The U.S. Government HAS become, and IS, “the Great Satan.” (Yanis Varoufakis)

6 November 2025, posted by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

——

https://www.youtube.com/live/kCGTNv4i98I

“Russia’s Warships Are in Venezuela… and Washington Is Panicking | Yanis Varoufakis”

5 November 2025

Nadikudi Nadine youtube channel (where Varoufakis also says the U.S. economy will soon plunge.)

TRANSCRIPT:

0:00

We are seeing something remarkable

0:01

happening in the Caribbean that would

0:03

have seemed impossible not long ago.

0:06

Russian warships have shown up in

0:08

Venezuelan waters. And this isn’t just a

0:11

casual visit. It’s a deliberate

0:13

geopolitical message. What’s unfolding

0:17

represents a fundamental challenge to

0:19

the hemispheric power structure the

0:20

United States has assumed was secure

0:23

since the Monroe Doctrine nearly two

0:25

centuries ago. For generations,

0:28

Washington has worked on the premise

0:29

that the Western Hemisphere belongs

0:31

exclusively to American influence. That

0:33

premise is now being openly contested.

0:36

Russia’s naval presence in Venezuela is

0:38

Moscow’s response to years of NATO

0:40

moving eastward, missile systems being

0:43

positioned near Russian borders, and

0:45

what the Kremlin sees as constant

0:48

American expansion into their sphere.

0:50

Venezuela, which holds the world’s

0:52

largest confirmed oil reserves, has

0:55

become the center of a broader struggle

0:56

over who makes the rules in

0:58

international affairs. Uh the sanctions,

1:02

diplomatic isolation, and threats of

1:04

military action haven’t produced the

1:07

regime change Washington wanted.

1:10

Instead, they’ve driven Karakas into

1:13

deeper partnerships with Moscow,

1:15

Beijing, and Thran. Understanding what’s

1:18

truly at stake matters because the

1:19

implications extend far beyond Karakas

1:22

or Moscow. This concerns whether we’re

1:25

heading toward a world with multiple

1:26

centers of power or desperately holding

1:28

on to a single superpower arrangement

1:30

that no longer matches reality to grasp

1:32

how we reach this point. We need to look

1:36

back because nothing in geopolitics

1:38

exists in isolation. The story of

1:41

Russian warships in Venezuelan waters is

1:46

actually the story of American foreign

1:48

policy over the last 30 years and how it

1:50

has consistently pushed away potential

1:53

partners while forcing adversaries to

1:56

band together. When the Soviet Union

1:59

fell apart in 1991, the United States

2:02

enjoyed an unmatched moment of global

2:03

dominance. We had won the Cold War. Or

2:07

that’s how the story was told. American

2:10

policy makers thought we’d reached what

2:13

Francis Fuguama called the end of

2:14

history, the ultimate victory of liberal

2:17

democracy and market capitalism. But

2:20

what did we do with that opportunity?

2:22

Rather than creating a genuine framework

2:24

for worldwide cooperation, rather than

2:27

bringing Russia into European security

2:29

arrangements, rather than building

2:31

institutions that reflected all major

2:33

powers interests, we opted for expansion

2:39

and dominance. The debates in the 1,990s

2:44

um about uh expanding NATO included

2:47

warnings from wise observers that

2:49

pushing NATO eastward would be perceived

2:51

by Russia as a fundamental threat.

2:54

George Kennan, who designed America’s

2:56

cold war containment strategy, labeled

2:59

NATO expansion the most consequential

3:02

mistake of American policy in the entire

3:05

postcold war period. He grasped what

3:09

political leaders refused to recognize

3:12

that Russia, regardless of who governed

3:15

it, would see NATO forces on its borders

3:19

as an existential threat. But those

3:21

warnings went unheeded.

