Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 10 December
- Introduction
- Ukraine, between its ‘refined’ proposal and 20-point peace plan
- Gaza: a fragile ceasefire and an uneasy peace in the making
- Russia: war of attrition, consolidated authoritarianism and coordination with China in the Indo-Pacific
- Thailand-Cambodia armed clash and the test for ASEAN
- US campaign against Venezuelan drug boats and Trump's domestic agenda
- Global economy: ‘fragile resilience’ and the risk of complacency
- China: domestic slowdown, external ambition
- United States-India-Russia axis: Indian strategic autonomy and a major digital commitment
- Technological warfare: Nvidia chips, Russian cyberattacks and social media regulation
- Latin America and the cultural battle in the media
- Media rack
- Editorial commentary
Introduction
The international scene over the last 24 hours has been dominated by three main vectors:
The White House's attempt to close a simultaneous peace framework for Ukraine and Gaza.
The fragility of the global economy on the eve of new decisions by central banks.
The silent—but constant—erosion of authoritarian regimes in the post-Soviet and Latin American space.
The major Anglo-Saxon and European media, both right-wing and left-wing, agree that we are living in a time of ‘high risk, high opportunity’: windows are opening to consolidate pressure on Russia, Tehran and their proxies, while the global economy walks a tightrope that is more political than strictly macroeconomic.
On this chessboard, Trump acts with his usual mixture of crude pragmatism and electoral calculation: a heavy hand against drug traffickers and authoritarian revisionists, but without embarking on classic military adventures that his supporters are unwilling to pay for in blood or taxes. At the same time, Zelensky is trying to put together a peace plan that will save Ukraine's territorial integrity in the face of impatience from some Western capitals, while Moscow is pressing on the front and radicalising its internal regime.
In Gaza, the ceasefire is fragile: there are mutual accusations of violations of the agreement and a humanitarian crisis that is hitting children with particular brutality. The Indo-Pacific is experiencing a dangerous escalation with joint Russian-Chinese air patrols around Japan, while AUKUS moves forward and the region consolidates itself as the epicentre of the new technological and military Cold War.
In the Caribbean, the US campaign against Venezuelan drug boats has become a symbol of a new strategy of total pressure on the despicable Chavista regime. And underlying all this is the technological and cultural battle: Australia's decision to ban social media for children under 16, the debate over Nvidia chips, colossal investments in India and a Western media space increasingly contaminated by wokism and identity extremism.
In this context, our compass remains clear: firm Atlanticism, staunch Europeanism, outright rejection of narco-Chavism and all dictatorships — especially those in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — opposition to Russian aggression in Ukraine, constant vigilance against Chinese expansionism and unqualified condemnation of jihadist terrorism in all its forms.
Ukraine, between its ‘refined’ proposal and 20-point peace plan
Facts
Ukraine, together with several European partners, is preparing a ‘refined’ peace proposal to present to Washington, focusing on eastern Donbas, the size of its army and future security guarantees. At the same time, Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has returned to Moscow to present the latest version of the 20-point peace plan to Putin, following intensive consultations with Kiev and European capitals.
The outline circulating proposes a ceasefire along the current front lines, without formal recognition of Russian annexation, but with significant de facto concessions in exchange for enhanced security guarantees for Ukraine and a conditional reconstruction package. Many analysts consider this design overly generous to Moscow.
Implications
From an Atlanticist and liberal centre-right perspective, the risk is clear: de facto enshrining territorial conquest achieved through military aggression would send the world the message that force pays, undermine decades of international law and reward authoritarian revisionism.
The red line must be unequivocal: no agreement can normalise the Russian occupation or leave Ukraine without hard guarantees linked to NATO and a 'coalition of the willing' capable of deterring future Kremlin offensives. This is not about humiliating Russia, but about preventing a kleptocratic and expansionist regime from redrawing European borders with tanks, missiles and mercenaries. The false ‘realism’ that invites us to accept Putinism in exchange for an illusion of stability is not prudence: it is an invitation to new aggressions, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
Gaza: a fragile ceasefire and an uneasy peace in the making
Facts
In Gaza, a ‘first phase’ ceasefire remains in place: a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces to a negotiated ‘yellow line’, the release of hostages in exchange for the mass release of Palestinian prisoners, and direct US supervision on the ground.
