopher Richard David Precht. Precht formulated something surprising for which he cited no sources. Namely, that the real issue at the Alaska summit between American and Russian negotiators concerned not only Ukraine, but also Venezuela. "Seriously?" Lanz asked incredulously – expressing what millions of viewers were thinking. But Precht stuck to it. And since then, the idea has wafted through German discussion panels as the "Venezuela theory." Venezuela – corrupt and poor but rich in oil In fact, Venezuela presents a scenario that seems tailor-made for Washington: The country is politically isolated, and the government of Nicolás Maduro is described as corrupt to the core. The country ranks 178th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI); only two states – Somalia (179th) and South Sudan (180th) – are rated as more corrupt. The Maduro regime has almost no international support. Sanctions by the US and EU have pushed the country out of most markets. Where oil dollars once flowed, today an economy of scarcity prevails. Millions of Venezuelans have already fled, the economy has collapsed, and institutions have been eroded. But: According to OPEC calculations, the planet's largest proven oil reserves lie underground – larger even than those of Saudi Arabia. A treasure that lies untapped while the world simultaneously searches for alternative energy sources and security of supply. For Trump, who has always viewed oil as the currency of power and who campaigned with the oil driller's phrase "Drill Baby, Drill," Venezuela would be a worthwhile target. And for Putin, who would receive a largely free hand in Ukraine in return, it would be a calculable price. US warships are off Venezuela The fact that the US has long been ready was confirmed one day after the Alaska summit: Several US warships – including guided-missile destroyers, a cruiser, an amphibious assault ship, and a nuclear-powered submarine – along with approximately 4,000 Marines and surveillance aircraft, took up positions off the coast of Venezuela. The goal, according to the US government, is to fight drug cartels. Observers, however, refer to this as "gunboat diplomacy." According to Venezuelan leader Maduro, the number of heavy US warships off his coast has now risen to eight. They reportedly carry 1,200 missiles on board. Maduro speaks of a massive threat. He describes the action as the "greatest danger on our continent in a century" and threatens decisive retaliation. This week, the next escalation took place on Tuesday: The US military blew up a ship off the coast of Venezuela that was allegedly loaded with drugs and operated by the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua terrorist group. Eleven people were killed. Trump commented on "Truth Social": "This should serve as a warning to everyone... Be careful!"

Secretary of State Rubio confirmed the "fatal strike" against the ship. Venezuela, however, accused the US of staging a drug story and questioned the authenticity of a released video. One thing is clear: the operation was also a show of force. The US has a military presence and is capable of striking at any time. Venezuela Theory Sounds Plausible Against this backdrop, the Venezuela theory suddenly seems less like a fantasy. Putin doesn't need the US as an adversary in Ukraine; Trump needs a major foreign policy feat that can be sold domestically. Portraying himself as a tough fighter against a corrupt regime while simultaneously securing his country's access to Venezuelan oil would be a resounding success from Trump's perspective. But how realistic is such a deal? Venezuela has long been a country disintegrating from within. The government is incapable of fighting corruption, the military controls large parts of the drug trade, and the population is starving. According to United Nations estimates, approximately four million people in Venezuela urgently need food aid, or about 40 percent of the population. It's still a theory International partners are rare – only Russia, China, and Iran are still in contact. A US attack, covered by Moscow's tacit consent, could radically alter the balance of power in Latin America. The theory is gaining traction because it's so easy to explain: major geopolitical issues aren't resolved openly, but behind closed doors. And because both sides would benefit – at the expense of a country that can barely offer any resistance anyway. It's still a theory. There are no documents, no protocols, only hints, observations, and military pointers. But the Venezuela theory has one quality that makes it dangerous: It sounds plausible. So plausible that one has to ask whether it hasn't already become reality – and we're just waiting for confirmation."

[JRCF29 8,230]

4 minutes ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

it's made by famous honorary professor

It's just his ramblings, though. 

[Bronco 25,862]

13 minutes ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

As I've written, it's made by famous honorary professor of philosophy Richard David Precht ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_David_Precht )

 

He's a philosopher, not a political scientist. He's got no international relations credentials, no military studies experience. 
He's just a crackpot, has regularly said Ukraine should surrender and advocates a fringe political revolutionary theory. 
 

 

[Sunny 12,753]

Precht also said that Ukraine should surrender, so I wouldn't trust him that much. He's pretty much hated in Germany

It's obvious to everyone that Trump and Putin made some sort of deal, I doubt it's this though.

[NemoMyName 2,224]

Another kinda point against this theory is that the drug and organized crime problem in Venezuela is 100% real and they have destabilized a big part of latam with criminal groups like "Tren de Aragua", and it's confirmed this group in particular work very close with Venezuelan goverment. Once they are in your country, they are like a plague.

