Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Below is a geopolitical map of the Western Hemisphere as I see it today.

The principal geopolitical foes of the US in the Western Hemisphere—Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—are firmly in the China and Russia camp.

Other countries can shift depending on the outcome of recent elections.

Here’s an overview of some of the most geopolitically important countries in the Western Hemisphere to help frame the broader picture.

Venezuela

A military confrontation over Venezuela appears increasingly likely.

Since Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999, Caracas has aligned itself with Russia and China. Venezuela’s vast oil and gold reserves make it a geopolitical prize. The country holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—over 303 billion barrels, around 17 % of the global total—concentrated in the Orinoco Belt. That’s more oil than Saudi Arabia’s reported reserves.

For China and Russia, Venezuela represents a geopolitical foothold in America’s backyard—much like how the US uses Taiwan and Ukraine to do the same to Beijing and Moscow.

Trump’s renewed “war on drugs” is a thinly veiled pretext for the US to advance its geopolitical interests in the Americas.

Further, earlier this year, Washington labeled Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles as “foreign terrorist organizations,” a dramatic escalation without precedent. The designations paved the way for military and covert actions under counterterrorism authorities.

The US has amassed an impressive naval force off Venezuela’s coast in what Trump described as a campaign against “narco-terrorism.”

In reality, this looks more like classic gunboat diplomacy—the drugs-and-terrorism narrative is merely a thin patina of propaganda used to justify the policy. Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer, nor does it play any significant role in fentanyl trafficking.

Venezuela now stands at the crossroads of a changing world order. It’s difficult to imagine the US securing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere while Venezuela remains in its current geopolitical orientation—promoting an ideology that Latin America should be independent of the US.

Guyana

Guyana has quietly become one of the most geopolitically significant states in the Western Hemisphere. Its oil boom, its vulnerability to a long-running territorial dispute with Venezuela, and its growing alignment with the US situate it at the forefront of the conflict over control of the Western Hemisphere.

Washington’s recent deepening of economic and security ties signals recognition of that shift. Meanwhile, Caracas’s legislative and military moves to assert control over Guyana’s Essequibo region reflect a bold challenge—not just to Guyana, but to the US’s hemispheric influence.

Cuba

Cuba may look small on a map, but its position—just 90 miles from Florida—makes it one of the most strategically important pieces on the hemispheric chessboard.

In a world where geography still defines power, Cuba’s proximity to the US and its historic defiance of Washington give it an outsized geopolitical weight.

As the US refocuses on consolidating influence in the Western Hemisphere, Cuba is a challenge.

For Washington, the island’s alignment with China and Russia complicates efforts to assert control over the region.

For Beijing and Moscow, Cuba offers a rare foothold in America’s own backyard—a place to project soft power, intelligence, and potentially even military influence, without crossing direct red lines.

Economically, Cuba’s partnerships with China and Russia help it survive under US sanctions. Beijing has become Cuba’s largest trading partner and a major investor in telecommunications, ports, and infrastructure. Moscow, meanwhile, has pledged more than $1 billion in economic cooperation and continues to strengthen energy and defense ties. These relationships allow Havana to maintain political autonomy and serve as a symbolic anchor for anti-US sentiment across Latin America.

In short, Cuba is more than a relic of Cold War geopolitics—it’s a live variable in today’s multipolar order.

Cuba is also a stark reminder of the limits of the US government’s power. Since 1959, Washington has unleashed covert operations, economic embargoes, and numerous attempts to topple the Cuban regime—and yet it remains.

What new move could the US now deploy that it hasn’t already tried?

Short of a full-scale military invasion—which would itself offer no guarantee of success—I don’t see any viable alternative.

That means the Cuban government is likely to maintain its current geopolitical orientation and continue serving as a thorn in the side of US ambitions in the Western Hemisphere.

Colombia

Colombia has long been one of Washington’s most reliable allies in Latin America. Hugo Chávez famously—and derisively—referred to it as “the Israel of South America.”

That pattern has shifted under the country’s current left-wing president, Gustavo Petro. Earlier this year, he traveled to China and signed a cooperation plan marking Colombia’s formal accession to the Belt and Road Initiative—a move that rattled Washington. In response, Trump announced the suspension of US aid and threatened tariffs against Colombia, accusing Petro’s government of failing to curb narcotics.

The key question now is whether Colombia’s pivot toward Beijing marks a lasting strategic realignment or simply a temporary detour under Petro’s leadership. The direction Colombia ultimately takes will carry major geopolitical implications for the Americas—especially given its position bordering both Venezuela and Panama.

