The liberal world order coming to an end?

Note: The liberal world order is also known as the “international rules-based order” or “liberal international order.” While international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation were established as the blueprint for the liberal world order, the system was really powered by the United States.  Read more HERE and HERE.

The liberal world order appears to be coming to an end

By Rhoda Wilson on January 20, 2026

Francis Fukuyama declared the “End of History” in 1989, stating that Western liberal democracy had become the final form of human government.

However, by 2026, the liberal world order appears to be coming to an end, with countries like China and the US disregarding international law and pursuing their own interests.

A new world order, possibly based on multipolar realism, may replace liberalism, where nations prioritise their own power and interests over idealistic notions of cooperation and democracy.

Here Lies the Liberal World Order: 1945-2025

By Benjamin Bartee, 18 January 2026

Back in 1989, renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama got a little bit over his skis, as they say, when he enthusiastically welcomed in a new (and emphatically final) geopolitical epoch, audaciously dubbed the “End of History.”

From ‘The End of History?’ (1989):

The twentieth century saw the developed world descend into a paroxysm of ideological violence, as liberalism contended first with the remnants of absolutism, then Bolshevism and fascism, and finally an updated Marxism that threatened to lead to the ultimate apocalypse of nuclear war. But the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an “end of ideology” or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism.

The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism. In the past decade, there have been unmistakable changes in the intellectual climate of the world’s two largest communist countries, and the beginnings of significant reform movements in both. But this phenomenon extends beyond high politics and it can be seen also in the ineluctable spread of consumerist Western culture in such diverse contexts as the peasants’ markets and colour television sets now omnipresent throughout China, the cooperative restaurants and clothing stores opened in the past year in Moscow, the Beethoven piped into Japanese department stores, and the rock music enjoyed alike in Prague, Rangoon, and Tehran.

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (Emphasis added)

Liberalism today, liberalism tomorrow, liberalism forever! – to paraphrase notorious Alabama segregationist George Wallace.

In chronological context, it was an understandable misapprehension that afflicted Fukuyama and clouded his crystal ball; in 1989, getting high on the liberal order supply was easy.

No serious ideological rivals to liberalism existed any longer at the international level; the liberal order, with the United States at the head, exercised global hegemony; everybody in the world over wanted a pair of blue jeans and a Chevy Corvette and a hot blonde on their arm and all of the glorious excesses of liberal capitalism.

Alas, the utopian “End of History,” ironically, didn’t last long; by 2026, universalist liberalism had now reached what very much looks like the end of the line – a mere three and a half decades since Fukuyama declared it the “final form of human government.”

So-called “international law,” which underpins the global liberal order, has always been heavier on the aspiration and lighter on the actual, existing in a nether-region between theory and practicality, applied and adhered to erratically and arbitrarily – with no consequences for those who violate it, provided they have the military power to thwart attempts at accountability.

Lots of examples abound, but a prime one, which has received relatively little attention with the heavy media focus on Latin America and the Middle East, was Xi Jinping announcing in his New Year’s address that the forced “reunification” of Taiwan into the budding Sino Empire is “unstoppable” – a barely veiled flouting of the international powers that would threaten to oppose such a move militarily.

(I predict China will pull the trigger on the kinetic invasion before the end of the year if it can’t submit Taiwan through economic or political pressure under threat of military action.  The latter approach it would prefer for reasons of optics and because Taiwan is ethnically Chinese, likely tempering the bloodlust as the Chinese view the Taiwanese as their kin.)

While China has long signalled its intent to reclaim Taiwan, which it lost in the middle of the last century as the last stronghold of the nationalists fighting the CCP, Xi would not have offered such direct talk just a year ago. Yet, inch by inch, as the liberal order loses its grip on geopolitics, with it goes the diplomatic imperative to couch rhetoric in terms in keeping with international law.

In the same vein, Trump has more or less openly admitted that the political, economic and military pressure applied to Venezuela, including the capture of its president, is about regional hegemony and natural resources: “We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,” he said.

The Western hemisphere “belongs to us,” the mantra has gone of late. (“Us” meaning, ostensibly, the United States and the citizens thereof, although I don’t feel it belongs to me as an American citizen quite as much as it will soon belong to Blackrock, Palantir and Chevron.)