[kwiax 3,028]

2 hours ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

[Edit: Full source added in post #6 of this topic, scroll down]

According to rumors, Trump and Putin did not discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine during their meeting in Alaska, but rather a division of states and oil fields. (And perhaps also a part of Poland or Lithuania?) According to this, Trump would allow Putin to take Ukraine, while Putin would refrain from supplying Venezuela with long-range weapons and Trump would be allowed the invasion of Venezuela in order to seize and develop oil fields there. It would be less of a land invasion and more of a water zone invasion.
This is known as the Venezuela theory and is supported by reputable philosophers such as Richard David Precht, among others.  

The following points support the theory:
 - A few weeks after the Alaska meeting, Putin attacked government buildings in Kiev for the first time in three years. It was speculated that the Biden administration approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the sense that the US would not send ground and air forces, but that Biden drew a red line that government buildings would not be attacked, which Putin adhered to. This is no longer the case after the Alaska meeting.

- For the first time, Putin sent drones to Poland, a NATO country, which even flew over Warsaw and penetrated deep into the country, far from the border. Trump then reacted “like a gawker” (who may even be cheering Putin on?). It is speculated that Putin got Trump's permission to do so. 
- Trump sent the Navy to the waters of Venezuela and the Caribbean and is taking an activist approach there. Trump already proposed an invasion of Venezuela during his first term in office.
- Historically, it is common for major powers to divide the world among themselves.
- Trump allowed the Department of Defense to be alternatively also called Department of War as second name.

Arguments against the theory:
- The meeting in Alaska lasted only three hours. That is too short a time to seal such an important decision.
- Putin did not help his ally Armenia, which is very close to Russia, against the invasion by Azerbaijan so it is speculated that Putin would not help Venezuela either any way, and Trump would not need Russia's permission.
- An invasion of Venezuela would spark controversy that would have global effects

I was initially skeptical about this theory until I read about the Tonkin incident. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident )

In 1964, the US sent ships to Vietnam, initially only outside territorial waters in international passages, which is legal. But then the US accused Vietnam of firing on American ships, declared war on Vietnam, and invaded it. Vietnam was virtually destroyed and remains considerably poorer than China and South Korea to this day. It later emerged that Vietnam had never attacked the US ships first. Doesn't all this seem somehow familiar to us?

 

 

 

Stop, just stop 🛑 

[princessofmonaco 215]

Just a reminder: honorary professors are humans first and foremost, and like anyone, they can be wrong or biased. A stance is only credible when supported by substantial evidence. The same standard applies to scientists, doctors, or any other impressive-sounding title. Without evidence or peer review, a claim remains an opinion rather than a fact, even if it later turns out to be true.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

5 hours ago, princessofmonaco said:

Just a reminder: honorary professors are humans first and foremost, and like anyone, they can be wrong or biased. A stance is only credible when supported by substantial evidence. The same standard applies to scientists, doctors, or any other impressive-sounding title. Without evidence or peer review, a claim remains an opinion rather than a fact, even if it later turns out to be true.

of course, it is an opinion and hence labelled as a rumor and cannot be a fact since the event has not happened yet

it can only be a rumor/opinion/theoretical before an invasion anyway and nothing else because the US would not announce or officially declare that it will invade Venezuela before it will have invaded it. Neither did Russia before Feb 24th 2022. Nor did Isráel inform the world that it will strike Qatar before it striked Qatar. There will be no prior notice of official annexation plans/oil fields taking over in the case of Venezuela.

Everything before can only be a rumor. Per se it can only be an opinion, so yeah it is as you write and I put it in the title that it is a rumor

7 hours ago, Sunny said:

Precht also said that Ukraine should surrender, so I wouldn't trust him that much. .

 

7 hours ago, Bronco said:

has regularly said Ukraine should surrender 
 

 

it is easy to say for people who are not fighting themselves and watching from far away to tell Ukrainians to fight and not surrender

If you were Ukrainian men, aged 28, conscripted to the front, would you go to the front and get likely bombed by Russia or would you escape to another country/not go to war front which is equal to surrendering?

Why should ordinary Ukrainian men pay the price for the Ukrainian leading politicians decision to give up nuclear weapons in the 1990s? Even though the US gov claims the nukes were not really controlled by Ukraine, Ukraine could still have found ways to put the nuclear material onto self-developed rockets serving as an effective deterrent

Precht considered the immorality of sending and sacrificing men in war and considered that Ukraine as a weaker country cannot win against Russia anyway, and I perfectly agree with his reasoning

At least, Precht is not a hypocrite and not telling Ukrainians to do something that NATO countries aren't doing either (sending air/ground troops) and he personally himself would not like to do either, to fight. He is judging from the individual level as a philosopher

And Precht can't be that hated as he gets regularly an one hour interview with Markus Lanz from public state TV

But yes, Lanz was sceptical and not approving of his theory

 

[Economy 52,895]

This sounds too fan fiction even for Trump...

[GregJA 5,548]

This is so ludicrous lol. I'd sooner believe aliens will arrive tonight.

(legall