Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 11 December
- Introduction
- The Federal Reserve cuts rates in a divided vote and announces a pause.
- United States seizes giant oil tanker linked to Venezuelan crude
- A world flooded with oil: extreme discounts on sanctioned crude oil
- Thailand and Cambodia: border fighting and Trump's personal mediation
- Nobel Peace Prize: María Corina Machado and the obligation to fight for freedom
- Yemen: Southern separatists threaten to reopen all-out war
- Ukraine: war of attrition, drones and the debate over elections in the midst of invasion
- Gaza: pressure on Hamas, local anti-Islamist groups and rejection of disarmament
- China: record trade surplus and concerns about 2026
- ‘Supercharged’ storms in South Asia: climate change as a risk multiplier
- Paramount's offensive on Warner Bros and the Gulf's strategic bet on Hollywood
- Media Rack
- Editorial commentary
Introduction
The last 24 hours have confirmed something I have been saying for years: geopolitics and geoeconomics are no longer separate chapters, but two sides of the same coin. The Federal Reserve (Fed) cuts rates in a divided vote and announces a pause that leaves markets in suspense; at the same time, the United States seizes a giant oil tanker linked to Venezuelan crude, a symbol of a world flooded with oil but riddled with sanctions and hybrid wars.
In parallel, the crossfire between Thailand and Cambodia threatens to escalate into regional conflict despite Trump's personal mediation, while Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado reminds us from Oslo — in forced absence — that democracies must be willing to fight for freedom if they want to survive. Against this backdrop, Ukraine is holding out under a barrage of Russian drones and missiles, Gaza remains a powder keg run by terrorist organisations, Yemen is once again teetering on the brink of disaster, China is accumulating record surpluses and South Asia is suffering from storms ‘supercharged’ by climate change.
The Federal Reserve cuts rates in a divided vote and announces a pause.
Facts
The Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark rate by 25 basis points to a range of 3.50–3.75%, in a very divided vote: three senior officials opposed the decision. The new projections point to a single additional cut in 2026 and rule out increases, consolidating the idea of a ‘hawkish cut’. The Fed acknowledges that inflation is still above target (around 2.8%), growth is rebounding towards 2.3% and unemployment is relatively contained, at around 4.4%.
The markets have reacted with relief: stock markets are rising, the dollar and bond yields are falling, gold and silver are hitting new highs—silver at record levels—precisely because the prevailing view is that the Fed is easing off the brakes but not giving up on controlling prices. All this is taking place just after the end of the very long 43-day federal government shutdown, which had seriously distorted the available macroeconomic data.
Implications
For an Atlanticist and responsible view, the message is twofold. On the one hand, the Fed is trying to avoid a recession induced by excessive tightening, in a context of enormous political uncertainty in Washington. On the other hand, internal divisions within the Federal Open Market Committee reveal a rift over how to interpret the combination of still-sticky inflation and surprisingly solid growth. In plain language: the data allow us to breathe, but they do not invite triumphalism.
For Europe, this decision complicates the ECB's task: a slightly weaker dollar and somewhat looser US financial conditions may put pressure on the euro and, in turn, on European exports. For emerging markets, especially in Asia and Latin America, the Fed's moderation alleviates the risk of massive capital outflows and gives some breathing space to indebted economies. The underlying question is whether US economic policy — highly expansionary fiscal policy and increasingly less restrictive monetary policy — will end up passing on the bill in the medium term, with more financial volatility and inflationary pressures imported to the rest of the world.
United States seizes giant oil tanker linked to Venezuelan crude
Facts
The US Navy and authorities have seized a ‘very large tanker, the largest ever captured,’ in Trump's words, off the coast of Venezuela, as part of the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Nicolás Maduro's narco-terrorist regime. The Washington Post, Reuters and other media outlets agree that the vessel was used to transport sanctioned crude oil, presumably destined for Asian markets. Caracas has responded by accusing the United States of ‘blatant theft’ and violation of international law, while presenting the operation as a direct attack on Venezuelan sovereignty.