Nicaragua

Nicaragua has firmly aligned itself with China and Russia, positioning the Ortega government as one of Washington’s most outspoken adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.

Economically, Nicaragua has embraced China as a partner in infrastructure and investment, offering Beijing a strategic toehold in Central America. The Ortega administration has actively courted Chinese financing for energy, telecommunications, and port projects—moves that fit neatly into Beijing’s broader Belt and Road ambitions. Relations with the US, by contrast, have deteriorated sharply amid sanctions, trade restrictions, and public criticism of Ortega.

Brazil

Brazil, Latin America’s largest country by size and population, finds itself at a pivotal juncture in the hemisphere’s evolving geopolitical map.

Under former president Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil aligned closely with the US—sharing trade policies and strategic cooperation. That posture shifted with the return of Lula da Silva, who has pushed Brazil toward stronger ties with China.

Tensions with the US erupted recently when Trump imposed a sweeping 50% tariff on Brazilian exports, citing Brazil’s prosecution of Bolsonaro and what Washington called unfair trade practices. Brazil responded by filing a complaint at the World Trade Organization, invoking its new Reciprocity Law and hinting at retaliatory tariffs of its own. The result: a major rift with the US and a clear signal that Brazil is recalibrating its strategic orientation.

Brazil’s direction matters enormously. A lasting US-Brazil split could realign trade flows, shift regional power dynamics, and boost China’s influence in Latin America. Conversely, if Brazil ultimately steers back toward Washington, it would reaffirm the US’s dominant position in the hemisphere.

Panama

Panama has emerged as a crucial flashpoint in the contest for influence across the Western Hemisphere.

With the Panama Canal at the center of global trade and US naval strategy, the Trump administration views any Chinese foothold near the waterway as intolerable.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama and delivered a blunt message: reduce Chinese influence around the canal or face consequences. Within days, Panama announced it would not renew its memorandum with China’s Belt and Road Initiative—a move widely seen as a victory for US pressure.

The backdrop is unmistakable: Trump himself has publicly questioned the sovereignty of the canal, suggesting the US might ”take it back.”

The strategic intent is clear—Panama must align with the United States rather than Beijing. The canal is too vital for Washington to treat as neutral.

Washington’s recent hard line evokes echoes of 1989, when US military forces invaded Panama to remove Manuel Noriega and install a friendly regime.

Mexico

Mexico sits squarely at the heart of the Americas both geographically and economically. As the US’s largest trading partner, Mexico has deep economic, manufacturing, and logistical links with Washington—from cross-border supply chains to shared infrastructure.

At the same time, Mexico engages with China economically. Chinese goods and investment are flowing into Mexico at a growing pace, sometimes causing friction with the US, which worries that Mexico could become a backdoor for Chinese influence or trade. Mexico’s leadership also shows signs of asserting greater independence, pursuing its own path on global diplomacy and trade policy rather than fully falling in line with Washington.

Further, Mexico faces new pressure from Washington to treat its drug cartels as terrorist threats. The Trump administration has declared major Mexican criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations and is laying plans for military operations inside Mexico’s borders.

For Mexico’s leadership, this presents a serious challenge. Mexico firmly asserts that no foreign military operations may take place on its soil without authorization, and sees unilateral US action as a breach of national sovereignty.

Mexico could become a pivot point where US geopolitical strategy collides with Latin American autonomy.

El Salvador

El Salvador is an interesting example of the geopolitical tug-of-war between China and the US in Latin America.

A defining moment came when Washington paid roughly $6 million to El Salvador to detain hundreds of deportees—mainly Venezuelans—in the country’s maximum-security prison. Shortly after, the US hosted President Bukele at the White House, praising his government’s hard-line approach to gangs, migration control, and internal security.

At the same time, Bukele has deepened ties with China. Beijing has financed major Salvadoran infrastructure projects, including the new national library, a modern stadium, and an expansive waterfront tourism corridor.

So far, Bukele has managed to balance relationships with both Washington and Beijing. Whether that balance can hold remains to be seen, but for now, El Salvador stands as one of the few countries effectively navigating both sides of the great-power rivalry.

Argentina

Under Javier Milei, Argentina has become a key partner for the US in South America.

That’s why the US has made an unusually large and openly political bet on Argentina. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and President Trump previously announced a $20 billion currency swap that allows the US Treasury to buy Argentine pesos and deliver dollars to help stabilize Argentina’s financial system. They also outlined plans to assemble another $20 billion from US banks and private funds, bringing total potential support to around $40 billion.

