Donald Trump Weakens on Venezuela

 Donald Trump Weakens on Venezuela

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

US geopolitics in the region is undergoing a significant shift, with characteristics reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt's model.

Although the use of military force is presented as a strategy of psychological pressure, this form of coercive diplomacy tolerates no resistance and sends a clear message against populist governments and established powers.

While there have been no large-scale attacks like those of recent historical periods, the implicit message is forceful: the United States is not willing to allow full political, economic, and social autonomy in this region. The potential fall of the Castro-Chavista regime in Venezuela prompts reflection on the future of nationalist populism in Latin America.

It is striking to observe the fragility of populist governments in the face of US influence, as well as the lack of significant support from the BRICS countries regarding the realities facing South America.

The question arises as to whether this context could represent any political benefit for Donald Trump.

However, it should also be noted that his decisions and excesses generate discontent even among his own electorate.

In parallel, the anti-neoliberal and decolonial discourse in Latin America seems to be reconfiguring itself in the face of US military threats.

It is essential that ideas evolve toward more effective strategies to counter imperialist dynamics.

On the other hand, the process of economic integration between Mexico and the United States presents itself, by necessity, as a display of pragmatism that cannot be ignored.

Mexico, increasingly interdependent with its northern neighbor, faces the challenge of deepening this relationship to guarantee mutual benefits.

A viable path to ensuring successful integration involves fostering a liberal culture and strengthening Mexican state institutions.

The current situation in Venezuela serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing objectives and means in the region's political trajectory.

Meanwhile, the historical aspirations of the Latin American left face significant challenges.

Its structural limitations contrast sharply with the reach of U.S. power, creating a seemingly insurmountable dynamic.

Mexico's political and economic evolution is inextricably linked to the U.S. context, making it essential to closely observe developments in the United States to anticipate the future.

The internal struggles within the Mexican state have inadvertently contributed to amplifying the United States' influence and veto power in domestic affairs.

Instead of pursuing an independence that is difficult to achieve under current conditions, it is crucial to commit to balanced and responsible collaboration that benefits both parties and fosters a more constructive environment.

Although the decline of US imperialism has been extensively debated, the military mobilization in Latin America seems to contradict this perception.

However, recent events stemming from Donald Trump's actions against progressive populism in Venezuela suggest that the weakness of the United States and the lack of clarity surrounding Trumpism are more evident.

While the unilateral measures taken against vessels deemed unsafe by the United States have been significant, the survival of so-called Castro-Chavismo in Venezuela demonstrates that the landscape has not substantially changed.

At the same time, in other strategic areas of global geopolitics, the United States is retreating in the face of its adversaries and limiting the scope of its influence as a bastion of liberal capitalist democracy.

Historical critics of US imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky, predicted that the decline of the United States would inevitably come as the resources necessary to maintain such costly geopolitical control for its taxpayers were exhausted.

Today, this premise seems to be confirmed by recent US economic decisions and geopolitical strategies.

The United States appears to be incapable of guaranteeing the protection of its own national security, adopting a mercantilist approach and ceasing to invest in major projects that would expand its geopolitical presence beyond its immediate areas of competitive influence.

This reinforces the increasingly accepted idea of ​​the decline of American imperialism.

The Trump administration's strategy, for its part, is becoming increasingly ambiguous both domestically and internationally.

In this context, the multipolar scenario gains greater relevance, and it is vital that societies understand the implications of a world governed by multiple, conflicting powers seeking to replace US hegemony.

An example of this shift is Mexico, where the influence of powers like China and Russia not only persists but could grow due to the less proactive approach of the United States.

Likewise, the expansion of the BRICS bloc and the strengthening of progressive populist regimes in Latin America appear to be inevitable trends on the regional landscape.

In parallel, the decline of the United States is generating immediate concerns, especially regarding the public policies that Mexico must adopt to address challenges such as mass deportations and immigration control.

Furthermore, it will be a priority to develop strategies to offset the economic impact stemming from both potential deportations and the reliance on informal labor, which represents a key component of the country's socioeconomic structure.

Russian Disinformation in Mexico

 Russian Disinformation in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Critical voices such as Dolia Estévez, Beata Wojna, Denise Dresser, and now Leo Zuckerman, are warning about the increasingly constant presence of Russian disinformation strategies in Mexico.

The journalistic analysis of these figures reveals a web of geopolitical interests and ambiguous alliances between Mexico, Russia, and the United States, demonstrating a strategic collaboration tinged with disinformation and polarization similar to the communication environments of World Wars I and II.