This move comes on top of intensified sanctions and controls on the opaque fleet that transports Venezuelan and Iranian oil using ships flying flags of convenience, transshipments on the high seas and systematic falsification of documentation.
Implications
From our editorial standpoint, the conclusion is clear: the seizure of the tanker is consistent with a legitimate policy of economic strangulation of a narco-dictatorship linked to drug trafficking networks, illegal mining, money laundering and cooperation with terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We are not talking about a normal state defending commercial interests; we are talking about a mafia regime that uses oil to finance internal repression, intelligence apparatuses such as the SEBIN (Bolivarian National Intelligence Service), the DGCIM (General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence) or the FAES (Special Action Forces), and to support its extremist allies.
That some sectors of the international left seek to equate this operation with ‘piracy’ reveals an alarming moral confusion. The real scandal is not that the United States is capturing a sanctioned ship; it is that for years it has looked the other way while Chavismo turned PDVSA into the black box of transnational organised crime. The smart thing for Europe and democratic Latin America would be to coordinate these efforts, not criticise them from a comfortable distance.
A world flooded with oil: extreme discounts on sanctioned crude oil
Facts
While The Economist sums up the moment with the image of ‘a world flooded with oil,’ Reuters details how Venezuela has been forced to double the discount on its crude oil in order to sell it in Asia in the face of an avalanche of sanctioned shipments from Caracas, Tehran and Moscow. In practice, Venezuelan barrels are sold at aggressive discounts to benchmark prices, reflecting their status as ‘toxic’ oil in regulated markets.
The combination of robust production in the United States and the Middle East, the reorientation of Russian flows towards India and China, and the opaque engineering of the ‘dark fleet’ has created a physically abundant but politically fragmented market: a formal circuit under regulatory scrutiny and a clandestine one where barrels from sanctioned regimes are moved.
Implications
For Europe and its Atlantic allies, the message is paradoxical: there is plenty of oil in the world, but not all oil is equal from an ethical and strategic point of view. Buying heavily discounted crude from sanctioned sources is not a bargain, but a way to finance aggressive dictatorships, terrorism, and regional destabilisation. Chavismo's oil dumping is the energy equivalent of selling stolen goods.
At the same time, the relative abundance of crude oil reduces the leverage of some traditional producers, but increases geopolitical competition for key markets in Asia. China and India are taking advantage of the situation to acquire cheap barrels, strengthening their energy resilience, but also forging closer ties with highly unsavoury regimes. This is an issue that Europe and the United States will have to address if they do not want the energy map of the 21st century to be shaped by the sum of revisionist autocracies.
Thailand and Cambodia: border fighting and Trump's personal mediation
Facts
On the border between Thailand and Cambodia, artillery and rocket fire continues in the disputed areas, with mutual accusations of deliberate attacks on civilians and the displacement of populations to refugee camps. Despite a ceasefire brokered by Trump at the beginning of the year, the fragile agreement has broken down and crossfire has resumed on a large scale, with the risk of dragging in other regional actors.
The US president has announced his intention to intervene diplomatically once again, saying he will personally call the leaders of both countries to try to ‘stop the killing’ and save the credibility of US mediation. Cambodia says it is ‘ready at any time’ to negotiate, but on the ground, military operations continue unabated.
Implications
This seemingly peripheral conflict is a test of several things at once. It is a test of Trump's ability to turn his diplomatic successes in his first year in office into lasting agreements; a test for ASEAN, whose regional security architecture is being called into question; and an indicator of the extent to which China will seek to exploit any vacuum of influence to present itself as an alternative mediator.
From our Atlanticist perspective, the essential thing is that the United States does not renounce its role as the ultimate guarantor of balance in the Indo-Pacific, without resorting to direct military interventions that its citizens do not want. Energetic diplomacy, backed by economic pressure and coordination with Japan, India and Australia, can prevent a border incident from escalating into open war. But if the West holds back, others—less scrupulous—will fill the void.
