Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 28 January
- Introduction
- India and the European Union seal the most ambitious trade agreement in history
- The Doomsday Clock moves forward to 85 seconds to midnight
- Russian attacks kill 11 Ukrainian civilians, including direct hit on passenger train
- Trump raises tariffs on South Korea from 15% to 25%
- Iran seeks negotiations to avoid direct war with the United States
- The Netherlands reaches agreement to form an unusually minority government
- African countries send more money to China than they receive in new loans
- Boeing posts its best quarterly revenue since 2018
- US intelligence expresses doubts about the cooperation of post-Maduro Venezuelan leadership
- Canada seeks to strengthen trade ties with India after years of diplomatic tension
- Media rack
- Editorial commentary
Introduction
The days of 27-28 January 2026 will be marked by a commercial milestone of historic proportions: the free trade agreement between the European Union and India, described by both parties as ‘the mother of all agreements’.
This pact reconfigures trade relations between two of the most important economic blocs on the planet at a time of growing US protectionism. Simultaneously, the Doomsday Clock has moved forward to 85 seconds before midnight, the closest position to global disaster since its creation in 1947, reflecting a world plagued by nuclear tensions, armed conflicts and unresolved climate crises.
The Ukrainian front continues to bleed with Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, while President Trump increases tariff pressure on South Korea and the Iranian regime desperately seeks diplomatic channels in the face of the threat of US intervention.
In this volatile context, European trade diplomacy emerges as a hopeful counterpoint to US unilateralism, while nuclear powers continue to find no paths to de-escalation on multiple fronts. The planet seems to be simultaneously moving at two irreconcilable speeds: that of constructive economic cooperation and that of growing military confrontation, increasingly close to the threshold of catastrophe.
India and the European Union seal the most ambitious trade agreement in history
Facts
After nearly two decades of intermittent negotiations that began in 2007 and were suspended in 2013 due to disagreements over labour protections and environmental standards, the European Union and India have finally reached a free trade agreement of extraordinary proportions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Prime Minister Narendra Modi jointly presented it during the EU-India Summit held in New Delhi on 27 January. Both leaders used the expression ‘the mother of all agreements’ to underscore the magnitude of the pact.
The agreement will eliminate or reduce tariffs on 96.6% of European exports to India, saving up to 4 billion euros per year in customs duties alone. India will gradually reduce tariffs on European cars from the current 110% to 10% over a transition period. At the same time, the European Union will also reduce duties on more than 95% of Indian products, including spirits, textiles and chemicals of strategic importance to New Delhi.
Bilateral trade reached 136.5 billion dollars in the 2024-2025 fiscal year, consolidating the trade relationship between the two powers as one of the most dynamic in the world. The European Commission projects that European exports to India will more than double by 2032 as a direct result of this agreement. Final negotiations stretched into the late hours of 27 January, with agreements on crucial provisions relating to intellectual property rights, public procurement and labour protections.
Implications
This agreement represents a masterstroke of European trade diplomacy at a critical moment for the global economic order. While the United States is resolutely embracing protectionism with rising tariffs even against traditional allies, Brussels is consolidating its position as the preferred partner of the world's most dynamic emerging economy. The demonstrative capacity is crucial: Europe has shown that multilateralism is still capable of producing substantive results after decades of patient negotiation.
The European Union will gain the most access ever granted by India to an international trading partner, with substantial competitive advantages in key industrial, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors. European producers of wines, spirits and cheeses will see significantly easier access to India's huge and rapidly expanding middle-class consumer market. European car manufacturers, especially German ones, will gain preferential access to a market where demand for quality vehicles is growing exponentially with the prosperity of the population.
For India, the agreement opens the doors to a market of 450 million European consumers with high purchasing power and facilitates the attraction of European technological investment on an unprecedented scale, thus diversifying its traditional dependence on the United States and China. Indian information technology services, a sector in which the country is a world leader, will gain improved access to European markets. The pact also includes explicit clauses on environmental protection, guaranteed labour rights and female empowerment in supply chains, setting standards that transcend mere commercial transactions.