Hamas denounces hundreds of alleged violations of the agreement by Israel, while the Israeli government accuses the terrorist organisation of attacks against its troops and justifies retaliatory operations. In Cairo and other Arab capitals, discussions are underway on the post-Hamas governance model, with the participation of non-jihadist Palestinian factions and a significant role for Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. UNICEF and humanitarian agencies warn of ‘shockingly high’ child malnutrition despite the relative increase in aid.
Implications
For an editorial line that is diametrically opposed to Islamist terrorism, the key is to prevent this uneasy peace from becoming a mere technical pause that allows Hamas to rearm under another banner. Any formula for the administration of Gaza must exclude pro-Iranian militias, cut off funding from Tehran and Doha, and preserve Israel's right to defend itself.
This does not exclude, but rather requires, the prospect of a viable, deradicalised Palestinian state with institutions that are accountable to its people, not to the ayatollahs. The narrative that presents Hamas as ‘resistance’ and Israel as the sole aggressor is a dangerous caricature that betrays both Israeli victims and Palestinians who wish to live in peace and freedom.
Russia: war of attrition, consolidated authoritarianism and coordination with China in the Indo-Pacific
Hechos
Facts
Within Russia, Putin's regime is deepening its personalist turn: mechanisms for the direct election of mayors are being dismantled, presidential control over the judiciary is being strengthened and uncomfortable by-elections to the Duma are being cancelled.
On the front lines, Russian forces are making limited advances in areas such as Lyman and Pokrovsk, while Ukraine is counterattacking in areas of Zaporizhia and Oleksandrivka. All of this is taking place in parallel with peace negotiations, revealing Moscow's clear strategy: to continue gaining ground, even if only metre by metre, while exploiting war fatigue in the West.
On the international stage, Russian TU-95 bombers have participated alongside Chinese aircraft in joint patrols around Japan, prompting the take-off of Japanese fighter jets. The United States has reiterated its support for Tokyo, while Australia is moving forward with the AUKUS programme to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
Implications
Attempting to 'normalise' Putinism in exchange for apparent peace is reckless. Accepting that a regime that represses its population, murders opponents, manipulates elections and attacks its neighbours should receive a geopolitical reward sends the message that it pays for autocrats to resort to violence.
The military coordination between Russia and China around Japan shows that the challenge is systemic: there are no watertight compartments between the Ukrainian front and the Indo-Pacific. If Ukraine falls into an unjust peace, the lesson that Beijing and other actors will draw is that the West is not willing to pay the price to defend the liberal rules-based order.
Thailand-Cambodia armed clash and the test for ASEAN
Facts
Fighting between Thailand and Cambodia has continued for the third consecutive day, with artillery exchanges, naval operations and population displacement in border areas. Both governments speak of ‘defending territorial integrity’ and ‘planned operations’, while ASEAN expresses concern about the impact on regional stability and trade.
Trump has announced that he will intervene personally, recalling that he already halted a similar escalation months ago through a combination of direct pressure and telephone diplomacy.
Implications
The crisis fits a familiar pattern: historical territorial disputes, national elites needing to reassert themselves in the face of public opinion, and a vacuum of international arbitration that powers such as China can exploit to offer self-interested mediation.
Western diplomacy must support ASEAN's dispute resolution mechanisms, strengthen its political presence and offer an alternative to China's cheque book and veto. The Indo-Pacific risks becoming a mosaic of frozen conflicts where Beijing expands its influence, port by port and base by base.
