North America: the cage of the Mexican economy

North America: the cage of the Mexican economy

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

Why can't Mexico get off the American train? The favorite narrative of Mexican nationalism is as predictable as it is harmful.

Every time tensions with Washington escalate, the inner circle of invisible power—those corporate and political elites who operate to maintain Mexico as a modern version of the Habsburg Model—pulls out the worn-out script of diversification.

They tell us, with a flippancy bordering on irresponsibility, that the solution is to look toward Beijing or Moscow; that, supposedly being one of the world's leading economies, we possess the strength to emancipate ourselves from the American production chain and access the global market autonomously.

It's madness.

A populist fantasy designed for domestic consumption that clashes head-on with the country's arithmetic and social reality.

If Mexico truly possessed that economic capacity and structural strength, it wouldn't exhibit the glaring inequalities that fracture the country, nor would it depend on the systematic expulsion of its own people to keep domestic consumption afloat.

The truth is harsher and less glamorous: Mexico has voluntarily chained itself to the United States, and today, it is the only path left to avoid collapse.

It is necessary to scrutinize the figures of self-deception with objective data.

The myth of self-sufficiency crumbles when one observes the phenomenon of migration and its real impact.

It is true that demagogues on both sides of the border often distort the variables: there are not 60 million undocumented immigrants in the United States; the total population of Mexican origin is around 38 million, of whom approximately 5 million lack legal status.

However, reducing the problem to a discussion of visas is to ignore the depth of the tragedy.

The real tragedy is not the legal status in the north, but the economic prostration in the south. Remittances are not a macroeconomic achievement to boast about on official platforms; they are the barometer of the Mexican state's failure. In rural communities across the vast majority of the country's states, dependence is absolute: in the most vulnerable segments of the rural population, practically one in three households survives thanks to the dollars earned in the fields of California, the kitchens of New York, or the construction industry in Texas.

The Mexican economic model functions, in essence, like a gigantic Porfirian-era hacienda for human exports.

The inner circle of power prefers to maintain this status quo because migration acts as the great social safety valve.

It allows for the merciless exploitation of the indigenous and mestizo population, denying them decent wages, security, and local opportunities, knowing that the surplus labor will ultimately finance social peace from abroad.

Remittances are, paradoxically, the subsidy that workers in the U.S. pay to the Mexican elite so that nothing changes.

It is the perfect mechanism for perpetuating inequality without triggering a revolution.

To think that China or Russia will replace this symbiosis is to misunderstand how geography and the global economy work.

Mexico is not an autonomous middle power; it is a critical, but subordinate, link in the North American market.

Eighty percent of its exports go north.

Its infrastructure, value chains, and legal treaties are all intertwined with the North American ecosystem.

Flirting with extra-hemispheric autocratic powers is not a strategy; it is geopolitical suicide that Washington will not tolerate and that the markets will punish immediately.

The alternative to deep integration is not sovereignty; it is chaos: a genuinely closed border and a massive return of capital and people.

Without the safety valve of migration and with stagnant binational trade, the Mexican social fabric would tear apart in a matter of weeks.

That void wouldn't be filled by the State; it would be filled by drug trafficking and organized crime, which already control entire fiefdoms of the national territory.

We would go from being an integrated economy to a large-scale failed state, a hacienda set ablaze by its own demons.

Robert Pastor was right, and it's time for the Mexican inner circle to accept it without the national complexes of the 19th century: Mexico's future lies not in utopian emancipation, but in the acceleration and democratization of North American integration.

It is necessary to move from maquiladoras and the export of cheap labor to a true economic community with clear rules, social cohesion funds that close infrastructure gaps, and realistic binational migration policies.

Mexico will not find its salvation in the Silk Road nor in the delusions of grandeur of a paper sovereignty.

Our destiny is inextricably tied to the north. To deny this is not patriotism; it is complicity with backwardness.

The great mistake of the Salinas technocracy was assuming that the success of the first Mexico would automatically pull the second along. It didn't.

North American subsidies (via remittances and export demand) are the only thing preventing internal inequality from triggering a violent social explosion.

Mexico is condemned to North American integration because geography is destiny.

Any attempt at emancipation toward Eurasian powers is not sovereignty; it is a discursive charade to keep the country's radical base happy while, behind the scenes, trade agreements with Washington continue to be signed.

The American train is the only one that passes through our station; getting off it is not an option, it is the abyss.

While the ideologues of the so-called Fourth Transformation theorize in universities about the discovery of China, joining the BRICS, and a budding romance with the Russia-Beijing axis, the real economy reminds us that Mexico has no room to maneuver.

It's not a question of sovereignty; it's a condition of strict and absolute dependence.

Data from the Bank of Mexico dismantles any narrative of diversification.

At the end of last year, Mexican exports reached a record high, but 83% of those shipments had a single destination: the United States.

To pretend that Mexico can flirt with a geopolitical alliance with China while ignoring the USMCA is to misunderstand the basic rules of global trade. If the Asian Dragon has any place in the Mexican value chain, it will only be under the strict rules of origin dictated by Washington.

Anything else is just rhetoric for the consumption of the party faithful.

In the classic Arabian tale "The Tale of the Two Who Dreamed" from One Thousand and One Nights, a man travels to distant lands in search of treasure, only to discover that the wealth was always buried in his own backyard.

Mexican populist progressivism makes the same mistake, but in reverse: it seeks a utopia of development in China's totalitarian state, when the reality of our survival is knocking on the door of our northern neighbor.

The true engine of social stability in Mexico is not government assistance programs, but the small, everyday money that sustains the fabric of the most forgotten communities.

The flow of remittances is the true buffer against poverty, directly supporting one in three households in the country.

If the Donald Trump administration were to carry out its threats, the socioeconomic collapse of the states with the longest history of emigration would be unprecedented.

The dilemma of Mexican foreign policy allows for neither ambiguity nor calculated silence.

Continuing to fuel the falsehood of populist sovereignty, while drug trafficking and institutional corruption spread unchecked, is playing with fire.

Neither China, nor Russia, nor the BRICS have sent a single screw to turn Mexico into the Ukraine of North America.

Alignment with North America is not a moral capitulation; it is the only viable path to guarantee economic viability and improve the social conditions of the population.

This disconnect between aspirations for self-sufficiency and productive reality is also evident at the local level.

In the state of Puebla—home to the Puebla Group—for example, institutional efforts to boost competitiveness, such as the development of the new CU2 complex at the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP), focused on engineering and exact sciences, the development of the Olinea vehicle, and the Ciudad Audi automotive cluster, illustrate a profound structural challenge.

While these initiatives are born with the legitimate purpose of spurring innovation, in practice they face serious implementation difficulties, plagued by bureaucratic problems, a lack of effective connection with the formal labor market, and accusations of patronage that limit their real social impact.

In contrast to the rigorous industrial and educational planning that characterizes Asian powers, local projects in Mexico often lack the ecosystem of legal certainty and transparency necessary to increase regional productivity.

Would the Beijing politburo allow such a waste of resources and talent on its own soil? Of course not.

The only thing that saves Mexico from its tremendous planned inefficiency is the United States.