In a context where Mexico seeks to diversify its international relations to assert its sovereignty, the relationship with Russia is presented as a means to counteract U.S. influence, promoting a multipolar order.

Both Mexico and Russia seem to be taking advantage of this interaction to challenge Western hegemony; Mexico, it appears, is seeking a counterweight to the United States, while Russia is attempting to expand its influence in a key region, undermining Washington's traditional control.

In the Mexican case, the close relationship with Russia is framed within an anti-imperialist stance and a rejection of US influence, in line with discourses that criticize neoliberalism and globalist democracy.

The Russian narrative of competitive authoritarianism is attractive to sectors of the Fourth Transformation, who see in its model a resistance to the excesses of neoliberalism and an inspiration for national transformation, even if this implies supporting a contradictory form of capitalism.

Russia, for its part, uses Mexico as a stage to expand its influence, promoting disinformation and anti-Americanism through propaganda outlets and figures, with the aim of reducing US hegemony and strengthening a multipolar world.

However, there is also an understanding between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin regarding the issue of Ukraine, which creates a conflict of interest that could be detrimental to Mexico if Putin's administration decides to support Trump's political needs.

Russia and the United States are two empires that have more in common with each other than with Mexicans.

This pro-Russian collaboration, however, masks profound contradictions.

The proximity to authoritarian models and the perception of Putin as a strong leader who limits oligarchic power contrasts sharply with the democratic values ​​that the Mexican left traditionally defends.

Furthermore, the adoption of populist rhetoric and the disdain for science and intelligence reinforce an anti-establishment narrative that may facilitate Russian influence, but also compromises the country's legitimacy and democratic principles.

The presence of media outlets and figures linked to Russia, considered spies or propagandists, reveals a risk of interference and manipulation that could distort Mexican reality.

Ultimately, collaboration with Russia benefits both countries in their struggle against U.S. influence, but at a high cost for Mexico.

Relations with foreign powers, especially authoritarian regimes, can divert the country from its democratic path and strengthen anti-institutional and conservative tendencies.

The lack of counterintelligence capabilities and the political will to maintain ambiguous relationships leave Mexico vulnerable to external influences and potential manipulation.

In this scenario, the country becomes a territory where foreign interests operate opaquely, jeopardizing its sovereignty and its project of social and political transformation.

Incentives: Time, Income, and Effort

 Incentives: Time, Income, and Effort

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The struggle to confront drug-related insecurity in Mexico reveals a profound disconnect between political extremes and the national challenges the country faces. Attempting to resolve such a critical problem with lukewarm measures or mere good intentions is nothing more than evading the gravity of the issue, a tactic that has unfortunately characterized Mexico's economic policy since the 1970s. While the economy should be based on concrete facts, the real obstacle lies in the lack of political will to dismantle a deeply entrenched colonial-feudal system that has existed for almost five centuries in Latin America.

Expert Luis Rubio astutely analyzes the situation of the Mexican middle class, facing a bleak outlook. For many families, obtaining quality education, formal employment, decent housing, and access to credit can take more than two decades, while migrating to the United States allows them to access these resources in less than ten years. Even more disturbing, the quick profits promised by drug trafficking offer some a third of these opportunities in just five years or less. Given this contrast, it is not surprising that nearly fifty million Mexicans have chosen to migrate illegally to the United States, seeking a life that—although difficult—they consider a thousand times better than subsisting in poverty in their country. At the same time, drug trafficking is consolidating itself as one of the largest informal employers in key regions. In this context, does anyone really believe that the current government's welfare policies and clientelistic programs will achieve significant change? Do they truly think that the Morena scholarships and corrupt Morena clientelism will improve the situation? If the idea of ​​the "six-thousand-dollar" movement sounded like idiocy in 2007, how does the idea of ​​the "two-thousand-dollar" movement sound in 2026? They could have at least taken the joke Mejía Prieto tells about the "fucking lemon" from the Echeverría era. Morena's progressive illiteracy is incapable of remembering the projects of the National Citrus Institute, the National Coffee Institute, and so many other ideas that, in the long run, didn't seem so far-fetched; perhaps to give the State relative autonomy.

Although remittances and drug money represent less than 20% of the national GDP, the real dilemma lies in how the rest of the formal economy is managed and distributed. Dependence on foreign investors and maquiladoras has generated a structure where the main benefits end up outside the country, leaving Mexico as a mere cog in the global system. The banking sector and major industrial sectors are not controlled by Mexicans, and therefore, a large portion of the profits flows out to the capital's countries of origin. In this economic cycle, where extraction is prioritized over internal development, how can we expect a real solution?

