Hello and welcome back to Café con Leche. Today is Wednesday, January 14, 2026, and I'm your host Richard. Each week, we dive into the most pressing issues shaping our world, all while sharpening our English and Spanish skills.. So Happy 2026! Get ready for a dose of geopolitics, geoeconomics, and military strategies, because today we have a packed agenda. From Trump's oil manoeuvres in Venezuela to the situation in Greenland, Finland's surprising exit from a key treaty, the tensions surrounding Iran, and the controversial EU-Mercosur trade deal. We have a lot to unpack!

Theme 1: Donald Trump, Nicolas Maduro and Venezuelan oil

This theme explores the Trump administration's ambition to reconfigure control of Venezuelan oil in the Western Hemisphere. The motivations are multifaceted: to weaken Maduro, secure energy supply for the West, displace Chinese influence in the region, and strengthen the US dollar's position as a global reserve currency in oil trade. It focuses on the intersection of foreign policy, energy economics, and geopolitical competition.

So, this week, we kick off our global journey in Latin America, specifically Venezuela, a nation blessed with the world's largest oil reserves. During Donald Trump's administration, there was a clear, though not always explicit, strategy to reconfigure control of this vital resource. The idea was, and perhaps still is, to pull Venezuela out of Maduro's orbit and, crucially, away from the influence of powers like China.

Picture a plan where Venezuelan oil, instead of funding a regime hostile to Washington, would be integrated into the Western supply chain. This would entail not only a leadership change in Caracas but also the infusion of Western technology and capital to modernise a heavily deteriorated oil infrastructure. Think about the refineries, pipelines, extraction capabilities. All of that would need immense investment.

But it's not just about oil; it's also about the US dollar. By bringing Venezuela into the Western financial and energy system, the USD's dominance in global oil trade is reinforced, something Washington always seeks to protect. And, of course, the flip side is reducing China's presence in a region the United States considers its 'backyard.' It's a complex play with far-reaching economic, political, and strategic implications."

Finally, From Washington’s perspective, Venezuelan oil is not just an energy resource, but an instrument of structural power. For decades, Venezuela was a key supplier to the U.S. market, especially for Gulf Coast refineries designed for heavy crude. Sanctions disrupted that interdependence—but they did not eliminate its strategic logic.

It’s important to remember, when we talk about oil, we are also talking about currency. We are referring to sanctions and economic choke point power, a tool that is not only currently being used to weaken Russia’s war machine, but an instrument that could be used against China in the future. Ultimately, the petrodollar system has been one of the silent pillars of U.S. power since the 1970s. Bringing Venezuela back into Western circuits would have not only energy effects, but also financial ones: less space for payments in yuan, opaque barter deals, or parallel schemes outside the dollar-dominated system. 

Theme 2: Greenland the US military base - why Trump won't invade

Theme 2 addresses the United States' strategic interest in Greenland, exacerbated by Trump's ambitions to acquire the territory. It explores the paradox of why, despite its geopolitical and military value (especially its base in Thule), Trump would not send military forces to secure the island. The key lies in respect for the sovereignty of Denmark, a NATO ally, and the high political and diplomatic cost of such an action, which would damage transatlantic relations and set a dangerous precedent.

We cross the North Atlantic and head to an island that, at first glance, might seem like a vast ice desert: Greenland. But make no mistake, its geopolitical importance is immense. You'll recall that President Donald Trump even expressed interest in buying it, a proposal that, as expected, was met with some astonishment and rejection by Denmark, its sovereign.

But beyond the idea of a purchase, the US military presence in Greenland is an established fact, with Thule Air Base being a crucial asset for ballistic missile defense and Arctic surveillance. However, why would Trump, despite his sometimes audacious rhetoric, not send military forces to take Greenland if Denmark flat-out refused to sell it?

The answer is quite simple and rooted in the fundamentals of international alliances. Denmark is a NATO ally. Invading or militarily coercing an ally would be a blatant violation of international law and would shatter trust in the Transatlantic Alliance. The diplomatic cost and global condemnation would be immense, making any perceived strategic benefit of taking the island pale in comparison. It's an example of how, even in power politics, there are limits and norms."

Finally, the melting of the Arctic is not only a climate phenomenon; it is a geopolitical one. New shipping routes, access to critical minerals, and a closer proximity between nuclear powers turn Greenland into a key piece on the global chessboard.

Paradoxically, the real power of the United States does not lie in invading Greenland, but in not needing to. Thule Air Base exists because Denmark consents to it, and that consent is more valuable than any forced occupation. Ultimately, although this could sound contradicting to the previous statement, at Café con leche, we predict that Trump’s rhetoric regarding Greenland, does not truly entail an invasion, but rather the use of subterfuge tactics to have Denmark and Greenland feel that they genuinely need the US and their protection, a sentiment Denmark had no qualms about during the Cold War with the Soviets potentially encroaching at any moment.  

Theme 3: Finland and The Ottawa Convention 

We shift our focus to Northern Europe, where Finland, a country that has traditionally maintained a policy of neutrality and strong commitment to multilateralism, has made a rather surprising decision: it has officially withdrawn from the Ottawa Convention on Landmines. This international treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines, and its goal is to eradicate these indiscriminate weapons.

So, why would a country like Finland, known for its pragmatic approach and adherence to international norms, take such a drastic step? The key lies in its long border with Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has drastically reconfigured the security landscape in Europe, and Finland, now a NATO member, feels the need to significantly bolster its defense capabilities.

