American March

American March 

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

In the country's most influential political and media circles, a concern that can no longer be ignored is resonating with increasing intensity: Will Mexico be the next stage for a direct US intervention, similar to the one El Salvador experienced in the 1980s? The perception that Washington's strategy seeks to consolidate its dominance in our territory through covert actions, and not only through diplomatic or economic pressure, has begun to circulate strongly in certain sectors of the elite.

Víctor Hugo Arteaga has warned that this threat is not a conspiracy theorist invention, but a reality that has been developing in the recent history of the bilateral relationship, marked by structural subordination and clandestine operations by intelligence agencies.

This view is echoed by the opinions of prominent national security specialists who write for El Independiente.

According to their analyses, there is evidence that the United States has perfected a multifaceted, “silent” intervention strategy in recent decades, in which direct military occupation is not the only option.

The infiltration of criminal actors, the co-opting of political and economic elites, and the creation of crisis scenarios that can justify a larger intervention are all part of a logic that seeks to maintain control without triggering an open conflict.

Analysts agree that the increase in violence, the expansion of drug trafficking, and the fentanyl crisis in the United States have been used as pretexts to justify actions that, in reality, aim to dismantle any attempt by Mexico to regain its full sovereignty.

In contrast to the more alarmist perspectives, some security specialists at El Independiente believe that direct military intervention in Mexico would not be the preferred option in the short term.

They argue that the United States is increasingly inclined toward a strategy of economic pressure, cyberattacks, media manipulation, and alliances with domestic sectors that can facilitate its political, economic, and military control of our country.

However, they warn that the danger lies in the fact that, in practice, these covert actions could quickly escalate into a more visible occupation if Mexican elites, in their eagerness to maintain privileges, continue to make backroom deals and ignore the risks of ever-increasing dependence.

For their part, Víctor Hugo Arteaga and other analysts have emphasized that Latin American history reveals that the United States has repeatedly used the "divide and conquer" strategy to neutralize sovereignist or leftist movements.

The presence of drug traffickers, conservative sectors, religious institutions, and economic elites—who, in many cases, operate in collusion with foreign interests—facilitates the country becoming an arena of conflict where sovereignty is diluted in a web of pacts and complicity.

The narrative that Mexico is a country incapable of controlling its own destiny, that it can only be “protected” by Washington, is the perfect pretext to justify an intervention that could go far beyond police or economic operations.

Analysts at El Independiente also contrast these perspectives with the opinions of other experts who believe that the real threat to Mexico lies in its own history of populism, clientelism, and pacts with the United States.

The country's tendency to accept “easy solutions,” to maintain a sovereignist discourse for public consumption while, in practice, perpetuating agreements of convenience, reinforces our nation's vulnerability.

The potential intervention, they argue, would not only be a military action, but the culmination of a process in which Mexican elites, through their silence or complicity, have allowed dependency to become institutionalized and irreversible.

In short, the convergence of opinions among academics and analysts in media outlets like El Independiente, along with the comments of Víctor Hugo Arteaga, paints a complex and dangerous picture.

History teaches us that sovereignty is not declared, but rather built through resistance to external pressures and the strength of institutions.

The threat that Mexico could become the “El Salvador” of the 21st century, under an intervention strategy that combines economic warfare, media manipulation, and covert actions, is no longer a distant hypothesis, but a concrete possibility if the elites and the citizenry do not become aware of the risk and act accordingly.

The ongoing tension between Mexico and the United States has been a constant in the country's modern history, and in this context, the academic Soledad Loaeza has contributed a profound and nuanced perspective.

In his book published a few years ago, Loaeza analyzes how North America has exerted constant pressure on Mexico, driven by economic, political, and security interests, which has often tested the Mexican state's capacity to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy.

Loaeza argues that, despite this pressure and the emerging threats, the Mexican government has managed to weather these onslaughts with a strategy of negotiation and resistance that, while not eliminating the risks, prevents the relationship from becoming one of absolute subordination.

Loaeza points out that this tension is not only a foreign policy issue, but a structural element that defines the country's identity and domestic politics, and that, at key moments, has tested Mexico's ability to defend its interests against a power that ultimately seeks to consolidate its dominance in our region.

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.

Drug Trafficking. A Mexico-United States Bilateral Treaty

 Drug Trafficking. A Mexico-United States Bilateral Treaty

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The Mexican state's capacity to control drug trafficking is increasingly diminishing, and increasing social anomie is manifested by rising violence and corruption. Despite the White House's pressure on our country with tariffs and even military intervention, Mexican governance in terms of national security is simply weak. Mexico's capacity to combat drug trafficking is historically insufficient; it lacks the institutional capacity to reduce the power of the cartels or to capture the members of the various criminal networks.

The institutions of the Mexican political system must allow the United States to take charge of controlling drug trafficking by allowing its members to enter the country. Just as during the Second French Intervention, liberal Mexicans turned to the Americans to contain the strength of the conservative monarchists, now the drug trafficking situation may provide a basis for joint action by the United States and the Mexican army. During the delahuertista rebellion, the Cristero War, and other circumstances, "Bucareli Agreements" have had to be developed to secure definitive US support in the balance of forces in Mexico. According to Miguel Basañez's hypothesis, the struggle for hegemony in Mexico is not determined for anyone, and only those who establish effective alliances with the United States can temporarily consolidate their strength. The government, the formal representative of the State, merely represents one more actor in the dynamic vectors of political dialectics; without the United States, it seems that no one rules in Mexico, or rather, that the United States is the one who truly rules the country.