Rational choice theory states that there are no bad actions, only flawed incentives. And Mexico remains trapped in this logic: its public policies, especially under the current administration known as the Fourth Transformation, have perpetuated incentives that fuel corruption and reinforce inequalities. Not even the public budget seems to escape this fate, replicating old wasteful practices that previously defended failed models of autarky. The Mexican government's disconnect is also evident when it acts blindly toward its own geopolitical reality. The informal economy has allowed millions to survive thanks to its ties with the United States, but the government insists on confronting strategic American interests without asking what Mexico gains from this antagonism. The synergies between the two countries have proven to be, albeit imperfect, necessary for distributing mutual benefits. Mexican migrants understand this; the Mexican government seems to deny it.

Meanwhile, a socioeconomic model—the "Habsburg Model"—persists, centralizing power and privileges in historical minorities such as the Catholic Church, Europeans, Spaniards, and local political bosses, relegating the majority to the informal sector. If the United States ever decides to more formally stabilize its economic influence in Mexico, our country could better integrate into a favorable regional framework. Otherwise, it will remain a secondary player on a global chessboard where its potential is constantly underestimated.

Building a governable and prosperous Mexico requires a bold vision. Recent electoral history offers lessons in this regard: just as millions of Mexicans have decided to change the country's internal political course, millions more have opted to strengthen their future from abroad, in the United States. However, no true transformation will be possible without definitively breaking with inherited and entrenched structures. At the end of the day, social peace, economic growth, and true security demand clear decisions: integrating Mexico into a more robust North American dynamic and ending a feudal model that has no place in modern times. There will be no development in Mexico until it integrates with North America and breaks with the Habsburg model, which the current administration defends more than the Catholic far right.

Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

 Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Throughout history, relations between the United States and Latin America have been marked by actions that some might call imperialist. Although there is talk of the largest US military deployment in the region, such movements are nothing new in Washington's history. Experts like James Cockcroft have dedicated in-depth analyses to this topic, exploring how the White House's geopolitical interests have shaped its interventionist policy toward Latin America.

Today, the focus seems to be shifting toward what some call the "tripod of evil" in the region: Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico. These countries, according to certain political discourses, represent a threat under the concept of narcoterrorism, a label used to justify extreme measures and open new fronts in US national security. Turning to this axis, figures like Donald Trump have expressed their intention to combat the "populist narcoterrorism" associated with these countries, in addition to addressing the growing international influence that alliances between these nations and the BRICS could have.

American strategic thinking is not a new phenomenon, but it finds echo in traditional perspectives such as those of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who analyzed Latin America's role within American interests and pointed to the historical disdain for the region, often perceived as having secondary influence. However, times are changing, and global dynamics are forcing a strategic reconfiguration. Alvin Toffler, for example, addresses the concept of "rapid change," highlighting the importance of adapting to the accelerated transformations that shape both societies and political systems. In this scenario, the United States seems to be rethinking its approach to Latin America, under pressure from new global and regional challenges.

The Trump administration, and more broadly recent American policy, may be taking note of these trends. The need to view Latin America in a new light makes sense in a global context where strategic and economic alliances are gaining greater importance. This potential shift would also respond to the direct impact on the United States of the structural problems of its neighbors south of the Rio Grande. The Mexican crisis, with its profound effects on society and governance, not only affects Mexico itself; its repercussions extend to other Latin American nations and also impact the delicate internal balance of the United States.

It is clear that Mexico represents an increasingly significant challenge to U.S. national security. While the neighboring country does not need to become a kind of Japan south of the Rio Grande to be relevant, it is emerging as a key player in the geopolitical and strategic landscape. If the United States wishes to maintain its internal stability while navigating an increasingly interconnected and competitive world, it must confront the challenges stemming from the political and social deterioration along its borders. What is happening in Mexico and other Latin American countries can no longer be ignored without serious consequences for the shared future of a region united by social, economic, and cultural ties.

Invasion Through Cooperation

 Invasion Through Cooperation

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It is becoming increasingly undeniable that U.S. interventionism in Mexico is affecting the interests of narco-politics and its various allies.

Although the Fourth Transformation seeks to make clear demonstrations of nationalism and sovereignty, the truth is that Donald Trump's pressure is growing stronger, and progressivism may be facing its last six-year term.

