By Luis Manuel Aguana
Perhaps this is one of the most confusing times in the history of mankind. It would seem that with all the mega communicational structure existing in these times, human beings should be clearer about what is going on, but it is quite the opposite.
With the advent of instant communicational tools, the truth vanished in the sea of false, contradictory and interested news. It is now very difficult to separate truth from lies, or for someone to tell a half-truth, or a lie disguised as truth, so that people are immediately confused and do not know what is really happening. It privileges “the truth” of whoever has more presence in the networks or can pay for a self-serving narrative.
And this leads us to the fact that when something important happens, the explanation of what happens is not the true one, but the superficial one, the one that is sold as obvious. Because in this world whose complexity already has exponential levels, nothing happens without a background explanation. And that is what has to be analyzed and scrutinized, not what is shown on the facade.
When the
US President makes the decision to send warships with the apparent excuse of
“an intensified initiative to combat drug cartels, according to two US Defense
officials”, the mass-media immediately interprets that they are hunting for
Nicolás Maduro Moros and the rest of those pointed out as the main responsible
for the so-called Cartel of the Suns, a drug trafficking organization, recently
included in the list of terrorists by the US authorities (see CNN USA, in
Spanish, US deploys more than 4,000 additional military personnel in waters
near Latin America for its fight against the cartels, in a move that is
expected to have a major impact in the region, in https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/08/15/eeuu/despliegan-4000-militares-aguas-latinoamerica-carteles-trax).
And while that may be one explanation for that move, the move does not necessarily have the “obvious” explanation given by those who want the regime out by force, especially if it is by US force. It may simply be that they wish to completely block, as this armed deployment by sea and air may well do, the outflow of drug shipments to the US and Europe, which is not being completely contained by the current efforts of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
But, as a professor I had some decades ago at IESA used to say, this is a solution that kills flies with atomic bombs. Indeed, it does, but at an excessively high cost. And even higher if we consider that the drug business is something that can remain there, waiting for them to withdraw, something that a military mobilization of such caliber cannot do.
So why spend millions of dollars to move that fleet, if not to take out the Cartel of the Suns, or at least to do permanent or long-term damage to their heads, assets and facilities? I will return to this question later.
As I have already commented in some past notes, the arrival of President Donald Trump to power in the U.S. has meant a policy aimed at achieving a change in the terms of negotiation of that country with the rest of the world, to achieve an advantageous position in all orders: economic, political and military (see A world at war and the decline of the US, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/a-world-at-war-and-decline-of-us.html, China the systemic challenge, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/china-systemic-challenge.html, USA, between genius and madness, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/usa-between-genius-and-madness.html).
Trump is negotiating the US position for the future, trying to get the best part, even without even having an economy in good shape. As I explained in those notes, the US negotiates with military power, which is the only thing that ultimately supports it. They use the aspect in which they are more powerful than the rest of the countries, to respond to the challenge of multipolarity: their military power.
In an attempt to understand what is happening in the world, which would result in actions such as those we are seeing with the US military movement in the Caribbean, I tried to make a comparison with the help of IA ChatGPT, between the division of the world made by the winning powers of World War II in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, with the multiple meetings held by Trump with the Heads of State of the powers that challenge his power in this convulsed situation of wars and territorial disputes. This is the result:
"Your question is very good because it touches on a sensitive point: the comparison between the current meetings (Alaska Summits, EU-US-Ukraine meetings, G7, NATO, etc.) and the Yalta and Potsdam conferences (1945), which were key in shaping the world order after WWII.
I will answer in parts:
What happened at Yalta and Potsdam 2.
Yalta (February 1945) and Potsdam (July 1945) brought together Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin (and later Truman) to divide zones of influence after the defeat of Nazism. There, the borders of Eastern Europe were drawn, the Soviet sphere of influence was recognized and the foundations of the UN were laid. Result: bipolar system USA vs. USSR → Cold War.
2. What happens at the current summits
In Alaska (2021) there was a tense dialogue between the US and China, with mutual accusations on human rights, technology and security. NATO, EU and G7 meetings with Ukraine, especially after 2022, seek to unite the West vis-à-vis Russia, guarantee military and financial support, and limit Chinese and Russian influence. It is not a “sharing of territories” that is being negotiated, but alliances, sanctions and strategic coordination in the face of common challenges.
3. Key differences with Yalta/Potsdam
Yalta/Potsdam: the victors defined a new geopolitical map with physical borders and zones of control. Today: there is no consensus among great powers to “share out” the world. Rather, there is open conflict and multipolar competition (US-EU vs. Russia-China, with intermediate players such as India, Turkey, Brazil). Moreover, the current international system is governed by the UN, the WTO and economic interdependence, which makes a rigid division of the planet as in 1945 more difficult.
4. What may be happening
Although it is not a “Yalta 2.0”, there is a geopolitical transition: the US and Europe seek to reassert a cohesive Western bloc. Russia is trying to consolidate its influence in Eurasia. China is projecting itself as a global alternative, especially in economics and technology. This points to a multipolar world, with more flexible and conflicting blocs of influence than in the Cold War.
