And welcome back to Café con Leche—the space where global politics meets language learning. I'm your host, Richard, and today, on Tuesday, January the 20th, 2026, in the eleventh episode, we travel from Managua to Davos, from digital data to electric vehicles, to explore a key question:
How is power exercised today, when it no longer always flows through tanks, borders, or armies?

We talk about political prisoners turned into negotiable assets, economic forums that become stages of protest, embassies that function as infrastructure of influence, and a global aviation system that exposes the fractures of the Indo-Pacific. We also explore how data, green technology, and de-risking are reshaping the rules of the game between the United States, Europe, China, and the Global South.

This is not an episode about good versus evil. It’s an episode about systems, interdependence, and strategic choices in a world entering a hinge moment.

So get comfortable, pour yourself a café con leche, and join me as we unpack how power is being reorganized in the 21st century— today in English.

Theme 1: The “Hinge Moment” in Managua: Ortega’s Tactical Clemency

The sudden release of dozens of political prisoners by the Ortega–Murillo regime, carefully timed with the 19th anniversary of their return to power, is not an act of generosity—it is a calculated move in a tightening geopolitical chess game.

Officially framed as “national reconciliation,” the move functions instead as coercive diplomacy. Nicaragua is responding to mounting geoeconomic pressure, particularly from the United States, which has increasingly weaponized the international financial system. Instruments such as CAFTA-DR, IMF conditionality, and coordinated diplomatic isolation have turned Nicaragua into a laboratory for how economic leverage replaces military force in the 21st century.

This is where Alexander Stubb’s concept of a “hinge moment” becomes central. Managua stands between isolation and reintegration. The regime understands that sanctions fatigue is real—and that Western governments often struggle to sustain pressure when migration, regional stability, and security concerns come into play. By releasing prisoners, Ortega is testing whether values-based foreign policy will eventually yield to strategic pragmatism.

From a Global Political Economy (GPE) perspective, these prisoners are not symbols of justice; they are negotiable assets. The regime is converting human capital into diplomatic currency, hoping to fracture consensus inside the Organization of American States (OAS) and give sympathetic governments in the Global South a moral argument for sanctions relief.

Crucially, this is not democratization. It is authoritarian adaptation. Power remains centralized, opposition is weakened, and repression is simply repackaged. The core bet is that a distracted West—caught in a shifting Triangle of Power, with China and Russia offering alternative financial and political lifelines—will accept symbolic concessions instead of demanding structural reform.

In this context, sovereignty becomes transactional. If periodic prisoner releases are enough to reset relations, then dissent becomes a renewable bargaining chip, and repression becomes just another line item in global negotiations.

Theme 2: Davos 2026: The Iconography of “Destructive Capitalism”

The World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos no longer functions as a neutral space for dialogue. It has become a symbolic battlefield, where competing visions of capitalism, democracy, and global governance collide in real time.

The Strike-WEF movement’s decision to frame Donald Trump as the ultimate symbol of capitalism marks a turning point. This is not simple anti-wealth rhetoric. It is a critique of a system where economic power, political influence, and nationalist messaging merge into a model of elite impunity. Trump represents what protesters see as late-stage neoliberalism: deregulated markets combined with oligarchic nationalism.

As Stubb argues in The Triangle of Power, the liberal international order is not collapsing solely because of external rivals—it is eroding from internal contradictions. Davos makes those contradictions visible. Inside, elites speak of cooperation, sustainability, and inclusive growth. Outside, protesters point to stagnant wages, privatized public goods, and a growing sense that democracy has been hollowed out.

Geopolitically, these scenes are a propaganda gift to the Global East and parts of the Global South. Images of Swiss authorities deploying military-grade security to protect billionaires—while restricting groups like the Jeunesse Socialiste—reinforce narratives of a Western democratic deficit. The message is simple and powerful: capital moves freely; people do not.

The accusation of “destructive capitalism” reflects a deeper geoeconomic grievance. Capital is hyper-mobile, labor is precarious, and essential services—housing, transport, energy—are treated as commodities rather than rights. While elites debate rebalancing power behind closed doors, the streets demand de-commodification and economic security.