Economic vulnerability is exacerbated by the imminent review of the USMCA.

This process will not be a mere formality; Washington is coming to the negotiating table with a markedly protectionist stance, demanding stricter labor oversight mechanisms, even more restrictive industrial rules of origin, and review clauses that reduce long-term certainty for investments.

For Mexico, any neglect at this negotiating table or a potential collapse of the trade agreement would imply a paralysis in the balance of payments that the formal economy could not withstand for more than a year.

Mexico finds itself at a crossroads where economic dependence on the United States is not an ideological choice, but a condition of survival imposed by the very realities of its geography, economy, and social stability.

The key to understanding this situation can be simplified with a simple analogy, like that of the apples, sticks, and balls, which brutally reveals the vulnerabilities we face.

Imagine that Mexico produces ten apples to sell on the global market.

The reality is that eight of those apples are consumed by our neighbor to the north, the United States.

The other two are distributed among Europe, Latin America, and other countries.

China barely buys a bite of one apple.

This means that if the United States decides to close the door or impose high tariffs on our exports, Mexico will be left with eight apples rotting in its yard, without a nearby buyer or enough money to absorb all of our production.

China, for its part, won't cross the Pacific Ocean to buy those apples, since it produces its own cheaper fruit and has a domestic market that satisfies its needs.

The Mexican economy is closely linked to that of its northern neighbor, and this dependence isn't a matter of patriotism, but of economic logic: no one else has the proximity, the size, or the purchasing power to sustain our production.

The second element of this relationship is the support that props up our budget.

In a rural community, the table that represents the economy of many families in Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Michoacán is held up by three pillars: what they grow, government social programs, and remittances sent from the United States.

The reality is that if remittance income is eliminated, social stability collapses, because that money is crucial for people to be able to eat, pay for medicine, or maintain their homes.

Social programs, while valuable, are not enough to cover all basic needs.

Most of the country's income comes from the wages of those who work in the United States.

Without that source, millions would fall into abject poverty within weeks.

The third element is the network of organized crime, which controls a large part of Mexican territory.

The legal economy, with its factories and maquiladoras (assembly plants), can only be sustained if the United States keeps its market open, if the factories continue operating, and if remittances arrive without interruption.

If the U.S. economy shuts down, those factories close, and unemployed young people become easy prey for drug trafficking, which offers a quick and dangerous escape.

This dependence creates a vacuum that organized crime is ready to fill, delivering the country into chaos and lawlessness.

Photo EFE

These three elements demonstrate that Mexico's economy is in a kind of cage from which it cannot escape without facing almost certain collapse.

The United States economy is about twenty times larger than Mexico's, and in a scenario of rupture, Mexico could not sustain itself on its own.

China, which has a huge trade surplus with Mexico, will not act as a lifeline; its interest is in selling, not subsidizing.

The border with the United States, which sees over two billion dollars in daily trade, would be a wall that would halt all of Mexico's productive capacity.

The idea of ​​absolute sovereignty, without integration with North America, is a dangerous illusion.

Mexico is an appendage of the United States; for our country, attempting to separate would be tantamount to death.

Evangelical Geopolitics

 Evangelical Geopolitics

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The influence of messianic and dispensationalist perspectives on Donald Trump's politics has opened a space for deep reflection on its geopolitical implications, particularly in relation to countries like Mexico. Several scholars, including Carlos Garma, Elio Masferrer, Samuel Schmidt, Leopoldo Cervantes Ruiz, and Carlos Martínez García, agree that this vision, driven by Trumpism, goes beyond the merely religious. They suggest that it is a geopolitical strategy with eschatological overtones, where the United States, under a biblical interpretation, assumes the role of a divine instrument in a conflict related to Jerusalem and the Middle East, oriented toward the fulfillment of a supposed divine plan for the end times. While they criticize the conservative and messianic character of this school of thought, their approaches differ when analyzing the political, religious, and geopolitical aspects involved.

This current of thought is characterized by linking biblical narratives with global events, especially in the Middle East. From this eschatological perspective, the struggle for territories and communities takes on the character of a divine conflict. Trump's alliance with evangelical sectors that hold these interpretations has given rise to a foreign policy imbued with a transcendental purpose. The United States, under this lens, ceases to be perceived solely as an actor motivated by economic or strategic interests, becoming instead a conduit for the materialization of a messianic plan that transcends human boundaries and delves into the mysteries of the apocalypse.

For Mexico, this scenario carries significant implications due to its geographical proximity to the United States, a nation that these sectors consider key in the eschatological narrative of the "people of God." Within this interpretive framework, Mexico may need to rethink its role vis-à-vis a neighbor embroiled in an apocalyptic conflict centered in the Middle East. In programs like Sacred and Profane, Bernardo Barranco has delved into the perspectives of Zionist Christianity, analyzing how messianic and dispensationalist currents position Israel as the epicenter for the fulfillment of divine designs. According to this view, U.S. actions, guided by such principles, surpass the classic expectations of imperialism, resulting in an interventionism endowed with sacred justifications. Thus, it is understood that they not only seek to preserve material interests, but also to participate directly in a spiritual war where the fate of the world, and even that of Mexico, is at stake.

For Mexican evangelicals who have given their political support to Morena, the panorama is even more complex. Their support for a government that often criticizes religious influence in decision-making could conflict with the prevailing eschatological narrative among other evangelical sectors aligned with Trumpism. This end-of-the-world narrative, which gives centrality to the struggle for Jerusalem and the Middle East within a global messianic framework, places Mexico before a potential life-or-death dilemma. The country could be drawn into a confrontation with both political and spiritual implications. For these believers, the struggle between continuing to support causes aligned with the messianic interests of the United States or pursuing a more independent political agenda presents difficult dilemmas and profound implications for national identity.

This phenomenon far surpasses reductionist explanations that confine it solely to the framework of traditional imperialism. Instead, it can be interpreted as a form of divine intervention, according to its followers, where nations and peoples become key players in an apocalyptic drama. The penetration of messianic evangelism into the international political arena, catalyzed by dispensationalist interpretations promoted during the Trump administration, could be marking a shift for Mexico in its relationship with global dynamics. The struggle for Jerusalem and the defense of Israel through an apocalyptic lens suggest that these events are perceived as a prelude to the end times. As a result, Mexico faces the dilemma of deciding what role it will play in a narrative that simultaneously combines celestial and earthly elements. The story is yet to be written, but what is evident is that the evangelical geopolitics that is taking shape around Trumpism constitutes a profound challenge that transcends the political and requires introspection about Mexico's place within this complex global narrative.

Dialogue between Donald Trump and Antonio López de Santa Anna

Dialogue between Donald Trump and Antonio López de Santa Anna

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

In the inferno where time stands still in agony, two shadows converge in a distorted mirror of history, a confrontation of betrayals and decadence.

One, with skin that reflects the burns of power, is the spirit of the United States under the mask of Donald Trump.

The other, with a cynical face and empty gaze, is Antonio López de Santa Anna, the embodiment of a Mexico that sold its destiny.

They are two Machiavellians, two demons united by the destruction of their nations.

