Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 23 January
- Introduction
- Trump: the ‘Greenland deal’ is still being negotiated and promises ‘full access’ without limits
- NATO: Rutte insists that ‘if Greenland remains with Denmark’ it was not even discussed with Trump
- Merz in Davos: ‘Europe must not rush to write off transatlantic ties’
- Markets: relief at the U-turn... but the political risk premium is back.
- Oil: falls sharply due to de-escalation in Greenland and more moderate tone on Iran.
- Ukraine: the harshest winter: longer blackouts; energy terror as a state strategy
- Ukraine: senior electricity network executive dies during repairs
- Syria: US urges maintenance of truce between Damascus and SDF
- Iraq to prosecute Islamic State detainees transferred from Syria
- Middle East: Trump launches the “Board of Peace”; Rafah to reopen “next week”, according to Palestinian officials
- Media Rack
- Editorial commentary
Introduction
The last 24 hours have painted a clear—and worrying—picture of the start of 2026: coercion is once again commonplace, even among allies; Russia is consolidating energy terror as a strategic weapon against civilians;
the Middle East is transitioning from a precarious truce to a post-war architecture rehearsed outside the classic umbrella of the United Nations; and markets are beginning to treat politics as a structural risk, not as temporary noise. Greenland has become the touchstone of an uncomfortable truth: being Atlanticist does not mean being a vassal.
Defending NATO is vital; accepting commercial blackmail or personal whims turned into state policy is not. What's more, it is a gift wrapped up with a bow for Moscow and Beijing: every rift between Washington and Europe is free political capital for those who want a divided, fatigued and self-doubting Western bloc.
Trump: the ‘Greenland deal’ is still being negotiated and promises ‘full access’ without limits
Facts
Trump declared in Davos that the details of the agreement on Greenland ‘are being negotiated’, describing it as a ‘full access’ arrangement with no time limit, ‘at no cost’ to Washington, linked to the construction of the ‘Golden Dome’ anti-missile shield in the Arctic, after withdrawing tariff threats and ruling out the use of force.
Implications
This is not a diplomatic technicality, but a showdown over the very concept of allied sovereignty: talking about ‘full’ and ‘permanent’ access to an autonomous territory of a NATO member fuels the perception of a de facto protectorate and erodes the idea of an alliance between equals. The addition of warning against massive sales of US sovereign debt by Europeans introduces a vector of financial coercion that could lead to a spiral of retaliation with systemic effects on markets, exchange rates and confidence in the dollar as a safe haven asset.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive scenario: limited and contractual agreement (infrastructure, Golden Dome missile defence, logistical access) with explicit clauses on Danish sovereignty and periodic review.
- Risk scenario: recurring return of the tariff threat as political leverage whenever a partner ‘resists’, normalising intra-alliance blackmail.
- Extreme scenario: erosion of strategic trust, rise of anti-Atlantic currents in Europe and perception that Washington treats allies as hostages; precisely the scenario desired by Beijing and Moscow.
NATO: Rutte insists that ‘if Greenland remains with Denmark’ it was not even discussed with Trump
Facts
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that the issue of Greenland's political status with Denmark was not discussed with Trump, stressing that the conversation focused on how to strengthen Arctic security in the face of increased activity by Russia and China, and that mineral exploitation ‘was not on the table’ at their meeting.
Implications
Rutte is attempting to build a firewall: removing from the territorial agenda what should be a discussion of military presence, intelligence and deterrence in an increasingly contested Arctic environment. But this manoeuvre comes at a cost: if political and legal boundaries are not set out in writing, the vacuum will be filled by presidential momentum and the narrative of ‘total access’ in perpetuity. NATO cannot afford to allow its northern flank to shift from being a vector of deterrence to becoming a focus of intra-alliance conflict, because that would amount to strategic self-harm on the front line against Russia.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: NATO frames the issue as operational reinforcement of the Arctic – plans, bases, surveillance, integration of ‘Golden Dome’ – under non-negotiable allied sovereignty, defusing territorial delirium.
- Risk: dissociation of discourses that fuels mistrust in European capitals.
- Extreme: Russian exploitation of the contradiction with disinformation campaigns, military manoeuvres in the Arctic and attempts to portray NATO as a mechanism for European subordination to Washington's whims.
Merz in Davos: ‘Europe must not rush to write off transatlantic ties’
Facts
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended in Davos the preservation of transatlantic relations despite the crisis over Greenland and emphasised the value of trust in a world of competition between great powers; Reuters adds that Germany is participating with other partners in a limited deployment in Greenland to support Denmark in surveillance and military presence.
Implications
Merz is saying the right thing in public: do not rush into a transatlantic divorce at a time when revisionist powers are on the rise, but the core of the problem is what Europe does, not just what it says. Rebuilding the link does not mean giving in, but balancing: Europe cannot ‘break’ with the US—that would be suicidal—but neither can it accept a regime of tariff blackmail and symbolic humiliation that feeds anti-American and anti-Atlantic populism within the EU. The European deployment in Greenland, although limited, sends a clear message: the northern flank is not an empty lot nor the exclusive heritage of Washington, and the European presence in the Arctic cannot be decorative, but rather an instrument of sovereignty.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: Europe uses the crisis to accelerate common defence, dual industry and political cohesion, negotiating with Washington from a position of greater strength and less psychological dependence.
- Risk: prudence turns into paralysis, all uncomfortable decisions are postponed and we return to the strategic ‘wait and see’ approach that has penalised the EU over the last decade.
- Toxic: strategic autonomy is confused with anti-Americanism and the narrative is handed over to those who present the US as the ‘enemy’, signing the perfect gift for Russia and China.
Markets: relief at the U-turn... but the political risk premium is back.
Facts
Global stock markets rebounded and the dollar weakened after Trump withdrew his tariff threats against Europe; analysts interpret this as immediate relief, but stress that the agreement on Greenland remains undefined and linked to sensitive security and debt negotiations.
Implications
The market acts as a cold judge: it rewards tactical de-escalation but takes note of the strategic precedent. The problem is not the 24-hour swing, but the perception that trade policy has become an unpredictable weapon even among allies, and that US debt can be used as a vector of cross-pressure with European partners. This makes capital more expensive, slows down productive investment and punishes a Europe that has not yet completed its industrial rearmament, while reinforcing the narrative that Western legal certainty is no longer what it used to be.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: steer the issue towards stable technical negotiations (Arctic cooperation, investment, trade) with clear rules and defined deadlines.
- Risk: repetition of the threat-retreat-new threat cycle, which erodes credibility and causes markets to incorporate a permanent political risk premium linked to the White House.
- Structural: ‘normalisation’ of uncertainty as a style of government, with cumulative effects on interest rates, green investment and digital transition.
Oil: falls sharply due to de-escalation in Greenland and more moderate tone on Iran.
Facts
Reuters reported a significant drop in oil prices associated with the moderation of threats to Greenland and a somewhat more cautious tone regarding Iran, temporarily reducing fears of a direct clash in the Gulf.
Implications
The movement confirms that the energy market is tied almost millimetre by millimetre to geopolitical rhetoric and practice, and that presidential ‘gestures’ quickly translate into price swings and pressure on inflation. For Europe, the message is twofold: persistent vulnerability to external shocks and the need for real diversification of supplies, infrastructure and technologies, not just ‘green’ slogans without material backing or emergency response capacity.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: price stabilisation with less volatility if a sudden escalation in the Middle East is avoided.
- Risk: sharp rebound if the Iranian dossier heats up again or if Tehran's proxies take advantage of the window to attack infrastructure in the region.
- Adverse: prolonged volatility that hits the European recovery, complicates the fight against inflation and fuels the anti-establishment vote.
Ukraine: the harshest winter: longer blackouts; energy terror as a state strategy
Facts
Reuters described the worsening situation in Kyiv and other cities, with longer water and electricity cuts than in previous winters, against a backdrop of sustained Russian attacks on power stations, substations and distribution networks.
Implications
This is the moral heart of the day: Russia is not only seeking military advantages, but psychological surrender and social fatigue; energy terror is not collateral damage, it is deliberate doctrine. It is also a test for the West: if it tolerates coercion against civilians as a tool of war, it opens the door for that logic to be exported to other theatres — Moldova, the Baltic, critical European infrastructure — and trivialises attacks on everyday life as an acceptable instrument.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: a qualitative leap in air defence and protection of critical nodes, with the supply of systems and ammunition designed to protect the network, not just the front line.
- Risk: normalisation of civilian suffering as an ‘inevitable price’, with the consequent erosion of public solidarity towards Ukraine.
- Negative: a serious incident against critical infrastructure (hydroelectric, nuclear, large substations) that turns the war into a massive humanitarian shock in the middle of winter.
Ukraine: senior electricity network executive dies during repairs
Facts
Reuters reported the death of a senior executive of the Ukrainian network operator while supervising repairs to a facility damaged by attacks, in extreme cold and under the risk of further bombing.
Implications
What might seem like a minor episode is in fact a brutal symbol: the energy war is measured in hours of light, yes, but also in the lives of engineers, technicians and staff who sustain the state under bombs and ice. Europe should read this as a warning: resilience is not a rhetorical concept, it is redundancy engineering, staff training, spare parts stock, transformers and an anti-aircraft umbrella that prevents every repair from becoming Russian roulette.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: accelerated reinforcement of equipment, specific network spare parts and safety measures for repair teams in the field.
- Risk: cumulative degradation of the network, making each winter more fragile and expensive to sustain.
- Adverse: social fatigue that Moscow attempts to convert into political pressure on Kyiv and Western capitals to force a peace on unfavourable terms.
Syria: US urges maintenance of truce between Damascus and SDF
Facts
A US envoy urged respect for the ceasefire between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), giving the latter four days to present an integration plan; the agreement provides for government troops to avoid entering two key cities if the pact is concluded.
Implications
Syria reminds us, once again, of the iron rule: when a regime is rebuilt without real transition, stability is often a veneer that masks repression and leaves corridors open to jihadism. The most dangerous variable is the security of Islamic State prisoners; if the prison system is disrupted or the integration of the SDF is exploited without guarantees, DAESH gains oxygen, narrative and operational cadres.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: agreed integration, with clear command and effective control of prisons and detention camps.
- Risk: truce exploited to impose faits accomplis on the ground, with selective purging of Kurdish commanders.
- Worst: escape or insurrection of prisoners that revives a regional jihadist constellation in Syria, Iraq and beyond.
Iraq to prosecute Islamic State detainees transferred from Syria
Facts
Iraq announced that it will prosecute Islamic State detainees transferred from Syria; Reuters reported that some 150 have already been transferred and that thousands more prisoners could follow in the coming months.
Implications
A new phase is beginning: from precarious containment in Syria to mass prosecution in Iraq, with all that this implies in terms of the death penalty, procedural guarantees, European repatriations and the risk of radicalisation within prisons. From a firm editorial standpoint, the principle must be clear: jihadism must be pursued without ambiguity, but the West cannot indefinitely outsource the problem or look the other way in the face of possible abuses; poorly managed terrorism returns, and it does so with greater fanaticism.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: robust processes, international cooperation and information-sharing channels that prevent impunity, escapes and the “disappearance” of high-risk individuals.
- Risk: political and legal backlash in Europe over nationals detained or convicted in Iraq under controversial circumstances.
- Adverse: overload of the Iraqi judicial and prison system and the emergence of corruption and rescue networks that rebuild Daesh's clandestine infrastructure.
Middle East: Trump launches the “Board of Peace”; Rafah to reopen “next week”, according to Palestinian officials
Facts
Reuters reported the launch of the ‘Board of Peace’, an international body promoted by the US to oversee the post-war plan in Gaza; at an event in Davos, the Washington-backed Palestinian technocratic leader announced that the Rafah crossing with Egypt will reopen next week, in both directions, after months of almost total closure.