Trump’s presence sharpens the contradiction. A leader openly skeptical of multilateralism now speaks from a stage built on the language of global cooperation. This exposes the West’s identity crisis: can a system survive when its most visible figures reject the very rules that sustain it?

The warning is clear. A Global West that cannot repair its social contract at home will struggle to project legitimacy abroad. If Davos remains a walled city of elites, it risks losing influence not through defeat—but through loss of credibility.

Theme 3: The Super-Embassy: Sovereignty in the Age of “Silent Intelligence”

The proposed Chinese “Super-Embassy” in London—located alarmingly close to the Tower of London and the City’s financial core—is not just a diplomatic upgrade. It is a case study in infrastructure-as-influence.

Embassies today are no longer neutral diplomatic spaces. They are increasingly permanent intelligence platforms, designed for Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), secure communications, and long-term diaspora monitoring. Reports of secret rooms and advanced communication systems point to a deeper reality: modern sovereignty is being tested not at borders, but inside cities.

For the UK, this project exposes a classic dependency trap. In the post-Brexit economy, Britain needs foreign capital to revive growth—but that capital increasingly comes with security trade-offs. This is the central tension of the Global Political Economy: economic openness versus strategic vulnerability.

Opposition from figures like Kemi Badenoch reflects a growing embrace of values-based realism—the idea that not all investment is neutral, and that some economic gains come at the cost of intelligence integrity. In Stubb’s framework, this is the Global East embedding itself directly into the nervous system of the Global West.

The most unsettling dimension, however, is extraterritorial sovereignty. The location of this embassy sends a signal to Hong Kong, Uyghur, and other dissident communities: distance no longer guarantees safety. Even in a Western capital, surveillance can follow.

Ultimately, the Super-Embassy is a litmus test for “Global Britain.” Can a state claim strategic autonomy while hosting the surveillance architecture of the power it labels its greatest systemic challenge?

Theme 4: Aviation Politics: The Fragile Circulatory System of the Indo-Pacific

The disappearance of an Indonesian aircraft is more than a tragic accident—it is a warning signal from the global logistics system.

Aviation functions as the circulatory system of globalization. Nowhere is this more true than in the Indo-Pacific, where geography makes air and sea transport essential to trade, state capacity, and sovereignty. When aviation fails, geoeconomic stability fails with it.

This incident exposes a widening infrastructure gap. While the Global West struggles with aging fleets and high costs, the Global East is rapidly scaling manufacturing capacity. Aviation safety is no longer just about regulation—it is about access to technology, especially semiconductors, which sit at the heart of the US–China tech war.

Modern avionics, navigation, and safety systems depend on advanced chips. When countries like Indonesia face export controls, high prices, or limited access to Boeing and Airbus, they will inevitably turn elsewhere. This is where China’s COMAC enters the picture, offering cheaper, subsidized alternatives.

What follows is a standardization war. Whoever sets the aviation standards of the Global South controls future trade routes, maintenance ecosystems, and training systems. Aviation alignment becomes geopolitical alignment.

For an archipelago of 17,000 islands, aviation is not convenience—it is state survival. If the West cannot provide safe, affordable tech transfer, it risks surrendering Indo-Pacific airspace by default. One broken link in the aviation chain can destabilize entire regional supply networks.

Theme 5 Carney, EVs, and the Rise of “Values-Based Realism”

The renewed engagement with China by Mark Carney, alongside the EU’s softer stance on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), signals a quiet but profound shift in Western strategy.

For years, the dominant logic was decoupling—cutting economic ties with China. But as Stubb argues, this approach underestimated the structural realities of interdependence. The new doctrine is de-risking: reducing exposure without severing the system.

At its core, this is about trade diversification and strategic autonomy. Canada and the EU recognize that blocking Chinese green technology outright would delay the net-zero transition and raise costs beyond political tolerance. Instead, they are pursuing a geoeconomic hedge—cooperating on climate while competing elsewhere.

This reflects a mature form of values-based realism. Western governments continue to criticize China’s human-rights record, but they also acknowledge that the Global South will decide the future of green technology adoption. If Western EVs remain expensive due to tariffs and industrial bottlenecks, emerging markets will choose cheaper Chinese models.