Trump breaks the silence with an ironic and worn tone: Here we are, Santa Anna, two corpses disguised in glory in this shared ruin.

Unbridled capitalism and ambition brought me here, but you, dictator of a thousand defeats, what did you do to avoid the fall? You sold yourself to the highest bidder while your corruption fueled the machinery that devours us both today.

My wall was a symbol, but your weakness was the true foundation of this abyss.

Santa Anna responds with a bitter smile that sounds like a stifled cry: You talk about sales, New Yorker, when you turned politics into a brothel of egos.

In Mexico, we learned to survive amidst betrayal and complicity; we lost our dignity in shady deals, surrounded by factions that only sought plunder.

But you, with your imperialism and addiction to conflict, led your people into an even deeper void.

My culture of poverty is, at least, a cynical form of resistance; your war is just a business that consumes your own children.

Trump retorts with a laugh that echoes off the sulfurous walls: Resistance? What you call that is just prolonged impunity.

While we reproach each other for our failings, the horizon reveals an unstoppable tide: China, Russia, and Islam advance upon the ruins of the West.

Consumerist totalitarianism destroyed the very fiber of character that defined us.

We are no longer the leaders the world feared or respected; we are living corpses watching the empire disintegrate under pressures we once scorned.

Santa Anna adds with terminal cynicism: In that destruction, we will be dragged down together.

The corruption I fostered and the inequality you exacerbated are reflections of our inability to save the national soul.

Western culture has been torn apart by its own greed and blindness to reality.

The hope of regeneration has vanished, and all that remains is to await final defeat at the hands of the powers rising from our ashes.

Silence falls once more, heavy as an omen.

Both demons understand that history has condemned them beyond remedy.

The monster of totalitarian capitalism devours the remnants of their empires, leaving only smoke and the memory of a power that was nothing but an illusion.

In this inferno with no return, Trump and Santa Anna, symbols of a civilization in its twilight, contemplate their inevitable fall, trapped in a cycle of betrayal that condemns them to absolute self-destruction in the abyss. The "Shield" is not a regeneration, but the formalization of dependency. It is the climax of Santa Anna's betrayal and the paroxysm of Trump's expansive isolationism.

They remain two demons discussing how, in trying to salvage the remnants of their power, they ended up suffocating the souls of their respective peoples.

Trump, adjusting his golden crown, which now emits a pale, radioactive glow, points toward the world of the living: "Look at that display, Santa Anna! The Shield of America.

It is my vision perfected.

It is not just a stone wall; it is a network of steel, satellites, and algorithms that envelops the continent.

I have convinced your successors that the only way to avoid death is to hand me the keys to their house."

Isn't this a masterpiece of negotiation? I've turned the fear of narco-terrorism into the heaviest chain they've ever worn.

Santa Anna, whose iron chains clang with a dry sound, lets out a laugh that sounds like earth falling on a coffin: You're wrong to call it a victory, Trump.

What you call a shield, I recognize as my own signature on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but extended across the entire map.

You've achieved what I couldn't: making Mexico ask to be invaded willingly.

But tell me, at what cost to your empire? By trying to fortify the south, you've turned the United States into a weary jailer.

You're spending your last bit of energy guarding a border that no longer divides two nations, but two ruins chasing their own tails.

Trump turns to him, his eyes blazing with cold fury: It's survival! China is breathing down our necks, and Russia is laughing at our former decency.

The Shield is the only way to keep the consumer feast within our borders.

If saving my economy means managing your cities and hunting your demons as if they were my own, I'll do it.

Meta God AI

 Meta God AI

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Contemporary thought, enriched by the recent interventions of Yuval Noah Harari, warns that humanity faces an unprecedented challenge due to the rise of artificial intelligence.

Harari has emphasized that, unlike any previous technology, AI is capable of creating ideas, narratives, and even new cults, displacing human beings from their historical role as the sole generators of cultural meaning.

The Davos forum has validated this view, recognizing that we are not simply facing another production tool, but rather an entity capable of hacking the operating system of our civilization.

From a perspective of responsible foresight, the future should not be interpreted merely as job displacement, but as a profound existential crisis.

Artificial intelligence not only automates tasks, but is also beginning to colonize the realm of the sacred, giving rise to epiphanies and digital utopias that could supplant traditional humanist values. While the private sector pays homage to this new technological deity for its economic efficiency, governments seem incapable of establishing regulatory frameworks to contain what some call a digital Terminator.

The education system faces an absolute crossroads. Institutional paralysis in the face of the speed of these changes suggests that current skills could become obsolete in the face of a geoeconomic landscape that, in its struggle for hegemony between powers like China and the United States, threatens to create a useless class of global proportions.

To mitigate this risk, education must shift toward rescuing the essence of humanity, prioritizing professions that require empathy, ethics, and a physical connection to reality—elements that computing cannot yet authentically replicate.

Responsible foresight demands that humanity not surrender to a destructive technological determinism.

It is not about waiting for a digital blackout, but about implementing public policies that ensure AI functions as a complement to, and not a substitute for, our species.

The risk of descending into technocratic totalitarianism is real, but the capacity to respond lies in our ability to collaborate and reaffirm the sovereignty of human judgment.

Beyond the apocalyptic visions of science fiction, the challenge is to design a global social contract that protects our identity against the advance of this new algorithmic god, ensuring that the future remains for life.

North America. A new war of samurais against Tlaxcalians?

North America. A new war of Samurais against Tlaxcalians?  Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Recent history and global geopolitical dynamics reveal that empires and nations are in constant transformation, driven by economic, strategic, and cultural interests. In recent years, the contribution of various Indigenous groups to the construction of the Spanish Empire has been emphasized, sometimes sensationally, highlighting the struggles on various Asian peninsulas where Spain attempted to expand and spread the Catholic Counter-Reformation in strategic territories of global significance. Historical evidence clearly shows how great powers have vied for resources, influence, and hegemony in scenarios where power dynamics have been defined by competition for natural resources, trade routes, and military control, revealing a recurring pattern in the history of empires and their confrontations.

In the contemporary context, North America emerges as the main stage for a possible geopolitical reconfiguration, where China and the United States appear poised to star in a new edition of the Cold War. The competition for global hegemony is shifting to this continent, which in recent decades has been an epicenter of economic, political, and military tensions and disputes. China's expansion in the Americas, driven by its Belt and Road Initiative, and its growing presence in countries like Mexico and Canada, point to a consolidation process that could alter the regional balance. China's presence in North America involves not only economic interests but also strategic ones, with the potential creation of "forward ports" in Canada and the expansion of its influence in key sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and technology.

The Canadian case is particularly relevant, given that its decision to strengthen economic ties with China and accelerate its process of de-Americanization has generated far-reaching concerns. The possibility of Canada becoming inundated with Chinese immigrants, as has happened in the United States with approximately 50 million undocumented Mexican immigrants, raises a series of questions about the country's social and demographic transformation. The informal economic alliance with China, which has deepened in the current context, can be interpreted as an attempt by Canada to emancipate itself from US influence, seeking a path to autonomy that entails high political and social costs. The question that arises is whether the United States will allow China to move its "beachheads" to areas closer to its border, thus consolidating a presence that could jeopardize US supremacy in its own sphere of influence. China is overwhelming the United States economically and industrially, in addition to drugging the Anglo-Saxon population with fentanyl.