In a way, the Venezuela rhetoric is much more honest than the obviously insincere 2003-era talk of delivering “democracy” to Iraq, Afghanistan, et al. Those countries were never going to adopt “democracy” even if the United States government insisted on it – which, despite the nonstop lip service, it didn’t anyway because it didn’t care much for constitutional republicanism at home, let alone abroad. Nonetheless, liberal etiquette required the lie to maintain the façade that the world runs on democratic values.

So, what will replace international liberalism?

Something, probably, on the order of multipolar realism – again, much less idealistic yet much more honest in a world that hitherto has functioned on pretty lies.

Via Independent Institute (emphasis added):

Realism is one of the prominent international relations theories for explaining the behaviour of states. The core essence of realism is an attempt to explain “world politics as they really are, rather than describe how they ought to be,” presenting the world as a state of anarchy where nations, acting as unitary rational actors, compete with each other to maximise their power, “the only – variable of interest.”

Realism is often juxtaposed with liberalism, the belief that the “national characteristics of individual States matter for their international relations” and that it is possible for different types of regimes to operate in different ways, such as Kant’s theory of democratic peace. Liberal “institutionalism,” the ideology on which diplomats in the West are brought up, is the belief that “international institutions facilitate cooperation and peace among countries.” The difference between these schools of thought can be understood through their perspectives on international institutions.

While liberals assume that organisations like the United Nations are a genuine platform for international cooperation, realists assume that these institutions do very little to prevent states from pursuing their interests and can very often serve as a vector through which state interests are pursued.

Further reading from The Exposé:

• Council on Foreign Relations tries to combat rise of anti-globalisation
• Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance
• China is attempting to usher in a “multi-polar international monetary system”
• Multipolarism appears to be nothing more than the consolidation of globalism

About the Author

Benjamin Bartee, author of ‘Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile’, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist.  He publishes articles on two Substack pages: ‘Armageddon Prose’ and ‘Armageddon Safari’.  You can follow Amageddon Prose on Twitter (now X) HERE.  If you would like to support his work, you can donate HERE.

Greenland's importance

Greenland has barely registered in global politics for much of modern history. Until recent weeks, it was regarded as a far-away, ice-covered territory at the edge of world affairs, with very limited influence. The world’s largest island has now been thrust into the foreground by the US as a focal point for questions about trade routes, security, and access to the Arctic. Today, it’s a pivot point militarily, economically, and geopolitically – why does it seem like everyone, everywhere, cares all of a sudden? 

Greenland Never Stopped Mattering to Military Strategy

Greenland’s importance has not changed, even if the recent spotlight makes it feel that way. The island sits astride the shortest route between North America and Eurasia. That means that any long-range missile, bomber, or hypersonic system launched between the US and Russia would need to pass near or directly over Greenland. From Washington’s point of view, it’s a strategic necessity rather than a diplomatic provocation, and the island plays a key role in the defence of North America. 

The US has therefore always maintained a permanent military presence there since the Cold War. The Pituffik base (previously known as Thule) is equipped with space-surveillance equipment, missile-detection radars, and early-warning systems. These capabilities are not symbolic – they are foundational to nuclear deterrence, missile defence, and space situational awareness. 

Greenland Never Stopped Mattering to the Navy

Greenland is also part of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a North Atlantic corridor that’s long been used to track Russian submarine movements from the Arctic into the Atlantic. During the Cold War, this chokepoint was critical for tracking Soviet naval assets – and it’s becoming so again. 

Russia has been investing heavily in modernising its Arctic bases and fleet of submarines. China – despite not being an Arctic state – has declared itself a “near-Arctic power”, increasing its polar presence and research. From Washington’s perspective, allowing either power to establish meaningful infrastructure or influence on the island would be strategically unacceptable. 

As such, the US interest in Greenland is framed as a necessity. Controlling observation points, airfields, ports, and undersea awareness in the High North is about preventing rivals from gaining leverage. 

Ice Melts, New Shipping Routes Emerge

The retreat of Arctic ice is most commonly discussed in environmental terms, but it’s the geopolitical consequences that will be felt first. New sea routes are becoming viable – at least during parts of the year – with the Northwest Passage and potential transpolar routes dramatically shortening shipping distances between North America, Europe, and Asia.  