Analyses of the links between politics and drug trafficking will begin to uncover more evidence; however, the Mexican government is at the beck and call of U.S. imperialism, and therefore, the arrests and public displays of drug traffickers and their associates are becoming increasingly commonplace.

Ricardo Pascoe, Andres Oppenheimer, and Carlos Ramírez explain that there is a deep collaboration that makes military intervention unnecessary. The socialist posturing of the Sheinbaum government simply demonstrates its impotence in the face of neoliberal populism and the imposed U.S. security doctrine.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States is at a critical juncture, where U.S. intervention in Mexican politics is almost absolute.

Although the Fourth Transformation seeks to project nationalism and sovereignty, the pressure from the White House, especially during Donald Trump's administration, has been intense.

The concealment of former President AMLO, the displacement of López Obrador's movement, and the widespread evidence of corruption during the previous six-year term demonstrate that President Claudia Sheinbaum is subservient to the White House.

Nationalist progressivism in Mexico may be facing its greatest challenge, with the possibility that the government's work is in complete disarray.

Sheinbaum appears to be facing a delicate balance between maintaining the narrative of the Fourth Transformation and the external pressures seeking to influence her government. The dominance of the Caribbean and Mexico represents a crucial issue for U.S. security in the face of the BRICS.

The decline of the United States in relation to the Asian world and the imminent intervention of the Chinese Dragon in various areas of global life are undeniable; however, Latin America is not exempt from the Monroe Doctrine.

Drug trafficking is the focus of an intervention considered essential for North America. Not only has the supply of drugs from Mexico to the United States been overestimated, but there is also a convergence with China that seems to be creating a reverse Opium War.

The Chinese presence in Latin America implies not only economic interests but also political influence that seeks to consolidate itself in various spheres, from technology to diplomacy.

China's presence in strategic sectors, from infrastructure to trade, has generated competition that both the United States and Mexico must address with a joint and decisive vision.

The region, traditionally viewed as a contested sphere of influence, has become a chessboard on which global powers are deploying their interests with increasing intensity.

In this context, Mexico must navigate turbulent waters, where collaboration and the pursuit of common interests may be key to addressing regional and global challenges.

History has shown that confrontation and isolationism do not serve Mexican interests, while cooperation and a shared vision can create an effective counterweight to the expansion of other powers.

The current state of North American relations reveals that U.S. interventionism in Mexico has not only been decisive but, in many cases, has directly affected the country's internal interests, particularly in areas related to drug trafficking and its various allies.

However, amidst this influence, an opportunity arises: bilateral collaboration that allows for the reshaping of the Latin American landscape, limiting Chinese expansion and strengthening a regional presence that takes into account shared interests.

Cooperation can be based on a strategy of economic development, security, and institutional strengthening, where both countries join forces to offer viable alternatives to Chinese investment and presence.

The United States' role in the region, viewed from a collaborative perspective, can become a strategic ally for Mexico, allowing both countries to act as guardians of stability that benefits all of Latin America.

Cooperation and a shared vision can create an effective counterweight to China's expansion.

In this context, Mexico and the United States must understand themselves not only as neighbors, but as partners in a common challenge that transcends borders. The establishment of a geopolitical balance that preserves regional sovereignty and limits the influence of external powers.

This process requires a sovereign vision that transcends short-term interests and a political will to drive a common agenda, in which the fight against drug trafficking and corruption are fundamental pillars.

Collaboration should extend beyond the fight against drug trafficking and Chinese imperialism, encompassing infrastructure, trade, and education projects that strengthen regional independence and reduce dependence on external actors such as the BRICS.

Spanglish Day

Spanglish Day

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

October 12th, a date historically laden with narratives, contrasts, and even clashes between Hispanist and Indigenous perspectives in Latin America, seems to require a new perspective today.

Instead of perpetuating the polarization between these dimensions, perhaps it is time to observe a phenomenon that is profoundly transforming cultural and social dynamics: the experience of Mexicans in the United States.

North America is currently one of the main centers of Latino concentration outside of Latin American territories.

However, little attention is paid to the sociocultural and demographic impacts that the Mexican presence is generating in the United States.

Authors such as Samuel Huntington and George Friedman, from a markedly Anglo-Saxon conservative standpoint, have analyzed the impact of the Mexican presence on the American cultural landscape.

Although their approaches tend to be alarmist and tinged with racism, they conceal a reality that few observe closely: an increasingly profound integration that is transforming both Mexico and the United States.

Mexican influence not only transcends physical borders but also redefines what it means to be part of the American fabric.