3:25

NATO expanded first to Poland, Hungary,

3:28

and the Czech Republic, then to the

3:30

Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania,

3:33

Slovakia, and Slovenia. With each

3:36

expansion wave, we convinced ourselves

3:39

we were spreading democracy and

3:41

security. What we were actually doing

3:43

was constructing a military alliance

3:47

right up to Russia’s border while

3:49

excluding Russia from any meaningful

3:51

participation in European security. The

3:54

critical moment arrived in 2008

3:57

uh um at the NATO summit in Bucharest

4:00

when the uh alliance declared that

4:03

Ukraine and Georgia would eventually

4:06

join. For Russia, this crossed the red

4:09

line. Ukraine isn’t just another country

4:12

to Russia. It represents the birthplace

4:14

of Russian civilization where the first

4:17

Russian state emerged in Kev. The

4:20

prospect of NATO forces in Ukraine, of

4:23

American missile systems just hundreds

4:26

of miles from Moscow was something no

4:28

Russian government could tolerate,

4:30

regardless of uh its political

4:32

character. Yet, we pushed forward

4:35

believing Russia was too weak to

4:37

respond, that history favored us, that

4:40

we could remake the entire postsviet

4:42

region according to our preferences

4:45

without facing consequences. You might

4:47

wonder what uh any of this has to do

4:50

with Venezuela. Everything American

4:54

foreign policy has applied the same

4:56

approach in Latin America that it used

4:57

in Eastern Europe. We’ve presumed the

4:59

Western Hemisphere is ours to manage,

5:01

that governments in this region exist at

5:03

our discretion, and that any country

5:06

defying Washington must be isolated,

5:09

sanctioned, and ultimately removed from

5:13

power. Venezuela’s experience is

5:15

especially uh revealing. Hugo Chavez

5:19

gained power in 1999 through democratic

5:22

elections campaigning on using

5:24

Venezuela’s oil wealth to help the poor

5:26

majority instead of the traditional

5:28

elite. Whatever criticisms one might

5:31

have of Chavez’s policies, and there are

5:34

many, he was democratically elected. But

5:36

because he challenged American corporate

5:39

interests, because he directed

5:41

Venezuela’s oil revenues towards social

5:44

programs rather than channeling profits

5:46

to international oil companies, because

5:49

he formed alliances with Cuba and other

5:51

countries Washington disapproved of he

5:53

became a target. The United States

5:55

backed a coup against Chavez in 2002. It

5:58

failed, but um American hostility

6:02

continued. When Nicholas Maduro

6:04

succeeded Chavez after his death in

6:06

2013,

6:08

Washington increased the pressure. We’ve

6:10

imposed successive waves of sanctions,

6:14

not focused measures against specific

6:16

individuals, but comprehensive economic

6:19

sanctions meant to strangle Venezuela’s

6:22

entire economy. These sanctions have

6:25

prevented Venezuela from accessing

6:27

international financial markets, blocked

6:29

the country from selling its oil, frozen

6:31

billions of dollars in Venezuelan

6:33

assets, and triggered a humanitarian

6:35

catastrophe. The United Nations

6:38

estimates that tens of thousands of

6:40

Venezuelans have died directly because

6:42

of these sanctions. Millions have left

6:44

the country, creating a refugee crisis

6:47

throughout Latin America. What was the

6:49

justification? Democracy and human

6:51

rights, we’re told. But if democracy

6:54

mattered, we wouldn’t partner with Saudi

6:57

Arabia, Egypt, or numerous other

7:00

authoritarian regimes. The actual issue

7:03

is that Venezuela refused to accept

7:05

American dominance. This brings us back

7:08

to Russia’s naval presence. When you’re

7:11

a country under assault, when the

7:14

world’s most powerful military openly

7:16

discusses regime change, when your

7:20

economy is being deliberately destroyed

7:22

by external sanctions, uh you seek

7:26

allies wherever available. Venezuela

7:29

found them in Russia, China and Iran,

7:32

other countries that have faced American

7:35

pressure and understand the value of

7:37

solidarity. Um

7:39

uh Russia’s relationship with Venezuela

7:42

isn’t mainly about ideology. It’s about

7:44

geopolitics

7:46

and shared interests. Russia gains a

7:49

position in the Western Hemisphere, a

7:52

way to show it can project power beyond

7:55

its uh immediate region. Venezuela gains

7:58

a powerful partner that can supply

8:00

military equipment, technical expertise,

8:03

investment, and most crucially, a

8:06

deterrent against American intervention.

8:08

Russian naval deployments to Venezuela

8:10

have occurred periodically since 2008,

8:13

but they’ve gained new importance in

8:14

recent years as tensions between Russia

8:17

and the West have grown. These aren’t

8:19

merely symbolic visits. Russian military

8:23

advisers are in Venezuela. Russian

8:25

equipment from air defense systems to

8:29

fighter jets has been delivered. Russian

8:32

oil companies have invested in

8:34

Venezuelan energy infrastructure.

8:37

Reports indicate Russian personnel at

8:39

Venezuelan military bases. Uh Moscow is

8:44

delivering a clear message to

8:47

Washington. If you can position military

8:50

infrastructure on our borders, we can

8:52

establish a presence in your hemisphere.

8:54

If you can support governments we

8:56

consider hostile, we can protect

8:58

governments you’re trying to overthrow.

9:00

What makes this situation so dangerous

9:02

is that it’s completely avoidable. The

9:05

crisis in Venezuela, uh the Russian

9:08

presence there, the broader breakdown of

9:12

uh hemispheric relations, all of it

9:15

results from American policies that have

9:18

consistently chosen dominance over

9:21

diplomacy. Consider what a different

9:24

approach might have looked like. When

9:26

Chavez was elected. We could have

9:28

engaged with his government, pursued

9:31

mutually beneficial energy partnerships,

9:34

supported constructive reforms while

9:37

expressing concerns about problematic

9:39

policies. Instead, we backed uh a coup

9:43

and then spent two decades attempting to

9:46

economically strangle the country. when

9:48

the Soviet Union collapsed, we could

9:51

have genuinely integrated Russia into

9:55

European and global institutions. Uh

9:57

created a security framework that

9:59

included rather than excluded Moscow.

10:02

Instead, we expanded NATO and treated

10:05

Russia as a defeated enemy rather than a

10:09

potential partner. This pattern repeats

10:12

worldwide. In Iraq, we invaded based on

10:15

false weapons of mass destruction

10:17

claims, destroyed the country’s

10:19

infrastructure, caused hundreds of

10:21

thousands of deaths, and created

10:23

conditions for ISIS to emerge. In Libya,

10:26

we supported regime change that

10:28

transformed a functioning state, however

10:31

flawed, into a failed state with open

10:34

slave markets. In Syria, we armed rebel

10:38

groups that included extremist elements,

10:41

prolonging a civil war that has killed

10:43

half a million people. In Afghanistan,

10:46

we spent 20 years and trillions of

10:49

dollars trying to impose our vision of

10:51

governance only to watch the Taliban

10:54

return to power. In each case, we told

10:57

ourselves we were promoting democracy

11:00

and human rights. In each case, we made

11:03

things worse. And in each case, we

11:06

refuse to acknowledge military powers

11:09

limitations and the importance of

11:12

respecting other nations sovereignty.

11:15

…

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.