Landmines, however controversial they are due to the harm they cause to civilians, are seen by the Finnish military as a relatively cheap and effective deterrent against a massive land invasion. The decision underscores a painful geopolitical reality: for some countries, perceived national security and territorial defense can trump international disarmament commitments, especially when facing a direct and existential threat.

In summary, The Ottawa Convention represents a global humanitarian ideal. But Finland’s decision reveals something uncomfortable: treaties work best when threats are abstract, not when the adversary is just a few kilometers from your border. 

For a country with limited resources and a long border, landmines are not an offensive tool, but a way of making any invasion more costly. They are not meant to win a war, but to prevent one.”

Theme 4: Israel, Iran and global protests against The Khamenei Regime

Theme 4 explores the complex relationship between Israel and Iran, and how Israel views the internal protests against Ayatollah Khamenei as a strategic opportunity. For Israel, the fall of the Iranian theocratic regime would represent a massive geopolitical victory. Global protests, including the one in Richmond Hill, Ontario (a suburb roughly 40km north of Toronto Canada), are mentioned as evidence of widespread discontent and international support for change in Iran, although the capacity for direct external influence on these movements is limited.

We now fly to the Middle East, a region of constant tensions and shifting alliances. We focus on the relationship between Israel and Iran, two regional powers that consider each other sworn enemies. Amid ongoing mass protests in Iran against the Ayatollah Khamenei's regime, Israel has watched these events with palpable strategic interest.

For the State of Israel, the fall of the theocratic regime in Tehran would be seen as a geopolitical victory of gigantic proportions. The Iranian regime is a key sponsor of militant groups in the region, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and its nuclear program is an existential concern for Israel. Therefore, any internal movement that weakens or threatens the regime's stability is viewed with hope.

And these protests are not just an internal phenomenon. We have seen global support for Iranian protesters, including in places as diverse as Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, where the Iranian diaspora and its allies have taken to the streets to show solidarity and call for change. These global movements, while unable to overthrow a regime on their own, do exert significant moral and diplomatic pressure. The question is whether this pressure, combined with internal discontent, is enough to bring about real change. 

Finally, Israel rarely speaks publicly about regime change in Iran, but its security doctrine is based on preventing strategic adversaries from accumulating power. From this perspective, an internally fragmented Iran is a less dangerous Iran.”

Protests within the diaspora do not overthrow regimes, but they do shape international narratives. They influence sanctions, media coverage, and moral legitimacy. This is soft power, not hard power.

Theme 5: EU, Mercosur trade deal, is actually finalised? 

In this final theme,  we analyse the stalled mega-trade deal between the European Union and Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay). Although an agreement in principle was reached in 2019, its ratification has been primarily blocked by environmental concerns in Europe (deforestation in the Amazon) and opposition from certain European agricultural sectors fearing competition. It explores the potential benefits for both sides (market access, tariff reduction) and the challenges, highlighting how non-trade concerns (environment, social standards) have become central to modern trade agreements.

With that being said, we conclude our journey in the realm of global economics with one of the largest and, at the same time, most controversial trade agreements in recent years: the mega-deal between the European Union and Mercosur, which comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This agreement aims to create one of the world's largest free trade zones, covering over 780 million people.

An agreement in principle was reached in 2019 after two decades of negotiations, but since then, its ratification has stalled. Why? The main obstacles come from Europe, particularly from countries like France and Ireland, which have expressed serious environmental concerns, especially regarding deforestation in the Amazon. There is also strong opposition from European farmers, who fear competition from South American agricultural products.

Potential winners: For Mercosur, the agreement would represent unprecedented access to the vast European market for its agricultural products and raw materials. For the EU, it would mean greater access for its industrial goods, chemicals, and services to Mercosur countries, in addition to a more stable supply of agricultural products.

Potential losers: European agricultural sectors, which could see their markets flooded. And, if adequate safeguards are not established, the environment, especially in the Amazon, could suffer.

Has it been finalised? The short answer is no. The agreement is in limbo, with the EU demanding stricter environmental commitments from Mercosur countries. This case is a clear example of how trade policy is no longer just about tariffs but is intrinsically linked to environmental and social issues."

This agreement shows how international trade has ceased to be purely technocratic. It is no longer just about tariffs, but about values: climate, labor rights, and environmental traceability.”

The EU uses its market as a lever of power. It does not impose rules with tanks, but with standards. Anyone who wants access to the European market must adapt to its rules.

Conclusion: 

And that wraps up our analysis for today. We’ve navigated through complex issues, from dollar hegemony to security dilemmas in the Arctic. I hope this episode has given you the tools to speak about the world with precision in English. Tomorrow, you’ll hear from us with our Spanish version. So don’t forget to tune in every week to Café on Leche.

Power Fluency Files: Expanded Episode #10

Your Weekly Bilingual Geopolitical Lexicon

Theme 1: Venezuela & The Petrodollar

Focus: Structural power and financial circuits.

Theme 2: Greenland & Arctic Sovereignty

Focus: Influence tactics and the value of consent.

Theme 3: Finland & The Ottawa Convention

Focus: Disarmament vs. pragmatism.

Theme 4: Israel & Iran (Regime Change)

Focus: Strategic fragmentation and soft power.

Theme 5: EU-Mercosur Trade Dilemma

Focus: Protectionism and regulatory standards.

Café con Leche Global politics, weekly — master your Spanish & English with our bilingual podcast. Política global, cada semana — domina tu inglés y español con nuestro pódcast bilingüe.