Behind the scenes, this marks a transition from unipolar hubris to tri-polar realism. The West is no longer pretending it can dictate outcomes alone. Carney and the EU are attempting to rebalance the triangle—engaging China not out of trust, but out of necessity.

The gamble is stark: can the West maintain moral authority while relying on the technological ecosystem of its ideological rival?

Bonus Commentary

Data, Power, and the Quiet Politics of Regulation

One of the quieter anxieties circulating among allies of Donald Trump is not about tariffs or military alliances, but about data. Specifically, the concern is that the European Union may move further toward regulating American technology firms—and, in doing so, limit the free transfer of data to the United States.

From a Global Political Economy perspective, this fear is revealing. Data is no longer a by-product of the digital economy; it is a strategic resource. It underpins artificial intelligence, financial markets, advertising, national security, and even electoral politics. Yet unlike oil, steel, or semiconductors, data has historically flowed across borders with remarkably few constraints—largely on terms favorable to U.S.-based firms.

The EU’s regulatory posture reflects a growing awareness that market power without regulatory symmetry creates dependency. American tech giants benefit from European consumers, infrastructure, and labor markets, while the value extraction—analytics, monetization, surveillance—often accrues elsewhere. In this sense, unrestricted data flows resemble an asymmetric exchange, where one side supplies the raw material and the other captures the rents.

This is not simply a legal or privacy debate. It is about who governs the digital economy. If data remains freely transferable without reciprocal oversight, regulatory power effectively migrates to the jurisdiction of the firms that process it. By contrast, restricting or conditioning data flows can be understood as an attempt to re-territorialize economic sovereignty in an era where borders are increasingly porous.

Within Stubb’s broader rebalancing logic, this fits a familiar pattern. As the global system shifts from a unipolar to a more contested order, states seek to regain leverage not by closing markets, but by setting rules. Regulation becomes a form of structural power—less visible than tariffs, but often more enduring.

Seen this way, tensions over data are not a breakdown of transatlantic cooperation, but a sign of maturation. They reflect an emerging recognition that strategic autonomy in the 21st century is not only about factories or armies, but about information flows, standards, and who writes the code of globalization.

The unresolved question is whether these regulatory moves will lead to managed interdependence—or accelerate fragmentation into competing digital spheres. Either way, the politics of data make one thing clear: in today’s global economy, information is no longer free, even when it appears to move freely.

Episode #11 – Core Power Vocabulary

(Intro & framing language)

B2 – Poder

English: Power
Meaning (EN): The ability to influence outcomes, decisions, or behavior.
Significado (ES): La capacidad de influir en resultados, decisiones o comportamientos.

Example (EN):

Power is no longer exercised only through armies.

Ejemplo (ES):

El poder ya no se ejerce solo a través de ejércitos.

C1 – Interdependencia

English: Interdependence
Meaning (EN): Mutual reliance between states or systems.
Significado (ES): Dependencia mutua entre Estados o sistemas.

Example (EN):

Global politics is shaped by interdependence.

Ejemplo (ES):

La política global está marcada por la interdependencia.

C2 – Momento bisagra

English: Hinge moment
Meaning (EN): A historical turning point that reshapes future trajectories.
Significado (ES): Punto de inflexión histórico que redefine el futuro.

Example (EN):

The world is entering a hinge moment.

Ejemplo (ES):

El mundo está entrando en un momento bisagra.

Theme 1 Vocabulary

Managua: clemencia táctica

B2 – Presión geoeconómica

English: Geoeconomic pressure
Meaning (EN): Economic tools used to influence political behavior.
Significado (ES): Uso de herramientas económicas para influir políticamente.

Example (EN):

Nicaragua faces geoeconomic pressure.

Ejemplo (ES):

Nicaragua enfrenta presión geoeconómica.

C1 – Diplomacia coercitiva

English: Coercive diplomacy
Meaning (EN): Forcing change through pressure without military force.
Significado (ES): Forzar cambios sin recurrir a la fuerza militar.

Example (EN):

Sanctions are a form of coercive diplomacy.

Ejemplo (ES):

Las sanciones son una forma de diplomacia coercitiva.