Greenland lies along these emerging corridors. Any serious shipping regime using the Arctic will need ports, refuelling hubs, surveillance infrastructure, enforcement mechanisms, and search-and-rescue capabilities. Controlling those assets – and preventing Russia and China from doing so – is a priority for the US. 

Critical Minerals and Industrial Capacity

Security today is inseparable from industrial power. Greenland holds significant, undeveloped reserves of uranium, rare earth elements, and other critical minerals essential for electronics, aerospace, weapons systems, batteries, and advanced manufacturing. 

China currently dominates many of these supply chains, which is widely recognised in the West as a huge strategic disadvantage. Diversifying material sources is now a national security objective rather than an economic preference. Greenland offers a Western-aligned alternative to Chinese supply chains – one that’s geographically closer, politically linked to NATO, and comparatively stable. 

The US is therefore not focusing on short-term extraction, but rather on long-term positioning. The goal is to secure Western access to key materials instead of relying on rival powers. Strategic and financial tools are already in place to support mining and infrastructure development on the island, and the US wants to make sure these resources contribute to Western supply chains. 

How Europe Missed a Massive Opportunity

For the European Union, Greenland represents missed opportunities and slow decision making. Despite frequent talk about “strategic autonomy”, the EU has struggled to translate its ambitions into action. Environmental restrictions, political caution, and regulatory delays have severely limited European engagement in security, mining, and infrastructure projects on the island.  

Europe, therefore, is set to watch from the sidelines while the US secures long-term access to Greenland’s resources. In typical fashion, the EU has responded with procedures and debate instead of concrete commitments. These political constraints mean many of the resources that Europe says it needs for its own industrial and technological goals are now edging closer to US control.  

Meanwhile, Denmark – who was formally responsible for Greenland’s defence – has effectively deferred to US leadership in the Arctic, and other European states have only offered statements of concern in response.  

Final Thought

Greenland’s rise in global importance is the predictable outcome of geography meeting scarcity, technology meeting power, and a world reorganising around security of supply and access. Greenland always mattered. But the scramble for influence is accelerating, and new opportunities reveal themselves in the melting ice of the Arctic.

Death of The ‘Rules-Based Order'

🎤 Rats flee a sinking ship: Canada’s globalist PM attempts multipolar rebranding

Former central banker and globalist stalwart Mark Carney declared the postwar liberal order a "useful fiction" sustained by "rituals" and selective enforcement of international law.

 

Carney Declares Death Of The ‘Rules-Based Order'

Jan 21, 2026 

Yesterday Mark Carney, a former central banker and now Prime Minister of Canada, gave a remarkable speech (video, transcript) at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

It is an attack on the ‘international rules-based order’, the concept that the imperial Western nations have promoted and used to justify their myriad deviations from, and abuses of international law:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

The concept of the rules based order, a lie in itself, was useful for the proxy forces and vassals of the global hegemon as long as they themselves were not threatened by its consequences.

But as that hegemon has turned on those vassals who supported it, the concept has become dangerous and must be discarded:

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
…
And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls – or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Carney is not arguing for a full return to the rule of law. He is not calling for international law to be applied equally to all nations. He is arguing for a collaboration of ‘middle powers’ to resist the hegemon.  Unsaid is that such a club would likely continue to plunder the rest of the world:

Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.

Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.

We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.

Carney is pleading to the vassals of the hegemon to collectively resist its power. He is providing a recipe for doing this (emphasis in original):

It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticise economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, create institutions and agreements that function as described.

And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

Carney is appealing to ‘middle powers’ to join Canada in the new club:

We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is. …

According to the NY Times the speech, which Carney has written himself, was greeted with standing ovations.

Arnaud Bertrand comments and argues that the speech is an important one:

Make no mistake, Carney’s speech at Davos may prove to be one of THE most important speeches made by any global leader over the past 30 years. This is genuinely epochal stuff.

More than anything, what it means is that, to the extent it even existed at all, the West irremediably lost the Second Cold War: a Cold War requires two competing systems. Carney just announced that one of them simply no longer exists.

I won’t go as far as that claim. The new ‘middle power’ club that Carney envisioned has yet to gain members.

It will be difficult and take time for the political ‘elites’ of vassal countries to change their mindset from being the presumed beneficiaries of the imaginary rules-based order to become opposed to it. Their interest vary and finding common ground for some new, even if only informal, entity, will need a lot of talks and negotiations.

