PNN – Referring to Trump’s efforts to prevent China’s influence in South America, the Argentine thinker emphasized that Javier Milley’s policy serves Washington’s geostrategic interests and that Trump had direct interference in the election.
After much struggle, Argentina’s midterm parliamentary elections on (October 26, 2025) became one of the most important political tests for President Javier Milli. Milley’s victory in the election surprised many, given his austerity and right-wing economic policies. Analysts believe that several factors played a role in this result, including low voter turnout, the lack of real alternatives offered by the opposition parties, and internal party divisions. In addition, direct US interventions, especially during the Trump presidency, and the emphasis on financial support for the Milli as a means of influencing the outcome of the election, have added to the complexities of this process.
The election is also seen as a test for Washington’s new policies in South America, where Trump has explicitly stated his support for Milley as a way to counter China’s influence in the region. In this context, the victory of the Milli is not limited to domestic developments, but will have deeper consequences for international relations and regional political and economic structures. In this regard, Argentina, as a conflict zone in the new Cold War, will face serious challenges, the effects of which on the political and economic future of this country and the region are significant.
In a conversation with Professor Fernando Stichi, a thinker and professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Communication at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, Mehr’s reporter attempted to examine the Argentine election process, the type of American intervention in this campaign, and the similarity of this election to the Brazilian model, which is detailed below:
Given the current situation and our media understanding of developments in Argentina in recent years, the victory of Javier Milli’s party in the country’s parliamentary elections was unexpected and even surprising, because given Milley’s austerity and right-wing economic policies and the statistics on unemployment and inflation in the country, it was thought that the Argentine people would turn away from Javier Milley. How should we understand Javier Milli’s victory in the parliamentary elections, and what social, political, or psychological factors played a role in his victory?
To understand these results, one must first note the very high level of voter non-participation, which dramatically skews the figures, making the actual percentages based on the total eligible voters much lower than they appear. We are seeing the lowest level of participation since the return of democracy in 1983; less than 68%, which is 10% lower than in 2023. This means that about twelve million eligible people chose not to go to the polls.
A very important point to note is that a large portion of Peronist voters (a combination of nationalism and socialism) who had participated in the previous elections did not vote this time. They mistakenly believed that victory was guaranteed after the results last September in Buenos Aires province, where Peronism won by a margin of 14 percentage points. This attitude of underestimating the opponent was a decisive factor.
Another key factor is that the opposition offered no real alternative to Trump and Milley’s threats of possible chaos if they lost. There was no alternative economic plan, and no “Plan B” to the US Treasury’s conditional bailout. In practice, there was no coherent campaign from the opposition; weak candidates, a lack of fresh faces, and no effective leadership.
It is also worth noting the deep divisions within the Peronist opposition. Its leadership is weakened and embroiled in internal disputes between different factions. There is now a deep gap between the official political system and the public perception.
One of Argentina’s most important challenges is its economic crisis. The Trump administration has been trying to inject a wave of liquidity into the country’s market for months by launching a currency swap. Even Trump explicitly stated during the election campaign that continued financial support for Argentina was contingent on the victory of Milli and his party. How do you assess Trump’s role in the Argentine election campaign?
The agreements with Trump are entirely conditional and represent direct interference in Argentina’s internal affairs. It is safe to say that Trump is using the same “dollar diplomacy” of President William Taft in Argentina, just as he is using Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” in the Caribbean and the tropical Pacific. We are witnessing a revival of the Monroe Doctrine and open neo-colonialism.
The US Treasury Department’s assistance, which faces serious resistance even within US domestic politics, is being provided through currency swaps. It should be emphasized that only $2 billion of the $20 billion pledged has been activated so far. This aid is neither humanitarian nor non-profit cooperation; rather, these exchanges are designed to guarantee the rate of profit from the financial speculation of large American economic groups.
The intervention of the US Federal Reserve in the Argentine currency market is discretionary and arbitrary, manipulating rates and creating favorable conditions for financial speculation. This is the guarantee that concentrated capital needs to operate risk-free in volatile markets.
Some experts believe that Trump has tried to be a figure aligned with the US government in Argentine politics, with the aim of countering China’s influence in South America. How do you analyze Trump’s motivation for supporting Milli?
It is quite clear that the strategic goal of the United States is to contain the expansion of China’s presence and influence in our region. As of September 2025, China has become Argentina’s second largest trading partner, surpassing even Brazil. This fact is of enormous geopolitical importance and has aroused deep concern in Washington.