C1 – Activos negociables

English: Negotiable assets
Meaning (EN): People or resources treated as bargaining tools.
Significado (ES): Personas o recursos usados como fichas de negociación.

Example (EN):

Prisoners become negotiable assets.

Ejemplo (ES):

Los presos se convierten en activos negociables.

C2 – Soberanía transaccional

English: Transactional sovereignty
Meaning (EN): Sovereignty treated as something to trade or exchange.
Significado (ES): La soberanía entendida como algo negociable.

Example (EN):

Transactional sovereignty weakens rights.

Ejemplo (ES):

La soberanía transaccional debilita los derechos.

Theme 2 Vocabulary

Davos y el capitalismo destructivo

B2 – Capitalismo destructivo

English: Destructive capitalism
Meaning (EN): Capitalism that harms social cohesion.
Significado (ES): Capitalismo que daña la cohesión social.

Example (EN):

Protesters denounce destructive capitalism.

Ejemplo (ES):

Los manifestantes denuncian el capitalismo destructivo.

C1 – Déficit democrático

English: Democratic deficit
Meaning (EN): Lack of democratic accountability.
Significado (ES): Falta de rendición de cuentas democrática.

Example (EN):

Davos is accused of a democratic deficit.

Ejemplo (ES):

Davos es acusado de déficit democrático.

C2 – Contrato social

English: Social contract
Meaning (EN): The implicit agreement between citizens and the state.
Significado (ES): Acuerdo implícito entre el Estado y la sociedad.

Example (EN):

The social contract is breaking down.

Ejemplo (ES):

El contrato social se está rompiendo.

Theme 3 Vocabulary

Superembajada y soberanía

B2 – Infraestructura como poder

English: Infrastructure-as-influence
Meaning (EN): Using infrastructure to project power.
Significado (ES): Uso de infraestructura para proyectar poder.

Example (EN):

Embassies act as infrastructure-as-influence.

Ejemplo (ES):

Las embajadas actúan como infraestructura de poder.

C2 – Soberanía extraterritorial

English: Extraterritorial sovereignty
Meaning (EN): Control beyond national borders.
Significado (ES): Control ejercido más allá de las fronteras.

Example (EN):

Surveillance reflects extraterritorial sovereignty.

Ejemplo (ES):

La vigilancia refleja soberanía extraterritorial.

Theme 4 Vocabulary

Aviación y el Indo-Pacífico

B2 – Brecha de infraestructura

English: Infrastructure gap
Meaning (EN): Unequal access to modern systems.
Significado (ES): Acceso desigual a sistemas modernos.

Example (EN):

The crash reveals an infrastructure gap.

Ejemplo (ES):

El accidente revela una brecha de infraestructura.

C2 – Guerra de estándares

English: Standardization war
Meaning (EN): Competition to set global rules.
Significado (ES): Competencia por imponer normas globales.

Example (EN):

Aviation is now a standardization war.

Ejemplo (ES):

La aviación es ahora una guerra de estándares.

Theme 5 Vocabulary

Carney, VE y realismo basado en valores

C1 – Reducción de riesgos

English: De-risking
Meaning (EN): Reducing dependency without severing ties.
Significado (ES): Reducir dependencia sin romper relaciones.

Example (EN):

The EU prefers de-risking.

Ejemplo (ES):

La UE prefiere la reducción de riesgos.

C2 – Autonomía estratégica

English: Strategic autonomy
Meaning (EN): Ability to act independently.
Significado (ES): Capacidad de actuar de forma independiente.

Example (EN):

Europe seeks strategic autonomy.

Ejemplo (ES):

Europa busca autonomía estratégica.

Bonus Vocabulary

Datos y poder estructural

C2 – Poder estructural

English: Structural power
Meaning (EN): Power to shape rules and systems.
Significado (ES): Poder para definir reglas y sistemas.

Example (EN):

Regulation is structural power.

Ejemplo (ES):

La regulación es poder estructural.

C2 – Interdependencia gestionada

English: Managed interdependence
Meaning (EN): Cooperation with safeguards.
Significado (ES): Cooperación con mecanismos de protección.

Example (EN):

The EU seeks managed interdependence.

Ejemplo (ES):

La UE busca interdependencia gestionada.