To discard the ‘rules based order’, to expose it as the lie that it has always been, is a good step into the right direction. It is a fundamental change of viewing the world.

But we also have to mindful to not fall into The Standing Ovation Trap because such fundamental changes can be abused.

Keep in mind that the ‘liberals’, like Carney, who suddenly preach adherence to international law when Trump tries to snatch Greenland, are the same ones who still run cover for every Zionist breach of international law in Palestine:

The same leaders who decry US threats to annex Greenland have enabled and encouraged Israel to impose a ‘security line’ which has resulted in the effective annexation of 60% of Gaza. Israel also continues to annex land in the West Bank and Syria, all with the support of liberal leaders who now tell us territorial integrity is paramount.

These leaders have also repeatedly invoked the necessity for engagement and dialogue with the US to avoid conflict over Greenland. This newfound enthusiasm for dialogue comes after cutting Russia out of every conceivable international forum and pushing Europe to the brink of a major war by refusing for years to discuss the future of Ukraine in the same manner they now wish to discuss the future of Greenland.

The hypocrisy, absurdity and dangerousness of the situation can’t be overstated.

The ‘rules based international order’ was useful for some until it wasn’t. As it has now been declared dead one wonders what other fictional concept will be invented to avoid a full return to adherence of international law.

How the parvo vaccine came about...

 

Where the “Parvo Lives in the Dirt” Myth Actually Came From Most dog owners have never been shown the real timeline — and once you see it, the entire “parvo” story makes a lot more sense. ⸻ 1. The Timeline That Exposes the Whole Narrative ** 1977–1978: A brand-new diagnosis suddenly appears everywhere. ** Before the late 1970s, nothing labeled “canine parvovirus” existed in veterinary textbooks, journals, or case reports. Then — out of nowhere — it “appears” across multiple continents within months — a pattern that makes the usual ‘new “virus” suddenly appeared’ story biologically hard to justify. This wasn’t nature. This was introduction. ⸻ ** December 20, 1978: A canine parvo vaccine is already being patented.** Patent US4193991A — “Canine Parvovirus Vaccine” Filed: December 20, 1978 A vaccine patent requires: • the antigen • the strain • the manufacturing protocol • initial testing Which means the vaccine already existed before “parvo” was even fully classified. The product came first. The panic came second. ⸻ ** 1979–1980: The vaccine hits the market almost immediately.** Only months after filing, parvo shots were already in vet clinics nationwide. No pharma product is developed, tested, approved, manufactured, and distributed that fast unless the timeline is pre-arranged. ⸻ ** Early 1980s: The fear campaign begins.** This is when the industry started pumping out the script: • “Parvo lives in the dirt for years!” • “It sticks to shoes, grass, floors — everything!” • “Your dog needs boosters for life!” A perfect fear-driven business model: Blame nature. Sell the cure. Forever. The soil didn’t change— the marketing did. ⸻ 2. If It’s Not Coming From Dirt… What’s Actually Making Dogs Sick? Dogs are not collapsing from stepping on grass. They’re collapsing because their terrain is weakened. The symptoms labeled as “parvo” match gut collapse + detox crisis, not a soil-dwelling virus. Here are the real terrain-destroyers: ⸻ KIBBLE (highly processed, gut-damaging) Inflammatory, nutrient-poor, and destructive to the microbiome. “Parvo” symptoms match gut breakdown exactly. ⸻ VACCINES (chemical overload, immune suppression) Every shot adds: • metals • adjuvants • preservatives • foreign DNA • chemical carriers This inflames the gut, weakens detox pathways, and burdens the immune system. Vaccinated dogs often get the worst cases because their terrain is already compromised. ⸻ FLEA/TICK PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL DEWORMERS Neurotoxins and gut irritants that overload detox systems. ⸻ ANTIBIOTICS Destroy the microbiome — the foundation of immunity and digestion. ⸻ STRESS, BOARDING, SUDDEN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE Stress alone can trigger gastrointestinal collapse. Add toxicity → full terrain failure. ⸻ POOR BREEDING PRACTICES Weak moms → weak puppies → weak terrain. ⸻ None of this comes from “dirt.” It comes from a dog pushed past its biological capacity. ⸻ 3. What “Parvo” Really Represents (Terrain-Based Truth)  “Parvo” is a severe inflammatory + detox crisis in a weakened dog, not a stealth “murder virus” hiding in the soil. It mirrors the human CONvid blueprint: • new illness appears suddenly • vaccine already prepared • massive fear campaign • nature blamed • pharma profits • terrain ignored Same playbook. Different species. ⸻ 4. The Best Ways to Prevent “Parvo” (Real Terrain Support) Feed raw or minimally processed natural food Healthy gut → resilient dog. Avoid all vaccines They weaken the terrain, disrupt detox pathways, and burden immunity. Eliminate flea/tick pesticides & harsh dewormers Choose natural alternatives. Support detox pathways Milk thistle, dandelion, herbs, hydration, minerals. Strengthen gut health Probiotics, bone broth, fermented foods, clean proteins. Use natural immune supports Colloidal silver, herbal tinctures, botanicals with real-world success. Reduce stress and unnecessary boarding Stress collapses the gut faster than anything.