Nobel Peace Prize: María Corina Machado and the obligation to fight for freedom
Facts
María Corina Machado, leader of the Venezuelan opposition, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, although she was unable to attend the ceremony in Oslo due to a travel ban and threats from the Maduro regime. Her speech, read by her daughter, was forceful: ‘Democracies must be prepared to fight for freedom if they want to survive.’ The Nobel laureate recalled how Venezuela has insidiously slipped into dictatorship since 1999 and stressed that Hugo Chávez's charisma could not replace the rule of law.
The Norwegian Nobel Institute, which even had to cancel a press conference due to uncertainty about her whereabouts, has focused on Machado's courage and the need for a democratic transition in Venezuela. Various media outlets report that the Venezuelan leader has dedicated part of the prize to Donald Trump, in recognition of his policy of pressure against Maduro, thus breaking many taboos of the old Latin American left.
Implications
From our editorial standpoint—clearly opposed to Chavismo and in solidarity with those who fight for freedom—this Nobel Prize is much more than a personal award: it is a moral indictment of Maduro's narco-tyranny and of those, both inside and outside Latin America, who have whitewashed Chavismo for years.
That a figure like Machado, persecuted, disqualified and forced into hiding, should be the voice of Venezuelan democracy in Oslo should appeal to any true democrat.
Furthermore, the prize reinforces the legitimacy of firm measures against the regime, from selective sanctions to pressure on its international support network — including its partners in Tehran, Moscow and Havana. And it sends an uncomfortable message to certain European and North American leftists, including the far left of the US Democratic Party, which continues to flirt with Bolivarian experiments despite their history of corruption, misery and repression. The contrast between Machado's speech and the silence or excuses of these sectors is striking.
Yemen: Southern separatists threaten to reopen all-out war
Facts
In Yemen, the Southern Transitional Council, backed by the United Arab Emirates, has taken control of large areas of the provinces of Hadramaut and Mahra, including key oil infrastructure. The operation has broken the relative calm that had settled in after fragile agreements between the internationally recognised government, the Houthis and various regional actors.
The separatist offensive has forced the temporary closure of airspace and set off alarm bells in Gulf capitals, which fear a new multi-front war between pro-Iranian Houthis, pro-government forces backed by Saudi Arabia and separatist militias supported by Abu Dhabi.
Implications
For European security, Yemen is much more than a ‘distant’ conflict: it is a strategic hub on the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden route, through which a significant portion of the world's trade in hydrocarbons and goods passes. A return to all-out war, coupled with the aggressiveness of the Houthis—proxies of Iran—against international ships, threatens to make maritime transport more expensive, further destabilise the energy market and open up new opportunities for Tehran to blackmail the West.
In line with our forthright criticism of the Iranian regime and its armed forces, this resurgence of war confirms that unilateral concessions to Tehran and its allies only serve to embolden them. Europe should abandon its naivety and coordinate with the United States and its Arab partners on a strategy of multiple pressure: prudent but firm military containment, massive humanitarian support for the population, and holding accountable those who torpedo any hint of peace.
Ukraine: war of attrition, drones and the debate over elections in the midst of invasion
Facts
In Ukraine, Russia is conducting a systematic campaign of missile and drone attacks against energy and transport infrastructure, causing widespread power cuts and forcing the authorities to deploy physical protection networks, such as anti-drone nets, on roads and in cities near the front line. Millions of Ukrainians are suffering from regular power cuts, while Kiev is trying to keep its electricity and rail networks operational.
At the same time, the debate is intensifying over whether it is possible to hold elections in a country under total aggression. A large percentage of the population is opposed to going to the polls in the midst of war, according to recent polls cited by Reuters, while institutions and their European partners are exploring ways to maintain democratic legitimacy without falling into suicidal formalism.
