## Geopolitical Risks of Areas of Influence
### Understanding Strategic Autonomy
Every nation aspires to achieve strategic autonomy, prioritizing economic development, cultural preservation, and the well-being of its population. Historical experiences show that major powers engage in geopolitical disputes while simultaneously agreeing on zones of influence, diluting the autonomy of other nations and hampering their potential growth. Examples from the Cold War era illustrate how countries were compelled to prioritize the geopolitical interests of Moscow or Washington over their own.
### Historical Context of Geopolitics
The 19th century’s emergence of Industrial Capitalism, primarily initiated in Great Britain, led to the geopolitical rivalry that sparked World War I. Major powers imposed liberal ideals on third countries to ensure export facilitation, with geopolitics often overshadowing geo-economics. The evolution of capitalism facilitated the rise of the industrial proletariat, resulting in the adoption of socialist ideologies.
World War II reiterated the geopolitical struggles of previous decades. Following the war, the Cold War emerged, with the ideological rivalry between the West and the USSR camouflaging the underlying geopolitical tensions. The U.S. sought to demonstrate the benefits of capitalism to countries on the periphery, employing strategies like the Marshall Plan.
### The Resurgence of Geopolitical Tensions
After the dissolution of the USSR, the U.S. experienced an unexpected metamorphosis—entering a new phase characterized by financial capitalism, separate from state interests. Yet, the geopolitical tensions resurfaced as China posed a formidable challenge and Russia sought to regain its influence.
In 2025, a prominent shift occurred in the U.S. national security strategy under Trump’s guidance, termed “flexible realism.” This strategy appears to dismantle the post-WWII order and prioritize control over Latin America, marking an ideological evolution in U.S. foreign policy.
### The New U.S. Approach to Latin America
The “Trump Corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine now aims to limit influences from China and Russia in Latin America. This unprecedented strategy hinders the strategic autonomy of Latin American countries by restricting their ability to control critical infrastructure or military assets. The U.S. promises economic aid and diplomatic cooperation as counterbalances, but this approach raises serious questions about genuine sovereignty.
The implications of this policy shift primarily affect Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Increased North American military presence and nearshoring with Mexico are expected, further entrenching U.S. influence over regional matters.
### Regional Dynamics in Europe and Asia
As the U.S. reduces its focus on Europe and the Middle East, the historical alliance structure is jeopardized. The U.S. government has signaled that it will no longer support the European welfare state, undermining previous geopolitical strategies designed to counter the USSR. Europe finds itself at a crossroads, with the potential for increasing skepticism towards U.S. influence.
#### Asia’s Complex Geopolitical Landscape
In Asia, the U.S. positions China as a competitor, specifically in the economic realm. The focus seems to be on achieving reciprocity in trade and strengthening alliances with countries like Japan and South Korea to counterbalance China. Interestingly, North Korea remains conspicuously unaddressed in recent policy outlines.
### Conclusion: A New Era of Zones of Influence
The essence of this new U.S. strategy appears to establish zones of influence, with Latin America firmly under the jurisdiction of Washington, while fostering conflict in Asia against China. The larger question remains whether intermediate nations will accept this framing, or resist becoming mere pawns in the unfolding geopolitical game. Countries caught in strategic dependence, like Argentina, may face dire consequences.
*The author is a political risk consultant.