'Inside Job' that toppled Maduro

The 'inside job' that toppled Maduro: How vice-president 'had secret talks with US months ago'

The Daily Mail

The newspaper claims that Venezuela's vice-president held secret meetings with Washington in Doha in the months leading up to the US military assault on Caracas that saw Nicolás Maduro's capture.

During the covert talks, mediated by a senior member of the Qatari royal family, Delcy Rodríguez presented herself to American officials as a 'more acceptable' alternative to Maduro.

According to an October report in the Miami Herald, Rodríguez offered the US a vision of 'Madurismo without Maduro,' a kind of 'regime lite'.

Details of the meetings have fueled speculation that the US capture of the Venezuelan president and his wife, Cilia Flores, was an 'inside job', planned meticulously over months. 

Conspiracy theorists have questioned why American helicopters were not targeted with heavy small arms fire - despite Venezuelan missiles being knocked out.

It comes as Colombia's former vice–president Francisco Santos Calderón says he is 'absolutely certain' that Maduro's second-in-command betrayed him by having 'handed him over' to the US without a fight.

'They didn’t remove him, they handed him over,' he told Colombian cable television news channel NTN24. 

According to Daily Mail's source familiar with the matter, the CIA assembled a small team on the ground in Venezuela starting in August, who were able to provide information about Maduro's pattern of life that made grabbing him seamless. 

For months the team - including one source within the Venezuelan government - had been spying on Maduro, recording where he slept, what he ate, what he wore and even, according to top military officials, 'his pets'.

Following the US raid on Maduro's compound in Caracas on Saturday, Rodriguez maintained the critical tone adopted by all members of the dictator's cabinet.

In a televised address, she condemned the White House's 'unprecedented military aggression', demanded the 'immediate release' of Maduro and his wife, and said the country 'will never again be anyone’s colony'.

However, in a dramatic shift of tone on Sunday, Rodríguez - Venezuela's acting president - offered 'to collaborate' with the Trump administration and she said she hoped to build 'respectful relations' with the US president.

'We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence,' she said on social media.

Rodríguez, who is next in the presidential line of succession, served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy as well as its feared intelligence service.

On Saturday, Venezuela’s high court ordered her to assume the role of interim president.

'She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,' Trump told reporters of Rodríguez, who faced US sanctions during Trump’s first administration for her role in "undermining Venezuelan democracy."

Source (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15434827/amp/The-inside-job-toppled-Maduro-Venezuelas-vice-president-offered-replace-dictator-months-ago-secret-US-talks-conspiracy-theorists-claim-American-helicopters-werent-shot-at.html)

Decoding the ‘Donroe Doctrine’

 🔍 Decoding the ‘Donroe Doctrine’: Pepe Escobar 

Let's cut to the chase. The hit on Venezuela had three core goals beyond seizing oil collateral for a bankrupt empire:

1️⃣  Bellum Judaica: Caracas's support for Palestine and condemnation of the "Zionist plague" made it a target. This operation is the "Zionroe Doctrine"—a Forever War warning to the Global South. Oppose us, be branded 'amalek.' Delcy Rodríguez identified the raid's "Zionist tinge" immediately.

2️⃣  Heavy Metal Thunder: Within 24 hours, an $8 billion deal was struck to process $1 trillion of Venezuelan gold & silver from the Arco Minero. J.P.Morgan financed it, desperate to cover a massive physical silver short. This is pure resource looting.