Trade cooperation between Argentina and China has reached very significant levels, making it difficult, if not impossible, to fully restore this relationship in the short term. However, the United States aims to preserve strategic and vital sectors for American companies: communications, uranium, lithium, rare earth elements, and port and transportation infrastructure.
These sectors are seen by the US as vital to its national security and to maintaining its technological edge against China’s expanding influence. The competition is not simply commercial, but geopolitical and technological in nature. Washington seeks to neutralize Chinese infrastructure investments, especially those related to the “Belt and Road Initiative,” which China is expanding around the world.
These days, the roots of the elections in Argentina and Brazil are being compared in media circles. Please tell me how the different psychological and economic roots in Argentina and Brazil influenced the voting patterns in the recent elections in these two countries, and what consequences will this have for the political and economic future of each of these countries?
I deeply believe that a simplistic comparison between Argentina and Brazil is not possible, as the two countries have fundamental differences in terms of their production structures and their position on the regional and global geopolitical chessboard. Brazil is an established regional power; a founding member of the BRICS group, with a diversified economy and the world’s tenth largest economy, playing a leading role in building multipolarity.
In contrast, Argentina is in a process of increasing marginalization in the international arena. The weakening of its international position, the collapse of its productive capacities, the increasing deindustrialization, and now its open subordination to the Washington-Miami axis, have placed the country in a completely different situation.
However, it cannot be denied that there is a connection between the electoral processes of the two countries. The violent events in Rio de Janeiro, especially the massive police operation on October 28 involving 2,500 officers and more than 130 deaths, are not simply a sporadic outburst of state violence, but part of a “hybrid warfare” strategy.
Trump’s strategy toward Brazil includes tariff threats, sanctions against judges like Moraes, pressure on the Brazilian armed forces, and open support for Bolsonarism’s return to power. This is hybrid warfare in action: A combination of economic (50% tariffs), legal (threats of sanctions), and military (pressure on military bases), and media (disinformation campaigns) tools.
What kind of positive and negative regional and even global consequences will Javier Milley’s victory in the parliamentary elections have?
I believe that at the regional level, this is a clear advantage for Trump to demonstrate a “big stick policy” in the Caribbean with Venezuela, while simultaneously rewarding national loyalty. This situation has a profound lesson for the entire region, because it sends a clear message: whoever surrenders will receive help; whoever resists will be punished.
This issue must be seen in the context of the simultaneous operations that the United States is conducting across the various theaters of our America:
The years-long anti-people hybrid war in Bolivia, which has combined economic destabilization, media manipulation, and political violence, has led to the electoral victory of the right-wing, reversing the transformation initiated by Evo Morales.
Structural instability in Peru and Ecuador, where elected governments are constantly threatened with removal and popular leaders are targeted, serves the interests of transnational corporations.
The right-wing advance in Colombia, where the government of Gustavo Petro is constantly threatened and Trump publicly accuses him of being an “illegal drug lord.” Sanctions are imposed and there are threats to cut off military aid.
A permanent blockade against Venezuela, accompanied by an economic blockade, military threats, coup attempts, intelligence operations, and systematic media warfare aimed at overthrowing a government that refuses to surrender to Washington.
The Caribbean settlement, where the United States asserts control over a region it considers its “backyard,” using drug trafficking and immigration as a pretext for military intervention and political pressure.
Cautious coexistence with Brazil, where Trump is pushing but knows he cannot treat Brazil like Argentina, given its economic size and geopolitical weight. The strategy here is medium-term erosion, with support for Bolsonarism for the 2026 elections.
In this context, Uruguay and Chile should look carefully at Argentina. Both countries are in the crosshairs of this regional strategy. José Antonio Caste and others in Chile represent exactly the same national model: Neoliberal far-right, full alignment with Washington, anti-government discourse, climate change denial, and connections to global far-right associations. Uruguay, with a newly elected government with questionable progressive leanings, is now being warned to align with the hegemon.
Globally, Milley’s victory strengthens the international far-right, namely the Trump-Millie-Bolsonaro-Caste-Abascal axis that is taking shape at forums like CPAC. This is a transnational ideological bloc that combines extreme neoliberalism, political authoritarianism, scientific and climate denial, and submission to the interests of centralized finance capital and Zionism.