Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 18 December
- Introduction
- The ‘Russian assets summit’: the EU discusses using frozen funds to support Ukraine (2026–27)
- The GRU's war of intimidation: Russian pressure on Belgium and Euroclear
- Ukraine resists and reconfigures its military position: Pokrovsk and the logic of attrition
- Trump's oil ‘blockade’ against Venezuela: escalation of maximum pressure
- The oil market on red alert: volatility and opportunity for fracking
- Trump: yesterday's speech and the return of the ‘strong state’ (borders, energy and security)
- Congress approves a defence behemoth (NDAA): Ukraine and Venezuela enter the law despite political friction
- The anti-Iranian energy axis: the Israel-Egypt agreement (≈35 billion) and gas as regional architecture
- Europe and Mercosur: farmers raise their voices, Brussels struggles with safeguards
- China accelerates its chip ‘Manhattan Project’: EUV lithography, Huawei and the end of naivety
- Media Rack
- Editorial comment
Introduction
The day leaves a clear pattern: economic coercion is once again foreign policy in its purest form, and technology has, without metaphor, achieved the status of a strategic weapon. In Washington, the Trump administration is tightening its grip on the Chavista narco-state with a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers, accompanying this gesture with a national discourse focused on security, border control and energy.
In Brussels, the EU summit is entering its decisive phase: the question is no longer whether to support Ukraine, but how to finance it without committing legal suicide and without giving the Kremlin a precedent for undermining confidence in the euro. The debate over frozen Russian assets thus becomes a test of European geopolitical maturity.
At the same time, Beijing is accelerating its ‘Manhattan Project’ for chips, i.e., its attempt to break the Western monopoly on EUV lithography: if China reduces this dependence, it will change the balance of power in AI, defence and industry.
The ‘Russian assets summit’: the EU discusses using frozen funds to support Ukraine (2026–27)
Facts
EU leaders are discussing a mechanism to finance Ukraine with a large loan backed by frozen Russian assets. The key figure today is ≈€210 billion in Russian sovereign assets frozen in the EU, with the largest concentration in Belgium, at Euroclear (around ≈€185–194 billion depending on the cut-off and methodology).
The proposal gaining the most traction is a ‘reparations loan’ to Ukraine in the order of ≈€90 billion for 2026–27, backed by these assets. Belgium is demanding legal protection and risk sharing, and there is open political reluctance in Hungary and Slovakia, which maintain an operational affinity with Moscow.
Regarding private funds, the verifiable and documented figure at EU level is ≈€28 billion in frozen Russian private (non-sovereign) assets. Other higher estimates tend to mix jurisdictions or categories, but the solid reference here is that of the European Parliament.
Implications
Europe faces its starkest dilemma: either it turns Russian assets into strategic leverage, or it accepts a future of political dependence. The obstacle is not technical; it is political and legal. Belgium and Luxembourg fear becoming the ‘lightning rod’ for Russian retaliation: lawsuits, countermeasures, freezing of Western assets, reputational sabotage of the European clearing and settlement system.
The reluctance of Hungary and Slovakia has another flavour: it is not prudence, it is ideological calculation and opportunism. And that is corrosive, because Moscow does not need to defeat the EU militarily; it is enough to fracture it.
If the EU fails to resolve this, the message to Kyiv will be devastating: ‘resist, but without guarantee’; and the message to Moscow even worse: ‘hold on, because time is on your side’. The strategic consequence is clear: annexation by force cannot be normalised, nor can territorial revisionism be rewarded.
The GRU's war of intimidation: Russian pressure on Belgium and Euroclear
Facts
European services warn of a GRU intimidation campaign against Belgian officials and financial executives to block the plan to use frozen Russian assets, with a focus on Euroclear. The figure of ≈€185 billion in Russian central bank assets held there is mentioned.
Implications
This confirms that Moscow understands perfectly where it hurts: the financial infrastructure. This is not just a trench war; it is a war against the nerves of the European system. If Europe gives in out of fear, it opens up a highway: tomorrow it will be Euroclear; tomorrow, ports, power grids, satellites or submarine cables. Intimidation is a form of reverse deterrence: it aims to make Europe deter itself.