Trump described the deal as an “economic Monroe Doctrine,” making clear that this is not simply an economic program but a geopolitical play. He tied the continuation of US support directly to President Javier Milei’s political success.

The US interest in Argentina is not hard to understand. Argentina is the third-largest economy in Latin America, with a GDP of about $600 billion. It is a major exporter of agricultural products and holds some of the world’s largest shale gas reserves. It also possesses huge lithium deposits. These resources are strategically valuable in a world where supply chains for food, energy, and critical minerals are becoming more important amid rising tensions with Russia and China.

What makes Argentina stand out is its political direction. While many large Latin American economies maintain closer ties to China or are leaning toward the BRICS bloc, Argentina under Milei has taken the opposite path. Milei withdrew from the BRICS expansion plan, canceled or froze Chinese infrastructure agreements, scaled back the use of China’s currency swap lines, opened the strategic Paraná River region to US military cooperation, and began signing new mineral agreements with US partners. For Washington, reducing Chinese influence in Argentina and securing access to critical resources are major incentives behind the financial support.

For Argentina, the US swap line is meant to stabilize the peso and support Milei’s market-friendly reforms. But the political conditionality creates risk. If reforms stall or if Milei loses legislative momentum, the US may pull back, which could quickly destabilize the currency again.

In the most recent national elections, Milei’s party made significant gains, winning roughly 41% of the vote and increasing its congressional representation enough to strengthen its ability to block opposition measures. Markets interpreted this as a sign that US backing will continue for now and that reform efforts will remain in place.

The bigger picture is that Washington is using financial leverage to secure influence in a strategically important, resource-rich country.

When Geopolitics Shifts, Financial Reality Follows

The great-power struggle unfolding across the Western Hemisphere isn’t just a regional contest—it’s a sign of the deeper economic fractures now spreading through the global system.

As the US, China, and Russia compete for influence in Latin America, the financial foundations that once underpinned American global dominance are weakening under the weight of inflation, debt, and an overstretched monetary order.

Geopolitical realignment is accelerating a financial reckoning that will affect every saver and investor long before it reshapes national borders.

To understand how this hemispheric tug-of-war connects directly to what may be the most dangerous economic crisis in a century—and to learn the three essential strategies you need right now to protect yourself—I strongly recommend reading my free PDF special report, The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years: The Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to access it now.

For much of the past year, America’s largest food manufacturers haven’t been able to rebut Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated claims that ultraprocessed foods are making Americans sick – something most Americans believe. 

So instead of even trying to pretend their products are even the slightest bit healthy, the industry appears to have settled on a narrower counterargument; Yes, the food may be bad for you, but it’s CHEAP! And in an era when grocery bills have become a political liability (and who cares about the long-term drag on the healthcare system), that may be defense enough.

Food companies are making the case as they seek to blunt a growing wave of state-level efforts to regulate ingredients commonly found in ultraprocessed products. Those efforts, encouraged by Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, range from restrictions on synthetic dyes to warning labels for chemical additives. Industry executives and lobbyists argue that such measures, taken state by state, will drive up costs for consumers already struggling with inflation.

“The dynamic here is affordability,” Sam Geduldig, a managing partner at the Republican lobbying firm CGCN, which represents Kraft Heinz, told Politico. “You have a MAHA movement that would like to accomplish one goal, and then you have an inflation, economic affordability issue on the other side that runs counter.”

The argument has been sharpened for political effect. In late October, major food companies and trade groups – including Kraft Heinz, Nestlé and PepsiCo – launched a coalition called Americans for Ingredient Transparency. The group has begun a six-figure advertising campaign warning that a patchwork of state regulations would raise grocery prices and urging Congress to establish a single federal standard that would override state rules.

Businesses have long preferred federal preemption when faced with divergent state requirements, and the food industry is no exception. What is new is the framing. The coalition’s message is calibrated to appeal to Republican lawmakers uneasy about rising costs and skeptical of regulations that might be blamed for them.

“President Trump is cutting costs and delivering real relief for working families,” Andy Koenig, a senior adviser to the coalition and a former Trump administration official, said in a statement, “but these well-intentioned state bills are creating a patchwork of labeling regulations that could undermine his goal to lower costs for Americans.”