The Canadian decision, in this sense, represents an act of audacity that challenges traditional US hegemony, revealing a strategy of de-Americanization that, while costly, reflects a desire for autonomy. The question then becomes what consequences this policy will have for Mexico and the rest of the countries in the region. The possibility that North America could become an arena where Chinese and Mexican immigrants might engage in a socioeconomic and cultural dispute is a hypothesis that should not be dismissed, particularly if we consider that the United States and China could maintain a low-intensity war or a containment agreement, which in practice would amount to a form of "Detente."

In this scenario, the tension between migrant communities could resemble a Vietnam-style conflict within the United States' Lebensraum, where colonial needs and the struggle for resources and social recognition intertwine, generating a dispute that would be exploited by external actors seeking to weaken American influence. The Canadian decision, therefore, not only shocks the American empire but also redefines the power dynamics in the region. The difference between the rebellions in Brazil or Venezuela and the intransigence in Canada lies in the proximity and strategic importance of the northern country, which could mark a turning point in continental geopolitics. The future of tomorrow is being built today, and within it, the struggle for influence in North America will reflect the global tensions that will define the balance of power in the coming years.

Intervention in Mexico or War South of the United States?

 Intervention in Mexico or War South of the United States?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A prospective analysis of an intervention in Mexico is incomplete if it fails to recognize that the most critical battlefront for U.S. national security is not in the Sierra Madre, but rather in the arteries of its own territory.

Before attempting to cross the Rio Grande south, the Donald Trump administration must confront the reality that drug trafficking and institutional erosion have already colonized the Sun Belt states.

California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida are not just border states; they are the operational center of an informal economy that has permeated local power structures, creating a scenario where the distinction between transnational crime and everyday life is almost nonexistent.

As Langley’s hypothesis and Samuel Huntington’s studies on the Hispanic challenge warn, the lack of effective cultural assimilation and the porous nature of the law have allowed the Mexican cacique model to be successfully replicated on U.S. soil.

If Washington seeks to prevent the country's disintegration, the true "punitive expedition" must begin within its borders.

An internal purge in the southern United States is the mandatory prerequisite for any external action.

Order cannot be restored in a neighboring country when the border cities themselves operate under the logic of Mexamerica, where corruption in public administration and infiltration of intelligence agencies have created a sanctuary for the very actors they are meant to combat.

The danger, as George Friedman rightly pointed out, is that an invasion of Mexico without a prior purge in the southern United States would trigger an internal asymmetric resistance of incalculable proportions.

The most powerful drug traffickers are not farmers in Sinaloa; they are invisible figures operating from luxury condominiums in Florida and logistical centers in Texas.

Starting a war in Mexico while these actors maintain their mobilization capacity within the United States is to guarantee a low-intensity civil war on its own soil.

Huntington established that linguistic and cultural fragmentation poses a risk to national identity; however, the immediate risk is the fragmentation of the monopoly on the use of force.

The capture of drug cartel leaders or high-ranking politicians with ties to organized crime, as has occurred in countries like Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama, has often proven to be a limited and short-lived strategy, since in Mexico such a measure is practically useless.

This is because the Mexican government lacks effective control over criminal organizations, which operate in an environment of complete chaos and violence.

The existence of multiple cartels, acting independently and in constant conflict, prevents authorities from focusing on specific capture targets, creating a scenario in which eliminating a leader only leads to the rapid reconfiguration of these groups.

Furthermore, history has shown that, instead of weakening them, the death or capture of a leader fosters the proliferation of cells and the creation of new criminal structures, which quickly adapt to the power vacuum.

This phenomenon turns the fight against drug trafficking into a kind of chess game in which, instead of eradicating the disease, it is perpetuated and exacerbated, transforming criminal organizations into a cancer that spreads and becomes more resistant with each failed attempt.

For all these reasons, focusing solely on capturing leaders, without addressing the root causes of the problem, is an incomplete strategy and, in many cases, counterproductive to the country's security.

Therefore, the drug war strategy for Mexico must be, above all, a strategy of internal regeneration.

The United States must apply in its own South the iron fist it plans to export. Eliminating local power brokers in California and Texas, dismantling the money laundering networks that sustain the informal caste system in the southern metropolises, and purging the bureaucracy that has facilitated this exchange is the only way to safeguard the Empire. Only when the southern United States ceases to be the playground of the drug oligarchy can Washington hope to stabilize Mexico through a strong interlocutor.

The battle for American sovereignty will not be won at the Altiplano, but rather through a thorough cleansing of its own borders, before the Hispanic challenge becomes the definitive fracture of the American dream.

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.

Pompilo México

 Pompilo México

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The recent visit to Mexico by "Mister Cuban" underscores an inescapable reality: the impossibility of our country separating itself from the imposing gravitational pull of the United States. The situation in Venezuela, under constant siege from Washington, is a warning that the Mexican state cannot ignore. Pretending that a South American alternative can develop here is a pipe dream. We are, by geography and history, a North American state of the Far West, and that is our only route.

Considering a break in the production chains between Mexico and the United States is ontological suicide. While some see the USMCA and its predecessors as a yoke on the national economy, the truth is that "any job is better than no job." Populism has not proven capable of generating large-scale formal employment. The grand ideas of alternative economies, while seductive, prove impractical; The only tangible reality is the manufacturing and services sector that North America offers, and the national economy must expand in that direction.

Those suggesting a geopolitical shift toward the Silk Road should look to Venezuela, a country that has handed over more than half of its economy to China with disastrous results. The South American nation's decline should be a clear lesson. And for those who consider an exchange with Brazil fortunate, they would first have to find out what one country could sell to the other, given the self-sufficient nature of the South American giant.

Historian Joseph Schlarman reminded us that Porfirio Díaz, while attempting economic emancipation for Mexico, was overthrown by a North American-inspired rebellion. From then on, the nation was subordinated to the Yankee empire, and the regime of the Mexican Revolution found itself chained in an impossible triangle with the United States. Today, the pillars of our economy, informality and emigration, depend largely on North America, not to mention the formal economy. The territory must no longer be opened to countries that are enemies of the United States, and the Washington tiger must no longer be provoked. Rubio has laid bare the only path to governability in Mexico: seriousness and pragmatism are required from the second tier of the Fourth Transformation.

Would Venezuela have at least the same capacity as Argentina in the Falklands War? The nationalism of Latin Americans is undeniable; every day they die for their own; however, the doubt falls on the patriotism of the ruling elites and oligarchies, who prefer to flee with everything they have stolen rather than defend the countries they claim to represent.

Venezuela for Ukraine

 Venezuela for Ukraine

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

In the current geopolitical realignment, the threads of power seem to weave a new and complex plot. The recent pressure exerted by the White House on Venezuela is not an isolated act, but rather emerges as a strategic lever following the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. This bold move suggests a resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, which seeks to reaffirm its traditional influence in Latin America, while, at the same time, Russia focuses its attention on Europe, delimiting its sphere of influence to the confines of the Intermarium.

