The midterm elections have sent a warning signal to Republicans and Donald Trump: voters are increasingly dissatisfied with the administration’s course. But will the electoral shift change U.S. foreign policy? Reports from Venezuela and Ukraine examine how political infighting in America could affect human rights, relations with Latin America and Cuba, the regional economy, the conflict with Iran, and the reliability of U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine and Israel. The text is based on material from Costa del Sol FM (Venezuela) and Interfax-Ukraine (Ukraine).
U.S. Elections Through the Lens of Venezuela’s Hope for Freedom
Venezuelan columnist Raúl Ochoa Cuenca sees the November 3 U.S. congressional elections not as a domestic event in another country, but as a potential factor that could influence Venezuela’s political future. In his column, published by the Los Papeles del CREM project, he links the likely weakening of the Republicans to hopes for a change in the international climate surrounding Caracas.
In the author’s view, such an outcome “could have consequences—hopefully positive ones—for the complex process Venezuela is going through: the transition from a criminal and thieving dictatorship to a system of freedoms.” In this framework, the balance of power in Washington could affect sanctions policy, international pressure, and support for democratic change in Venezuela.
Donald Trump is the central target of criticism in the article. Ochoa Cuenca sees Trump’s remarks about Venezuela as evidence of dangerous political unpredictability. He is particularly outraged by statements attributed to Trump describing the January 3 operation as a victory in a “war with Venezuela,” as well as by rhetoric about Venezuelan oil and other national resources.
For Venezuela, oil is not only a key industry but also a symbol of sovereignty and a source of years of international conflict and pressure. That is why the author sees a foreign politician’s talk of being able to dispose of Venezuelan resources not as routine campaign hyperbole, but as a threat to the country. He places in the same category Trump’s claim that he had received a “gift” of one million barrels of oil from the Venezuelan people. The columnist rejects this as an expression of the people’s will, viewing it instead as part of self-aggrandizing and fantastical rhetoric.
To explain his concern, Ochoa Cuenca cites previously published material about Bandy Lee, a Yale University professor and specialist in forensic and social psychiatry. He recalls her research on Trump’s behavior and the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which brings together assessments by 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other experts. The author asks: “Are we dealing … with the president of the most powerful country in the world suffering from mental disorders?” This is not presented as a medical diagnosis, but as a political expression of concern about the consequences of the U.S. leader’s decisions for Venezuela and the world.
The column is deliberately far from a neutral analysis of the U.S. vote. Its author does not examine the distribution of seats in Congress, turnout, or electoral statistics. He is interested in a different question: could Trump’s weakening make the international environment safer and bring Venezuela closer to a transition from authoritarian rule to a “system of freedoms”?
Los Papeles del CREM describes itself as a forum for political, economic, and social thought on Venezuela today and in the future. The author’s call to “restore historical memory” and his sharp criticism of those in power therefore fit into a broader debate about legitimacy, citizens’ rights, foreign intervention, and the country’s economic isolation. From this perspective, the U.S. elections are not a distant foreign news story, but a possible opportunity to change the circumstances in which Venezuelans continue their struggle for freedom.
Abu Dhabi Talks: Kyiv Demands Real Security Guarantees
Ukraine is cautiously assessing the U.S. initiative to hold the first trilateral peace talks since February in Abu Dhabi, with Kyiv and Moscow participating. For Ukraine, a return to a direct multilateral format does not mean the war is nearing an end: the key condition for any lasting peace remains reliable, workable security guarantees that would prevent Russia from launching another act of aggression.
According to Interfax-Ukraine, Jared Kushner said the United States was preparing “serious proposals” to make the upcoming contacts “meaningful and productive.” He said U.S. President Donald Trump considers achieving peace one of the priorities of his policy.
At the same time, the U.S. side held consultations in Brussels with Ukrainian representatives, NATO, and European partners. The discussions focused on security guarantees for Ukraine and the broader security architecture of Europe. For Kyiv, these issues are inseparable: Russia’s invasion is seen not simply as a bilateral dispute between Ukraine and Russia, but as a threat to European stability requiring a collective response from the United States, NATO, and EU countries.
Ukraine’s position is that the talks must not become a means of pressuring Kyiv into a quick agreement or a temporary ceasefire. Ukraine wants peace, but believes that a pause in hostilities without mechanisms to deter Moscow would only create conditions for another war. That is why concrete commitments from partners—military, political, and financial—as well as a clear process for carrying them out in the event of renewed Russian aggression, are especially important.
The language of “practical, mutually agreed arrangements” is particularly sensitive for Ukraine. The experience of the Budapest Memorandum, as well as subsequent agreements that failed to prevent or stop Russia’s attack, has created deep mistrust of declarative promises. Kyiv expects not general political statements, but a functioning system of guarantees with predetermined actions by allies.
Kushner also spoke of a desire to “address the security concerns of all sides.” In Ukraine, this formulation is viewed with mixed feelings. Kyiv is ready to discuss lasting peace and regional security, but rejects any approach that places the interests of a country that has fallen victim to aggression on the same level as the aggressor’s demands. Ukraine’s security, sovereignty, territorial integrity, defensive capacity, and right to choose its foreign policy course cannot be made the price of an agreement with Russia.
The mention of a possible future meeting between leaders suggests that the talks could move to the highest political level. For Kyiv, however, their value will depend on the substance of any decisions, the positions of Washington and European capitals, and Russia’s willingness to honor its commitments. Diplomatic declarations alone are not enough unless they are backed by mechanisms for monitoring, accountability, and deterrence.
Ukraine’s expectations are also tied to the domestic political situation in the United States and the prospect of stronger U.S. support after the congressional midterm elections. This underscores how military, financial, and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine depends on political developments in Washington.
Thus, Kyiv sees the Abu Dhabi talks as a possible opening for diplomacy, but not as grounds for premature optimism. Ukraine is ready to take part in seeking peace if it is fair and secure: backed by real security guarantees and support from the United States and Europe, with mechanisms to deter Russia, and without repeating the mistakes of previous international agreements.
