The new digest examines reactions in Venezuela and across the region to Donald Trump’s foreign policy, which critics describe as interventionist and based on sanctions, threats of military pressure, and political interference. The focus is on the risks of escalation involving Venezuela and Iran, Washington’s alleged influence on the situation in Brazil, and Trump’s broader role in regional and global politics. Some materials address resistance to his policies within the United States—from the courts, Congress, and other institutions. The review is based on materials from Cubadebate (Venezuela) and Perfil (Venezuela).
Pressure on Cuba and Venezuela Linked to Struggle for Sea Routes
The interception of the Grace tanker bound for Cuba and the debate over strategic control of Venezuela, the Panama Canal, the Falklands, and South American sea routes are creating a unified picture in the Latin American agenda: U.S. actions are viewed not only as sanctions or law-enforcement policy, but also as part of a struggle for influence, resources, and the region’s transport links.
As Cubadebate reports, on September 5 the U.S. Coast Guard stopped the Grace between Cuba and Mexico. The vessel was sailing to the island carrying fuel. According to the U.S. side, the ship used methods characteristic of the so-called “shadow fleet,” while a Mexican inspection team found “large quantities of fuel” in its ballast tanks.
The Cuban publication places particular emphasis on the phrase “oil blockade,” which, it notes, was used by Reuters and The Guardian. The report interprets the incident not as a one-off vessel inspection, but as an expression of an ongoing policy aimed at restricting energy supplies to Cuba. The Coast Guard’s statement—“Grace transitaba hacia Cuba, transportando combustible” (“Grace was sailing to Cuba, carrying fuel”)—becomes, in this interpretation, confirmation that Washington is deliberately obstructing fuel deliveries to the island.
Cubadebate argues that the pressure goes beyond ordinary trade and financial restrictions. In the publication’s assessment, it includes patrols near Cuba, vessel inspections and interceptions, as well as the creation of risks for international carriers that may refuse to operate routes because of possible consequences. In this logic, the sanctions affect not only the government but also the population: fuel shortages are linked to disruptions in electricity supplies and social hardship.
This issue is particularly relevant to Venezuela. The country has long faced restrictions targeting its oil sector, problems with international payments, insurance, shipping, and access to markets. As a result, the situation surrounding Cuba is viewed through the familiar lens of secondary sanctions and extraterritorial pressure. Caracas and Havana maintain a political alliance, while fuel supplies have traditionally been an important part of their bilateral relations.
A broader geopolitical interpretation was offered by economist and historian Mario Rapoport in an interview with the Modo Fontevecchia program, published by the Argentine outlet Perfil. He linked U.S. pressure on Venezuela to Washington’s interest in the Falkland Islands, Antarctica, and routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
According to Rapoport, “the attack on Venezuela was a guarantee that this passage would be protected in Central America.” This phrase does not describe a specific military operation, but expresses his geopolitical assessment: in his view, Venezuela matters to Washington not only as an oil power, but also as an element of a strategic arc linking the Caribbean, Panama, the South Atlantic, and Antarctica.
In this interpretation, control over Venezuela is connected to the security of Central American communications and the Panama Canal, while interest in the Falklands is linked to the search for alternative interoceanic routes around Cape Horn. Rapoport suggests that the United States may seek a more direct presence in the area of Tierra del Fuego or the Falkland Islands. He describes the latter as a kind of “aircraft carrier” for protecting communication between the two oceans.
The historian also recalled the U.S. intervention in the Falklands in 1831, led by Captain Silas Duncan—two years before the British occupation of the islands in 1833. In his argument, this episode serves as an illustration of the long history of outside intervention in Latin America.
Rapoport also takes a critical view of Argentine President Javier Milei’s rapprochement with Donald Trump. In his opinion, such a policy could increase the dependence of national policy on U.S. interests. In Venezuelan political discourse, this criticism echoes the position of Nicolás Maduro’s government, which contrasts its own sovereignty-oriented course with that of regional governments aligned with Washington.
Both publications approach the issue from a political rather than a strictly neutral news perspective. The Cuban article sees the Grace case as part of a campaign to restrict vital imports. The Argentine expert views Venezuela as a link in the struggle for control over sea routes and spheres of influence. Together, these stories reflect a widespread regional perception of sanctions, maritime control, and diplomatic pressure as instruments of a broader rivalry over sovereignty, resources, and the strategic communications of the Western Hemisphere.