The agreement should also be interpreted as a European response to Trump's foreign policy. Europe has demonstrated its ability to operate independently of the transatlantic axis when it considers that its interests are insufficiently protected by Washington. India, for its part, is solidifying its ‘multi-alignment’ strategy, positioning itself as an indispensable partner for both the West and the BRICS bloc, avoiding exclusive dependence on any single power.
Outlook and scenarios
The effective implementation of the trade agreement is expected by the end of 2026, following a complex legal review process that typically takes between five and six months.
Both parties will have to complete parliamentary and institutional procedures. The European Commission has conservatively projected that European exports to India will double by 2032, although some private analysts estimate even greater increases if supply chains are reorganised to take advantage of the new tariff advantages.
This agreement could serve as a model for future European Union trade negotiations with other emerging economies and definitively strengthens Brussels' position as a global trade player alternative to US unilateralism. If the agreement works as planned, it could catalyse a series of similar pacts between the EU and other Asian nations, consolidating a pro-regulation and pro-sustainability trade bloc that would contrast with the more deregulated US model.
India is thus consolidating a position of growing influence in the global economic architecture. With a population of 1.4 billion, a middle class of 300 million consumers, and economic growth rates of 6-7 per cent per annum, New Delhi represents the economic future of the planet. Its ability to negotiate as an equal with Brussels signals the definitive rebalancing of global economic power from the West to Asia.
The Doomsday Clock moves forward to 85 seconds to midnight
Facts
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organisation founded immediately after World War II by researchers who worked on the Manhattan Project, has moved the symbolic Doomsday Clock forward to 85 seconds before midnight. This figure represents the closest position to global disaster since the clock was created in 1947, almost eighty years ago. Last year, the clock stood at 89 seconds, meaning that in a single year, humanity moved four seconds closer to the abyss.
The announcement was made on 27 January in Washington at a press conference attended by the world's most eminent scientists in nuclear security, nuclear weapons physics, climate change and biological risks. The decision to move the clock forward cites the following as the main causes of this escalation: Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, US and Israeli bombing of Iranian facilities, border clashes between India and Pakistan with nuclear potential, continued tensions on the Korean peninsula, Chinese threats against Taiwan, and escalating tensions in the Western Hemisphere.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' statement emphasises that these conflicts do not occur in isolation, but coexist simultaneously, multiplying the statistical risk of an accidental or deliberate nuclear conflagration. The scientists further stress that traditional nuclear arms control mechanisms — which functioned imperfectly, but functioned during the Cold War — are currently inoperative or severely weakened. There is no effective direct communication between Washington and Moscow. The crisis lines between New Delhi and Islamabad are precarious. Diplomatic channels between Tehran and Washington remain closed.
Implications
The clock's advance is an unequivocal warning from the international scientific community about the rapid deterioration of global security. This is not theoretical speculation: these are the scientists who have historically advised governments on probabilistic calculations of nuclear risk. The Bulletin's scientists have explicitly pointed to a widespread ‘failure of leadership’ among nuclear powers and key global strategic decision-makers.
The three main threats identified are: first, nuclear weapons and the possibility of their deliberate or accidental use; second, climate change and its uncontrolled acceleration; and third, biological risks exacerbated by the possibility of natural pandemics or, worse still, malicious biotechnological manipulation. Added to these three historic threats are new risks arising from the rapid development of disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence without clear international regulation, and the proliferation of systematic disinformation that erodes the ability of governments to make rational decisions.
The simultaneous mention of multiple active conflicts reveals that the international system traditionally known as ‘Pax Americana’ is in structural transition. There is no hegemonic authority capable of imposing stability, and multilateral mechanisms—the United Nations, arms control treaties—are paralysed or ignored by the main actors. A rising China, a revisionist Russia, a defiant Iran, an internally divided United States, and a dispersed Europe: this is the fragmented landscape that explains the desperation of atomic scientists.
Outlook and scenarios
The symbolism of the clock transcends the merely academic or symbolic. It reflects the informed perception of nuclear security experts, whose role is precisely to calculate the probabilities of existential catastrophe, that the risk of nuclear conflagration is greater today than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. On that occasion, only two nuclear powers were directly confronting each other. Today, we have multi-polar conflicts with nuclear powers entangled in multiple theatres simultaneously.
