Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 12 December
- Introduction
- The United States seizes a large Venezuelan oil tanker: a direct blow to the regime's coffers
- ‘Sanctions and seizures’: the Trump doctrine against Chavismo is consolidated
- María Corina Machado in Oslo: the democratic opposition speaks the language of real power
- Disney invests $1 billion in OpenAI: culture enters fully into the geopolitics of AI
- Russia: an economy that is not collapsing... but sliding towards an increasingly expensive and inefficient model
- India: robust growth, macro stability and jealously guarded strategic autonomy
- Phone call between Trump and Modi: trade friction, strategic convergence
- The race for strategic minerals: the new geopolitical battlefield
- Do Kwon sentenced to 15 years in prison: the rule of law catches up with the crypto bubble
- Bulgaria: political crisis on the eve of the euro, a warning for Europe
- Media Rack
- Editorial commentary
Introduction
The last 24 hours confirm a qualitative shift in the way the United States has decided to deal with criminal regimes and tyrannical revisionism: less rhetoric, more real leverage. The seizure of a large Venezuelan oil tanker is not an isolated gesture or a legal eccentricity; it is the most visible and effective expression of a multidimensional pressure doctrine that combines financial coercion, attacks on the cartels that finance the regime and enrich its leaders, and political pressure.
This hardening coincides with two parallel realities. On the one hand, the progressive exhaustion of authoritarian economic models, especially the Russian one, which survive on the basis of military spending, controls and propaganda, but are beginning to show structural cracks. On the other hand, the reconfiguration of global power around technology, energy and strategic raw materials, with India emerging as a central, not subordinate, player on that board.
In this context, María Corina Machado's international reappearance in Oslo is not merely a human or symbolic episode: it is a heroic political act of the first order that aligns with the central idea of this historic moment: dictatorships fall when the flow of dirty money is cut off, not when they are lectured.
The United States seizes a large Venezuelan oil tanker: a direct blow to the regime's coffers
Facts:
The United States confirmed the physical seizure of a large oil tanker carrying Venezuelan crude oil in an operation carried out outside Venezuelan territorial waters and formally presented as part of legal proceedings related to the violation of international sanctions.
This is not a simple administrative detention or a subsequent fine: the ship was taken under US control, its cargo seized and its destination redirected. It is an extraordinary measure, rare even in the context of sanctions, and marks a turning point in the policy of pressure on Caracas.
US authorities link the cargo to sanctions evasion networks, the use of front companies and common practices of the so-called shadow fleet (clandestine fleet): transponders turned off, ship-to-ship transfers, falsified documentation and opaque routes with intermediaries in Asia and the Middle East.
The regime's reaction was immediate and predictable: accusations of ‘piracy’, diplomatic victimisation and rhetorical threats with no real capacity for response. But what was relevant was not the rhetoric, but the subsequent silence of many actors who, until now, had been discreetly benefiting from cheap Venezuelan crude oil without any uncomfortable questions.
Implications:
This seizure is not a symbolic punishment; it is a surgical strike at the financial heart of the narco-dictatorship. Maduro's regime does not govern: it administers a mafia-like structure whose main fuel is hydrocarbon exports. Each shipment is cash to buy military loyalties, finance repressive apparatus and sustain transnational criminal networks.
By intervening in transport—not just sales—Washington exponentially raises the cost of doing business. Not only for PDVSA, but also for shipowners, insurers, banks, traders, and ports that participate, directly or indirectly, in the chain. The message is clear: anyone who touches Venezuelan oil assumes legal, financial, and reputational risk.
From a strategic point of view, this approach has several decisive advantages:
- It does not require military deployment on the ground.
- It reduces the regime's capacity for victimisation.
- It fragments the corrupt internal coalition by reducing disposable income.
- It forces third countries to rethink their ‘interested neutrality’.
Are there risks? Yes. All real pressure has risks. There may be attempts at asymmetric retaliation, international litigation or even maritime incidents. But Washington's calculation is clear: the cost of inaction is greater than that of sustained pressure.
‘Sanctions and seizures’: the Trump doctrine against Chavismo is consolidated
Facts:
The Financial Times and other major media outlets describe this operation as part of a broader strategy: combining traditional sanctions with direct executive actions, especially seizures, to prevent the regime from continuing to finance itself through legal loopholes and parallel economies.
It is no coincidence that this policy has intensified under Donald Trump's presidency. His foreign policy approach, far from rhetorical idealism, is based on a classic premise of political realism: criminal regimes do not respond to speeches, they respond to incentives and costs.
The White House has hinted that this is not an isolated action, but the beginning of a more persistent campaign against the logistical routes of Venezuelan crude oil, with special attention to Asian intermediaries and the collusion of state actors who look the other way.