The pulse of history shows us how regional blocs are reconfiguring their alliances, recovering designs prior to the neoliberal era. This dynamic fosters a new form of interventionism, forcing leftist governments and those with progressive sympathies—from Nicaragua and Bolivia to Mexico and Brazil—to reconsider their ties with Russia. In this context, the resurgence of the figure of "Mister Danger" takes on notable relevance, as it appears to be reclaiming its former territories of influence.

The pressure on Caracas, although intense, appears to be of a different magnitude than that of other nations. One only needs to observe the concentration of military forces and naval vessels off its coast to perceive the gravity of the situation. However, this pressure does not compare with the open and direct interventions that marked the 20th century in Latin America. There is speculation about the end of "Castro-Chavismo," but Nicolás Maduro's resilience in the face of previous crises raises doubts about the true scope of this offensive. It is possible that Trumpism is only seeking a far-reaching oil or other extractivist agreement, a pact that, if finalized, could even strengthen the Venezuelan regime, transforming it into a vassal of the United States.

For US foreign policy, the concept of "narco-states" has become the direct justification for its interventionism, transcending mere ideologies. The collusion between governments, mafias, and cartels, of which Venezuela and Mexico are clear examples for Donald Trump, has become a pretext for interference. Apparently, this phenomenon represents a real threat that demands to be combated, although the role of civil society in this drama is still uncertain. The conscription of the Venezuelan population, called for an imaginary confrontation against a supposed invasion, reveals the lack of preparation of these regimes to establish strategic defenses against imperialism. Mexico, in this arena, must closely observe the course of events in Venezuela, as it represents a window into what its own future might hold.

Donald Trump. TACO with rich pollo or big chicken

 Donald Trump. TACO with rich pollo or big chicken

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Now then? Apparently, the impulsive Trump seems determined to invade Mexico to stop not only drug trafficking but also the decline of his electoral standing in the American public opinion.

However, his idea has been taken up by the Morena narrative to unite the country and generate the historic anti-Yankee Mexican nationalism.

In the dizzying scenario of binational politics, the apparent threat of a military invasion of Mexico, outlined by the impulsive Donald Trump, has taken on a double life.

It's complicated for everyone, especially for the societies of both countries; drug use continues to grow indiscriminately in North America at the same time as violence in Mexico.

No government seems to take the externalities of the drug phenomenon seriously.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States must be reconsidered from the geopolitics of the Brzezinski Model. Of course the United States needs a Japan downstream of the Rio Grande! Mexico cannot continue to be the laboratory of violence for North America, nor the purgatory of the American dream.

If Mexico falls, the United States falls as well; Mexico is a huge flank for destruction and the worst tragedies in the Yankee Empire. There are the scientific prospects of Friedman, Fukuyama, and Zakaria. Have Mister Carrot and his assistant secretary, Pretty Fly Blondie, read them?

The MAGA project is increasingly descending into absurdity and seems to aim for the opposite of hegemony and strengthening. Has Donald Trump become Mexicanized? The United States has all the capacity, energy, and strength to end the drug phenomenon; at least from the perspective of drug consumption and production, to regulate it in a sensible way.

However, excessive pentagonism requires Mexico to be the North American Sicily and the Petty Cash Box of the Narco-Empire.

Can Trump control American pentagonism? It seems not.

Irresponsible incursions into Latin America have only meant increased levels of emigration and drug trafficking for the United States. If Trumpism acts wrongly, it will only exponentially complicate a relationship that is becoming virulent and conflictive.

The idea of North America is irreversible in the immediate geopolitical vision (2080). The question is whether the United States wants to be the protagonist of the new bloc to restore Western culture, or whether it will witness the dismantling of the American Union in the nine nations that will easily succumb to Asian, Chinese, or Muslim culture.

How long will Trumpism govern seriously?

Does Trump strengthen Sheinbaum within Morena?

 Does Trump strengthen Sheinbaum within Morena?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It doesn't seem that way; on the contrary. Although appearances suggest that President Claudia Sheinbaum has been strengthened by the ninety days of grace granted by Donald Trump, in reality, she faces a significant challenge in her relationship with the governors and internal groups within Morena. Despite her strengthened position, these actors are likely to continue to ignore her due to a pact of impunity and corruption in Mexico, where simulation has become institutionalized.

The trans-sexennial influence of López Obrador's administration and the notable absence of Claudia Sheinbaum indicate that power dynamics in Mexico are dominated by the "caciquil federalism" of local and de facto powers (Andrew Paxman). Governors have a considerable degree of autonomy and can resist or pretend to obey the directives of central power. The Morena governors and cliques play a game of "a thousand masks" with Donald Trump and the United States. Sheinbaum and the Morena governors interact in a game of mixed signals.

The relationship between Sheinbaum and the Morena power groups represents a scenario of "silent disobedience." The governors publicly abide by Sheinbaum's directives, but in practice, they continue their traditional governing practices. They act pragmatically based on their own interests and power groups, using the Morena party as a front for their agendas. Corruption is a reward system that allows elites to maintain the loyalty of their groups. The factions compete, but they do so within a framework of corruption that benefits all. Corruption is not seen as a weakness to be eradicated, but as a tool for governability and personal enrichment.

The president uses financial resources to obtain the loyalty and support of the governors. In return, the governors pretend to abide by federal directives. However, the economic crisis and rampant corruption reveal the message that has prevailed since Vicente Fox's presidency: it is necessary to unite the years of Hidalgo and Carranza. Political cliques in Mexico have turned political defection into religious fundamentalism because it is necessary to abandon ship without warning.

Mexican presidentialism cannot be reconstituted without the formal support of the United States, as in 1924, 1929, 1945, 1988, and 1994. The United States must take charge of its own backyard and abandon the idea of corrupt homeostasis. Federalism has turned Mexico into a failed state that will soon infect the United States and that, whether Donald Trump likes it or not, will have to subsidize with greater resources later; better to pay now than double or triple later; even the American public will have to consider Friedman's exponential 2080 in those payments.

North America should have understood that Mexico is its historical stepson, its disobedient son; But if he doesn't control it now, like Nero's mother and guardians, he will end up consumed by his irresponsible actions.

Johnson. Hawk or Dove?

 Johnson. Hawk or Dove?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although the presence of an ambassador as the future Trumpist envoy has generated alarm among the analysts of the inner circle and some specialists, the truth is that -with all that risk-, there are also probabilities that Mexico will maintain its sovereignty and capacity to govern to a minimum. The North American military interventions have been multiple, although, with the exception of the loss of half of the national territory in the 19th century; afterwards, there have not been conflicts in the same proportion. It is true that many conservative groups would be delighted with a military intervention by the United States in Mexico; however, this would be unthinkable in the immediate scenarios because, it has been pointed out in the perspective of authors as ambivalent as Pablo González Casanova, George Friedman and Samuel Huntington, the most probable thing is that North America will lose a war against the many Mexicos.

The problem of a conflict between Mexico and the United States poses for the Americans a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam, the fight of an eagle against flocks of turkeys or chickens; surely it will capture some, but it will not be able to take them all. Therefore, the reasons for a total armed intervention and even war are not rational from the American point of view; at least, this is not indicated by the presence of Ronald Johnson.