Ukraine resists and reconfigures its military position: Pokrovsk and the logic of attrition
Facts
On the Pokrovsk axis, Kyiv claims to have regained ≈16 km² in the north of the sector, while Russia insists on advances and encirclement. Russia's difficulty in urban combat and the dispute over effective control of the terrain remain open.
At the same time, Ukraine is signing agreements with Germany: a package of ≈1.4 billion dollars is reported, focused on air defence, sustainment and drone production, within a growing industrial support architecture.
Implications
The war is now a long-term war of attrition: the winner will be whoever sustains their defence industry, civil resilience and external political support. The Atlanticist point is obvious: Russian military pressure is incompatible with any European stability. And for that reason, any negotiation will have to be accompanied by solid guarantees for Kiev, as close as possible to NATO's ‘Article 5’ — even if it is formulated under another label — without turning the occupation into a prize.
Trump's oil ‘blockade’ against Venezuela: escalation of maximum pressure
Facts
Markets and diplomacy react to Trump's announcement to block sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. Reuters highlights the uncertainty of practical implementation, but also the precedent: seizures and operational signs of maritime coercion.
Implications
The measure strikes at the heart of the regime: foreign currency, internal loyalties and corruption networks. A narco-state lives off cash; if you cut off the cash, you cut off its breath. And here it is worth saying it bluntly: Chavismo is not a ‘controversial government’; it is a mafia organisation that sustains itself through repression, drug trafficking and alliances with criminal actors.
That said, it must be executed intelligently: a poorly framed blockade could give Maduro the role of victim. A well-calibrated blockade — legally and with clear objectives — is exactly the opposite: the democratic state defending the international order against a criminal regime.
The oil market on red alert: volatility and opportunity for fracking
Detailed facts
Crude oil reacts upwards: Reuters reports prices around Brent ≈60.10 and WTI ≈56.38 during the session, in an environment where the market is also discounting possible additional sanctions on Russia if it does not accept a peace framework.
In previous closings, Reuters reported that Brent and WTI had risen >1% following the announcement of the blockade.
In terms of volume, Reuters estimates that the blockade puts at risk around ≈600,000 barrels/day of Venezuelan exports, with a large part going to China (and with nuances due to specific licences).
Economic implications
Renaissance of shale oil: if the Administration is committed to compensating for supply with domestic production, the blockade gives it a perfect political argument for ‘Drill, baby, drill’ and for cutting regulatory barriers under the umbrella of energy security.
Blow to Chinese refineries: discounted sanctioned crude oil feeds price-sensitive buyers; if access becomes more expensive, costs rise and Chinese industrial competitiveness suffers. It is an indirect and elegant blow: China is not sanctioned; its cheap supply becomes more expensive.
Trump: yesterday's speech and the return of the ‘strong state’ (borders, energy and security)
Facts
Trump delivered a live speech from the White House on 17 December, outlining his agenda on the economy, immigration and energy, blaming the previous administration for part of the deterioration and presenting security measures.
That same day, he presided over the ‘dignified transfer’ ceremony in Dover for Americans killed in Syria, promising retaliation against the Islamic State.
Implications
The speech serves to set the framework: the administration wants foreign policy to be an extension of domestic security. In strategic terms, this has one virtue: clarity. And one risk: turning the complexity of the international order into a sequence of gestures for domestic consumption.
The key is whether that ‘strong state’ translates into solid alliances and credible deterrence, or into isolated episodes. The ceremony in Dover and the promise of retaliation remind us of something basic: jihadism does not evaporate; it regroups when it detects Western fatigue.
Congress approves a defence behemoth (NDAA): Ukraine and Venezuela enter the law despite political friction
Facts
The Senate approves a ≈$901 billion defence bill for fiscal year 2026, with provisions such as ≈$800 million for Ukraine, Baltic support and limits on force reductions in Europe.
Implications
The geopolitical reading is simple: even when the executive branch wants to modulate, the legislative branch anchors commitments. This is not just military accounting; it is a signal to allies and adversaries. For Europe, it is a warning: US aid may vary in intensity, but the Atlantic axis is not dead; what it demands is European co-responsibility.
The anti-Iranian energy axis: the Israel-Egypt agreement (≈35 billion) and gas as regional architecture
Detailed facts
Israel and Egypt are moving towards a gas export agreement worth ≈$35 billion, with flow from Leviathan to Egyptian liquefaction plants until 2040.
Strategic implications
Physical consolidation of the Abraham Accords: energy interdependence creates extremely high costs for breaking away, even though Cairo maintains harsh rhetoric on Gaza. The economy rules when money is tight. European energy security: some of that gas will end up in Europe. Israel is consolidating its position as a strategic asset for the West in energy too, which increases its political margin in the face of European criticism that sometimes sins of selective moralism and little geostrategy.
Europe and Mercosur: farmers raise their voices, Brussels struggles with safeguards
Facts
The Economist highlights the political clash: European farmers challenge the Mercosur agreement.
At the same time, Reuters details how the EU is trying to save the pact by strengthening agricultural protections and safeguards in response to social and parliamentary pressure.
Implications
The EU wants to be a trading power, but it cannot do so against its own producers. The problem is not ‘being pro or anti-Mercosur’; the problem is preventing the countryside from being the usual victim of a European project that preaches transition and competitiveness while leaving entire sectors at the mercy of imports without regulatory symmetry. If Brussels imposes the agreement ‘at knifepoint’, it fuels populism; if it blocks it without an alternative, it gives China space in Latin America. A dignified exit requires real safeguards, traceability and reciprocity, not cosmetic measures.
China accelerates its chip ‘Manhattan Project’: EUV lithography, Huawei and the end of naivety
Facts
Reuters describes the Chinese programme (2019–2025) to develop domestic capabilities in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, with an operational prototype in 2025 that manages to generate EUV light, although it does not yet produce advanced chips comparable to those in the West. Former engineers, institutes and state coordination are involved, with Huawei as the central player.
Implications
There is no technological romanticism here; there is state, discipline and purpose. If China achieves domestic EUV, even if it is late, it reduces the effectiveness of export controls and shortens the gap in military AI, surveillance and electronic warfare. The West must abandon complacency: technological monopoly is not eternal. Europe, in particular, must stop acting as if industrial sovereignty were a French whim and accept that it is a matter of national security.
Media Rack
- The Economist (World in Brief): sets the macro narrative: pressure on Venezuela, European tension over financing Ukraine and agricultural response to Mercosur.
- Reuters: provides operational and quantitative details (Chinese EUV, crude oil prices, Russian fixed asset figures, NDAA and European financing architecture).
- AP and Guardian: emphasise legal friction and fear of Russian retaliation; also, the political component of European cohesion and the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’.
- Le Monde: Mercosur lands amid internal political tension and the Commission's ‘strategy to the limit’.
Editorial comment
Europe stumbles once again over its great sin: lukewarmness at the decisive moment. The EU has €210 billion frozen by the Russian central bank, and yet it hesitates as if the problem were an accounting one. It is not. The problem is moral, legal and strategic at the same time: if Russia can invade, destroy and then keep its spoils at no real cost, the European order becomes a historical anecdote.
Legal prudence is necessary, but it cannot be an excuse. Belgium and Luxembourg cannot bear the risk alone; that is true. But the rest of Europe cannot hide behind them either. And Hungary and Slovakia, with their affinity for Moscow, are not ‘dissenting voices’: they are the Kremlin's internal leverage.
In America, Trump's pressure on Chavismo is consistent with an uncomfortable truth: Venezuela is not a ‘political disagreement’; it is a narco-state. A heavy hand against drug trafficking and its state structures is defensible when executed with intelligence, legality and clear objectives. The opposite — empty dialogue — has only served to prolong Venezuela's agony and export crime.
And while we argue, China builds. Its ‘Manhattan Project’ for chips is not technology news; it is power news. Whoever controls the basis of AI will control the most decisive part of the economy and defence. The West has only one dignified response: unity, investment, deterrence and values, without complexes.