The industry’s push comes amid record lobbying spending in Washington. Trade groups and major manufacturers have poured millions into K Street as the Trump administration – more insular and more openly skeptical of corporate influence than in its first term – has proved harder to access. Polling commissioned by the industry underscores why affordability has become its chosen refrain: A recent POLITICO survey found that nearly half of Americans now consider grocery prices the “most challenging” household expense, outranking housing and health care.

Yet the industry’s economic argument runs alongside another political reality. Polls also show broad agreement with Mr. Kennedy’s view that ultraprocessed foods are damaging public health, particularly for children. In October, a survey by KFF and The Washington Post found that large majorities of Americans see highly processed foods as a major health threat.

Kennedy has leaned into that sentiment, often naming familiar brands. At his confirmation hearing, he contrasted the ingredient lists of American products with their counterparts abroad. “If you buy McDonald’s french fries in our country, there’s 11 ingredients,” he said. “If you buy Froot Loops in our country, they’re loaded with food dyes—yellow dye, red dye, blue dye.”

At the federal level, Kennedy is pursuing a rule change that would require additional scrutiny when food companies alter recipes or introduce new ingredients. At the same time, he has encouraged states, including Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, to move ahead on their own. Legislatures across the country have responded. More than a hundred bills targeting sugar, synthetic dyes and chemical additives have been introduced this year, nearly five times as many as last year, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Lobbying spending by major food companies and their trade associations has reached record highs this year. | AP Photo/Patrick Sison

Some measures have already passed. California enacted the nation’s first ban on ultraprocessed foods in public schools. Texas approved a law requiring warning labels on products containing any of 44 additives—a statute the food industry is now challenging in court.

“These state laws are ultimately going to lead to increased cost,” said Charles Leftwich, vice president for food safety and quality assurance at Sysco, the country’s largest food distributor. “Those costs are ultimately going to get passed down to consumers.” (or not?)

Consumer advocates and MAHA supporters dispute that framing. They argue that federal preemption would weaken standards rather than harmonize them, particularly given the industry’s influence in Washington.

“A federal standard favors large multinational companies with a lot of money to lobby for less restrictive standards,” said Jennifer Galardi, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who focuses on MAHA-aligned issues. “We see a state-by-state approach as emulating the checks and balances that our federalist system was designed to produce.”

The tension is already visible inside the administration. The final version of a Kennedy-backed report on childhood chronic disease released in September softened language from an earlier draft that had described ultraprocessed foods as “detrimental” to children’s health. The revised document instead called for a federal definition of ultraprocessed foods—a shift some advocates attribute to industry pressure.

Earlier this year, companies including Kraft Heinz and Nestlé pledged to voluntarily phase out artificial dyes. But those gestures have not slowed a lobbying counteroffensive aimed at stopping state laws before they spread.

“It is one of the top things we are planning around,” said one lobbyist for a beverage company, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The strategy mirrors tactics used by other industries navigating the Trump administration. In November, a coalition backed by artificial intelligence companies launched a $10 million advertising campaign urging federal standards for AI regulation. The president signed an executive order weeks later. Health insurers and hospital groups have deployed similar campaigns to preserve Obamacare subsidies.

For MAHA advocates, the pattern is familiar – and troubling. States, they note, have often led the federal government on public health, from trans fat bans to chemical warning labels.

“This isn’t about affordability,” said Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group. “This is about maintaining the status quo.”

Whether Congress embraces a federal food standard will test an open question in Republican politics: whether the party remains reflexively aligned with business interests, or whether Mr. Kennedy’s populist critique of corporate power has lasting influence.

For now, the industry’s most persuasive response to being accused of poisoning Americans is not a denial. It is a reminder that the poison, at least, is cheap.

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) has been sounding the alarm of the profound risk in the financial system.  

At the beginning of December, Mr. Gold warned about the record setting silver prices and said, “It’s pretty clear and pretty obvious that something behind the scenes is breaking.”

What is “breaking” is the extremely leveraged futures markets with not enough physical silver to deliver.  

Fast forward to the end of the month, and new record highs in gold and silver are happening every day.  Mr. Gold says,

“They are gobbling up all the supply available because they understand this is the end of the fiat currency experiment that started August 15 of 1971.  Fiats are collapsing. 

This is the Hunt brothers on steroids because you have the entire world buying physical.  The Hunt brothers got into trouble because they were buying paper contracts, and COMEX changed the rules.  COMEX can change any rules they want . . . it won’t matter because the rest of the world is buying cash and carry . . . they will not accept paper contracts.  They want real physical metal.”