US campaign against Venezuelan drug boats and Trump's domestic agenda
Facts
The United States has intensified its military campaign against speedboats belonging to alleged drug traffickers linked to the Maduro regime in the Caribbean. There is a significant naval and air deployment, and the White House has hinted at the possibility of extending operations to Mexico and Colombia if necessary to dismantle drug trafficking networks.
Congress is examining these operations, which have resulted in casualties among the crews of the drug-trafficking boats, in parallel with the internal debate on the cost of living. Trump is focusing his domestic message on ‘making America affordable again’ in a context of a cooling labour market and moderate but persistent inflation.
Implications
Our position is clear: Chavismo is a mafia-style narco-dictatorship that has plundered Venezuela, expelled millions of citizens and turned the state into a logistics platform for organised crime and regimes such as those in Cuba and Nicaragua. Striking firmly at its criminal infrastructure – including drug-trafficking boats – is legitimate and morally necessary.
The combination of defending the middle class against the cost of living and taking a hard line against drug trafficking can constitute a solid agenda if isolationism is avoided and Atlantic commitment and support for allied democracies are maintained. The line of vigilance must be that this toughness does not lead to legal grey areas or collateral damage that fuels the anti-American discourse of the Latin American far left.
Global economy: ‘fragile resilience’ and the risk of complacency
Facts
The global economy closes 2025 with modest growth of around 3%, inflation contained but not defeated, and financial markets that have regained some of the ground they lost. The Federal Reserve is expected to lower rates by 25 basis points, while the ECB is somewhat more cautious.
Organisations such as the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank agree that the apparent calm hides vulnerabilities: high public debt, stagnant productivity, latent trade tensions and a heavy reliance on the absence of a large-scale geopolitical shock.
Implications
This ‘fragile resilience’ opens up a fork in the road: take advantage of the respite to reform—increase productivity, invest in innovation, put public finances in order—or squander it on populist promises and unsustainable structural spending.
From a liberal centre-right position, it must be said without hesitation: the welfare state is only sustainable with real growth and fiscal discipline. The headlong rush of certain European leftists, who act as if debt had no cost, is a perfect recipe for the next crisis. The cultural battle and the economic battle are connected: a country that despises merit and demonises wealth creation ends up without the resources to sustain the solidarity it proclaims.
China: domestic slowdown, external ambition
Facts
China is growing at a significantly slower pace than in previous decades, with strong imbalances in the real estate sector, industrial overcapacity and a combination of selective stimulus measures, reinforced state control and aggressive expansion in trade and foreign investment.
Global trade has rebounded by around 4% in 2025, partly due to imports brought forward in anticipation of new tariffs, demonstrating the extent to which the shadow of the trade war is conditioning global flows.
Implications
The domestic slowdown does not reduce, but rather fuels, Beijing's temptation to seek outlets abroad: strategic infrastructure, critical raw materials, rare earths, ports and logistics hubs in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The Western response cannot be limited to talk of 'de-risking'. This reduction in dependencies must be accompanied by real investment, security and credible political offers to democratic partners in the Indo-Pacific, Africa and Latin America. If the West does not fill this space, the Chinese Communist Party's chequebook will, accompanied by its political and technological conditions.
United States-India-Russia axis: Indian strategic autonomy and a major digital commitment
Facts
Putin has visited India to strengthen energy and military cooperation, while Washington is pressuring New Delhi to reduce its dependence on Russian weapons and oil. Analysts agree that the Moscow-New Delhi ‘strategic friendship’ is undergoing a managed decline: the historical link remains, but India is diversifying its partners towards the West and other Asian powers.
At the same time, Amazon has announced an investment of more than 35 billion dollars in India, which is consolidating its position as a central player in the global digital economy and the ecosystem of data, cloud services and artificial intelligence.
Implications
For the Atlantic agenda, India is an essential partner but one that is jealous of its autonomy.Turning it into a pillar of the democratic Indo-Pacific without demanding abrupt breaks with Russia or Iran will be a test of realism and diplomatic finesse.
