In international politics, there is no friendship: there is utility. What is coming to light with the tug-of-war between Trump and Milei is precisely that. The supposed "unconditional support" from the United States was, in reality, a tacit contract where the price was extremely high: cutting strategic ties with China, aligning without reservation to Washington's game, and rearranging Argentine internal politics to suit the superpower.
Today, that agreement is making noise. Very loud. And Trump's anger does not arise from personal whim, but because Milei may have disobeyed the most important clause: total distancing from the Asian giant. For the Americans, China is not a partner: it is the systemic enemy that threatens their economic and military hegemony. When Argentina flirts with the Chinese, even if it is for basic commercial matters, that is read in Washington as disloyalty.
And there lies the point: the pressure from the United States is not symbolic. It is real. It is concrete. It is measured in credits, loans, financial support, and diplomatic gestures that are given or withdrawn according to the recipient's obedience. And Milei, who presents himself in speeches as a champion of freedom, ends up trapped in the worst place: depending on someone else's wallet without being able to set his own rules.
The false epic of the "natural alliance"
The narrative of the "ideological alliance" between Trump and Milei worked while the cameras were on: freedom, heroic capitalism, the fight against imaginary socialism. But behind that scenery are hard interests: shipping routes, energy, lithium, military bases, technological contracts, and a veto on any Chinese approach.
If the Argentine president does not meet those conditions, there is no libertarian glamor that can save him. The Americans do not marry anyone. And much less with a peripheral country that depends on credits to survive. What for Milei is "freedom," for the United States is geopolitical control.
China: the excuse or the real problem
The relationship with China is not an ideological question: it is a necessity. Argentina exports food, needs investment in infrastructure, and relies on markets that buy what we produce. China fulfills those three roles. In contrast, the United States offers conditional financial support and a subordinate role on its geopolitical board.
When Milei tries to play on both fronts, he gets trapped. Because the current world does not allow comfortable neutralities: you either play with one power or with the other. And if you choose the United States, China closes doors on you. If you choose China, the United States cuts off your financial light. That is the level of the dilemma.
The real discussion: sovereignty or dependence
This clash between Milei and Trump exposes something that Argentine governments often cover up to avoid facing:
there is no sovereignty if your economy depends on external funds, the approval of the American Treasury, or the mood of a White House that changes every four years.
A sovereign country negotiates.
A dependent country obeys.
And Argentina, unfortunately, has been living too long in the second line.
Milei can shout about freedom as much as he wants, but if he needs external financing to sustain his economic program, he inevitably remains under the tutelage of whoever lends the money. And in this case, the one who provides the funds demands a break with China, a reshuffle of the cabinet, and that the country is organized according to Washington's strategic priorities.
That is not an alliance.
That is not friendship.
That is subordination.
The outcome: break with China or challenge the empire?
If Milei decides to maintain ties with China, the economic and political support from the United States could evaporate. If he decides to cut ties with China to please Trump, Argentina would lose one of its most important trading partners and become tied to an unequal relationship with Washington.
There is no easy way out.
There is no possible neutrality.
But there is something clear: foreign policy cannot be based on ideological fanaticism, but on national interests. And so far, the Argentine government seems more concerned with satisfying powers than defending its own destiny.
Comments