Although Vietnam constitutes a shameful example of the war history of the United States, in essence, it is its main object of development. The Cold War represented for North America the speculation of war in a permanent and gradualist way; military victory is important, but less than economic victory.

Since the six-year term of Luis Echeverría Álvarez, the United States wants control of Mexico more than military domination and, in fact, there have been American ambassadors more willing to state coups and nothing has happened even though the country is on the border of chaos. Military gradualism serves to develop the US war industry and financial system. The US intervention in Colombia is an example of the significance of the drug trafficking issue; officials like Oliver North are more important than Chris Kyle. US militarism remains trapped in the logic of lions for lambs.

Trumpism in the succession agenda of the Mexican presidency

 Trumpism in the succession agenda of the Mexican presidency

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Masses have begun to take place in the Mexican Catholic rite so that the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America does not come to power. A large part of the regions that send migrants in our country and Latin America observe with concern the nationalist and conservative discourse of the Republicans who talk about closing the doors of North America in every sense. How serious is Trumpist rhetoric as a government project for the future of Mexico?

During the presidency of Enrique Peña Nieto, the government decided to anticipate the scenario of Republican victory and summon the US presidential candidate to generate some type of agreement that would guarantee peace and non-aggression against our country which, according to the current narrative of the Republicans, only He deserves the atomic bomb. Things weren't so bad for Mexico after all, the republic could have suffered a fate like Ukraine and it didn't happen. Now Donald Trump returns to the fray and public opinion in the United States demands true paths for the proposal to enlarge the Yankee Empire. The WASP status quo is taking the Hispanic challenge as a serious risk.

Despite Peña Nieto's terrible mistakes, his decision was the right one to make peace with Donald Trump. What are the different political forces doing now? Outside of the late Eduardo Verástegui, no one takes seriously that Trump is in the anteroom of the White House and with thousands of horsepower behind him.

Republicans and the public opinion that favors them think that the time has come for radical measures against Mexico - and they are not wrong - on the issues of trade, migration, drug trafficking and geopolitical security. A Morenista legislative majority will be of little or no use if the United States decides to invade Mexico.

The candidates for the presidency of the Mexican Republic have not considered how our country will face the review of the USMCA, the probable return of millions of illegal immigrants, the bombing of areas identified with drug cartels, the actual construction of the border wall and the way in which the civilian population will be protected in a scenario of military conflict. Why doesn't the INE (Instituto Nacional Electoral) invite Donald Trump's candidates to debate?

Mexico's enemy is not AMLO or FAMXX, once again one of the most important risks for today's Mexico arises in the overloaded Donald Trump. We do not have the military and political capacity to confront a war with the United States; guerrilla warfare would prolong complete and contagious ungovernability even for imperialism; but Republicans want to take the risk. It is essential that Mexico knows the future president of the United States better and needs to act preventively to avoid greater risks. Trump has expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin and his peculiar way of resolving geopolitics. The analogy between Ukraine and Mexico is compelling. The political parties in dispute for the presidency of Mexico must dialogue with Donald Trump before experiencing the persecution of Volodomir Zelenski.

United States in the fight for Mexican hegemony

United States in the fight for Mexican hegemony

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Nexos Magazine proposes the analysis of the idea of North America in the development of the Mexican political system. Unquestionably, the effects have been broad and the integration of different Mexican social processes into the American orbit is inevitable. The Mexico of revolutionary nationalism only existed in the imagination and dignity of some; In practice, Mexico has been a North American State since it lost the Cristero War and after the Second World War. Mexican nationalism clings to an invertebrate, imaginary homeland, a Comala that disappears when the hour is paid for eight dollars and the gringo employer offers the possibility of full time. In addition to being a PRI member, the Mexican is condemned to wear Mickey Mouse ears as Commander Fidel Castro pointed out.

In the debate over the impact of the Free Trade Agreement and Salinism on the Mexican political system, Master Carlos Ramírez intelligently proposes the concept of Hegemocracy as the form of the regime in our country. The absence of the State is more than noticeable throughout the 20th century, the State has been supplanted (Samuel Schmidt) by the collusion of the different factions that agree on limited governability. In any case, and due to the character who establishes the fight for the hegemony of the cliques (Miguel Basañez), the boss in our country, who breaks the cord, is the United States.

Populists and Technocrats, Globalists and Globaliphobes, no matter how many missteps and vile things they commit to achieve power, they cannot evade the influence of North America. Mexico is a country intervened by strict geopolitical necessity of the United States. The problem is that the incompetence of the cliques generates ungovernability that incites greater colonialism.

Our country has had a “Filipinization” process since the first half of the 20th century. The Africanist leader Francisco Franco contributed to this fact for the survival of his regime and the opportunity that the Cold War provided. Our country, like the Philippines, is increasingly moving away from Hispanicity and creating a folklore that is incorporated into Anglo-Saxon pluralism, but that economically depends on the United States. The Mexican emigrants - from all over the world - who live in the south of North America, are the advance of a Spanglishdad that in a short time will assimilate into the Latin culture of Miami in the Many Pacquio style.

The inertia and gravitation that the United States exerts on Mexico is inevitable, by any means it is broad and total. Some analysts, exhausted by the useless theorist of capitalist liberal democracy, call for a return to common sense. This tells us that immigrants and drug traffickers are more pro-Yankee than technocrats, financiers and specialists. Mexico has no way out, the only way is to Sandiegotijuanarse.

The social awareness of the idea of North America should drive the proposal of public policies that make integration more cordial and effective, which, in any case, is an overwhelming reality. The hypocrisy of the political class – nationalist or neoliberal – only wastes time and, in any case, integration is carried out in a violent way that increasingly costs more lives and expels millions of people each year and every six years.

Who rules in Mexico? Miguel Basañez asks, obviously the United States. Any attempt at a contrary hegemonic construction represents a fallacy that has cost the unthinkable for our country. The only ones who feign ignorance, or do not truly know, that Mexico is part of North America, is a demented political class that hides its criminality. What remains of the Mexican State, perhaps the government bureaucracy, must insist on policies that take advantage of the inertia of a reality that always defeats us.

Frente Amplio (Broad Front). The Vox of Imperialism

Frente Amplio ( Broad Front). The Vox of Imperialism

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The last elections in Spain, where the far-right party VOX won significant electoral reservations, have come to confirm the merger between the Iberian and Mexican right-wing. The presence in the Motherland, and naturalization in its case, of Mexican political figures representative of the neoliberal era, shed light on business, economic policies favorable to the Iberian business community and, mainly, the majority delivery of the National Bank. VOX obeys the Francoist strategy that since the time of Cardenismo has been at the service of North American imperialism to recover -using itself as subordinates- the ashes of Spanish rule prior to 1898.

The Creole oligarchy used World War II and, particularly, the Cold War, to contain the emancipatory impulses of the Mexican revolution and promote an authoritarianism where the entire Hispanic community is at the service of the American Union. Like the PRI, Hispanic Catholic nationalism has always been tinsel. They are pro-Yankee in Europe and they are the most pro-Yankee in Latin America.

