The FAA is now warning flights away from Venezuelan airspace, citing security risks and heightened military activity. At the same time, Washington is pressing Ukraine to accept a peace framework that hands Russia major concessions—reportedly part of a broader bargain aimed at securing Russian support for pushing Nicolás Maduro from power.
Airlines Warned To Avoid Venezuelen Airspace
The Federal Aviation Administration issued an advisory warning that the airspace in and around the Maiquetía Flight Information Region (which covers Venezuela and parts of the Caribbean) poses a “potentially hazardous situation” due to “worsening security conditions and heightened military activity.”
The agency says aircraft at all altitudes, for all phases of flight, are at risk – that means takeoff and landing, on the ground, as well as overflight. They asked operators to give at least 72 hours of advance notice to the FAA if flying through the area.
- Several international carriers — including TAP Air Portugal, Iberia Airlines, GOL, and Avianca — cancelled flights to and from Caracas, citing the advisory.
- U.S. airlines have had direct flights to Venezuela suspended since 2019, but some still overflew Venezuelan airspace on South American routes until now.
U.S. Pushing Ukraine To Accept Peace Deal
The U.S. has pushed a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine that gives Russia most everything it wants, from Ukranian territory they do not currently control to guarantees Ukraine could never join NATO (and even symbolic victories like bans on ‘Nazi’ rhetoric in Ukraine).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly saying that the peace plan was not the administration’s, that they merely forwarded a Russian proposal. It was cooked up by Steven Witkoff with his Russian counterpart. This was in direct contradiction to statements that had previously been made by administration figures including J.D. Vance.
AI analysis suggested it was originally written in Russian and translated, not changed. Though Rubio is a relatively pro-Ukraine voice in the administration, he appears to have since fallen into line.
U.S. Appears To Try Trading Ukraine For Venezuela
These two developments are related, it seems. The U.S. appears to be trying to trade Ukraine surrender to Russia for Russian acquiescence on Venezuela, getting Maduro out.
Fact: Marco Rubio is Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. He is now in Geneva with the US Army Secretary negotiating with the Ukrainians on what is largely being seen as a document that halts the fighting in Ukraine giving Russia concessions like control of Ukrainian territory that the Russian military does not yet control and barring Ukraine from future membership in NATO.
These talks in Geneva are taking place on the eve of what appears to be a massive US effort to remove Maduro from oil rich Venezuela (a Russian ally in the US sphere of influence).
Rubio leading talks after denying to US Senators that the Ukraine plan was a US plan (implying it was a Russian plan)- then denying he said so in a tweet today while in Geneva.)
This as reports of diplomats leaving Caracas, flights being cancelled due to massive US military build up off Venezuela’s shores and plans for the US to begin CIA led covert ops and alleged plans to drop flyers demanding Maduro step down (in other words regime change that Rubio has long advocated for.)
The Ukraine deal appears to be linked to the looming US actions in Venezuela based on timing and public reporting.
Fact: Marco Rubio is Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. He is now in Geneva with the US Army Secretary negotiating with the Ukrainians on what is largely being seen as a document that halts the fighting in Ukraine giving Russia concessions like control of Ukrainian…
— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) November 23, 2025
Meanwhile Europe probably doesn’t want a deal at all on (almost) any terms.
Europeans are horrified whenever the Americans and the Russians talk about Ukraine. In our lead story this morning we argue that the EU will want to frustrate a peace deal for three reasons: Peace would be more expensive for them than war. Divisions would emerge about EU…
— Wolfgang Munchau (@EuroBriefing) November 21, 2025
So the answer to ‘why now’ for FAA warnings over Venezuelan airspace may be because the administration is working to push out Maduro now, with potential signoff from Venezuelan ally Russia, in exchange for carving up Ukraine in a peace deal.
I don’t not understand why Trump is so insistent on Maduro stepping down, get stopped Israel from freeing Iran from the Mullahs. Also, Russia should not get a foot of land from Ukraine.
*yet
” The U.S. appears to be trying to trade Ukraine surrender to Russia ”
Never contemplated. The agreement would cede majority Russian areas to Russia. Ukraine would continue to exist as a state. Unless you are delusional enough to believe that Ukraine can win a war, this preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and moves towards Ukraine’s integration into the EU.
L3, do you really trust the Russians to have a “hands off” policy after this? Something similar was cooked up with Czechoslovakia after the war and ended when they threw the foreign minister out a window and took over. That country “continued to exist”–I visited during the Cold War–but it was under Moscow’s thumb (or fist, in 1968). I agree they can’t win the war unless Putin dies and his successors work out a compromise, as was done in Korea after Stalin kicked off, and the Crimea is gone–that never should have been given to the Ukraine as a gift in 1954. But this will be like Munich in 1938, only wetting the appetite of a dictator who I expect will next look at the Baltic states, knowing Trump will never go to war over Estonia. And they will never allow integration with the EU. The Russian people are fine, their governments not so much.