It is not enough to praise the ‘world's largest democracy’; it is necessary to offer technology, investment, defence cooperation and a leading role in the regional security architecture in the face of Chinese expansionism in the Indian and Western Pacific. As a country that has experienced this reality first-hand, we know that India does not allow itself to be patronised: it must be respected, convinced and accompanied.
Technological warfare: Nvidia chips, Russian cyberattacks and social media regulation
Facts
The United States has filed new federal charges against a Ukrainian citizen accused of participating in Russian-backed cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. At the same time, the Trump administration has authorised Nvidia to sell advanced H200 chips, designed for artificial intelligence applications, to China on the condition that the Treasury receives 25% of the revenue generated.
Australia has implemented the world's first ban on social media for children under 16. The regulation requires platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) to implement age verification mechanisms and restrict access by minors.
Implications
Hybrid warfare has become an essential tool for the Kremlin to erode its adversaries without formally crossing the thresholds of open warfare. Cyber defence is no longer a technical issue: it is a matter of national security and social cohesion.
The decision on Nvidia highlights the contradictions of the new technological Cold War: while attempting to contain China, it is being given access to cutting-edge technology in exchange for a fiscal toll. The Reaganite logic, which worked so well against the USSR, was to strangle, not feed, the strategic capabilities of the adversary.
The Australian law on social media raises a fundamental debate: how to protect minors from addiction, extremist propaganda and mental health deterioration without falling into state paternalism that unnecessarily curtails freedoms. The key here is not to oppose ‘freedom’ to ‘protection’, but to design intelligent rules that preserve both.
Latin America and the cultural battle in the media
Facts
CNN and other media outlets point to the growing diplomatic isolation of Nicolás Maduro, following changes of government in Caribbean countries traditionally close to Chavismo and clearer pressure from the United States and the European Union. Brussels has reiterated its condemnation of the usurpation of the presidency in Venezuela and has once again singled out Cuba and Nicaragua as authoritarian regimes with serious human rights violations.
Recent studies show a growing polarisation in public trust in the media: conservative sectors are regaining some confidence in channels such as Fox News, while part of the public perceives CNN, the BBC and other major media outlets as aligned with identity-based and progressive agendas. Social media amplifies campaigns on wokism, gender identity and historical memory, which end up contaminating debates on security and foreign policy as well.
Implications
Chavismo's narrative of ‘anti-imperialist resistance’ has long been unmasked: it is the rhetorical alibi of a state mafia that lives off drug trafficking, illicit gold and systematic repression. The strategy must combine selective financial and judicial pressure on Maduro's circle, support for the democratic opposition and backing for the diaspora that keeps the cause of freedom alive.
In the media and cultural arena, the challenge for a liberal centre-right is twofold: to resist both postmodern relativism and cynical conspiracy theories. Defending real equality, non-discrimination and fundamental rights does not require accepting the discourse that demonises the nation, the family, security and merit. The cultural battle matters because it determines the willingness to invest in defence, sustain alliances and stand up to autocrats who do believe in something: their own power.
Media rack
NYT, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, AFP
Double focus on the peace plan for Ukraine and the consolidation of the ceasefire in Gaza. The moral and strategic dilemma of accepting an ‘imperfect’ peace that may leave too much room for Moscow and Hamas is highlighted, as is Trump's role as architect of peace frameworks that his critics fear will legitimise the aggressor, but which his defenders present as the only realistic way to stop the war.
WSJ, Financial Times, The Economist, economic media
Focus on the ‘fragile resilience’ of the global economy, the proximity of new decisions by the Federal Reserve, the impact of US-China rivalry and the importance of technology investments in India. Russia, China and the Middle East are seen as ‘tail risks’ capable of turning the tables in a matter of weeks.
Le Monde, Le Figaro, FAZ, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Corriere, La Tribune de Genève, DPA
Concern about the balance between support for Ukraine, internal EU cohesion and social fatigue over the cost of war and inflation. There is growing scepticism about the United States' leadership capabilities, but no real alternative to the Atlantic umbrella.
Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Asharq al-Awsat, An-Nahar, Orient-Le Jour, Israeli media (Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom, Jerusalem Post)
Close attention to the aftermath in Gaza: the role of Qatar and Egypt, internal pressure on Netanyahu, fears that Hamas will mutate again under another banner, and debate over the balance between Israeli security and Palestinian dignity.
Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, WION, Yomiuri Shimbun, South China Morning Post, China Daily, Strait Times
Extensive coverage of Putin's visit to India, US pressure to reduce military dependence on Moscow and Amazon's big bet on the Indian market. In Japan and Southeast Asia, focus on Russian-Chinese air patrols and fears of accidental escalation.
Clarín, El Mercurio, Reforma, Venezuelan media in exile
Interpretation of the US offensive against Venezuelan drug boats as a change of phase in the face of Chavism. Emphasis on the internal erosion of the regime and the regional impact of the Venezuelan exodus, linked to insecurity and pressure on public services in receiving countries.
Editorial commentary
The day leaves an uncomfortable but clarifying impression: never has there been so much talk of ‘peace’ while it is normalised that an aggressor state aspires to take over its neighbour's territory and that a terrorist organisation seeks to recycle itself as a ‘political actor’ after massacring civilians. This is the trap of false realism: confusing the temporary absence of gunfire with justice, calling resignation ‘balance’ and capitulation ‘maturity.’
Serious realism knows something much simpler and harder: lasting peace can only be built when the aggressor internalises that it will gain nothing by force. As long as the Kremlin perceives that it can obtain territorial concessions in exchange for a signature, as long as Hamas and its patrons in Tehran calculate that it is worth their while to launch massacres and then sit down at the table, as long as Chavismo understands that oil and cocaine shield its impunity, any ‘peace’ will be a mere interlude before the next crisis.
In this context, Trump's foreign policy offers both positives and negatives that should be analysed without prejudice or sectarianism. On the one hand, his transactional instinct leads him to seek quick deals, such as the 20-point plan for Ukraine or the imperfect peace architecture in Gaza. Therein lies the risk: excessive haste can lead to dangerous concessions. But it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the merit of a course of action that combines deterrence, economic pressure and support for allies fighting for their survival, without resorting – at least so far – to classic military adventures that his supporters would not accept.
His tough stance against drug traffickers, narco-Chavism and the regimes that protect them—Caracas, Havana, Managua—is a step in the right direction, provided that legal shortcuts, unnecessary collateral damage and isolationist temptations that would weaken the Atlantic flank are avoided. A responsible liberal centre-right can and must be demanding about the risks of Trump's agenda, but it would be suicidal to give left-wing populism a monopoly on moral criticism when that same populism has whitewashed dictatorships, terrorism and narco-regimes for decades.
The other great battle is being fought in the realm of ideas. While Putin and Xi believe in their project—technological authoritarianism, social control, identity nationalism—too many Western universities and television studios are questioning the foundations of liberal democracy that allow these critics to live, express themselves and prosper. This is not to deny the injustices or inequalities in our societies, but to remember something fundamental: the regulated market economy, the well-managed welfare state and the rule of law have generated more freedom, prosperity and human dignity than all the revolutionary and national-populist experiments put together.
Europe and America are not doomed to become the sidekicks of authoritarian empires or the moral museum of a liberal order they no longer believe in. But to avoid this, we need something that cannot be bought on any market: moral clarity, strategic will and confidence in our own project of freedom. This is the yardstick by which we must judge the peace plans for Ukraine, the agreements on Gaza, the policy towards narco-Chavism and the decisions on technology with China.
The underlying question is simple and brutal: do we simply want a few months of tranquillity, or do we aspire to strengthen the world of freedoms we have inherited and which we are obliged to bequeath, at least as solid, to those who come after us? History does not wait. Nor does it forgive those who renounce defending what they say is sacred to an advanced democracy.