The accumulation of simultaneous tensions—Ukraine with nuclear power in the theatre, the Middle East with Iran challenging the United States and Israel, Asia-Pacific with China-Taiwan, the Indian subcontinent with India-Pakistan—without any significant détente process underway portends an extremely volatile 2026.
Only a combination of renewed arms control agreements and negotiated resolution of active conflicts could reverse this trend. The probability of this happening in the current geopolitical environment appears statistically low.
Analysts note that none of the major active conflicts has a clear path to resolution. Ukraine may be frozen in an exhausting stalemate. Iran may decide to escalate its confrontation with the United States. Taiwan may be absorbed. Pakistan and India may make miscalculations with nuclear consequences. The question is no longer whether the risk exists, but how long these conflicts can coexist simultaneously before some unexpected catalyst triggers a chain reaction.
NOW - Doomsday Clock set to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been pic.twitter.com/s0KV50GcCA
— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) January 27, 2026
Russian attacks kill 11 Ukrainian civilians, including direct hit on passenger train
Facts
On 27 January, Russian forces carried out a series of coordinated attacks across Ukrainian territory, resulting in the confirmed deaths of at least eleven Ukrainian civilians and the injury of dozens more. The most lethal attack, due to its symbolic and humanitarian significance, was a drone strike targeting a passenger train in transit in the Kharkiv region carrying more than 200 civilians. The strike killed four civilian passengers and left two people injured, as personally confirmed by President Volodymyr Zelensky in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter).
At the same time, additional civilian deaths were reported during evacuation operations in the village of Hrabovske, located in the Sumy region, where a man and a woman were killed. Russian air strikes also hit civilian infrastructure in other areas behind Ukrainian lines. The Russian Ministry of Defence, for its part, claims to have shot down 105 Ukrainian drones in 24 hours during the same period and states that its troops have taken control of the towns of Novoyakivlivka in the Zaporizhia region and Kupk-Vuzlovyi in Kharkiv, although these claims have not been independently verified by external sources.
Real-time military intelligence maps confirm that Russia continues to wage a diffuse ground offensive across multiple sectors of the Ukrainian front, although the pace of advance is below what Moscow had achieved in previous months. Russian military chief Valeri Gerasimov has claimed that Russian troops have captured 17 additional settlements and advanced more than 500 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory in January alone, although these figures are not independently verified.
Implications
The attack on a civilian train in Kharkiv is a textbook example of the systematic pattern Russia has been executing throughout the war: striking civilian infrastructure, essential services, lines of communication and concentrations of civilians as a deliberate tactic of terror and attrition. President Zelensky's statement was explicit: ‘There is and can be no military justification for killing civilians in a train carriage.’ This was not a military target. These were civilians travelling between cities.
In the last week alone, according to Ukrainian military reports confirmed by international observers, Russia has carried out more than 1,700 drone strikes, at least 1,380 guided bomb attacks and 69 missile launches, targeting mainly Ukraine's national energy infrastructure, essential services such as water and heating, and civilian housing in rear areas. The cumulative result of these attacks is the systematic generation of civilian suffering without any obvious military correspondence.
More than 1,300 residential buildings in the capital Kyiv remain without heating following Russian bombing carried out during the weekend prior to 27 January. In winter temperatures below zero degrees Celsius, the absence of heating constitutes a potential humanitarian emergency. Hospitals lack continuous electricity. Water supply systems are compromised. The cumulative psychological effect on a civilian population that has been under constant bombardment for four years is devastating.
Outlook and scenarios
Russian General Valeri Gerasimov has publicly stated that his forces have captured 17 additional settlements and more than 500 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory this January. However, these numbers must be put into context: Ukraine had a total land area of 603,500 square kilometres prior to the Russian invasion in February 2022. Even if Russia maintained its pace of capturing 500 square kilometres per month, it would take approximately 100 years to conquer all Ukrainian territory. The war will not be ‘won’ by Russia through complete territorial conquest.
President Trump has noted that there are ‘positive developments’ in talks to resolve Russia's invasion of Ukraine, although he has not offered specific details about the content of these negotiations. Press reports indicate that the United States is actively pressuring Kyiv to cede Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia in exchange for international security guarantees that could lead to NATO membership or another protection mechanism. Some analysts suggest, based on intelligence reports, that Moscow's position may be more flexible than apparent in public statements, especially with regard to the city of Kursk, currently occupied by Ukrainian forces.
The most likely short-term scenario remains that of a prolonged stalemate, with neither side capable of achieving a decisive victory but both continuing to expend human lives and resources in a war of attrition. The fundamental strategic question remains unanswered: how long can Ukraine sustain a military effort of this intensity without total economic collapse? Will the Western community be able to maintain its support for Kyiv through multiple election cycles and domestic budgetary pressures?
Trump raises tariffs on South Korea from 15% to 25%
Facts
President Donald Trump has announced through his direct communication channels a significant increase in tariffs on South Korean imports, raising them from 15% to 25%. The measure was communicated via Truth Social, the social media platform owned by Trump. According to the justification offered by the president, the tariff increase responds to what Trump characterises as unjustified delays by the South Korean National Assembly in ratifying the trade agreement reached between the two countries.
The revised 25% tariffs will affect automobiles, pharmaceuticals, wood, electronics, textiles and essentially any other product subject to the ‘reciprocal’ tariff policy regime that Trump has implemented since his return to the White House. This reciprocal tariff policy is based on the theory that if the United States imports more than it exports to a specific nation, it should apply compensatory tariffs until bilateral trade is ‘balanced.’
The terms of the original trade agreement between Washington and Seoul, reached in 2025, had committed South Korea to investing approximately 350 billion dollars in key US industries over the next few years, including semiconductors, shipbuilding, renewable energy and other critical technologies. The Democratic Party governing Seoul has publicly announced that it will accelerate the legislative process of ratifying the agreement to prevent the increased tariffs from being fully implemented.
Implications
This tariff escalation threatens to severely damage the South Korean economy, which is one of the most export-dependent in the developed world. Approximately 40 per cent of South Korea's GDP comes from export activities. The automotive sector, in particular, is critically dependent on unhindered access to foreign markets, especially the United States. In 2025, the South Korean economy grew by just 1 per cent, its worst performance since 2020, largely due to trade uncertainties stemming from Trump's policies.
Seoul's ruling Democratic Party, already facing domestic political crises including presidential impeachment, has announced that it will accelerate parliamentary deliberations to ratify the trade agreement with the United States, with a vote scheduled for next month. South Korea's special trade envoy will soon travel to Washington to negotiate directly with the Trump administration. This move is clearly an attempt to avoid the implementation of 25 per cent tariffs before it is too late.
This escalation is part of a series of recent tariff threats made by Trump against multiple traditional allies. Trump has threatened 100 per cent tariffs on Canadian products, in addition to the existing levy. He has proposed an additional 10 per cent levy on nations that oppose his geopolitical ambitions in Greenland. He has threatened Mexico and other partners with tariffs for insufficient cooperation with his immigration and drug control objectives.
Outlook and scenarios
Trump's aggressive tariff policy is creating significant volatility in Asian markets and eroding the confidence of long-term strategic allies. The US dollar is under pressure as global investors simultaneously reassess the Trump administration's trade policies, the geopolitical risk associated with multiple active conflicts, and the effectiveness of central banks in maintaining monetary stability.
While South Korea is likely to accelerate ratification of the trade agreement to avoid the impact of the new tariffs, the precedent this sets is deeply troubling: even key strategic allies of the United States are not exempt from US trade pressure. This policy could create perverse incentives for Asian allies to seek market diversification and alternative trade partnerships, especially with China. A China that sees the United States punishing its allies could find opportunities to expand its economic influence.
The South Korean automotive sector, which competed successfully in the US market, could fragment: some companies would establish manufacturing operations within the United States to avoid tariffs, with the economic costs of duplicate investment. Alternatively, South Korean companies could redirect exports to other markets, potentially including China or emerging markets, with long-term geopolitical implications.
Iran seeks negotiations to avoid direct war with the United States
Facts
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has met with regional authorities in Iran to grant them greater autonomous decision-making powers, including expanded facilities to import goods and economic assets, amid growing fears that the United States may launch direct military action against the Ayatollah regime. According to multiple reports from international media sources citing Iranian news agencies, Pezeshkian has also explicitly communicated to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Iran is willing to engage in diplomatic negotiations to avoid war with the United States.
