Observations On Perception

Ricardo F. Morín

January 7, 2026

Oakland Park, Fl

1.

The present moment does not register as a crisis of ideology, but as a crisis of sequence.  What is being tested is not the content of declared principles, but the order in which authority, review, and justification are made to occur.  Decisions are advanced before the conditions that would ordinarily authorize them have been articulated, and coherence is asked to follow action rather than govern it.  This inversion does not abolish law, institutions, or legitimacy.  It displaces them.  What once determined whether action should proceed now intervenes after action has already been declared.

2.

In Venezuela, this inversion becomes visible through the widening separation between legitimacy and enforceable authority.  Electoral victory, moral credibility, and international recognition continue to exist, but they no longer determine who is treated as operable.  Engagement instead centers on those capable of compelling compliance in the present tense.  Authority is identified not through mandate, but through continuity with the administrative, financial, and coercive mechanisms that currently exert control.  The effect is not confusion but selection.  Those able to deliver immediate outcomes are elevated as interlocutors regardless of ethical record, while those whose legitimacy lacks immediate enforcement capacity are bypassed.

3.

This preference has been articulated through assessment rather than implication.  Reporting on a classified briefing presented to Donald Trump indicates that U.S. intelligence concluded that figures drawn from within the existing Maduro apparatus were best positioned to assume control if Maduro were removed.  Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was identified not because of democratic standing or public credibility, but because of her continuity with the administrative, financial, and extractive mechanisms that continue to function within Venezuela.  Her experience overseeing the oil sector and engaging directly with commercial actors was treated as evidence of reliability in practice rather than legitimacy in principle.  What was evaluated was not character, but enforceability.  Criminal implication did not disqualify; it indicated command of the systems through which compliance could be compelled.  Opposition figures whose authority derived from electoral legitimacy but lacked immediate control over those mechanisms were treated as non-operable.  The selection privileged negotiability under pressure.

4.

This mode of selection is not confined to a single theater or moment.  It recurs wherever authority is exercised ahead of coordination.  Operability outweighs normative qualification.  Authority is derived from the capacity to transact, enforce, and stabilize outcomes in compressed timeframes.  Legitimacy is acknowledged but does not determine engagement.  What governs is the ability to act now and to absorb consequence later.

5.

The same inversion appears in Ukraine under different conditions.  Public declarations affecting military assistance, diplomatic posture, and negotiation have been issued without prior coordination with allies or institutions tasked with planning and review.  These statements do not clarify direction in advance; they compel response after the fact.  Allies recalibrate commitments once consequences are already in motion.  Planning follows assertion.  Coordination adjusts to announcement.  The question is not whether support exists, but whether its terms are introduced before or after the processes that would ordinarily govern them.

6.

This ordering is also visible within the American system itself.  On multiple occasions over several years, Donald Trump has acted on the basis of assurances issued by Vladimir Putin despite the existence of contrary assessments produced by U.S. intelligence agencies.  Those institutions were not dismantled or silenced.  Briefings continued.  Analysis persisted.  What changed was their position in time.  Intelligence no longer governed whether action proceeded; it reconciled itself to commitments already made.  Verification trailed assertion.  Agencies designed to anticipate risk were required to manage consequences they had not authorized.

7.

Once this ordering becomes perceptible, it does not remain confined to decision-makers.  Institutions, allies, and adversaries adjust their behavior accordingly.  Diplomatic actors treat public declarations as operative even when their durability is uncertain.  Agencies tasked with planning model scenarios around positions that may shift without notice.  Allies hesitate between waiting for clarification and acting to protect their own exposure.  Adversaries are instructed not by declared policy, but by the demonstrated sequence:  that commitments may precede review, that reversals may follow assertion, and that coherence cannot be assumed in advance.

8.

What emerges is not paralysis, but recalibration.  Systems continue to function by absorbing volatility as a standing condition.  Stability is no longer produced by predictability, but by the capacity to adjust rapidly to decisions introduced before their governing terms have been settled.  This adaptation does not resolve the inversion; it normalizes it.  Governance continues, but its coordinating force weakens.  Motion persists without measure.

9.

The consequence of this pattern bears directly on how authority and legitimacy relate to one another.  Legitimacy continues to be articulated through elections, alliances, and formal acknowledgment.  Authority, however, is exercised through immediacy—through the ability to set terms in motion that others must then accommodate.  This does not negate legitimacy; it sidelines it.  Authority no longer requires justification in order to operate.  Legitimacy survives as language, while authority consolidates through sequence.

10.

When authority is exercised independently of legitimacy, governance may still function, but it ceases to persuade.  Decisions are carried forward not because they are accepted, but because they are already underway.  Review becomes accommodation.  Law becomes explanation after action rather than guidance before it.  The danger here is not lawlessness, but displacement.  Constraint remains formally intact while losing its capacity to govern timing.

11.

This condition does not resolve into immediate collapse.  It endures.  Constitutional systems assume cooperation without being able to compel it in advance.  They rely on restraint exercised voluntarily, sequentially, and often against immediate interest.  When that restraint falters, institutions remain standing but lose coordinating force.  Authority fills the gap left by cooperation, often in the name of continuity.  What persists is governance without convergence, power without persuasion, and action without settled measure.

---

Tags: authority vs legitimacy, donald-trump, executive sequencing, foreign intervention, geopolitical coherence, institutional displacement, intelligence assessment, technocracy

This entry was posted on January 9, 2026 at 6:00 am and is filed under Political Analysis, Executive Power, U.S. Foreign Policy, Venezuela, Ukraine, Governance, Contemporary History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.