Implications:
We are facing a change of phase. For years, Chavismo learned to live with sanctions ‘on paper,’ adapting through financial engineering, front men, and opacity. The seizure breaks that logic because it interrupts the physical flow, not just declares it illegal.
Furthermore, this policy has a corrosive internal effect. When income declines, dictatorships based on corruption enter into internal competition. Less money means less ability to buy silence, less room to arbitrate conflicts between clans, and more tensions within the apparatus.
From an Atlantic perspective, this strategy is preferable to the alternative. It is not military intervention; it is the application of international rule of law against a regime that has completely demolished it.
And it forces Europe to engage in some uncomfortable reflection: will it continue to look the other way while the United States does the dirty work, or will it assume its responsibility?
María Corina Machado in Oslo: the democratic opposition speaks the language of real power
Facts:
María Corina Machado's appearance in Oslo marks her visible return to the international stage after months of hiding and persecution. It was not just another press conference. It was a measured political act, in the right place and at the right time.
Machado did not limit herself to denouncing repression or calling for abstract solidarity. She explicitly endorsed actions that weaken the regime's financial capacity, pointing out that without cutting off oil money, no transition will be possible.
She also emphasised a key point that many prefer to ignore: Maduro's regime is not only authoritarian, it is a criminal network with connections to drug trafficking, international terrorism and actors hostile to the West. Treating it as a conventional government is a strategic mistake.
Implications:
Machado understands something essential: the battle for Venezuela is being fought both inside and outside the country. And outside, it is being fought in the courts, in the financial markets, in maritime insurance and in international legitimacy.
Her message in Oslo reinforces a necessary narrative: pressure works when it is concrete. By aligning itself with real measures — seizures, executive sanctions, prosecution of networks — the Venezuelan democratic opposition presents itself not as a moral chorus, but as a strategic actor.
This makes many people uncomfortable. It makes the naive uncomfortable, those who believe in endless ‘dialogues’ with an armed mafia. And it makes the cynical uncomfortable, those in Europe or Latin America who have normalised dealing with Chavismo for energy or ideological convenience.
Machado's presence on a highly symbolic international stage reduces the space for equidistance. Either you are with liberal democracy, or you are financing a narco-dictatorship. There is no comfortable third way.
Disney invests $1 billion in OpenAI: culture enters fully into the geopolitics of AI
Facts:
Disney announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI, accompanied by a strategic agreement to explore the use of generative artificial intelligence tools — including advanced video capabilities — in content creation and management.
This is not a passive financial investment. It is an industrial and cultural commitment. Disney, an emblem of American soft power, has decided not to fight AI from the outside, but to integrate itself into its core, establishing conditions on rights, licensing and brand control.
The move comes after years of tension in Hollywood: strikes, copyright litigation, fear of talent replacement and an ongoing debate about the boundary between technological assistance and creative replacement.
Implications:
This operation has a clear geopolitical reading. AI is no longer just an economic or military tool: it is cultural infrastructure. Whoever controls the engines that generate images, narratives and symbolic universes controls an essential part of the collective imagination.
Disney is buying influence, not just technology. It is securing a seat at the table where the rules of the game will be decided: what can be generated, with what data, under what licences and with what limits. And in doing so, it consolidates OpenAI as a central player in the Western cultural ecosystem.
The risk is obvious. If the public perceives that creativity is becoming a template product, the reaction will be harsh. But the biggest risk would be to stay out. In that sense, Disney is acting with strategic coldness: better to shape the monster than be devoured by it.
Russia: an economy that is not collapsing... but sliding towards an increasingly expensive and inefficient model
Facts:
The Economist warns that the Russian economy, presented by the Kremlin as ‘resilient’ in the face of Western sanctions, is beginning to show clear signs of structural fatigue. There is no immediate collapse, but there is an accumulation of tensions that make the model increasingly unsustainable.
The growth observed in 2023 and part of 2024 was driven almost exclusively by massive military spending, financed by still-high energy revenues and lax fiscal policy. That momentum is now beginning to lose steam. Inflation remains high, interest rates remain high to contain it, and key civilian sectors—infrastructure, consumption, innovation—are stagnating.
Added to this is a demographic problem exacerbated by the war: forced mobilisation, emigration of skilled workers and deterioration of the labour market. Russia produces weapons and ammunition, yes, but it sacrifices human capital and future productivity.
Implications:
The central question is not whether Russia will ‘hold out’, but at what cost and for how long. The current model is based on three fragile pillars: military spending as an economic driver, reinforced political control and growing dependence on Asian markets—especially China—under asymmetrical conditions.
