In a dialogue with Diego Sehinkman in TN, Andreé Malamud, the political analyst based in Europe, surprised with a sharp definition: “The Kuka risk is actually Karina.” In this way, the axis of the official discourse ran, which insists on presenting Kirchnerism as the main threat, and pointed to Karina Milei as the true risk factor.
“Kirchnerism has a chance because this government undertakes the economy and offers them the resurrection. Instead of nailing the last nail of the drawer, they open it and say ‘come out that they are free’. The Kukas are there because Milei is there,” he warned. The problem, according to Malamud, is that Karina Milei concentrates power without votes or political experience. Its influence translates into calculation errors, shocks with allies and a driving style that generates distrust.
The little political ability of the president’s sister and former pastry and Tarotist ends up reliving an adversary who was practically liquidated. With this, Kirchnerism, which was very weakened and with serious internal diffcultades, became a direct beneficiary of the clumsiness of Karina, who is also the great protagonist of the coimagate, the scandal in which she is pointed out for staying with alleged overflows of 3 percent raised between laboratories that have contracts with the State.
The circle is completed with the president’s dependence: isolated and without structure, Milei delegates more power to his sister than to any other official. This dynamic weakens to freedom advances and feeds the discomfort of militancy. As Malamud points out, the more power Karina accumulates, the more the government is exposed to pave the way for the return of Kirchnerism.