3️⃣  The Petrodollar: The real target is monetary sovereignty. The Empire cannot allow Venezuelan oil to be sold in yuan, ruble, or a BRICS gold-backed mechanism. (https://t.me/geopolitics_prime/62434) Venezuela joining China's CIPS system was the ultimate red line.

🏴‍☠️ The failed coup reveals the new rule: "My Might is Right." International law is dead. The plunder is explicit. The Global South must see this and unite, or be picked off one by one.

Fight for sovereignty in Latin America

From wars of independence to US-backed strongmen, how resistance and accommodation shaped the region’s political memory 

Heroes, dictators, and the long fight for sovereignty in Latin America before Maduro

5 Jan, 2026

 

Generated by AI.

Latin America’s most celebrated heroes came from vastly different political traditions. What bound them together was not ideology, but a shared insistence on defending the interests of their people – and, above all, national sovereignty. In the 19th century, that struggle was directed against European colonial powers, primarily Spain. By the 20th, it increasingly meant confronting pressure from the United States, which since at least the late 1800s had openly framed the region – codified in doctrines and policy – as its strategic “backyard.

Those who chose accommodation over resistance left a far murkier legacy. Under intense external pressure, many leaders accepted limits on sovereignty in exchange for stability, investment, or political survival. Over time, this produced a familiar historical pattern: figures who aligned with foreign power were readily replaced when they ceased to be useful, while those who resisted – often at great personal cost – were absorbed into national memory as symbols of dignity, defiance, and unfinished struggle.

In this piece, we revisit the heroes and the betrayers who came to embody these opposing paths in Latin America’s modern history.

National heroes

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (1753–1811) was a Mexican Catholic priest who entered history as the initiator of Mexico’s war of independence from Spanish rule. On September 16, 1810, he delivered the famous Grito de Dolores, calling on the people to rise up – an act that later earned him the title “Father of the Nation” (Padre de la Patria). Hidalgo led an insurgent army, won a series of early victories, and issued decrees abolishing slavery, ending the poll tax, and returning land to Indigenous communities. Captured in 1811, he was executed by firing squad. His name lives on in cities, the state of Hidalgo, an international airport, an asteroid, and on Mexico’s 1,000-peso banknote.

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. ©  Prisma/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

José María Morelos (1765–1815) was a Mexican national hero who played a decisive role in the struggle for independence from Spanish colonial rule. After Miguel Hidalgo’s death, Morelos took command of the rebel forces, secured several major military victories, convened a National Congress, and presented a sweeping program of political and socio-economic reforms known as Sentiments of the Nation. The document called for the abolition of slavery and racial discrimination, the establishment of popular sovereignty, and guarantees of fundamental civil rights. Though defeated and executed in 1815, his ideas and personal sacrifice helped sustain the independence movement.

José María Morelos. ©  Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Simón Bolívar (1783–1830) was a Venezuelan revolutionary and a national hero not only in Venezuela but across much of the region. Known as El Libertador, he played a central role in freeing the territories of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia – named in his honor – from Spanish rule. Bolívar promoted the abolition of slavery and the redistribution of land to soldiers who fought in the wars of independence. His lifelong ambition was the creation of a unified South American state.

Simón Bolívar. ©  Getty Images/Nastasic

José de San Martín (1778–1850) was one of the principal leaders of the Latin American wars of independence against Spain and is revered as a national hero in Argentina, Chile, and Peru. He was instrumental in liberating these countries from colonial rule and in abolishing slavery. His legacy is preserved in monuments, street names, schools, and public institutions. In Argentina, he is honored as the Father of the Nation.

José de San Martín. ©  DeAgostini/Getty Images

Francisco “Pancho” Villa (1878–1923) was one of the most prominent military leaders of the Mexican Revolution (1910–1917). In 1916–1917, he fought against US military intervention in Mexico. After his forces attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916, the US launched a punitive expedition under General John J. Pershing to capture him. Villa continued to resist for some time but was eventually defeated.

Francisco “Pancho” Villa. ©  Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Augusto Sandino (1895–1934) was a Nicaraguan revolutionary and the leader of an anti-imperialist uprising against the US occupation of Nicaragua from 1927 to 1933. Heading the Defending Army of National Sovereignty, he waged a successful guerrilla war that ultimately forced the withdrawal of US troops. Sandino became a symbol of resistance to foreign intervention in Latin America. He was later assassinated on the orders of the National Guard leadership under Anastasio Somoza. His martyrdom inspired the Sandinista movement, which eventually overthrew the Somoza dictatorship.