Implications
The ‘Board of Peace’ is a power play: to build its own mechanism for Gaza and, de facto, for part of the regional chessboard, which competes in legitimacy and effectiveness with a UN perceived as paralysed. It may be useful if it meets two minimum conditions: effective security with the operational exclusion of Hamas and Iranian proxies; and real containment of the Tehran regime and its network of proxies. The enormous risk is that the body will remain a shell of legitimacy without real muscle, while Rafah becomes a symbol, yes, but also a new line of friction between Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian authorities if there is no fine coordination on security.
Outlook and scenarios
- Positive: reopening of Rafah with robust security controls, verifiable humanitarian flow and credible governance under international supervision.
- Risk: sabotage by Iranian proxies or residual Hamas cells to make the post-war period more expensive and demonstrate that no arrangement without them is stable.
- Blockage: bureaucracy, internal disputes over funding and command, and rivalry between actors that paralyse the design and return the weight to failed formulas.
Media Rack
Reuters: backbone of the day in Greenland (‘total access’ and ‘no cost’), NATO and Rutte's framing, Merz's message on transatlantic ties, market reaction, oil, Ukraine (infrastructure and victims on the network), Syria/SDF, Iraq and DAESH/ISIS detainees, and the ‘Board of Peace’ with the announcement of the reopening of Rafah.
NATO coverage (institutional statements and interviews): main value in the operational message and allied discipline around Danish sovereignty and the Arctic security framework.
Regional press in the Middle East: emphasis on Rafah as a ‘lifeline’ and the first test of the credibility of the ‘Board of Peace’, with scepticism about the ability to isolate Hamas and contain Iran simultaneously.
Editorial commentary
The world is returning to the essentials: power, deterrence and will. And yet, the greatest danger this week comes not from Moscow or Beijing, but from a deeply human temptation: to confuse strength with caprice, leadership with spectacle, and strategy with televised improvisation.
Greenland is strategic, yes: it is radar, defensive depth, critical minerals and the key to the Arctic in the 21st century. But a great power that claims to lead the free world cannot treat an ally as if it were a plot of land up for auction, nor can it turn a partner's autonomous territory into a permanent campaign stage. When the US president talks about unlimited ‘full access’, boasts of ‘getting everything we want at no cost’ and suggests financial reprisals against partners who sell US debt, he is not strengthening deterrence; he is creating mistrust. And mistrust is Putin's favourite fertiliser and Beijing's best selling point for its narrative that the West treats its friends like vassals.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is literally surviving in darkness and cold, because Russia has discovered that civilian suffering is a more effective political missile than many conventional missiles. Every prolonged power cut, every unheated building, every technician risking his life repairing a substation at risk of further bombing is part of a strategy: to break the resilience of a society and test how far the West is willing to tolerate the punishment of innocents in exchange for cheap peace. The day we get used to that, it will not only be Ukraine that has lost a war; it will be us who will have lost the right to call ourselves a civilisation that protects the innocent.
In the Middle East, the ‘Board of Peace’ can be either a tool or a mirage: it can help organise the post-war period in Gaza or become yet another showcase, designed for Davos and not for Rafah. The difference will not lie in the speeches, but in a simple question: who guarantees real security and who prevents Hamas and Tehran's proxies from hijacking the post-war period? If this mechanism fails to secure the Rafah crossing, ensure humanitarian aid and establish a legitimate and effective authority, the experiment will not only fail; it will end up reinforcing the thesis that alternative architectures to the UN are born old and die empty.
The conclusion is uncomfortable but necessary: Atlanticism is not blind obedience, it is an alliance between equals. And an alliance between equals is sustained by firmness, loyalty and, above all, the courage to say ‘no’ when a friend crosses the line of coercion or gratuitous humiliation. Because if Europe does not do so — calmly but clearly — history will scream at us that we refused to behave like adults at the moment when maturity was most needed.