This week, President Donald Trump confirmed he recently spoke on the phone with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. This is surprising because his administration has been working hard to remove Maduro from power. The news came as the President also commented on the long-running war between Russia and Ukraine, after important meetings with Ukrainian officials. Together, these events show Trump's preference for dealing directly with foreign leaders himself, sometimes in ways that differ from official government policy.
The call with President Maduro is a clear contradiction. The United States has put increasing pressure on Venezuela's government. It has sent navy ships to the region and accuses Maduro's regime of drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. officially recognizes opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's true president. When asked about the conversation, Trump simply said, "I don’t want to comment on it. The answer is yes."
At the same time, the administration is focused on Eastern Europe. A long meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian teams on Sunday was called critical, but it did not lead to major progress. Afterwards, President Trump shared his thoughts on the war, saying he believes both Russia and Ukraine would like to end the conflict. He mentioned a peace plan he supports.
However, Trump also connected the peace talks to a corruption investigation in Ukraine's energy sector. He suggested this internal problem is harming negotiations. This investigation has already caused political trouble, leading to the firing of a key aide to Ukraine's President just before the talks. By linking domestic issues with international diplomacy, Trump adds complexity to the difficult discussions about the war.
The results of these actions are mixed. Talking to Maduro could weaken the consistent U.S. strategy of isolating his government and might confuse American allies. Regarding Ukraine, mixing peace talks with corruption cases may oversimplify a very complicated war. These events confirm Trump's direct and personal style in foreign policy, making many observers question the long-term strategy behind these important conversations.