Any leader opposing Chavismo will be better. Mediocrity, corruption, and ineptitude define the regimes driven by the Sao Paulo Forum in Latin America, led by Ignacio Lula da Silva, Hugo Chávez (+), and Fidel Castro (+). Thanks to the Internet and social media, they have successfully imposed their narrative, as stated by the Argentine president, Javier Milei.
Communism did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Its outdated pawns exploited the model of globalization, democracy, capitalism, the Internet, and its social networks, spearheaded by the United States and its Western allies.
The leftist narrative controls much of the information circulating in this globalized world, justifying its misdeeds while criticizing the actions of capitalist democracies. This creates an atmosphere of relativism that directly undermines the truth and puts communism in a leadership position, portraying Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping as the leaders of a new world, and depicting a revolutionary Cuba as just, while framing Hugo Chávez as humane and honest, obscuring his autocratic, mediocre, corrupt, and inept side.
Now, in the face of the military threat ordered by Donald Trump’s government, the Sao Paulo Forum—THE communist proposal for Latin America created in the 1990s and led by the corrupt Brazilian president Ignacio Lula da Silva, alongside the deceased Cuban dictator Fidel Castro—has received a renewed breath of life, allowing it to wave the anti-imperialist flag against the United States. This is fueled by the governments of Spain’s socialist Pedro Sánchez, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo of Mexico, Gustavo Petro of Colombia, and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.
These questioned figures, known for their corrupt and inept administrations and connections to drug trafficking and terrorism, have managed to survive their irregularities due to their penetration into judicial and educational systems, allowing them to place key pieces to maintain themselves in power and relentlessly attack those who question their actions.
The military threat from Trump has united the Sao Paulo Forum’s partners. The complementary work is done by the left’s global narrative, in alliance with social media, which has proven effective in issues like the Gaza conflict. In Latin America, its leaders were successful, hand in hand with Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Lula da Silva, and Venezuela’s oil resources influenced the group’s involvement in Ibero-American electoral campaigns and various shady businesses.
The United States created the current multipolar and globalized world, including development and leadership in technology, artificial intelligence, and social media. As a powerful nation, it has reaped the greatest benefits. However, its leaders have not kept up with new demands, reducing their influence over decision-making, which is more complex in economic, environmental, health, academic, and political matters.
The international prominence of the U.S. is evident; the case of Venezuela is a prime example. Utilizing a strategy developed over half a century—showing strength to negotiate—the former Deputy Secretary of State and special envoy for Venezuela, Elliot Abrahams, predicted this on Tuesday, November 18, 2025.
However, this U.S. strategy is not new. Joseph Nye (+) warned in March 1990 when analyzing the transformation of world power. The Harvard professor stressed the changing nature of global politics, emphasizing that traditional military tools and power balance strategies were necessary for success. But two aspects have complicated the global situation: economic interdependence and technology.
Now that the left has consolidated its position through “interdependence” and alliances with China and Russia—which have increased their presence in Latin America—their interests and security are under threat. Trump’s government has revived elements of the Monroe Doctrine, as stated by Guy Sorman (El Nacional 17-11-2025). This proposal emerged with “the foundational ideology of the country, presenting itself as a sincere defender of independence and democracy in the new American republics.”
Sorman points out that over time, the Monroe Doctrine shifted from being a principle of independence to a tool of U.S. imperialism. Since its proclamation, fourteen Latin American countries have experienced military incursions by the United States under various pretexts. In more recent times, the declared goal was to halt the Castroist revolution and the expansion of communism across the continent. While some interventions may have had justification, many were mere excuses.
The case of Venezuela illustrates the difficulties the U.S. faces today in achieving its objectives, as Nye warned, primarily because oil interests and those of transnational companies play a large role in solutions—especially since the political control of Nicolás Maduro’s regime is in the hands of seasoned Cubans who have outsmarted several U.S. presidents for 60 years.
This confluence of factors has facilitated 27 years of Chavismo control, which in alliance with the global left has built a narrative that floods social media, favoring its misdeeds, corruption, and meddling in Ibero-America.
The military presence of the U.S. may be seen as a show of force intended to intimidate and bring Nicolás Maduro’s regime to the negotiation table. Nye pointed out that the military option is the last resort after exhausting diplomatic channels. Time will tell what Trump, who aims to regain lost greatness through forceful, xenophobic, lawless, and terror-based policies, is capable of. Meanwhile, Venezuelans will continue to enjoy their beaches, fairs, mountains, barbecues, and the “zelle” effect this Christmas.
Cupertino Flores