In the midst of an accelerated process of reconfiguration of the world order, the United States is undergoing a strategic retreat—not a surrender, but a withdrawal and a redirection—that affects its historic ties with Latin America, or as it could also be defined with greater cultural and historical justice, Romanesque America. This change is not a simple tactical retreat, but a profound reorientation: military, economic, technological, and cultural, in response to the emergence of a new global geostrategic and geoeconomic axis centered on Eurasia, the Indo-Pacific, and, increasingly, Africa.

In this context, the relative vacuum left by Washington in its traditional “backyard” is not without consequences. While it increases its efforts to curb the rise of China, contain Russia, deter Iran, and challenge the global narrative in the Global South, the temptation to regain stricter control over the Latin American continent is beginning to manifest itself with worrying signs. The old imperial reflexes are not dead. And on the horizon, some analysts already glimpse an updated—or reworked—version of the Monroe Doctrine 2.0, a rehash of the 19th-century slogan: “America for the Americans,” which could now be read as: Romanesque America for the strategic interests of the United States.

The American turnaround: external withdrawal, internal reorganization

From the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to the relative loss of influence in Africa, Central Asia, and parts of the Middle East, to growing friction with Europe and the unstoppable rise of China, the United States faces multiple pressures forcing it to prioritize. The strategy of global containment is no longer sustainable. The economic cost of perpetual wars, the moral erosion of its cultural hegemony, and the internal fragmentation of its society have led the North American power to seek a new formula for imperial survival. In this new design, reassuring its immediate sphere of influence becomes key. Hence, signs of a return of attention to Latin America should not be seen as benevolent or neutral. It is not friendship, it is geopolitics. In a multipolar and contested world, the region is once again coveted not for its autonomy, but for its instrumental value.

An American fortress “from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego”?

The narrative of a “united Western Hemisphere” is already being revived by Washington’s strategic think tanks. The idea of ​​a Fortress America, stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, is presented as a solution to the U.S.’s energy, food, and migration security dilemmas. But this project can only be realized if the region submits to a logic of strategic, economic, and cultural subordination.

This translates into concrete practices: militarization of borders, establishment of bases under the pretext of combating drug trafficking or natural disasters, diplomatic pressure to align governments in international forums, digital surveillance through technology companies, and a permanent narrative of destabilization in the face of any attempt at sovereign self-determination.

There will, of course, be no shortage of local allies. Latin American globalist elites, anchored in extractive, financial, and media interests, serve as functional channels for this agenda. They have done so historically and continue to do so: delegitimizing any sovereign alternative, associating it with “populism” or “authoritarianism,” and proposing subservient integration with the Anglo-Saxon world and its system of values ​​as the only possible path.

What if the real danger isn’t BRICS, but the loss of our direction?

Much is said in the mainstream media about the BRICS countries’ incursions into Latin America: investments in infrastructure, trade, and technology. But it is silent on the fact that, unlike the US, the BRICS does not impose military bases or security doctrines.

 Nor does it block or sabotage regional integration processes.

 The real dilemma is not choosing between one bloc or another, but rather having the capacity to avoid being mere pieces on someone else’s chessboard. In this sense, it is urgent that the continent’s sovereignty movements—diverse, fragmented, but still alive—articulate a common strategy of autonomy, not against someone else, but in favor of their own destiny. The region needs to clearly define its priorities: reindustrialization, energy and digital integration, self-defense, scientific and technological development with its own identity, and active diplomacy in the new multipolar landscape.

The time of the people and the trap of the intermediaries

Throughout Latin American history, opportunities for emancipation have often been stifled by foreign interests, but also by internal betrayals. Today, in the midst of a global realignment, a window is opening again: the relative weakening of the United States can become an opportunity to gain sovereignty, or an excuse for the empire to reimpose its conditions in new forms. History does not forgive the indecisive. Nor those who prefer to please the powers that be rather than defend popular interests. Nor those who, out of convenience or cowardice, prefer to delegate the common destiny to bureaucrats, technocrats, or consultants from Washington or Brussels.

Conclusion: own plan or being part of someone else’s plan

In this context of global disparity, Romanesque America cannot afford to improvise or look the other way. The global struggle for resources, influence, and narrative has already reached our doors.

The dilemma is not whether or not the Monroe Doctrine returns. The real dilemma is whether we are willing to resist it, unmask it, and overcome it. To do otherwise is to resign ourselves to continuing to be pawns on a chessboard designed by others, for alien interests, against our sovereignty. The time is now. And there is no room for hesitation. History does not forgive the undecided.