Implications
Our position has always been clear: Russian aggression is illegitimate and illegal under the principles of the United Nations Charter, and no settlement that enshrines annexations by force can be acceptable to serious Atlanticism. Ukraine has the right to defend itself and to receive sustained military aid. At the same time, we must recognise the real tension between the need to preserve democratic normality and the demands of an existential war. Those who today demand elections ‘as if nothing were happening’ in Ukraine would rarely apply that standard to their own country under bombardment.
The other key dimension is financial: the EU is nearing an agreement to mobilise up to €165 billion in loans backed by frozen Russian assets, while independent data confirms that European military aid, although significant, still does not fully compensate for the slowdown in US aid. If the West hesitates, the cost will not only be Ukrainian; it will be a world where the use of force to alter borders is, de facto, decriminalised.
Gaza: pressure on Hamas, local anti-Islamist groups and rejection of disarmament
Facts
In Gaza, armed groups operating from Israeli-controlled areas say they will continue to fight Hamas despite the recent death of one of its most prominent commanders. They claim to have been gaining recruits since the October ceasefire and aspire to play a stable role in the political future of the Strip. At the same time, Khaled Meshaal has stated on Al Jazeera that disarmament would ‘rip the soul’ out of Hamas and has flatly rejected any scenario involving giving up arms, even if it unblocks the reconstruction of Gaza.
The resulting dynamic is explosive: the Strip is devastated after two years of war, fragmented between areas under Israeli control, areas still dominated by Hamas, and areas disputed between different Palestinian forces. International efforts to stabilise the situation are hampered by Hamas' refusal to become an exclusively political actor.
Implications
From our editorial standpoint, Hamas is, plain and simple, a terrorist organisation that shamelessly uses its own population as human shields and propaganda hostages. The fact that its leaders continue to defend armed struggle even at the cost of the total destruction of Gaza confirms that their priority is not the dignity and well-being of the Palestinian people, but the perpetuation of a jihad with no end in sight.
The emergence of small anti-Hamas armed groups does not guarantee the emergence of a democratic alternative; if not handled with extreme care, it could be a recipe for chaotic armed feudalism.
Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of the pro-Iranian terrorist constellation, but the only sustainable solution lies in a security and governance architecture that gives the Palestinian people a real alternative to radical Islamism. If Europe wants to be more than just a moralising bystander, it should focus on that: working with the United States and responsible Arab countries to build a political and economic framework that makes Islamist terror politically unviable.
China: record trade surplus and concerns about 2026
Facts
China has just exceeded $1 trillion in annual trade surplus for the first time, relying on buoyant exports to non-US markets, while its imports disappoint and reflect weaker domestic demand. The Communist Party leadership, meeting in the Politburo, has announced that in 2026 it will implement ‘more proactive’ policies to sustain demand and avoid an abrupt slowdown in the world's second-largest economy.
At the same time, Japanese companies surveyed by Reuters say their main fear for 2026 is the deterioration of bilateral relations with China, closely followed by uncertainty over US trade policy. This combination of record surpluses, geopolitical tensions and domestic weakness paints a picture of apparent external strength and domestic fragility.
Implications
For Europe, which is already moving towards a worrying digital and technological dependence, China's export boom is an uncomfortable reminder: while Brussels multiplies regulations, Beijing multiplies factories, ports and agreements in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Our Europeanism cannot be an excuse for strategic resignation that condemns us to digital and productive vassalage.
From our perspective, we must be very vigilant about Chinese expansionism: in the South China Sea, in the Pacific (Maldives, Sri Lanka), in Africa and in Latin America, where the combination of financing, infrastructure and technological presence is creating dependencies that are difficult to reverse. Today's surplus is tomorrow's geopolitical power. The appropriate response is not blind protectionism, but rather an intelligent industrial policy, strengthened alliances with the United States, Korea, Japan and India, and a down-to-earth economic security strategy.