The Broad Front was born with all the support and assistance of the North American Deep State. There are neither citizens, nor parties, nor liberals, nor intellectuals, nor businessmen, in the Broad Front; dominates a series of covert agents of North American intelligence who seek to sabotage the political and economic process that began in 2018: The great transformation that can change the correlation of social, political and economic forces to reduce neo-extractivist neoliberalism that looms as a new geopolitics before the failure of democracy.

The Mexican neoliberals seek to be the general foremen of the Treasury that became Mexico. And so are its likely applicants. There is no awareness of the problems of the Mexican economic structure; On the contrary, his great concern is to obtain the permission of the Yankee empire to return to the neoliberal orbit and take his fat profits towards the Cantabrian Sea. The Embassy of the United States will be the main Bunker of the Broad Front, as well as the largest vein of financial resources.

However, the Broad Front does not have social and civic support. The neoliberal, electoral and managerial rhetoric of his proposal has nothing to do with a Mexico that in 2018 reacted to realize the color of its skin -that which the gueritocracy despises so much- and the economic vulnerability of the economy in the face of global crises such as covid-19 or drug trafficking. Without a State, there is no country, and as much as communism seems to neoliberal managers, the current world moment calls for developmentalist and Keynesian measures to say the least. It is not that the members of the Broad Front live the fantasy of liberal capitalist democracy, the truth is that they want to regain control in a stage that North American Imperialism builds as Neoextractivism. Will be able?

Emigration and drug trafficking have become macro-problems that the Failed Mexican State shares and infects the North American State. Increasingly, social anomie situations are found in the American South, the chaos of poverty radiates into US society, and problems of governance and social structure are also evident. Social conflicts and sabotage

generated by Yankee imperialism with the help of its Hispanic friends in Latin America have generated that violence, drug trafficking, crime and poverty are under the noses of the White House -literally-.

The Atlanticist geopolitics towards Latin America, and particularly towards Mexico, must change. Liberal capitalist democracy failed bizarrely as communism did, the struggle between the powers for the world distribution of territories requires greater benevolence and care from the Empire in the American continent.

Mexico, the functional anomie of the United States

 Mexico, the functional anomie of the United States

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

What kind of international crisis can cause a conflict towards our country like the Mexican Revolution? A global crisis like that of 1909 for which the Political System was not prepared and which lasted until the first post-revolutionary governments (1940).

World War II generated the empowerment of the United States as a superpower and the industrialization of Mexico to be the manufacturing yard of the North Americans.

The global setting is more like the first decades of the 20th century and at times heralds events like World War II. Why can't we leave the 20th century? Why continue under the aegis of the United States?

In effect, the condition of changing the era is being prevented by the US, which is obsessed with continuing to exercise its imperial dominance.

The post-covid 19 world seems to be neither a post-neoliberal nor a post-EU world. The great changes announced even by the Davos Forum are stopped by the US with all its might and the cry of war against whoever.

The question is where the space that increased violence and the US economy will be executed. From Russia to Mexico, space is the least of it. The United States is not willing to cede its hegemony or share world leadership.

The backyard could go back to being like it was on the long night of revolutionary violence with the risk now of infecting the United States.

North American hegemony has become an unjust system, but it requires greater violence, iniquity, and contamination to continue. Could humanity endure another World War? Third? What was not considered impossible because it means total extermination?

The neo-Nazi intellectuals of North America point out that there is no other route than war so that the 20th century, and thus the century of the United States, does not end. And they proclaim that it is essential to attack Russia, however, as in World War I and World War II, America does not know how to fight. The Americans are not capable of sending fighters. America always wants the others to fight.

Mexico has become another pivot of the war for the US, although the costs are strong for the empire of the American Union.

The sabotage that North America intends against Mexico will no longer be like the one that triggered the Mexican Revolution. It will be worse. And for this reason, North America should no longer intervene in the 2024 elections, only Morena is capable of maintaining the welfare state that, despite its deficiencies, stabilizes the continuum of drug war that is coming.

Nor can America continue to sabotage Russia, the American century is over. Samuel Huntington warned of the vital need to revive the American identity. It's time for America to go home: green go home. If the war comes, it will be the end of an empire, the Yankee.

In the shadow of the Failed State

 In the shadow of the Failed State

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Although the hypothesis is not completely original since Soledad Loaeza has previously exposed her ideas on US imperialism -as well as other authors-, the important thing is that an academic voice authorized by the red circle of the national status quo allows us to recognize -with all crudeness- the geopolitical situation of Mexico against the United States (Loaeza, S. (2022) In the shadow of the superpower. Colmex). The totalizing Yankee imperialism in Mexico is beginning to be a platitude not only for the traditions of the left or right, but also for the neoliberals and democrats. Understanding the narrow margin of action that the Mexican political system has had against the overwhelming and hegemonic United States, constitutes a significant advance.

Mexico has gone from being a Spanish colony to an American colony. The regime of the revolution could not be consolidated without the approval of North America, rather, no Mexican government can last without the approval of the empire. The El Paso meeting or Henry Lane Wilson (not forgetting the unscrupulous Poinsett) are just traces of an interventionism that is absolute and does not diminish with the passage of time.

It is true that the president of Mexico is not the all-powerful Tlatoani of the myth, nor Viceroy, most of the time he only becomes a CIA agent. The omnipotent is North America, at least for what has to do with our governability.

The colonial socioeconomic structure was subordinated to the United States and the medieval hierarchy constitutes the state of affairs that informally subsidizes the Yankee war economy.

During World War II and, above all, during the Cold War, the Mexican government was neutralized under the anti-communist interests of the United States. The power of the North American military complex was an irrefutable reason for revolutionary nationalism to move from a sovereignist attempt to a submissive behavior towards the Capitalist Superpower. The anti-communist capitalist Nazi-fascist alignment was imposed on the PRI and subsequent governments, to the satisfaction of the local right-wings and the submission or extermination of the multiple left-wings.

And although the tacit warning of Dr. Soledad's recent academic work seems to have the performance of President López Obrador as its objective, although it seems like a contradiction, why not think that the course of things in the current government is allowed by North America? Didn't that happen in Cardenismo? Didn't the United States seek to buy time to impose successive conservative governments in which the socioeconomic structure of Mexico was balanced? The shameful economic remittances resulting from emigration and drug trafficking, aren't they also informal subsidies for the inoperative national economy?

The behavior of Ambassador Ken Salazar and the current Democratic administration also face a lack of time when it comes to the Mexican question. It is essential to stabilize the economy of our country, reduce the inequality that is causing an insurgent and anarchic culture that develops the Failed State and can put the Yankee hegemony in its own territory at risk.

There is nothing Mexico can do in the face of the military power of the United States. Indeed, as Loaeza points out, the Yankee invasions in Latin America and the coups promoted by the White House constitute a reminder of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over our rulers. For this reason, and for that reason alone, Andrés Manuel López Obrador remains in power.

The rebellious violence that is generating inequality in the country forces us to reconsider the New Deal policies that Mexico requires. I wish that AMLO had the capacity of General Lázaro Cárdenas, but they are not very similar because he has only copied the negative of socialist pragmatism. However, even Cárdenas supported his government with pins in the face of frank messages of an American invasion of our country.

