Today’s review examines critical assessments of Donald Trump’s presidency in South Korea, as well as analysis of his announced energy truce between Russia and Ukraine and Kyiv’s and Moscow’s differing reactions. Venezuelan materials address the U.S. elections and American geopolitics, including the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of the remaining publications are only indirectly connected with the American agenda or focus on other topics. The review is based on materials from blogamerica.org (Venezuela) and namu.wiki (South Korea).
U.S. Elections and the Prospect of Pressure on Latin America
The U.S. midterm elections could have consequences far beyond American domestic politics, Argentine historian Leandro Morgenfeld argues in an article for the Venezuelan outlet Blog América. In his assessment, a possible weakening of the Republicans in Congress could limit the foreign-policy initiative of Donald Trump’s administration and reduce Washington’s pressure on Latin American countries.
The author views the vote as a de facto referendum on the president’s course. Trump himself made the campaign personal by urging his supporters: “Consider me to be on the ballot.” In this logic, the loss of one or both chambers of Congress by the Republicans would be not only a domestic political defeat for the White House, but also an obstacle to a more aggressive policy toward Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil and other countries in the region.
Morgenfeld calls Washington’s current approach an updated Monroe Doctrine—“the Donroe Doctrine.” In his view, it is based on an alliance with ideologically aligned right-wing governments, the militarization of regional security under the banner of combating drug trafficking, and the use of tariffs as a tool of political pressure. In this framework, the U.S. initiatives “Shield of the Americas” and “Anti-Cartel Coalition of the Americas” are presented not as exclusively anti-drug projects, but as instruments for forming a bloc of states oriented toward Washington.
It is significant that Mexico, Colombia and Brazil have not joined these mechanisms. The author sees this as a sign of resistance to U.S. attempts to build a new system of political and military loyalty in the Western Hemisphere. The article emphasizes that the term “narco-terrorism” may serve the same political function that “communism” did during the Cold War and “terrorism” did after the September 11 attacks: creating a sufficiently broad threat to justify sanctions, military operations and intervention.
Venezuela occupies a special place in this analysis. The country is presented as one of the central targets of the U.S. strategy, amid reports of a possible operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, oil agreements with the Venezuelan authorities and attacks on Caracas. From the author’s perspective, these are not isolated episodes, but an attempt by Washington to restore control over the region, including its resources and foreign-policy choices.
Pressure on Cuba is also viewed as part of a broader regional campaign. Morgenfeld cites Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who described U.S. policy toward Havana as a de facto military blockade. “If another country did to the United States what the United States is doing to Cuba, it would be regarded as an act of war,” the author quotes the senator as saying. The article notes that Cuba’s situation has worsened since the cessation of Venezuelan oil supplies, while efforts to isolate the island fit into the confrontation with independent and left-wing governments in the Caribbean.
Brazil is identified as one of the key arenas in the struggle over the regional balance. In the author’s view, the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has become an important center of Latin American political autonomy: it resists tariff pressure, develops ties with China and does not join the U.S. coalition. Against this backdrop, possible Washington support for Flávio Bolsonaro is interpreted as overt interference in the electoral process.
The author compares this situation with Argentina’s 1946 elections, when U.S. Ambassador Spruille Braden actively opposed Juan Domingo Perón. Today, however, Morgenfeld argues, external pressure is increasingly exerted without the previous caution or attempt to conceal political influence.
Argentine President Javier Milei is also singled out for criticism, with the author describing him as Trump’s most dependent ally in the region. U.S. financial assistance, Argentina’s participation in the “Shield of the Americas,” the admission of American troops and the abandonment of an independent foreign-policy line are described as signs of “asymmetrical and extractive” dependence. For other Latin American countries, Morgenfeld argues, this serves as a warning: short-term political or financial support from Washington may result in restrictions on sovereignty and involvement in conflicts that do not serve national interests.
The article identifies three possible election outcomes: the Republicans retaining control of both chambers of Congress, the Democrats taking the House of Representatives, or the Democrats winning both the House and the Senate. Even with an opposition-controlled Congress, the U.S. president would retain broad powers in foreign policy. Legislators, however, could block or reduce funding, conduct investigations, summon officials to hearings and increase the political cost of military action.
The 1982 Boland Amendment is cited as a historical example. It restricted funding for the Nicaraguan Contras during Ronald Reagan’s administration. This precedent, the author argues, shows that Congress can restrain the executive branch’s interventionist plans, even if it cannot completely change its course.
Morgenfeld openly takes an anti-interventionist and Latin Americanist position. He portrays the United States as a power in relative decline, increasingly unable to attract partners through economic opportunities and increasingly resorting to coercion. “The stick is replacing the carrot because there are not enough carrots,” the author writes.
The article’s main conclusion is that the U.S. elections themselves will not determine Latin America’s future. What will matter is the ability of the countries in the region to coordinate their actions, defend their sovereignty and take advantage of the opportunities offered by a multipolar world. But Morgenfeld believes that a defeat for Trump and the Republicans could open “a crack in the wall” of the new Monroe Doctrine and create space for a more independent policy by Latin American states.
In South Korea, Trump’s Remarks About Women Are Linked to Sexism Controversies
A fragment from the Korean reference and encyclopedia page Namuwiki devoted to criticism of and scandals surrounding Donald Trump shows how his earlier remarks about women are perceived in South Korean online discourse. The episode appears not in a neutral biographical profile, but in a section covering the politician’s controversial statements that have drawn public criticism. The Namuwiki page on criticism of and controversies surrounding Trump interprets this rhetoric primarily through the themes of sexism, gender inequality and the public responsibility of a political leader.
As an example, it cites a passage from Trump’s 1997 book Trump: The Art of the Comeback. Discussing prenuptial agreements, he reportedly claimed that women supposedly disliked such agreements because they were looking for money. He described some women as calculating people seeking to take advantage of a “gullible man.”
It is precisely the generalizing and disparaging nature of these formulations that leads to their inclusion in the list of criticisms of Trump. The material does not present the remarks as a private opinion or merely as a historical detail from his career; instead, it treats them as one example of a persistent pattern of behavior and discriminatory rhetoric.
For a South Korean audience, the topic is especially sensitive against the backdrop of active public debates over gender inequality, sexist culture and conflict between men and women. In South Korea, questions of marriage, housing, family finances and financial responsibility are closely linked to the high cost of living, social pressure to start a family and a pronounced generational divide. Therefore, portraying women as potential “gold diggers” may be perceived not only as the crudeness of a particular politician, but also as the reproduction of a widespread gender stereotype.
The published passage contains no comments from South Korean politicians, experts or official institutions. Nor does it discuss possible consequences for the South Korea–U.S. alliance, trade, policy toward North Korea or diplomatic relations. Its purpose is different: to collect reputational and moral-political criticisms of an American politician whose influence on South Korea’s security makes him a permanent subject of public attention.
Thus, this is neither a report about a new event nor an attempt to present all sides’ positions. The Korean perspective emerges indirectly—in the decision to place these remarks by Trump among matters of public controversy and to regard them as an example of sexist, rather than merely personal, rhetoric.