‘Supercharged’ storms in South Asia: climate change as a risk multiplier
Facts
A study released in recent hours concludes that the storms that devastated Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in late November were “supercharged” by unusually high ocean temperatures and exacerbated by rapid deforestation. The cyclone that hit Indonesia and Sri Lanka left nearly 950 people dead and hundreds missing, as well as massive damage to infrastructure and homes.
The consequences are not only humanitarian: trade routes, energy facilities and key urban centres have suffered serious disruptions, and governments estimate reconstruction costs to exceed $3 billion in some cases.
Implications
From a geopolitical and security perspective, climate change is not a rhetorical slogan; it is a threat multiplier. In regions such as South and Southeast Asia, recurrent storms, floods and cyclones fuel governance crises, mass population displacements and the emergence of power vacuums that are exploited by extremist groups, criminal networks and opportunistic powers.
For Europe and the Atlantic world, this should translate into very concrete policies: support for climate resilience in key countries, integration of climate risk into defence and security planning, and less naive energy and environmental diplomacy. If we allow the climate narrative to be monopolised by radicalism, we will cede ground to those who believe neither in the market economy nor in liberal representative democracy.
Paramount's offensive on Warner Bros and the Gulf's strategic bet on Hollywood
Facts
Paramount Skydance has launched a hostile $108 billion bid to take over Warner Bros Discovery, challenging Netflix's previous agreement and completely reconfiguring the power map in the global audiovisual industry. The operation is backed by a consortium of Gulf sovereign wealth funds — the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), an Abu Dhabi vehicle and the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) — which are contributing some $24 billion, nearly 60% of the operation's equity, in an unusual alliance between three regional rivals.
The Gulf funds and Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners fund have agreed to waive voting rights and board seats to avoid scrutiny by US regulators, particularly the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The agreement comes alongside other moves by the same players in video games, theme parks and streaming platforms (video on demand), as part of a strategy to diversify beyond oil and build soft power through entertainment.
Implications
This is not just a major corporate operation: we are seeing the board of strategic influence shift, once again, towards intangibles. The fact that three Gulf powers—competitors on so many fronts—are joining forces to make a grand entrance into Hollywood reveals the extent to which they consider audiovisual content to be a weapon of soft power as relevant as oil pipelines or sovereign wealth funds. The logic, as the financial press itself points out, is more political than strictly financial: the return is measured in image, access and the ability to shape global narratives, not just in dividends.
From an Atlanticist and pro-European perspective, this operation raises several red flags. The first concerns the growing dependence of major Western cultural brands on undemocratic state capital: even if they renounce voting rights today, their mere status as preferred creditors and financial partners gives them considerable de facto weight. The second concerns the contrast between the strategic ambition of the Gulf and the regulatory and financial complacency of a Europe that risks being reduced to a consumer market with no control over its own narratives.
Finally, the Gulf's offensive on Hollywood fits in with the transactional diplomacy that marks this new era in Washington: massive investments in the United States, proximity to the Trump administration and privileged access to the major centres of cultural decision-making. If liberal democracies do not want the narrative about themselves to end up being filtered by capitals whose priority is not exactly freedom of expression, they will have to take the strategic dimension of their cultural industries much more seriously.
Media Rack
Leading Anglo-Saxon press (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, FT, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian)
They agree on placing the Fed's cut and its divided vote on the economic front page, highlighting the tension between persistent inflation and fears of a self-induced recession. The Washington Post and others highlight the seizure of the oil tanker linked to Venezuela as a qualitative leap in Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Maduro.
Global agencies (Reuters, AP, AFP, DPA)
They structure the agenda around four themes: the Fed and the markets; the Venezuelan oil tanker and the ‘world flooded with crude oil’; the escalation between Thailand and Cambodia; and the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Machado. AP and other agencies add a focus on Yemen and the effects of storms in Asia as components of systemic risk.