Augusto Sandino. ©  Wikipedia

Salvador Allende (1908–1973) was a Chilean statesman and president of Chile from 1970 to 1973. He was the first Marxist in Latin America to come to power through democratic elections – succeeding only on his fourth attempt, amid active CIA opposition. Allende is known for his effort to pursue a peaceful transition to socialism through the nationalization of key industries (notably copper), agrarian reform, wage increases, and expanded access to healthcare. During the US-backed military coup led by Augusto Pinochet, Allende refused to flee or compromise with the plotters and died in the presidential palace.

Salvador Allende. ©  Getty Images/Bettmann

Fidel Castro (1926–2016) was a Cuban revolutionary and statesman, the leader of the Cuban Revolution that overthrew the regime of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. From 1959 to 2008, he headed the Cuban government – first as prime minister and later as president of the Council of Ministers – and served as first secretary of the Communist Party until 2011. Under his leadership, Cuba became a socialist state, nationalized industry, and carried out far-reaching social reforms.

Fidel Castro. ©  Serge Plantureux/Corbis via Getty Images

Ernesto “Che” Guevara (1928–1967) was an Argentine revolutionary who became an enduring symbol of anti-imperialist struggle. A theorist and practitioner of guerrilla warfare, he championed social justice and revolutionary internationalism. Guevara played a key role in overthrowing Batista in Cuba and later took part in guerrilla movements in Africa and Latin America. He was captured and executed in Bolivia; according to multiple accounts, the operation involved CIA assistance.

Ernesto “Che” Guevara. ©  Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Hugo Chávez (1954–2013) was a Venezuelan revolutionary and president of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. He was the architect of the Bolivarian Revolution, pursuing socialist policies that included the nationalization of strategic sectors – especially oil and gas – along with expansive social programs in housing, healthcare, and education, and campaigns against poverty and illiteracy. Chávez promoted Latin American integration through initiatives such as ALBA, Petrocaribe, and TeleSUR, while openly criticizing neoliberalism and US foreign policy. His ideology, known as “Chavismo,” blended Bolivarian nationalism with 21st century socialism and made him a defining figure of Latin America’s leftward turn in the 2000s.

Hugo Chávez. ©  Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Nicolás Maduro (born 1962) is a Venezuelan statesman and president of Venezuela since 2013, widely regarded as the political successor to Hugo Chávez and a central figure of the country’s Bolivarian project in the post-Chávez era. Coming to power amid deep economic turbulence and sustained external pressure, Maduro positioned his presidency around the defense of national sovereignty, particularly in the face of US sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and repeated attempts at regime change. Under his leadership, Venezuela endured a prolonged period of economic warfare, including financial blockades and restrictions on its oil sector, while maintaining state control over strategic industries and preserving key social programs. Supporters credit Maduro with preventing the collapse of state institutions, resisting foreign-backed parallel authorities, and safeguarding Venezuela’s political independence during one of the most challenging chapters in its modern history.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. ©  Matias Delacroix/Getty Images

Traitors

Anastasio Somoza García (1896–1956) was the founder of the dictatorial dynasty that ruled Nicaragua from 1936 to 1979. He came to power through a US-backed coup. He is widely believed to be the subject of the famous quote attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt: “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” Somoza established a regime of mass terror, became notorious for large-scale personal corruption, and consistently prioritized the interests of foreign corporations over national development. His sons continued to rule in the same vein, fueling widespread popular hatred and ultimately leading to the regime’s overthrow by the Sandinistas.

Anastasio Somoza García. ©  Wikipedia

Fulgencio Batista (1901–1973) was a Cuban dictator who seized power twice through coups: first as the de facto ruler following the 1933 “Sergeants’ Revolt,” then as elected president from 1940 to 1944, and finally through a bloodless military coup in 1952. Batista suspended constitutional guarantees, banned strikes, reinstated the death penalty, and brutally repressed the opposition. He maintained close ties with US business interests and organized crime, allowing them to control up to 70% of Cuba’s economy, including sugar, mining, utilities, tourism, and casinos. His rule was marked by corruption, inequality, and violence, setting the stage for the Cuban Revolution.

