If there were any doubts about how closely the libertarian Argentine president is working with the no less libertarian International Monetary Fund (IMF), they have now been dispelled.

Kristalina Georgieva, who calls herself managing director of the IMF, posted X a picture and a short text that show better than a thousand words the kindred spirit of the two people depicted. Georgieva is not embarrassed to note a ‘remarkable transformation’ in Argentina because the budget deficit has been wiped out, inflation is lower and the economy is on the road to recovery.

Anyone who writes this without saying what the price was for this and what dramatic consequences Javier Milei’s policy may (and will) still have shows himself not as the global mediator and neutral arbiter he should be, but as an ideologue who represents, spreads and enforces a certain political agenda against those who depend on him.

The fact that the Europeans are going along with this without contradiction (Georgieva was, after all, hoisted into the position as a European) will come back to haunt them. Milei, like so many before him, will fail with his libertarian programme, with or without the help of the IMF (see here), which will also make the IMF even more unpopular in large parts of the world. The Europeans are always there because many secretly believe in the libertarians’ dream that you only have to shrink the state to be successful.

But what is even worse is that the rest of the world can see from a single glance what happens when you become dependent on the IMF. Consequently, this is precisely what will make many developing countries continue to look for alternatives, which can only be found in the context of China. As a result, the IMF’s uncritical support for Milei weakens its position in the rest of the world and strengthens the BRICS. This cannot make sense even to dyed-in-the-wool IMF fans.

The only other major country that rejects the policies advocated by the IMF lock, stock and barrel is the US. One has to imagine that Ms Georgieva would celebrate the US government for making a national deficit disappear overnight with a forceful action, while unemployment and poverty are skyrocketing. Any American politician, of any party, would be telling her to get out of the IMF and the country immediately. We hear almost nothing from the IMF about US policy over the last ten years, although this policy is in stark contrast to the IMF’s agenda. The US is once again taking the line of ‘Do as we say, but don’t do as we do!’ Under Trump, this disparity will become even more pronounced.