Continental Europe (Le Monde, Le Figaro, FAZ, Die Welt, Corriere, La Tribune de Genève)
They give great prominence to the figure of María Corina Machado and the significance of the Nobel Prize for the Venezuelan opposition, with analyses linking this case to the fragility of democracies in Latin America. The economic press emphasises the combination of a softer Fed, China's record surplus and the European debate on the use of frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine.
Ibero-American media (Clarín, El Mercurio, Reforma, Venezuelan press in exile)
They highlight the seizure of the oil tanker as another blow to the Chavista regime, and Machado's Nobel Prize as moral recognition of the democratic resistance. In the Southern Cone, additional attention is paid to the implications of the ‘oil-flooded world’ for their own trade balances and for OPEC+.
Arab world (Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Asharq al-Awsat, Arab News)
Al Jazeera highlights Meshaal's interview and Hamas' rejection of any disarmament, while Al Arabiya and others give more weight to Yemen and the risks to Gulf security. The coverage reflects the rift between the pro-Iranian axis and Arab countries committed to stability, economic openness and cooperation with the West.
Asia-Pacific (Straits Times, South China Morning Post, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Yomiuri, Gulf News, Khaleej Times)
The Straits Times summarises the day in five stories: the Fed, the Thai-Cambodian border, Machado's Nobel Prize, Yemen and storms in Asia, highlighting the extent to which they are perceived as pieces of the same global risk puzzle. The Indian and Chinese press focuses mainly on Beijing's trade surplus and the impact of US monetary policy on Asia.
Think tanks and magazines (The Economist, Foreign Affairs, The National Interest, Foreign Policy)
The Economist, in its ‘World in brief’, summarises the day in three points: a divided Fed, a Venezuelan oil tanker and a world awash with oil. Foreign Affairs and others analyse the sustainability of the Western strategy in Ukraine and the symbolic value of Machado's Nobel Prize in the global battle between autocracies and democracies.
Editorial commentary
The last 24 hours bring us back to a central idea that I have defended many times: history is not over (Francis Fukuyama's absurd thesis), far from it. While some take refuge in relativism and wokism — that toxic mix of selective guilt, frivolity and ideological extremism — others are fighting a real battle for freedom, at personal cost and risking their freedom and even their lives... Chorrito, step back, chorrito María Corina Machado, sought after, persecuted and harassed by the repugnant Chavista-Leninist-tropical narco-dictatorship (which plunders her country and crushes and oppresses her people) becomes the voice of millions of Venezuelans who refuse to give up. Opposing her is a regime that finances its survival through massive drug trafficking (the regime and its cartel of the suns are the world champions of cocaine), illegal oil, blood-stained gold, illegal mining, illegal exports and modern slavery, as well as its repulsive complicity with jihadist terrorism, for which it launders part of its money.
At the same time, the Fed is trying to steer the global economy on a tightrope, Thailand and Cambodia are teetering on the brink of war, Yemen is burning again, Ukraine is resisting under Russian drones, and Gaza remains trapped between the fanaticism of the Hamas terrorist organisation and the extreme suffering of an exhausted population. All this while China racks up surpluses and ‘supercharged’ climate storms hit Asia. Given this scenario, neutrality is not an option: either you side with liberal democracies — with all their flaws — or you leave the field open to autocrats, narco-dictators and fanatics.
Our editorial line is clear: we are unapologetic Atlanticists, demanding Europeanists, defenders of the market economy, of a well-managed welfare state, of real equality between men and women, of religious freedom and human dignity in the face of any form of terrorism, whether jihadist, narco or state. And, as Machado's speech read by his daughter in Oslo reminds us, freedom does not maintain itself: we must be willing to fight for democracy and freedom, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice. Opposed to the irresponsible and malicious recklessness of relativism is an unwavering and heroic commitment to freedom and democracy, which today, although many ignore it, are in serious danger.