The flow of Mexican emigration to the United States may be a factor in the reduction of Mexican nationalism with respect to a major military intervention directed from the White House. Although the emergence of an element dissatisfied with interventionism is likely, the truth is that the porcupine has been stripped of its spines by the enormous internal violence. George Friedman's 2080 scenario cannot be ignored, but it must also be considered that migrants and a significant national sector have been optimally integrated into the North American socioeconomic structure since the late 20th century.

Collaborative approaches such as those proposed by the McLane-Ocampo Treaty also allow for the restoration of the USMCA, nearshoring, migration, and even the transfer of psychotropic drugs demanded by the North American population. Mexican nationalism needs the capitalist impulse of the United States to develop and modernize the productive and social structures of the Habsburg Model. If the government of the Fourth Transformation isolates itself from North America, it will inevitably be held hostage by the most radical conservatism of Hispanic Catholic nationalism, which freezes time and only knows how to manage poverty. Without international support, Mexico cannot win the war against drug trafficking and corruption.

Intermarium and Ukraine against the emerging right

 Intermarium and Ukraine against the emerging right

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

The way in which the peace negotiations are creating a scenario favourable to Russia and detrimental to Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine, marks a change of era and aggravates the crisis of liberal democracy in the world. It is not necessary to specifically point out who says what in relation to Ukraine and NATO, but the truth is that the United States government headed by Republican Donald Trump is including Russia in the Western sphere to the detriment of Europe. How much difference is there compared to the nineties of the last century? The song “God Old Boys” seems to replace the “Winds of change” of that time. Russia can be a hope for the West if Europe embraces the alternative radical right.

Trump, Vance or Rubio seem to justify Vladimir Putin's competitive authoritarianism against the liberal excesses of Western democracy, the fear of the Americans regarding China seems more than real and, therefore, the need for geopolitical regrouping with Russia becomes indispensable, even if it is with the minimum common denominators.

Ukraine is being excluded from the peace process and, apparently, will be fragmented to contain Russian nationalism. The geopolitical advances against Russia led by the American Democratic Party and the Zbigniew Brzezinski model have been contrasted by the Chinese reality; they were not a mistake but something worse.

The right wing is expanding and has, increasingly, greater resources and positions, NATO and the European capitalist countries are vulnerable to the nationalist state capitalism promoted by Russia and the United States. The discourse of liberal democratic globalization has been cancelled and now other globalizations are being seen, perhaps more regional where conservative personalist leaders are receiving the main electoral support.

The countries that intended to marginalize Russia under the geopolitical scheme of the Intermarium or the Three Seas Initiative, have found themselves in adverse scenarios where globalist neoliberalism seems to be the true Chinese conspiracy.

The West will have to subordinate itself to Russia and adopt competitive conservatism in order to find the means to resist the economic and geopolitical onslaught of the Asian giant. In the end, it is the civilisational war that has been the hidden element of any geopolitical essence.

American military interventions in Mexico

 American military interventions in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

During the 1846 war between Mexico and the United States, the Americans had the opportunity to wrest a larger proportion of territory from the defeated country and they did not do so. Even so, despite the open request of conservative and liberal groups that asked for Mexican integration into North America, or for the American military to remain there as long as possible. There will always be doubts about the reasons that inhibited the Yankees; later it seems that moderation prevailed to contain the territorial voracity of the American Union.

Some historians grant the main reason for American containment of Mexico to be the fact of the American Civil War, undoubtedly the most violent war of the 19th century. Is this trigger pointed out by General Ulysses Grant still valid in the event of a military intervention by the United States in Mexico right now? According to Friedman, Garreau and Huntington, the question is more than valid. Savage American liberalism does not protect anyone; including themselves. The US military intervention in Mexico would unleash another US civil war and the possibility of absolute decline of North America.

Throughout the 20th century, in various critical situations for Mexican governability and with greater elements of power in favor of the United States, no Yankee president intended to start a war against Mexico; there were always all kinds of threats and warnings, but blood did not flow again despite extreme situations. The interventions have been surgical and, rather, have sought the stabilization of the Mexican government in power.

It is true that Donald Trump is changing the paradigm of power in the United States and seeks to rearrange the North American hegemony for a total defense against China. However, if the fear of the BRICS were true and real, all of Mexico would be an American aircraft carrier as Panama became in the nineties and even ships of that type break down without proper maintenance.

Apparently, Trumpism is diminishing in its outbursts and harsh reality forces it to find plausible strategies. Perhaps the unscrupulous American interventions that have been in the news in recent decades are coming to Mexico: kidnappings of high-ranking figures, armed commandos, spy flights and infiltrations of all kinds. Something that President Sheinbaum has surely known about for a long time; but, for which she must also prepare well.

There is a North American attempt to kidnap the Mexican presidency as was done during the government of José López Portillo, whom, later, they were also unable to control. When Salinas de Gortari faced the triumph of Cardenismo in his election, the technocrats abandoned the government to the fate of the United States and, once again, they refused to take control. The American power elite (globalist, transnational or nationalist) ends up coming to an understanding with the Mexican nomenklatura and the set of authoritarian enclaves that remain. Mexico is not Panama, rather, the republic ends up being the Catholic wife of the American Henry VIII that will never be able to behead; Above all, because American enrichment is not even competent to take care of the small house.

The threatening tone of Trumpism is increasingly less like Operation Barbarossa. However, it is important to find common ways to reduce the influence of the drug-trafficking barbarism that is turning Mexico and the United States into Failed States.