Conclusion:
There is no sound basis for saying that the current summits involve a “new sharing of the world” in the style of Yalta or Potsdam. What exists is a reconfiguration of alliances and spheres of influence in a multipolar context, more akin to a competition for economic, technological and military power than an explicit agreement to partition the planet” (see ChatGPT in Spanish, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68a721da3de0819192432b9bdc949dda) (highlighted our).
The main issue here then is a fierce competition for power and influence between the poles of the new multipolar scheme of the world between the USA, Russia and China, which has not yet been elucidated, and is being elucidated right now. I then projected, with the same AI, how the blocs would look like after an arrangement that delivers Venezuela (and Latin America in general) to the US, Taiwan to China and Ukraine to Russia. And this is the result:
“Excellent, your question is
pure prospective geopolitics:
If the US, Russia and China were to reach a ”Yalta 2.0" type agreement, sharing Venezuela, Ukraine and Taiwan as zones of influence, the map of the world would be profoundly transformed.
Projection of blocs of influence following a hypothetical agreement
1. United States / West
Latin America:
Venezuela would definitely pass into the US orbit (in exchange for concessions in Ukraine and Taiwan). Cuba and Nicaragua would tend to normalize relations under pressure from Washington. Mexico and Brazil would maintain a certain degree of autonomy, but with an inclination towards the Western market. Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, NATO: remain firmly in the bloc.
Result: consolidation of the Western Hemisphere under the US, with a reduction of China's room for maneuver in South America.
Russia
Ukraine: recognized as a zone of Russian influence (probably with annexation of eastern territories or even total neutralization of the country). Eastern Europe: Russia reinforces its sphere, regaining part of its “security belt”. Middle East: Russia maintains its influence in Syria and Iran.
Result: Russia secures an updated “mini-Warsaw Pact”, but with a weak economy and dependence on China.
3. China
Taiwan: China would gain international recognition of its sovereignty over the island. In practice, it would consolidate control over the South China Sea and the semiconductor supply chain. Asia-Pacific: China gains weight vis-à-vis the US in the region.
Latin America: it loses Venezuela as a stronghold, but maintains strong ties with Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru through trade.
Result: China becomes a consolidated economic superpower, although it loses influence in Latin America.
4. Hinge zones
India, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia: They remain “flexible players” within a multipolar system. India would be strengthened because the cession of Taiwan would consolidate its role as a counterweight to China in Asia. Brazil would lose margin due to Venezuela's exit from the Chinese/Russian orbit, but would remain in BRICS.
New global balance after the agreement
It would be a “new Yalta
division” in modern version:
USA. →
America + Western Europe
Russia →
Ukraine + East European security belt
China → Taiwan + Asia-Pacific hegemony
Difference with 1945: it would no longer be a bipolar world, but a regulated tripolar one, with less rigid blocs but with recognized zones of influence.
Conclusion:
If such an agreement were to be reached, Latin America would be almost entirely under US control, Russia would consolidate in Eastern Europe, and China would dominate the Indo-Pacific after absorbing Taiwan. It would be a more stable order in the short term, but with enormous tension in hinge countries (India, Brazil, Turkey) that would be trapped between the three giants" (see ChatGPT, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68a7921438208191bb0ff2288fce6bfc) (highlighted our).
As will be seen above, the conclusion of the exercise models the already known intentions of the main poles. We are not making anything up here. Note that as of the publication of this note, Trump has only talked with Russia in Alaska, but not yet with China, which is still on the agenda. Hence, for now, the Chinese will complain about the US military presence in the Caribbean, which tells us that they are not yet entering into negotiations about the global future of the blocs of influence (see Notiahora, in Spanish, Beijing criticizes US military deployment in the Caribbean: “We oppose the use of force in international relations,” in https://notiahorave.com/pekin-critica-despliegue-militar-de-eeuu-en-el-caribe-nos-oponemos-al-uso-de-la-fuerza-en-las-relaciones-internacionales/).
For those who have had the patience to get this far -with apologies for the length of the note-, returning to the question at the beginning: why spend millions of dollars to move that fleet, if not to take away the Cartel of the Suns, or at least to do permanent or long term damage to their heads, assets and facilities?
Because that move would be part of a show of force that would have an impact on the negotiations going on right now to balance the zones of influence of each pole, in this case the US with Latin America, with a Yalta 2.0. My apologies for not being pretentious enough to believe that a power like the US would move an entire fleet to search for 3 drug traffickers in Venezuela. Or what is the same, to kill flies with atomic bombs. But everyone is free to think what they want and get excited about a possible “extraction”.
Russia has already given its tacit approval to the US presence in the Caribbean (so far) by not pronouncing itself on the US military movement, which shows its implicit acceptance of the undoubted influence of the northern power in the region. It remains for China to agree to a negotiation to define its own zone of influence. If Latin America remains completely within the US block of influence in Yalta 2.0 as we project, the destiny of the regime will be in its hands when the new distribution of the world is perfected. At that moment, and now, imagine what you will about the future of Venezuela...
Caracas, August 21, 2025
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario