Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 21 January

1. Introduction
2. Trump raises the stakes over Greenland and threatens tariffs on Europe
3. EU aims for political closure on €90 billion loan to Ukraine (ECOFIN)
4. The ‘Board of Peace’ is born: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan join the plan for Gaza
5. NATO: meeting of defence chiefs in Brussels as a strategic turning point
6. Davos 2026: Macron, Carney and the EU stand up to Trump
7. Russia maintains its strategy of terror against Ukrainian infrastructure
8. Syria: fragile ceasefire with Kurdish forces and advance of the regime
9. UK gives green light to mega Chinese embassy in London
10. US parliamentary diplomacy in Denmark amid the Greenland crisis
11. China and the struggle for the Indo-Pacific: signals from Davos and beyond
12. Media Rack
13. Editorial commentary

Introduction

The last 24 hours have condensed, almost to the point of caricature, the tensions of this beginning of 2026: President Trump turning Greenland into a touchstone of power and tariffs, Europe trying to react without breaking the Atlantic link, a peace architecture for Gaza that is becoming globalised, and an EU seeking to shield Ukrainian resistance until 2027 with joint loans.

All this is happening while NATO calibrates its military posture in Brussels, markets discount the risk of a new transatlantic trade war, Iran suffers its bloodiest repression since 1979, and China exhibits 5% growth in 2025, keeping alive the systemic struggle between democracies and autocracies.

In Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney sums up the climate with an unequivocal message: the rules-based international order is in full breakdown, and the central question is whether democracies will be able to respond with adult firmness or whether they will be caught between the unilateralism of their allies and the aggressiveness of their adversaries.

Trump raises the stakes over Greenland and threatens tariffs on Europe

Facts

• Donald Trump has reiterated that US control over Greenland is an unwavering strategic objective, linking it to missile defence (‘Golden Dome’), space surveillance and the containment of Russia and China in the Arctic.
• The president has announced 10% tariffs on all imports from eight European allies — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland — starting on 1 February, escalating to 25% on 1 June if there is no agreement for the ‘complete and total purchase of Greenland’.
• In Davos, Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen openly questioned Trump's reliability and warned that the EU is prepared to activate its anti-trade coercion mechanism for the first time in response to tariffs explicitly linked to geopolitical pressure.

Implications

• Trump is effectively breaking with the culture of cooperative alliance management by subordinating trade policy to a logic of geopolitical reward or punishment against full partners, and not just against ‘wayward allies,’ reviving the spirit of the Iraq crisis in an economic arena that is much more sensitive for European societies.
• The reaction of Macron and von der Leyen positions Europe as a defender of the rules-based order against a White House that unapologetically embraces the politics of force; the defence of NATO and the Atlantic link cannot be an excuse for accepting economic blackmail against allied democracies.
• The systemic risk is not only commercial: if Europeans perceive that Washington is willing to punish partners for not ceding territory, strategic confidence in the US umbrella will be eroded, fuelling anti-Atlantic rhetoric and temptations of misguided strategic autonomy that only benefit the Kremlin and Chinese expansionism.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: concerted pressure from the EU, the NATO Secretary General and several G7 leaders redirects the conflict towards formulas for a reinforced US presence in the Arctic without altering Danish sovereignty or triggering a tariff escalation; Trump saves his hard-line narrative without crossing the Rubicon.
• Risk scenario: the president carries out his threat to impose tariffs on 1 February, the EU responds with calibrated countermeasures, and an intra-Western trade war breaks out, weakening the common front against Russia, China and Iran, while Moscow intensifies its disinformation campaign about the ‘decline’ of a divided West.
• Extreme scenario: the clash over Greenland triggers a toxic debate in some European capitals about the US military presence on the continent; even if this scenario remains a minority view, the mere fact that it is being raised is a strategic triumph for Putin and Xi.

EU aims for political closure on €90 billion loan to Ukraine (ECOFIN)

Facts

• In December 2025, EU leaders agreed on a €90 billion loan package for Ukraine in 2026-27, financed through joint debt and with repayment conditional on future Russian reparations, backed by the EU budget.
• The Commission's legislative proposal translates this agreement into a continuous financial support mechanism to cover Ukrainian budgetary and defence needs from the second quarter of 2026 onwards.
• The ECOFIN meeting on 20 January in Brussels must convert this political agreement into an operational mandate; formulas such as ‘conclusions adopted’ or ‘mandate to the Commission to implement the joint borrowing mechanism’ would indicate a positive outcome, while ‘reservations recorded’ or ‘deferred for further consideration’ would signal a blockage or delay.

Implications

• For Kyiv, the transition from the December agreement to a formal ECOFIN decision is decisive: uncertainty about the timetable and conditionality fuels financial volatility and the Kremlin's doubts about European resilience in the medium term.
• The structure of the loan – interest-free and with repayment linked to Russian reparations – makes the aggressor responsible for the bill, shields the EU's internal stability and prevents European taxpayers from being the permanent victims of Putin's aggression.
• An unjustified delay due to vetoes or manoeuvres by governments close to the illiberal Central European axis would send a very dangerous signal: that European unity in the face of the Russian invasion is negotiable, weakening deterrence and fuelling the Kremlin's narrative of a tired and divided Europe.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: ECOFIN adopts clear conclusions, mandates the Commission and moves the package to the implementation phase; markets see a reduction in liquidity risk in Kyiv and a reinforcement of the credibility of the European commitment until 2027.
• Risk scenario: language is limited to “substantial progress” without formal adoption, with references to “additional national consultations”; this means weeks of delay and rhetorical ammunition for both Moscow and sceptics of military aid in the United States.
• Gloomy scenario: a Member State formalises reservations and reopens the package; the political risk premium on Ukraine skyrockets, the EU's reputation as a reliable partner in war deteriorates, and naive pacifist currents are strengthened, which in practice whitewash Russian aggression.

The ‘Board of Peace’ is born: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan join the plan for Gaza

Facts

• Following the announcement of the peace plan for Gaza and the creation of a US-led ‘Board of Peace’, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have responded by accepting the invitation to become founding members, alongside other Eurasian and Latin American partners.
• Tokayev has thanked the White House for the invitation in a letter, pledging to support reconstruction, stability and the prevention of further outbreaks of violence in Gaza.
• Mirziyoyev stressed that Uzbekistan's participation expresses a commitment to lasting solutions in the Middle East and to an international framework with a global vocation, while the possible integration of Canada and other G7 actors into the governance of the initiative is being discussed.

Implications

• The incorporation of Central Asian capitals and other non-Western partners makes the ‘Board of Peace’ more than just an ad hoc artefact for Gaza: it stands out as a platform for multilateral legitimisation of Washington's strategy, with projections to other conflicts where Iran and its proxies play a destabilising role.
• For Moscow and Beijing, seeing former Soviet republics align themselves with a Trump-led body is a symbolic setback that erodes the narrative that Central Asia is a Russian-Chinese ‘protectorate’.
• From our perspective, the fact that the post-war design in Gaza is articulated around an international body with a non-radical Muslim presence and controlled by democracies or moderate regimes is positive: it weakens Hamas, curtails Iran's influence and offers an alternative to the Turkey-Qatar-Muslim Brotherhood axis.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: the ‘Board of Peace’ is consolidated with the accession of more moderate Arab countries, accompanied by a robust reconstruction and security control mechanism that effectively excludes Hamas and limits the power of pro-Iranian militias.
• Risk scenario: Russia and China attempt to create parallel bodies to sabotage Washington's design, while Iran activates Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and Houthis to undermine any architecture that reduces its influence.
• Blockage scenario: internal divisions within the EU or among Arab partners over the distribution of responsibilities leave the Board of Peace in bureaucratic limbo, repeating the script of previous peace processes.

NATO: meeting of defence chiefs in Brussels as a strategic turning point

Facts

• The NATO Military Committee meets on 21-22 January 2026 in Brussels at the level of Chiefs of Defence of the 32 allies, chaired by Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, with the participation of SACEUR and SACT.
• The agenda includes sessions on allied military preparedness, capability acceleration, coordination with Indo-Pacific partners, and a NATO-Ukraine Council format to review the situation on the ground and support through the NSATU mechanism and the JATEC centre.
• A press conference is scheduled for 22 January, where language on ‘operational planning directives’ or ‘tasks for SACEUR to develop options’ will be key to distinguishing substantive decisions from mere referrals to the North Atlantic Council.

Implications

• This meeting comes in the midst of the clash over Greenland; if the message coming out of Brussels is one of operational unanimity, a firewall will have been built between the tariff dispute and the deterrence architecture against Russia.
• For Ukraine, the specification of mandates to SACEUR and the reinforcement of NSATU are as important as the financial packages: without superiority in air defence and ammunition, European millions translate into precarious resistance, not a just victory.
• Any reference to a ‘lack of consensus’ or ‘need for further consultation’ will be read in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran as a green light to continue escalating tensions, and in Kyiv as a symptom of political fatigue.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: communiqué adopted, explicit support for the reinforcement of the eastern flank and mandate to SACEUR to update plans, sending Putin the message that, despite the noise, NATO is more cohesive than ever.
• Risk scenario: calculated ambiguities conceal differences over the pace and scope of aid to Ukraine or over Indo-Pacific projection; this is the kind of lukewarm language that historically precedes miscalculations by aggressors.
• Blockage scenario: political disputes filter down to the military level, forcing decisions to be ‘escalated’ to the North Atlantic Council; this would be a disturbing precedent in the midst of a standoff with Russia.

Davos 2026: Macron, Carney and the EU stand up to Trump

Facts

• At the World Economic Forum, Emmanuel Macron denounced the ‘law of the strongest’ and warned that Europe will not accept the use of tariffs as a weapon to force territorial concessions on Greenland.
• Ursula von der Leyen recalled the previous commitment not to impose new tariffs and described it as a ‘mistake’ to make trade conditional on acceptance of the US project on Greenland, explicitly mentioning the anti-trade coercion mechanism.
• Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned that the rules-based order is ‘fading’ or ‘breaking down’ and called on democracies to strengthen their resilience in the face of economic and geopolitical shocks.

Implications

• Davos has become the scene of a head-on collision of models: Trump's transactional unilateralism versus a Europe that wants to defend the open economy but still oscillates between appeasement and firmness.
• Our editorial line demands a distinction: one can support Trump's tough stance on drugs, terrorism and Russian aggression without applauding the use of tariffs as a stick against democratic allies; the reference is to Reagan-style Atlanticism, not aggressive mercantilism.
• If the EU limits itself to lamenting without acting, it will confirm the perception of weakness that Trumpism exploits; if it reacts with intelligent firmness — proportional, legally and politically sound — it can reinforce its role as a pole of sanity.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: the verbal storm is redirected in the corridors of Davos towards compromise formulas, perhaps linking a reinforced US military presence in the Arctic to additional European investment, without touching Danish sovereignty or triggering tariffs.
• Risk scenario: the rhetorical escalation translates into tariff reality and the same elites who today clamour for stability end up trapped in a self-induced trade war.
• Toxic scenario: the European radical left exploits the conflict to call for a strategic break with the United States, while ultra-right sectors use it to justify opportunistic rapprochement with Moscow or Beijing.

Russia maintains its strategy of terror against Ukrainian infrastructure

Facts

• Russia has resumed massive missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, following the pattern of previous waves: dozens of targets focused on electricity generation, transmission and distribution.
• The attacks have caused staggered power cuts, forced nuclear power plants to operate below capacity and imposed nationwide blackout schedules.
• Ukrainian authorities and international organisations have warned of the risk to nuclear safety and of Russia's intention to break civilian morale in the middle of winter, without any immediate direct military benefits.

Implications

• The pattern confirms the terrorist nature of the Russian campaign: it is about punishing the population, not conquering militarily relevant territory, in line with a regime that disregards international law and attempts to gain through civilian suffering what it cannot achieve on the front lines.
• It reinforces the urgency of providing Ukraine with more and better air defence systems and rapid repair capabilities; anything less than that will, in practice, be complicity by omission with Putin's strategy.
• For Europe, every attack on the Ukrainian network is a reminder of its own vulnerability: oil pipelines, submarine cables and satellites are part of a hybrid theatre of war without borders.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: ECOFIN and NATO synchronise financial and military decisions, accelerating the delivery of state-of-the-art air defences; the cost of each new Russian attack rises to levels that are politically unsustainable for the Kremlin.
• Risk scenario: military aid continues without any qualitative leap and the energy terror campaign becomes ‘normalised’, increasing the risk of social fatigue in Ukraine and nervousness in some European capitals.
• Black scenario: an attack causes a serious incident at a nuclear facility or a prolonged blackout with mass casualties; the world would discover too late that red lines must be drawn before disaster strikes.

Syria: fragile ceasefire with Kurdish forces and advance of the regime

Facts

• The Syrian regime has reached a ceasefire with Kurdish forces after a lightning offensive in the northeast and under pressure from the United States to prevent a total collapse of the SDF, its historic local ally.
• The pact provides for a Kurdish withdrawal to Kurdish-majority areas and the gradual reintegration of mixed areas under Damascus' control, in an attempt to recentralise power in exchange for minimal guarantees for minorities.
• Washington has presented the agreement as a step towards greater territorial integration, without substantive political changes in Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Implications

• This move consolidates Assad's survival, supported by Russia and Iran, and leaves the Kurdish militias in a position of fragile dependence; another example of how the West's local allies pay the price for gradual retreats.
• From our perspective, a regime responsible for mass atrocities cannot be whitewashed in exchange for false stability; without real political transition, Syria will remain a sanctuary for terrorist networks and trafficking useful to Tehran and Moscow.
• Turkey will closely monitor any advances by Damascus and its Shiite allies towards the border; the risk of new clashes or the use of refugees as a weapon of pressure on Europe remains.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: the ceasefire is consolidated, a minimum of Kurdish autonomy is preserved and space is opened up for an internationally supervised political process, a hypothesis that is currently far-fetched.
• Risk scenario: the regime uses the armistice to divide Kurdish factions, strengthen its security apparatus and open the door to selective repression with low media coverage.
• Worst-case scenario: a new outbreak of violence causes massive population movements towards Turkey and, in turn, towards Europe, reactivating the exploitation of migration.

UK gives green light to mega Chinese embassy in London

Facts

• The British government has approved the construction of a large Chinese embassy complex in London, after years of delays and misgivings over security concerns.
• Critics denounce the size of the complex and its proximity to the City as an invitation to espionage and covert political influence.
• The decision comes amid growing tensions between the West and China over critical technologies, strategic raw materials and positions in the Indo-Pacific.

Implications

• The decision reveals British ambivalence: tough rhetoric on Beijing, but opening up spaces of physical and symbolic influence to the Chinese regime in the heart of Europe.
• Our editorial line does not advocate closing embassies, but rather preventing them from becoming hubs for intelligence gathering, vote buying and pressure on diasporas.
• Each advance of Chinese presence in Western capitals adds to a global offensive that stretches from the South China Sea to Africa and Latin America, passing through the most sensitive neighbourhoods of London.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: London accompanies the approval with serious reinforcement of counterintelligence and strict limits on the use of the complex, sending the message that diplomatic openness does not equate to strategic naivety.
• Risk scenario: the new enclave becomes a logistical-political platform for a network of influence that penetrates institutions, universities and businesses.
• Severe scenario: in a future open clash with China, the complex becomes an asset for pressure and hybrid warfare on British territory.

US parliamentary diplomacy in Denmark amid the Greenland crisis

Facts

• A bipartisan delegation from the US Congress has travelled to Denmark to ease tensions over the Greenland crisis and offer assurances of commitment to Arctic security.
• The visit coincided with Trump's announcement of tariffs linked to the Greenland issue, leaving parliamentarians in an awkward position with their Danish counterparts.
• Lawmakers have stressed the importance of defence cooperation and the need to avoid a rift with a key ally on NATO's northern flank.

Implications

• This ‘double voice’ from Washington — a maximalist White House and a reassuring Congress — reflects the internal battle between a transactional vision and a more classic view of Western leadership.
• For Europe, the message is clear: not all of America is Trump, but Trump is the president today; the response must be firm without burning bridges with the Atlantic forces that continue to believe in the alliance.
• Crisis management will be a stress test: if the allies fail to manage differences over Greenland, they will find it difficult to maintain a coherent strategy towards Russia, China or Iran.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: parliamentary work and security bureaucracies compensate for presidential verbal excesses and lead to tactical understanding with Copenhagen.
• Risk scenario: the rift between the White House and Congress deepens, sending contradictory signals to allies and adversaries.
• Structural scenario: this dynamic becomes normalised and allies are forced to “read Washington” as they once read factions in politically unstable countries.

China and the struggle for the Indo-Pacific: signals from Davos and beyond

Facts

• In parallel with the Greenland crisis, the EU and India are making progress towards a free trade agreement, with von der Leyen stressing in Davos that the bloc is ‘close’ to concluding a deal, before travelling to India after the forum.
• The EU-India rapprochement is part of a broader strategy to diversify supply chains and reduce critical dependencies on China, which is maintaining growth of around 5% and accelerating its expansion in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
• These diplomatic moves intersect with the consolidation of security alliances and defence agreements between regional democracies and partners such as Japan, the Philippines and Australia.

Implications

• For Europe, India is not just a market, but a key strategic partner in balancing China's weight in Asia; every step towards a solid trade pact reduces Beijing's coercive room for manoeuvre.
• This approach fits in with a broader Atlantic vision: the defence of freedom is not only at stake in the Baltic or Gibraltar, but also in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific and the South China Sea.
• The big question is whether the EU will be able to maintain consistency between its rhetoric of ‘reducing dependencies’ and concrete decisions on energy, technology and critical raw materials.

Outlook and scenarios

• Positive scenario: the EU-India agreement is concluded, complemented by discreet security commitments, and becomes one of the cornerstones of the balance against Chinese expansionism.
• Risk scenario: the pact is diluted by technicalities and sectoral reservations, leaving European dependence on value chains controlled by Beijing almost intact.
• Adverse scenario: India plays both sides, using Brussels and Beijing as negotiating levers without clear alignment on values and security.

Media Rack

Mainstream liberal-progressive (NYT, Washington Post, Guardian, CNN, BBC, Le Monde, El País, etc.)

Focus on the danger of Trump and the risk to the rules-based order, with emphasis on Greenland, Davos and the erosion of the transatlantic link.[61][62][63] [64] In Ukraine, support for the £90 billion loan, but with subtext of ‘fatigue’ and medium-term domestic political cost.

Russian/pro-Russian media (RT, TASS)

Exploit the transatlantic crisis as proof of ‘Western decay’ and present the dispute over Greenland as American imperial greed and European submission.

Technocratic minimisation of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and Iranian repression, wrapped up in the narrative of ‘stability versus chaos’.

Economic and financial press (FT, WSJ, CNBC, Reuters, Bloomberg, Economic Times, etc.)

Focuses on the impact of tariffs on markets, exposed exporters and the risk of intra-Western trade war; Davos is seen as a barometer of geo-economics and risk aversion.

Emphasises the innovative nature of the €90 billion loan to Ukraine, but warns of vetoes, internal political fragmentation within the EU and possible delays in implementation.

Continental European media (Le Monde, FAZ, Corriere, La Vanguardia, Brussels Times, etc.)

Alarming tone regarding the confrontation with the United States, mixing European victimhood with limited self-criticism about its own shortcomings in defence, energy and strategic autonomy.

Broad support for the package for Ukraine and the architecture of the ‘Board of Peace’, but with insistent coverage of the reluctance of some Member States and social fatigue over the war.

Gulf and Middle Eastern media (Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Asharq, Israeli and Palestinian press)

Very attentive to the ‘Board of Peace’: a mixture of scepticism and hope in Gaza in the face of a scheme perceived as imposed from outside, with fears that it will not address justice and freedoms.

Israeli press divided between those who see an opportunity to bring Gaza under international supervision and those who fear internationalisation that would limit Israel's freedom of action.

Western conservative/centre-right media (The Times, Telegraph, Le Figaro, Die Welt, FAZ opinion, WSJ opinion, Fox, The National Interest, etc.)

Divided between applause for Trump's firm stance towards Russia and China and concern that tariff coercion against allies erodes the Atlantic alliance.

Greater clarity in denouncing Russian and Chinese expansionism and in supporting the loan to Ukraine as an investment in security, although with debate on fiscal sustainability and burden sharing.

Asian media (South China Morning Post, China Daily, The Times of India, Strait Times, Yomiuri, etc.)

The Chinese press highlights the US-EU conflict as evidence of a divided and unreliable West, and plays down the coercive dimension of Beijing.

Indian and Southeast Asian media

They emphasise the China-West rivalry, the opportunities of the EU-India axis and see the ‘Board of Peace’ as part of a broader rebalancing in the Indo-Pacific.

Editorial commentary

There are days when the international system seems like a shadow theatre: noble speeches in Davos, measured communiqués in Brussels, impeccable press conferences in New York. And yet, behind the rhetoric, what is at stake is painfully concrete: Ukrainian families waking up to the roar of missiles over their power stations; young Iranians risking their lives in the face of a theocracy that exports terror from Beirut to Sana'a; entire villages—from the Sahel to Central America—poisoned by drug trafficking while some in Europe continue to play at ideological naivety.

The crisis in Greenland, which has become a presidential obsession, is symptomatic of something deeper: when a great power begins to treat its allies as vassals at the stroke of a tariff, the security architecture cracks; but when those same allies limit themselves to complaining without strengthening their defence, political unity and strategic capacity, they become accomplices to their own irrelevance. The problem is not that the United States defends strategic interests in the Arctic – that is understandable and, if done well, desirable – but that it seeks to buy or twist the sovereignty of an allied territory as if we were in the 19th century.

At the same time, the game in Ukraine is entering a decisive phase: either Europe turns its grand declarations into money, weapons and long-term guarantees, or the Ukrainian sacrifice will have been in vain and the message to tyrants will be devastating: just hold out a little longer and democratic fatigue will do the rest. The £90 billion loan is not a gesture of generosity, but an investment in our own security; every missile that is not fired at Kiev is a missile that is not normalised as an instrument of pressure on Warsaw, Berlin or Madrid.

The creation of the Board of Peace and the accession of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan show, for once, something that is often forgotten: when the United States offers orderly and realistic frameworks, its leadership maintains a magnetism that neither Moscow nor Beijing can match. But that advantage is eroded with every rhetorical excess, with every misguided tariff, with every complacent nod to autocrats who only understand the language of force.

This moment demands more than headlines: it demands a mature Atlanticism that unapologetically supports the defence of Ukraine, the containment of the terrorist regime in Tehran and resistance to Chinese expansionism, but also has the courage to tell Washington that friendship between democracies is not built on trade blackmail. Above all, it demands a Europe that stops behaving like an indignant spectator and starts acting like what it claims to be: a political power capable of defending its values — freedom, the rule of law, human dignity — not only in international forums, but in the harsh test of reality.

Between the whims of the new Caesars and the resignation of the people, there is a narrow but indispensable space: that of those who continue to believe that common sense, firmness and decency can still change the course of history.