While this deal is tilted toward Russian demands, this reflects the reality that Russia is (slowly) winning this war. Critics of the plan, including European leaders and many members of Congress have offered no alternate plan to end the war and its endless bloodshed. Given the reality on the ground, it is highly likely that a deal 6, 12, or 24 months from now would be even worse for Ukraine. Those yelling about how much territory Ukraine will have to “give up” fail to recognize that most of the land has already been seized by a nuclear-armed state that has no intention of giving it back. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a terrible and unjust action, but unless the west is willing to get into an all-out nuclear war to end the Putin government (God forbid!) then it must deal with reality the way it is, not the way they wish it was. Most borders on the planet reflect the results of war, many of which were as or more unjust than this one. It is the way the world works. The Biden administration had an opportunity to end this war very early on, preserve the vast majority of Ukrainian land, and save hundreds of thousands of lives. They decided that war was in our best interests, and now here we are. It is long past time to end the war and begin supporting Ukraine through the process of rebuilding.
Interestingly Poland would also be ceded to Germany as a part of the proposal
@L3
Great foresight, Chamberlain.
Nice agitprop, L3. This isn’t about “majority Russian areas.” The proposal requires Ukraine to withdraw from parts of Donetsk it currently controls and defends, ceding them to Russia as a demilitarized buffer zone. These aren’t territories Russia won militarily; they’re Ukrainian-held areas being handed over by diplomatic fiat.
The characterization of these as “majority Russian areas” ignores that Russia invaded in 2022 specifically because Ukraine was a sovereign nation choosing its own path. The ethnic composition of border regions doesn’t grant Russia legitimate territorial claims any more than it would for any other nation with cross-border ethnic populations.
Regarding Ukrainian sovereignty: a “sovereign” state that cannot choose its own military alliances, must cap its military size by external decree, cannot station allied troops on its soil, and must surrender 20% of its territory isn’t exercising meaningful sovereignty. That’s a vassal arrangement with paperwork.
The “can Ukraine win” framing is a false binary. The question isn’t whether Ukraine can march to Moscow, but whether it can maintain enough defensive capability that Russia cannot simply wait out a weak agreement and reinvade when convenient. This proposal offers no meaningful deterrent to future Russian aggression beyond vague promises of sanctions that have already proven insufficient.
Looks like a great peace deal – all Putin has to do is fly to Ukraine to sign it. I hear some former Wagner mercenaries have offered to fly him half-way there. Then his long reign over Russia can be followed by a short rain over Russia.
@All Due Respect: Russia invaded because NATO encroached, after multiple warnings, to the Russian border. Consider what the USA would say to the idea of Chinese balistic missiles in, say, Cuba. Ukraine, badly advised by the Biden regime, turned down a better offer before the war. Trump is currently doing his best to clean up the mess left by Biden.
You better hope that Putin is not tactically inept enough to turn this down because, if he is, Ukraine will be destroyed. And remember: This inane war is significantly increasing the risk of an escalation, possibly one involving nuclear weapons. It is not the end of this war that is bad for Ukraine, it is its continuation.
Your objective is to have Ukrainians die to debilitate Russian military strength, instead of you going there and fighting. That is truly cynical. The Ukrainians deserve peace, which can lead to prosperity.
@AllDueRespect: “This isn’t about “majority Russian areas.””.
You must have slept through the last 80 years. Democratic choice has been the single most important political fact determining legitimacy in government transition over that time.
Thank you, @All Due Respect, for yet again being the voice of reason on here and elsewhere. Hillary was right; He’s always been Putin’s puppet. Pathetic abdication by the US to Russia (and China); what’s next, are we literally gonna give Taiwan to Xi? Better not.
Lots of chess pieces in play here.
Google it on line. Venezuela has the largest oil deposit in the world. Greater than Saudi, or any other Middle Eastern country. Yet, Venezuela is a dumpster fire of a country. With Maduro out of the way, the oil flows and Russia is deeper in the hole putting more pressure on Putin to withdraw.
Also, the EU gets cheaper oil just as their economy is slowing down. No complaint from them.
Ukraine bites the bullet via real estate, but the war ends and the soldiers go home. Eventually, Ukraine joins NATO and the EU.
Something for everyone!!
The danger comes from the United States, and not from Venezuela.
@drrichard: Estonia is in NATO, so no issue. The unspoken part of Trump’s proposal is that the USA will back existing NATO countries, and that Russia has more to gain ingratiated into Western institutions (e.g. the G8) than as a puppet of China. Obviously I don’t “trust Putin”, that is what the neocons are doing in assuming no escalation if they push him. That is part of the mess that the Biden regime left.
The adsurd Ukraine war needs to end soon so that the real security threat of China can be addressed.
L3, your remarks from November 23, 2025 at 7:46 pm are Russian propaganda talking points, not facts.
Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening: Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukrainians repeatedly chose to determine their own destiny rather than let Moscow control them. They did this in the 2004 Orange Revolution, and again decisively in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution when they ousted Russia’s puppet government and chose democracy and European integration. Russia’s invasion is an attempt to crush Ukrainian sovereignty and prevent the precedent of a successful democracy on its border.
The “NATO encroachment” narrative is a pretense to justify this aggression. Ukraine had not applied for NATO membership when Russia invaded and was nowhere close to joining. NATO expansion didn’t cause Russian aggression; Russian aggression caused NATO expansion. Finland and Sweden, previously neutral for decades, only applied to join NATO AFTER Russia’s 2022 invasion demonstrated the threat Russia posed to its neighbors.
Second, there was no “better offer before the war.” The peace negotiations you’re referring to happened AFTER Russia invaded in February 2022, not before. Those early talks involved Russian demands for Ukraine’s effective surrender while Russian forces were attempting to capture Kyiv and committing atrocities like the Bucha massacre. Russia later added demands giving Moscow veto power over Ukraine’s security guarantees, making any “deal” worthless. Ukraine didn’t reject peace; it rejected capitulation to an invading army.
Your Cuban Missile Crisis comparison is false equivalence. Ukraine is a sovereign nation choosing its own alliances, not a foreign power placing offensive weapons. Russia itself guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
As for who should “go there and fighting,” Ukraine is defending its own country from invasion. That’s not cynicism; that’s sovereignty. What’s truly cynical is demanding Ukraine surrender its territory and independence to an aggressor that has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to honor any agreement.
1990 – bless up mon ami!
Doug, your argument boils down to “might makes right” and ignores the catastrophic precedent this sets. With an exhausted military including many forced conscriptions, hundreds of thousands of casualties, a collapsing economy, international isolation, and NATO expansion to its borders – the notion that Russia is “(slowly) winning” describes at best a potential Pyrrhic victory.
Your claim about an early peace opportunity misrepresents what happened. Those talks occurred AFTER Russia invaded, while committing atrocities like Bucha. Russia demanded Ukraine’s surrender plus veto power over any security guarantees, making them worthless. Russia chose war, not Biden.
You say critics offer no alternative plan. Here it is: support Ukraine’s defense until Russia can’t sustain offensive operations, then negotiate when Ukraine isn’t under a gun. Forcing capitulation now just means Russia regroups and attacks again, like it did after 2014.
Your “borders reflect war” argument abandons the post-WWII order based on sovereignty and territorial integrity. If nuclear states can seize neighbors’ territory, why shouldn’t China take Taiwan or North Korea invade the South? You’re not being realistic. You’re endorsing 19th-century imperialism.
Churchill said it best about Munich: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Chamberlain’s appeasement bought six months before Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland.
This deal reflects surrender to nuclear blackmail. Accept that precedent and every nation will seek nuclear weapons, knowing they guarantee immunity for conquest. That’s not peace. That’s global instability and proliferation.
@AllDueRespect: Your potted history is just propaganda. The CIA deposed Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 because of his pro-Russia tilt. Unfortunately, he had been democraticatically elected and the only way to legitimately depose any democratic leader (other than one who destroys democratic institutions — eg. Hitler) is democratically. Watch “Ukraine on Fire”.
Niall Ferguson made it clear in an essay in the FT that the reason for the Biden regime’s pressure (supported by lapdog Boris Johnson) on Ukraine to (hopelessly) fight was to mitigate Russia’s militarily without costing American troops. The regime regarded Ukrainian lives as lesser lives, to be freely destroyed.
The NATO encroachment is well documented. Your “oh no it’s not” pleading doesn’t add anything. You argue like a kid in a school playground. Hilary Clinton will adore you. See https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.
The Cuban missile analogy is exact – which is inconvenient to you.
So, get your wooly pants on and go and fight your own war in the Dombas. Ukaine wants peace. Did you notice in tday’s press how much more open to Trump’s peace plan they are than you are? You just want ’em dead.
Can the USA government *ever* go some time without blackmailing, invading, attacking, or otherwise meddling in a country? (Of course not, they’re dictatorial control freaks.)
@Samus Aran: The neocons cannot. We need to get them and their destructive ideas out of the political realm or there will be more Iraqs under false pretences (“He has nuclear weapons!”) and Afghanistans (thousandss of Americans dead and maimed for no noble purpose whatsoever).
These are the same people who want a war with Russia and endanger us with escalation.
@Doug: You make an important point about peace negotiations. The offer to Ukraine before the 2022 war was: Agree to Crimea reverting to Russia. Five of the Eastern Oblasts where democratic support was for it to be ceded to Russia. No NATO membership. Ukraine would have accepted this if it had not been for the Biden regime deluding them into rejecting it in order to use Ukrainians as the “useful idiots” dying to weaken the Russian military in Europe. A more stupid and risky strategy is hard to imagine.
Why so delicate with the wording? The US regime is obviously planning to illegally invade Venezuela. Approximately no one wants or supports this. It’s just to steal their oil, because apparently the last oil war in Iraq went so well.