Imperialism in decline and the tyranny of an autocrat who violates sovereignties.

The recent offensive by the United States against Venezuela exposes, without disguise, the persistence of an imperial logic that insists on imposing itself on the sovereignty of the Latin American peoples. Under the leadership of Donald Trump and supported by old doctrines recycled in the Trumpian style, this foreign policy once again treats Latin America as a tutelary zone, where force, threats, and the exploitation of resources are presented as legitimate instruments of power.

The Venezuelan episode, far from being an isolated event, signals a serious and dangerous precedent for the entire region. This same expansionist and authoritarian mentality, however, is not restricted to the Global South. Trump's threat to annex Greenland "by hook or by crook" is causing alarm in Europe and jeopardizing the alliance that has guaranteed the continent's protection since World War II, revealing that American unilateralism is willing to strain even historical partners.

In this sense, Trump illicitly extends his imperialist claws by resorting to the persistent repetition of illegitimate arguments that have never justified the attacks of American military power against countries that he intends to subject to his strategic geopolitical interests.

This time the attack was carried out in a South American country. Venezuela had its sovereignty violated by the Trump administration with the kidnapping of its president and first lady. It is necessary to point out that this is not about questioning the legitimacy of Maduro's election in 2024; the attack on Venezuela is unacceptable, serious, and extremely reckless for the other countries of Latin America.

According to Marco Rubio, the United States Secretary of State, the logic guiding US foreign policy in the 21st century, especially under the Trump administration, stems from an openly imperial premise: that Washington will not accept the existence of a country like Venezuela outside its direct control. In interviews with the American television networks CBS and NBC, the Secretary made it clear that the US arrogates to itself the right to define who can or cannot exist politically in the so-called "Western Hemisphere," treated as a strategic backyard of its influence.

By associating Venezuela with external threats such as Hezbollah and Iran, Rubio resorts to the old tactic of a fabricated enemy to justify interference, sanctions, and interventions, reaffirming the notion that any regional autonomy is seen as intolerable. It is, therefore, not a defense of security, but a reaffirmation of a doctrine of domination that refuses to accept the political plurality and sovereignty of Latin American countries.

Trump, in his arrogance fueled by a decadent imperialism, threatens countries that, without American military might, risk having their sovereignty violated. Any country "in Trump's hemisphere" that dares not align itself with the strategic dominance interests of the US may feel its sharp claws.

In the interview following the brutal attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration also revealed its intention to stifle the Cuban government until its extinction, a goal pursued by Marco Rubio. The son of Cubans, Rubio embodies a profound and revealing contradiction within the Latin American political psyche captured by imperial power.

Before fully aligning himself with Trumpism, Rubio was the target of public disdain from Donald Trump, who derogatorily nicknamed him "Little Marco" and repeatedly mocked his appearance—a derision laden with racism and ethnic hierarchy. Even so, Rubio chose not to confront this symbolic violence, but to assimilate it, transforming it into ideological zeal against the very peoples from whom he descends. His obsessive hostility towards Latin American countries reveals less political conviction and more a mechanism of identity denial. By attacking Latin America, Rubio seeks to dissociate himself from what the white power structure in the United States despises.

It is worth noting that Trump's racism is so pernicious that he feels comfortable stating that Venezuelans are "the ugliest people in the world," and yet Rubio serves this project without embarrassment, as if submission were the price to pay for a temporary place in the imperial elite. This is a classic case of subjective colonization in which the victim adheres to the oppressor's discourse so as not to be reminded of their own origins.

From this perspective, Marco Rubio's political trajectory is marked by a moralizing discourse and an agenda of punishing governments classified as "hostile," especially in Latin America. Driven by a deep resentment towards Cuba, Rubio was responsible for reversing the decision of the Joe Biden administration that had removed Cuba from a list compiled by the United States of countries that, according to Washington, do not contribute to the fight against terrorism. Inclusion on this list functions, in practice, as a political alibi for the imposition and maintenance of sanctions against the Caribbean nation.

On the other hand, the European Union's position, while condemning the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, sounded perfunctory and lacked emphasis. In a note signed by all 26 member states except Hungary, the bloc's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, merely called for "calm and moderation from all parties," arguing that this was necessary to avoid escalation and preserve a peaceful solution to the crisis. The document reiterated, in a generic way, the need to observe the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, which, according to Trump, are no longer valid. Meanwhile, the French government praised the attack on Venezuela, standing apart from the others.

Conversely, China, Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and Iran have vehemently positioned themselves against the illegality of the American intervention in Venezuela.

The Brazilian government, in a statement issued by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, categorically condemned the military attack on Venezuela and the capture of its head of state. Among other arguments, it stated that: "These acts represent a very serious affront to the sovereignty of Venezuela and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community."