Here is where it gets both interesting and dangerous.  What happens if the short sellers cannot deliver the silver promised?  Mr. Gold says,

“People say if they can’t deliver, and I am going to tell you at some point they will not be able to deliver, when that moment happens, it’s game over for the entire financial system.  Silver, and I believe it will be silver that fails to deliver, silver is the blasting cap to the gold nuclear bomb.  When silver fails to deliver, then immediately there will be a pile into COMEX gold, and they will not be able to deliver the gold.  Once that happens, you have failures of contracts that are proven fraudulent.  They are zeroed out and cannot perform.  Then it spreads to cattle, pork bellies, grains and you name it.  This is not to mention the financials of stocks and bonds.  Once you prove fraud in silver, that’s going to spread to all the derivatives, and we will have a derivative meltdown. . .. The world wants gold and silver because those are the only two monies that cannot default.”

What you are seeing in the gold and silver markets now is far from a top.  This is just getting started.  Mr. Gold says,

“These contracts are a zero-sum game.  There is a winner and a loser.  If the loser loses so big that they go belly up, then the winner becomes a loser because they can’t get paid.  That is the problem. . .. When this actually hits and there is a failure to deliver, gold and silver will be wiped off the shelves, and there will be none to be bought. . .. This will be a run for safety, and fear is the greatest emotion there is.  Fear is a far greater emotion than greed. . .. This is going to turn into a reverse bank run into gold and into silver because they cannot default in a world that is defaulting. . ..  What you are witnessing is the end of trust.  When you have the end of trust, the confidence breaks and credit is forthcoming only when there is trust.  Once confidence breaks, the credit markets will begin to seize up. . .. When credit stops, it’s game over.  You will see markets, institutions and stores shutter.”

Holter says you should be able to be self-sufficient for a while when the system shuts down.  Storing up food and water is a good place to start.

In closing, Holter says, “This is the finale of the great financial reset.  Make no mistake, what you are watching is the world resetting before your very eyes.”

There is much more in the 43-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter/Mr. Gold as the financial system begins its reset for 12.23.25.

Remember earlier this year when President Trump was locked in a tit-for-tat trade war with China? Then, a broad coalition of Democrats, corporate media outlets, mainstream economists, and left-leaning think tanks warned that higher tariffs would spark pandemic-era supply-chain chaos and trigger price spikes for consumers. Two quarters later, those dire predictions have yet to materialize.

MSM propagandists sounded the apocalypse alarm:

March: KOMO News: ‘It’s worse than COVID’: Point Roberts seeks state aid amid US-Canada tariff crisis

April: NBC News: Product shortages and empty store shelves loom with falling shipments from China

April: Fortune: Tariffs threaten a pharmaceuticals shortage, as 95% of ibuprofen comes from China

April: CNBC: The trade war’s wave of retail shortages will hit U.S. consumers in stages.

April: Axios: How Trump tariffs could cause a global recession

April: Vox: America may be headed for this rare type of economic crisis

April: CNN: Trump took the US economy to the brink of a crisis in just 100 days

May: The Guardian: Trump’s tariffs: ‘It feels like Covid 2.0. So many things are getting disrupted’

May: Business Insider: The worst is yet to come: Trump’s tariffs could mean even higher prices and empty shelves within weeks

Democratic Party and MSM’s supply-chain apocalypse alarm peaked in mid-April, then resurfaced in a smaller echo wave by August, according to Bloomberg data tracking mainstream media headline counts for the term “tariff.”

However, there is only so much economic doom the MSM can push in a propaganda campaign built on a shaky foundation, because none of the predictions above have come remotely true eight months later.

In fact, quite the opposite. The latest PCE data (September) shows no signs at all of the runaway tariff-driven costs that so many establishment economists proclaimed were imminent…

On the supply-chain front, Goldman analysts led by Jordan Alliger published the latest Supply Chain Congestion Index, showing that no bottlenecks have materialized since Trump decided on trade war 2.0 with China. The surge in congestion seen in 2021 and 2022 was driven by Covid-era disruptions, when governments shut down large parts of their economies.

As for the Democratic Party’s dire prediction of an “actively tanking economy” – have you seen the third-quarter print?

Q3 GDP Unexpectedly Surges To 2 Year High On Soaring Health Insurance Spending

And it is no surprise that trust in the mainstream media has collapsed to record lows. For 16 years, ZeroHedge readers have understood that the MSM is little more than a propagandist and PR arm for whoever happens to be the highest bidder.