With each passing month, Moscow buys short-term stability by mortgaging the long term. Military spending does not generate well-being; it generates dependence on the state, latent inflation and profound distortions. When the Kremlin reduces civilian investment to sustain the war, it erodes the social base of passive consent that has sustained the regime.
From a strategic point of view, this has a direct consequence: Russia becomes more dangerous as it weakens. A regime that perceives its margins narrowing may be tempted to escalate, block agreements or use external destabilisation as an internal escape valve.
Therefore, any negotiations on Ukraine must start from a clear premise: aggression cannot be rewarded with economic relief that consolidates territorial revisionism. Freezing the conflict on terms favourable to Moscow would be to misread history... and the character of the regime.
India: robust growth, macro stability and jealously guarded strategic autonomy
Facts:
The Economist describes the Indian economy as a unique case: high growth, solid reserves and the ability to absorb external shocks, even in a context of trade pressure from the United States.
India continues to benefit from a combination of factors: strong domestic demand, public investment in infrastructure, accelerated digitalisation and sustained attraction of foreign capital. At the same time, structural imbalances persist: social inequality, informal employment and educational challenges across broad swathes of the population.
Despite this, the overall picture is clear: India is consolidating its position as one of the major global growth poles and as a partial—not total—alternative to China in industrial and technological supply chains.
Implications:
India is not a satellite and does not aspire to be one. Its foreign and economic policy is guided by a firm principle: strategic autonomy. This means cooperating with the West without subordinating itself, maintaining relations with Russia without endorsing its aggression, and competing with China without precipitating a direct confrontation.
For the United States and Europe, this requires maturity. India shares more values with liberal democracies than with authoritarian regimes, but rejects any tutelage. Pressuring it with tariffs or unilateral demands is counterproductive.
The great strategic opportunity is clear: to integrate India into an Atlantic-Indo-Pacific economic, technological and security architecture based on shared interests, not impositions. Those who fail to understand this will push New Delhi towards a more distant balance... and leave room for Beijing.
Phone call between Trump and Modi: trade friction, strategic convergence
Facts:
Reuters reported on a call between US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, focusing on bilateral relations and trade tensions arising from Washington's tariffs on certain Indian products.
The conversation took place in a complex negotiating context: the United States is seeking to rebalance its trade balance and push for greater market openness; India is defending its domestic industry and its economic room for manoeuvre.
Implications:
This call is a classic example of a strategic relationship with tactical friction. Washington and New Delhi need each other, but both are playing hardball. Trump understands the language of interest; Modi, that of sovereign dignity.
The risk is not a breakdown, but attrition. If the relationship is reduced to a tariff tug-of-war, the strategic perspective will be lost: cooperation in defence, technology, artificial intelligence, space and critical minerals. That would be a mistake that would only benefit China.
The solution lies in a comprehensive agreement: gradual trade concessions in exchange for deep strategic alignment. India is key to containing Chinese expansionism in Asia; treating it as a minor partner would be a historic mistake.
The race for strategic minerals: the new geopolitical battlefield
Facts:
The United States is accelerating its strategy to secure the supply of critical minerals—lithium, rare earths, graphite, nickel, copper—essential for the energy transition, the defence industry and cutting-edge technologies.
Think tanks such as Carnegie and the Atlantic Council agree on the diagnosis: the problem is not only extraction, but also processing and refining, where China maintains an overwhelming structural advantage.
Washington is exploring a combination of domestic mining, alliances with producing countries and financial incentives to develop alternative value chains. The debate also extends to Europe, with regulatory delays and social resistance to new extraction projects.
Implications:
A decisive game of the 21st century is being played here. Without critical minerals, there is no technological or energy sovereignty. And today, the West is overly dependent on chains dominated by China, which does not hesitate to exploit them for political ends.
But the response cannot be improvised. Accelerating without social consensus can lead to internal conflicts, judicial blockages and political attrition that ultimately weaken democracies from within.
The right strategy requires balance: more agile but demanding permits, investment in recycling and replacement, alliances with reliable countries and active defence of our own industrial chains. This is not about autarky, but strategic resilience.
China has understood this for two decades. The West is late, but there is still time... if it acts seriously and with a long-term vision.
Do Kwon sentenced to 15 years in prison: the rule of law catches up with the crypto bubble
Facts:
A court sentenced Do Kwon, founder of Terraform Labs, to 15 years in prison for massive fraud related to the collapse of the TerraUSD/Luna ecosystem, one of the biggest financial disasters linked to crypto assets in the last decade.