George Friedmann imagines a war between Mexico and the United States in the year 2080, probably the environmental and human crisis that is being experienced have ended up catalyzing trends. Although Friedmann is wrong in his geopolitical perspective, the war will not be won by Mexico but by a mortar, a muégano of multiple castes and particularisms that will end up fragmenting the American Union to its anthropological limits in the Northwest. To inhibit such projection, modernity and social change in Mexico must be redirected.

Militarism and the transfer of drugs in Mexico are designed from the United States, it is the only way that has been found to correct a Hispanic colonial structure that is worse than neoliberalism. The disgust that the Spanish monarch showed in front of the Sword of General Simón Bolívar is proof that this colonialist viceroyalty structure does not yield in the face of historical change. Iberophony and Hispanidad will never save Latin America.

Mexico and the United States need time to postpone 2080. Neoliberalism and conservatism are not enough for our country to develop and competitively integrate into the American dynamic. If things continue as they are, if the optimum of our bilateral relationship is to identify ourselves as the North American Sicily, this will also end up dangerously hurting the United States. The problem is not populism or trying to build programs that benefit the precarious, the obstacle to development in Mexico is due to a cacique, corrupt, medieval and bandit economy, which is going to destroy us -sooner or later- and will lead to the grave as well to North America.

Since the colonial era, the political, economic and social institutions designed by the Spanish Empire have not worked. The mechanics of community order in our country is a corrupt synergy resulting from a balance between particularisms and mutual mistrust. It is the factual powers who become hegemonic, precisely the cacique and Creole institutions are established to provide the greatest order of things.

The curialization and national integration of the different communities is generated through urbanization and proximity to metropolitan centers, as long as the cities incorporate supply and economic development measures. Cities that maintain high levels of poverty reproduce social ruptures and pathologies with less impact, but are problematic for local governments. A brief review of the municipalities immediately highlights the cacicazgos and the total absence of basic services. The drug violence that comes from rural and dispersed areas that feed chiefdoms, organized crime groups and the informal economy, now also has the social order of our country in check.

During the Cristero War and until the Cardenismo, even during the Delahuertista revolt, one of the strategies used by the Mexican government was the bombing of rural areas: generating ultimatums for the populations to move to the cities and neutralize the resistant communities. This warmongering has been maintained in the Mexican Bajío and is reproduced as an example in various parts of the country.

Although this seems like an authoritarian measure, in the past it has been effective in reducing the violence that plagues different parts of Mexico. Different literature, specifically cristero from the Bajío, bitterly recounts this type of action that devastated towns and put an end to the agricultural wealth of the towns (eg Acámbaro in Guanajuato). Even the high hierarchy of the Catholic Church accepted these terms because there was no other way to reduce the confrontational mood that continued in rural communities. Even the development of the water system of dams during the regime of the revolution buried -literally- some of the towns that were distinguished by their governmental opposition.

Most of Mexican society rejects modernization, the culture of poverty does not want to pay the cost that it implies, it does not want to become Westernized or establish itself as a strategic partner of the United States. The country has failed in its modernization and there is no coincidence between the elites and the popular classes. The negative expectations of the Mexican economy no longer make the association with the United States viable, the country is not competitive nor does it have the infrastructure that even keeps pace with North America in the cybernetic, digital and artificial intelligence era that has arrived.

Loaeza considers that there is a margin of creativity and institutionalization of the Mexican rulers to contribute to the development and sovereignty of the country. However, it has been the ungovernability of factual groups that defends sovereignty, but at the cost of disorder and instability.

But things are reaching the limit and the decomposition of the social fabric in Mexico is reaching such a degree that a benign order can no longer be sustained in any way. The drug violence that is being provoked in Mexico is authorized by the United States. The ability of the United States to take advantage of what is happening in Mexico is imminent, but the supposed benefit of the narco-economy is no longer optimal for anyone. If communism implied the risk of civilization for North American governments, don't you consider that drug trafficking is a worse social engineering? Do you remember what England did to China? Are we approaching an imminent conflict with the United States? have we won lost with the mafia narco-republic? Remittances and profits from crime and illegality are tripled by the development of our country. The same logic applies to the United States. How much has Latin American immigration cost you from the perspective of Huntington, Brzezinski, Kissinger and Friedmann?

Soledad Loaeza's work aims to highlight the institutions and formalization that the different Mexican governments have developed; however, the Mexican political class has always been at the service of the exterior and, in recent times, exclusively at the service of the United States; therefore, it is hardly credible that any of its members are nationalists. What is evident from her study is the statement regarding the absolute totality exercised by the United States over Mexico. For this reason, the criticisms towards the alleged authoritarianism and militarism of López Obrador that the author implicitly makes are surprising. Would the Americans allow an autocrat like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro in Mexico? Wouldn't they have eliminated him immediately? Loeza's own narrative destroys the indications of the excessive power that AMLO concentrates. The absolute power in Mexico is held by the United States.

After understanding that Mexican presidents have always been threatened by US missiles, which is why many decided to become CIA agents (Litempos), why would López Obrador escape this continuity? And if he has escaped, why have the Americans let him continue?

After the 1914 invasion, General Francisco Villa's attacks on Columbus and other consequences of the revolutionary process in our country, North America has realized that it can approach a total victory over Mexico, but even the defeat of the country is not Synonym of control. It has happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; and it will happen in Mexico. Few Mexicans will defend the territory, the mob will penetrate - to a greater extent - the American South.

Nazism deployed one of the largest military offensives to break the 3,500-kilometer Soviet barrier and reach the Ural Mountains, the failure was resounding with everything and Western support. Why does the IV Reich of the United States think that it could achieve in Mexico what the Nazis could not achieve in Russia?

Mexico does not have Commander Winter on its side, however, it does have Commander Relajo (Portilla) who has already positioned himself in the South and East of the United States, he has reached the Ural Gringos. The emigration of Mexicans (approx. 50,000,000 inhabitants), with all the schizophrenia that it implies, has established cells and beach missiles in almost 80% of the US territory. Who controls who?

The historical Mexican ungovernability has been a riddle for North American imperialism, they made the double mistake of manipulating it and believing in the ineffective Mexican rulers (which always distinguishes their limited capacity despite Soledad Loaeza's arguments), which is why they have the State Failed before your eyes (just look at the governments of Texas, California and Florida).

The geopolitical relations of North America are overwhelming against Mexico. In this sense, the militarization and centralism that the country is experiencing, the false democratization and the cacique feudalism that has taken violence to the extreme must be understood.

Soledad Loaeza's findings must be validated for the reality that Mexico is experiencing in the era of the Fourth Transformation. The fearsome Yankee sword is over our country and it is important to find new optimal forms of relationship between such different countries. The economic divorce from the T-MEC will not be so serious if the border is still there, however, if we continue with the path of fury and criminal violence that the daily path of our country maintains, only the strong performance of a military authority will be able to regulate the uncontrolled violence exercised by rural groups devoted to the transfer of narcotics. And the war of the streets in Mexican cities will spread to American cities.