At the same time, the Pentagon has confirmed that the USS Abraham Lincoln, classified as a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, has completed its deployment through the Strait of Hormuz and arrived in the Persian Gulf, a region where US operations against Iranian targets are concentrated. The deployment of the aircraft carrier is an unequivocal demonstration of the United States' capacity to project force in the region and a clear signal that Washington is keeping the military option open.
Pezeshkian's diplomatic moves towards Riyadh suggest that the Iranian regime is seeking to neutralise one of the main sources of regional pressure by preventing Saudi Arabia from supporting, facilitating or actively participating in future US military operations against Iran. The granting of amplified powers to Iranian regional authorities can be interpreted simultaneously as organisational preparation for an armed conflict scenario where centralised communications could be disrupted or compromised by US cyber attacks.
Implications
The Ayatollah regime is currently cornered on multiple fronts: it faces periodic internal protests over political repression and economic collapse, endures an unprecedented regime of US economic sanctions, and now faces growing direct military pressure. Tehran's explicit call for Riyadh to negotiate represents an implicit admission of relative weakness. Iran's track record of following through on diplomatic commitments is abysmal: it has repeatedly signed agreements only to violate them later, particularly in relation to its nuclear programme and its commitments to curb exported terrorism.
The explicit mention of US and Israeli bombing of Iran in the recent Doomsday Clock report confirms that military confrontation with Tehran's terrorist regime has definitively moved from rhetoric to kinetic action (i.e., actual bombing). Iranian proxies — Hezbollah (Lebanon and Syria), the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, and proxy forces in Central Asia — have wreaked death and destruction for decades with impunity that has been, until recently, virtually total.
The fundamental change is that the Tehran regime now faces real consequences for the first time in its recent history. The US ability to project combined air and naval force in the Persian Gulf is overwhelmingly superior to any defensive capability Iran can deploy. Iranian short-range anti-ship missiles cannot counterbalance the presence of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier equipped with 100 fighter jets.
Outlook and scenarios
The negotiations proposed by Tehran would likely include US demands for greater concessions on Iran's nuclear programme and verifiable restrictions on support for regional terrorist proxies. The Iranian regime has historically shown little willingness to accept restrictions that compromise its ability to project regional influence. However, the tangible presence of US military power in the Persian Gulf may focus Iranian minds in a way that previous diplomatic negotiations have failed to do.
One potential scenario is the establishment of a precarious ‘modus vivendi’ in which both sides avoid direct confrontation but maintain antagonistic positions. Another scenario, less likely but possible, is that Iran yields to US pressure and accepts renewed inspections of its nuclear programme with more rigorous international verification. The least desirable scenario, from the perspective of regional stability, would be an escalation leading to open war between the United States and Iran, with unpredictable consequences for global oil supplies and the stability of the entire Middle East.
The Iranian civilian population, most of whom desire freedom, prosperity and access to the outside world, remains captive to a regime that prioritises its political survival over national welfare. An eventual fall of the Ayatollahs' regime would be cause for global celebration, but it must be achieved through means that avoid unnecessary humanitarian suffering.
The Netherlands reaches agreement to form an unusually minority government
Facts
Dutch political parties have reached an important agreement to form a government that would operate in a parliamentary minority configuration, an unusual arrangement in Dutch politics, though not without precedent. The agreement comes after several months of extremely complex negotiations following the Dutch general election, which significantly fragmented the country's political landscape into multiple parties with roughly equivalent political power.
A minority government is one in which the executive does not control the majority of seats in the national legislature. This means that, in order to pass legislation, the government must constantly seek support from opposition party MPs who voluntarily back specific initiatives. This configuration is more common in Nordic and Scandinavian parliamentary democracies, but in the post-war Dutch political tradition it is relatively rare.
Implications
The formation of a minority government in the Netherlands reflects a deeper change in European electoral politics: the increasing difficulty of building stable parliamentary majorities in European democracies where the vote is increasingly fragmented. Phenomena such as the emergence of far-right parties (Geert Wilders in the Netherlands), the weakness of traditional social democratic parties, and the atomisation of political coalitions have made it increasingly difficult to produce conventional governments.
The Netherlands thus joins other European countries that are experimenting with unconventional forms of government in the face of the mathematical impossibility of forming traditional majority coalitions. This reflects deeper changes in European political culture: European voters are simultaneously rejecting the established parties of the left and right, seeking alternatives that promise to break with the post-war consensus that has characterised European politics since 1945.
Outlook and scenarios
A Dutch minority government will depend on ad hoc support from other parties to pass specific legislation, which may lead to chronic political instability or, alternatively, may force cross-party consensus on key issues that transcend traditional ideological divisions. The Dutch experience will be closely watched by other European parliamentary systems facing similar challenges of political fragmentation and seeking institutional models that preserve democratic governance in a fragmented political environment. ¡
If the Dutch experiment succeeds in producing effective legislation through consensus and the pursuit of complex agreements, it could serve as a model for other European democracies. If it fails and produces legislative paralysis, it could accelerate the trend towards autocratic or semi-authoritarian governments that promise to restore ‘order’ through more centralised forms of executive power.
African countries send more money to China than they receive in new loans
Facts
According to an analysis by the Reuters news agency, which cited studies by research institutions specialising in international finance, African nations currently send more money to China in the form of debt payments than they receive annually in new loans from Chinese financial institutions. This data marks a significant turning point in financial relations between China and the African continent.
For approximately two decades, beginning around 2000, China has extended massive amounts of credit to African countries, ostensibly to finance infrastructure projects: railways, ports, motorways, dams and power plants. These loans, which according to Beijing were offered on supposedly favourable terms, effectively trapped many African nations in unsustainable debt dynamics. Chinese loans typically included the obligation to hire Chinese construction companies, purchase Chinese equipment, and employ Chinese workers, which meant that most of the capital never actually reached African hands for productive reinvestment.
Implications
The fact that net capital flows have now reversed reveals that we have moved from a phase of expansion of Chinese financing to a phase of systematic collection. African governments are discovering that many of the projects financed by China generated insufficient economic returns to justify the costs of accumulated debt. Ports that no one uses. Railways that carry minimal volumes. Infrastructure projects that were not real investment priorities.
China may be forced to renegotiate debt terms with multiple African countries to avoid widespread defaults that would significantly damage its image as a development partner in the Global South. Alternatively, and this is what many analysts fear, Beijing could swap debt for strategic assets, consolidating its physical influence over critical African resources: strategic ports (such as Hambantota in Sri Lanka, swapped for debt), cobalt and copper mines, rare earths, access to oil, and agricultural assets.
Outlook and scenarios
The West should pay careful attention to this dynamic. Through infrastructure financing, China has achieved what Western colonisation did not fully achieve: access to strategic African resources and control over the geopolitics of key African nations. If China consolidates this position through debt-for-assets swaps, it will gain control over supply chains of materials critical to the global technology industry and the global energy transition.
The West should offer financing alternatives that avoid African dependence on a single creditor with a clear geopolitical agenda. The African Development Bank, Western multilateral institutions, and Western private investment in African infrastructure could compete with the Chinese model. However, this would require political will and financial resources that the West currently seems reluctant to commit on the scale necessary.
Boeing posts its best quarterly revenue since 2018
Facts
Boeing has reported total revenue of $23.9 billion in the last quarter of 2025, representing its best quarterly figure since 2018. The US aircraft manufacturer's deliveries skyrocketed significantly in late 2025 after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) relaxed and expanded the monthly production limits for the 737 MAX, which had been imposed restrictively following the catastrophic in-flight accident involving the model.
The 737 MAX accidents in Indonesia (2018) and Ethiopia (2019) killed 346 people in two months, causing the suspension of all operations of the model worldwide. The FAA had limited Boeing's production to 38 aircraft per month as a condition of reauthorisation. The liberalisation of these limits signals that the US regulator considers Boeing to have implemented sufficient structural safety corrections.
Implications
Boeing's recovery marks a significant milestone in the company's rebuilding after years of multiple crises: fatal 737 MAX accidents, devastating labour strikes in 2024-2025, systematic quality assurance problems, and safety scandals including the ‘exploding windows’ incident on the 787 Dreamliner in flight. Each of these individual events would have ruined most companies. Boeing has survived them all.