The court ruling states that Kwon falsified essential information, manipulated supposedly ‘algorithmic’ mechanisms and concealed structural risks while promoting TerraUSD as a reliable stablecoin. The 2022 collapse wiped out tens of billions of dollars, ruined hundreds of thousands of small investors and caused a domino effect in the global crypto market.
The court was particularly harsh in its moral assessment of the case, emphasising the human impact of the fraud: personal bankruptcies, loss of vital savings and severe psychological damage. This was not a market error, but conscious and repeated deception.
Implications:
This conviction marks a turning point. For years, part of the crypto ecosystem hid behind innovation to evade basic responsibilities, presenting fraud as an ‘inherent risk’ and opacity as ‘decentralisation’.
The message is now clear: innovation does not suspend the rule of law. The market economy needs rules; without them, there is no economic freedom, but rather a financial jungle where the most ruthless prevail.
From a liberal perspective — the authentic one, not the libertarian caricature — this ruling is positive. It cleans up the market, protects investors and reminds us of a basic truth: trust is the most valuable asset in the financial system. Without trust, there is no market; there is a casino.
In the medium term, we will see more regulation, more litigation and more demands for transparency. Some will undoubtedly be excessive. But the damage caused by impunity was already unsustainable. The cycle of crypto adolescence is over.
Bulgaria: political crisis on the eve of the euro, a warning for Europe
Facts:
Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov and his government resigned just weeks before the country's planned entry into the eurozone. The decision came after massive protests against corruption, parliamentary tensions and the imminence of a motion of no confidence.
Bulgaria had met the technical criteria for adopting the euro, but the political climate deteriorated rapidly. A significant part of the population perceives that monetary integration benefits discredited political and economic elites, without improving institutional quality or combating endemic corruption.
Implications:
This episode is a stark warning to the European Union. Monetary stability is no substitute for political legitimacy. Joining the euro requires more than just ratios: it requires trust in institutions, effective rule of law and a perception of social justice.
When these elements fail, the euro becomes the perfect scapegoat for populists, extremists and disinformation campaigns, many of them encouraged from Moscow. Europe cannot afford this wilful blindness.
The lesson is clear: without deep institutional reforms, integration becomes fragile. And a fragile Europe is a vulnerable Europe, unable to project power, defend values or resist pressure from revisionist powers.
Media Rack
Anglo-Saxon media
Financial Times / Reuters / AP: converge in highlighting the US escalation against Venezuela as a deliberate and sustained policy, not an episodic one. In economics, they highlight Russian attrition and the regulatory shift in crypto assets.
The Economist: offers the most solid interpretative framework: Russia is holding out, but slipping; India is emerging as a pivotal player; AI and minerals are defining the new geopolitics.
Continental European media
Le Monde / Le Figaro / FAZ / Die Welt: emphasise the consequences for Europe of US pressure on Venezuela and internal political fragility, exemplified by Bulgaria.
Corriere della Sera: warns of the impact of energy sanctions and European dependence on decisions made in Washington and Beijing.
Middle Eastern and Asian media
Al-Arabiya / Asharq Al-Awsat: closely observe the pressure on Caracas and its connections with Iran.
Times of India / Indian Express: highlight Modi's negotiating position and India's centrality as a technological and geopolitical partner.
South China Morning Post / China Daily: downplay the Western race for minerals and present China as a ‘responsible’ actor, a classic exercise in propaganda.
Eastern European and Ukrainian media
Kyiv Post / Ukrinform / The Kyiv Independent: insist that any economic relief for Russia without territorial withdrawal would be a historic mistake.
Editorial commentary
The seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker is not excessive: it is a proportionate response to a narco-dictatorship that has turned the state into an instrument of plunder, repression and collusion with terrorism.
For too long, part of the West confused prudence with cowardice and dialogue with complacency. The result is clear to see: emboldened dictatorships, enriched state mafias and abandoned citizens. Cutting off the money is not a ‘Trumpist’ extravagance; it is a moral and strategic necessity.
Russia, for its part, shows that a war economy can be sustained for a time, but not without cost. With each passing month, the Kremlin sacrifices the future for the present. And Europe would be wrong to forget that rewarding aggression only guarantees further aggression.
India is emerging as the great strategic opportunity of the decade. Treating it with respect, without paternalism or short-sighted trade threats, is a necessity for those of us who believe in an international order based on balance, not vassalage.
And Europe must look in the mirror. Without the rule of law, without solid institutions and without moral leadership, no currency, market or project can survive. Bulgaria is not an anecdote; it is a warning.
In short, this is not a time for relativism or diplomatic wokism. It is a time to prioritise liberal democracy, the rule of law and a firm, realistic and unapologetic foreign policy. Everything else is noise and an irresponsible invitation to irrelevance or the implosion of the system.