In this context, the Mexico-United States relationship becomes a fascinating example of forced but mutually necessary adaptation.

Even under the nationalist-populist government of the Morena party in Mexico, collaboration between the two nations remains unavoidable, more as an act of survival than out of mere political affinity.

From this relationship emerges a powerful and complex phenomenon: Spanglish.

This term encompasses the growing cultural blending of Mexican and American elements, a symbiosis that goes beyond language and permeates the economic, social, and political spheres.

Mexico, the real Mexico, is now more American than Hispanic.

The speed with which the United States exerts its influence over Mexico presents a difficult path for the Latin American country to navigate.

In this scenario, perhaps contemplating a complete break from Hispanic influences is not unreasonable.

Mexico could end up playing a role in the "Latin American sea" similar to the one the Philippines played in the Asian context.

What does this imply? On the one hand, there is an intellectual and scientific challenge in understanding how more than half of present-day Mexicans have some essential connection to the United States; immigration to North America is more than just a family matter.

On the other hand, an optimistic possibility emerges: Mexicans in the United States have demonstrated their ability to adapt to liberal economic contexts, learn English, embrace democratic values, and achieve income levels sufficient to position themselves within the middle classes without depending on the political patronage so deeply rooted in their country of origin.

Internal debates about the national direction in Mexico seem to be wearing thin in an ideological back-and-forth that contributes little to addressing the practical realities of its proximity to the United States.

Perhaps it's time to rethink these projects from a perspective more aligned with North American cooperation, which has ultimately achieved tangible, successful, and operational results.

While the Mexican political class wastes time debating Hispanicity and nationalism, technocracy and populism, left and right, Mexicans in the United States work to save their communities; they always do so despite the fact that this country has given them little, almost nothing.

North America has been the true father of Mexico.

In this context, Spanglish should cease to be seen as a threat or a loss of identity and begin to be celebrated as a meeting point between cultures.

It is a creative and realistic response to the dilemmas of October 12th, transcending the tension between Hispanists and Indigenous rights activists.

In the end, the American context has proven to be a space where that idealized vision of the "American way of life" thrives, accessible not only to Latinos, but also to Spaniards and other communities around the world.

The United States seems to welcome this cultural hybridization as part of its multicultural strength.

Perhaps it's time for Mexico to do the same and embrace its growing role as a bridge between two increasingly interconnected worlds.

It's necessary to celebrate Spanglish and assimilate its anthropological effects, which translates into observing concrete reality.

Millions of Mexicans have responded to the gravitational pull of North America and have contributed significantly to the development of their families, regions, and the country, regardless of governments or ideologies.

The power of interaction between Mexico and the United States is simply inevitable, and it is best to address it.

Donald Trump: Finally?

Donald Trump: Finally?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Before President Claudia Sheinbaum's report on her first year in office, the President of the United States announced a full-scale declaration of war against drug cartels in Latin America.

This decision raised serious questions in Mexico, since the organized crime groups involved in the production and trafficking of narcotics have been designated as terrorists by the White House.

This designation raises the possibility of a U.S. military intervention, as has already been seen recently with alleged actions against drug traffickers on the Venezuelan coast.

However, the impact of Trump's message was relegated on the Mexican public agenda.

The central themes of Sheinbaum's event, such as the assessment of her first year in office, the marked distancing from her political predecessor, and the introduction of new policies and projects for the short term, garnered more attention than the threats emanating from the north.

It is possible that the current political landscape is reaching a certain point of equilibrium.

On the one hand, internal divisions within the U.S. government have limited the actions of Trumpism, forcing the former president to seek new rhetorical strategies that go beyond attacking Mexico.

On the other hand, Sheinbaum is beginning to consolidate her autonomy and gain prominence in the face of agreements and political power structures in the country.

As for Trump's actions toward Mexico, he seems to have reached his limit. The possibility of a military invasion appears irrelevant given the level of control and economic influence that Washington already exerts over its southern neighbor.

Little can be altered in such a deeply entrenched economic integration scheme, where mutual interests ultimately prevail over bilateral conflicts and abuses.

The apparent lack of impact of the former U.S. president's recent speeches also highlights the apathy, indolence, and irresponsibility characteristic of much of the Mexican political class.

If Trump aspires to change anything in Mexico, he'll have to do it alone, because the country's power groups simply advance according to their own interests, without paying much attention.

Mister Taco's strategies haven't been able to overcome Mexico's apathy and dynamism; the country presents an exhausting challenge that forces Trumpism to take a look at its own affairs.