In a joint statement, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and Uruguay condemned the US military action against Venezuela: “We express our deep concern and repudiation of the military actions carried out unilaterally on Venezuelan territory, which contravene fundamental principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”

While reviving the Monroe Doctrine (reconfigured by Trump as the Donroe Doctrine (Donald + Monroe), originally proclaimed in 1823 by President James Monroe and based on the principle that the Americas should remain free from further European colonial incursions, in exchange for a US commitment not to interfere in the affairs of the European continent, the motto "America for the Americans"), Trump also revives typical practices of colonial subjugation. This is evident in his imposition of his orders on Venezuela, as he did when he declared on his social media this Wednesday that the Caribbean country "will now only buy products manufactured in the United States, with the money it will receive from our new oil deal."

Through a leonine agreement maximizing advantages for the US at the expense of Venezuela, the Trump administration is plundering the oil and other natural resources of the Caribbean nation, under the guise of improving the living conditions of the Venezuelan people. The US intervention in Caracas was never intended to change the Chavista regime, but rather to subjugate the crisis-stricken country to the fullest extent.

Following his actions that undermine the sovereignty of the Bolivarian Republic, Trump has thrown the European continent into turmoil by reaffirming his intention to buy Greenland regardless of Denmark's wishes. Beyond its mineral resources, the strategic position of this territory makes it essential for the US, as the region constitutes a strategic outpost in the Arctic, especially given the growing activities of Russia and China in the region. This alternative involves limiting access to Arctic resources for these powers and European countries, as well as establishing control over new maritime routes.

While the brutal arrogance of the US government erupted on the third day of the new year, subjugating a vulnerable country to its tutelage and its blatant project of future plunder of its riches in a gesture that affronts and disrupts the already fragile configuration of the world order, we witnessed, in the largest and most important country in South America, an equally degrading spectacle.

In Brazil, the subservience of politicians from the opportunistic right and the far right is consolidating; these politicians, brutalized and shameless, resort to social media to display their sycophantic and base instincts regarding Trump's latest illegal actions in South America.

This is not merely a matter of ideological alignment, nor of the infamous schemes that seek to associate Lula with Maduro, repeated by opposition governors such as Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicanos-SP), Ratinho Júnior (PSD-PR), Romeu Zema (Novo-MG), and Ronaldo Caiado (União Brasil-GO). What is at stake is explicit subservience to the illegalities committed by the Trump administration. Politically unqualified parliamentarians, such as Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG), Sóstenes Cavalcanti (PL-RJ), and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), also adhere to this sycophantic shame. It is a voluntary submission to the domineering and erratic arrogance of a declining power that, amidst crisis and despair, struggles to restore its imperial interference over what it insists on calling "its" hemisphere.

In a joint act of desperation, politicians from the Centrão (center-right bloc) and the far-right are attacking their common adversary, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who leads in the polls due to popular recognition of his government's leadership, public policies aimed at combating social inequality, economic success with inflation at 4,26% below the target ceiling, and the assertive and sovereign stance he has adopted in the face of Trump's attacks. This attitude impacts the self-esteem of Brazilians of all ideological persuasions and their feelings of defending the country against the threats of American imperialism. The desperation of his opponents must have grown even more with yesterday's news of the signing of the Mercosur-European Union Agreement, after 25 years of negotiations, expressing President Lula's effort to expand trade relations, intensify dialogue with the international community, and promote a sustainable development model. As Lula mentioned, January 9, 2026, marks a historic moment for multilateralism, even in a global scenario increasingly marked by the advance of protectionism and unilateral stances.

Thus, it is worth questioning to what extent are the presidential candidates who celebrate the illegal US attack on the sovereignty of a country bordering Brazil, in order to garner votes from electorates still devoted to Bolsonaro's false patriotism, worthy of trust, or those who remain vulnerable victims of disinformation, lies posted on social media by politicians like Nikolas Ferreira, and misleading speeches based on the old anti-establishment and anti-corruption arguments of the Bolsonaro government, which ended up becoming permanent practices of attacking democratic institutions, producing successive crises and casting doubt on its commitment to democracy and the Constitution.

What will become of Brazil and its people if one of these candidates, originating from a reactionary, hypocritical, and opportunistic right wing or from an irrational far-right that spews hatred, both subservient to the colonizing logic of the United States, assumes the federal government in 2027? What can be expected from this insane mob that does not value the sovereignty of its own country, that applauded the tariffs imposed by Trump on Brazil, and now praises the same autocratic president without limits, who, due to his country's superior military technology, seizes the natural resources of countries that cannot stand up to him until he suffocates their sovereignty and self-determination?

Given this scenario, it becomes evident that the greatest risk lies not only in the aggressiveness of a declining power, but also in the servile disposition of local political elites who normalize the violation of the sovereignty of others and their own. To applaud illegal attacks, justify the kidnapping of heads of state, and accept leonine agreements in the name of electoral or ideological alignments is to abdicate national self-determination.

Given this reality, Brazil's future in the next elections will depend on the people's awareness, their ability to resist this logic of domination, and to reaffirm, firmly at the ballot box, that sovereignty is not a bargaining chip or an instrument of political convenience, contrary to what is demonstrated by the speeches and practices of candidates such as Flávio Bolsonaro, Tarcísio de Freitas, Ratinho Júnior, Romeu Zema, and Ronaldo Caiado, who normalize external submission as a political strategy.