Fulgencio Batista. ©  Getty Images/Bettmann

François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier were the dictators of Haiti from 1957 to 1986. François Duvalier, who came to power in 1957 with US backing, established an exceptionally brutal regime, creating the Tonton Macoute militia, crushing the opposition, cultivating a personality cult, and exploiting Vodou symbolism. 

François “Papa Doc” Duvalier. ©  Hulton Archive/Getty Images

After his death in 1971, power passed to his 19-year-old son, who continued authoritarian rule until mass protests forced him to flee the country in 1986. Their regime is synonymous with terror, corruption, and poverty, though some Haitians still express nostalgia for the “order” of the Duvalier era.

Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. ©  Getty Images/Bettmann

Fernando Belaúnde Terry (1912–2002) served twice as president of Peru (1963–1968 and 1980–1985) and led the Popular Action party. His policies were frequently criticized for their pro-American orientation, including neoliberal reforms that led to the privatization of strategic industries and a decline in living standards. In 1968, he was accused of collusion with the US-based International Petroleum Company (IPC) over the Talara Act. Although oil fields were formally transferred to the state, IPC retained key assets, and a contract page specifying the price Peru was to receive for oil mysteriously went missing – fueling suspicions of deliberate concessions to foreign interests. The scandal helped trigger a military coup that ousted him.

Fernando Belaúnde Terry. ©  Wikipedia

Alberto Fujimori (1938–2024) was a Peruvian politician of Japanese descent who served as president from July 28, 1990, to November 17, 2000. He implemented sweeping neoliberal reforms, including the privatization of state-owned enterprises in strategic sectors and the rail system, and aggressively courted foreign investment. With US backing, Fujimori carried out a self-coup (autogolpe) in 1992, dissolving Congress and consolidating power. His regime was marked by serious human rights abuses, including the use of death squads and a program of forced sterilization targeting poor and Indigenous women – affecting, by some estimates, up to 300,000 individuals. The program received support from, among others, USAID.

Alberto Fujimori. ©  Najlah Feanny/Corbis via Getty Images

Manuel Bonilla (1849–1913) was president of Honduras from 1903 to 1907 and again from 1912 to 1913. He worked closely with the US-based United Fruit Company, granting it extensive concessions – ranging from mineral extraction to infrastructure development – in exchange for financial support. Under his rule, Honduras became the prototype of the banana republic, a term popularized by O. Henry in 'Cabbages and Kings'. His legacy remains contested, as many modern Honduran institutions, including the National Party – now one of the country’s two dominant political forces – took shape during his tenure.

Manuel Bonilla. ©  Wikipedia

Manuel Estrada Cabrera (1857–1924) ruled Guatemala from 1898 to 1920 as a dictator. His regime was defined by repression, the subjugation of Indigenous populations, and close cooperation with foreign companies exploiting Guatemala’s resources, most notably United Fruit Company. Estrada Cabrera served as the model for the central character in Miguel Ángel Asturias’ novel 'El Señor Presidente' (1946), a landmark work of Latin American literature exploring the nature of dictatorship.

Manuel Estrada Cabrera. ©  Corbis via Getty Images

Jorge Ubico was the dictator of Guatemala from 1931 to 1944. He handed over vast tracts of land to United Fruit Company free of charge, enabling the corporation to dramatically expand its plantations and influence. Ubico also endorsed harsh labor practices on UFC estates. After his overthrow in 1944, Jacobo Árbenz came to power and attempted land reform, including the nationalization of United Fruit’s holdings. In 1954, however, a CIA-backed coup installed the pro-American Carlos Castillo Armas, and the expropriated lands were returned to United Fruit.

Jorge Ubico. ©  Getty Images/Bettmann

Juan Guaidó (born 1983) is a Venezuelan opposition politician who, with explicit US backing, declared himself “interim president of Venezuela” on January 23, 2019, bypassing constitutional procedures. His actions were accompanied by calls for foreign intervention, including economic sanctions and even military options. Despite prolonged unrest, Guaidó never exercised real authority inside Venezuela. In 2022, the opposition’s self-styled “legislative assembly” voted to dissolve his “interim government,” and shortly thereafter the Venezuelan embassy in the US under his control ceased operations.

Juan Guaidó. ©  Joe Raedle/Getty Images