For the global aerospace industry, Boeing's recovery is essential because the global commercial aviation market is essentially a duopoly between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing had collapsed, it would have concentrated market power unacceptably in Airbus, leading to higher prices for airlines and limited supplier choice.
Outlook and scenarios
If Boeing manages to maintain quality and safety standards while simultaneously increasing production to the levels demanded by the industry, it could regain market share lost to Airbus during the crisis years. Global demand for commercial aircraft remains robust thanks to the post-pandemic recovery in air traffic, economic growth in emerging markets, and the need to replace ageing aircraft in global fleets.
However, Boeing's reputation remains fragile. Any new significant safety incident would have devastating consequences not only for Boeing but potentially for the entire aviation industry, generating mistrust among travellers. The company must maintain extreme vigilance over manufacturing processes and quality controls during production expansion.
US intelligence expresses doubts about the cooperation of post-Maduro Venezuelan leadership
Facts
According to a Reuters report citing assessments by US intelligence agencies, US intelligence has expressed significant doubts about the willingness of elements of the Venezuelan leadership to cooperate constructively in a post-Nicolás Maduro scenario. At the same time, the United States continues to develop strategic plans for a Venezuela without the dictator who has destroyed the nation during eighteen years of narco-dictatorship.
The report suggests that even after Nicolás Maduro's capture or fall from power, elements rooted in the Chavista regime's power structure would likely hinder an orderly transition to democracy. These elements include military personnel who have accumulated political and economic power, drug trafficking structures entrenched in state institutions, and regime loyalists who would seek to protect themselves from prosecution for crimes against humanity.
Implications
The US intelligence community's doubts about cooperation suggest an uncomfortable diagnosis: that the capture or eventual fall of Nicolás Maduro, while necessary and desirable, would not automatically solve Venezuela's structural problems. The Chavista regime is not a man. It is a mafia-like organisation of colossal proportions, deeply entrenched in every state institution, which has accumulated power over the twenty-five years since Hugo Chávez's rise to power.
The structure of corruption, drugs, and terrorism built up over decades of Chavista control will not disappear with the removal of a single leadership figure. Drug trafficking networks that move hundreds of billions of dollars annually will not voluntarily relinquish their power. Military personnel who have enriched themselves by plundering state resources will not naturally accept accountability. The security services that have tortured political dissidents will not reform spontaneously.
Outlook and scenarios
The democratic reconstruction of Venezuela will require not only military action against the regime's criminal structures, but also a comprehensive, long-term plan that includes: the systematic dismantling of drug trafficking networks; the prosecution of crimes against humanity through special tribunals or truth and reconciliation processes; the rebuilding of state institutions from the ground up; economic stabilisation with international assistance; the replacement of military forces loyal to the regime with new security institutions; and the reconstruction of basic public services devastated by twenty-five years of corruption and neglect.
The Iraqi experience—where the United States and its allies invaded, removed a regime, but failed to build a functional state, leading to decades of chaos—should serve as a solemn warning about the risks of military interventions without adequate planning for the ‘day after.’ Venezuela needs more than Maduro's downfall. It needs profound institutional reconstruction. The Venezuelan people, who have suffered under the Chavista regime since 2000, deserve to finally be freed from the yoke that has destroyed what was once one of the most prosperous nations in Latin America, with proven oil reserves that are the largest in the world.
Canada seeks to strengthen trade ties with India after years of diplomatic tension
Facts
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is scheduled to make a state visit to India in early March 2026, with the explicit goal of rapidly expanding bilateral trade relations and restoring diplomatic normality after more than two years of significant tension between the two nations. The visit is interpreted by analysts as a pragmatic shift by Ottawa towards normalising relations with New Delhi, prioritising commercial and strategic interests over historical political differences.
The diplomatic crisis between Canada and India, which began approximately two and a half years ago, was triggered by Ottawa's accusations that India had been involved in clandestine activities on Canadian territory. The Canadian accusations were categorically rejected by New Delhi. However, Carney's new administration in Canada appears to be taking a more pragmatic stance: given the commercial interests at stake, India's geopolitical importance, and New Delhi's usefulness as a partner in the Asia-Pacific region, normalisation is preferable to continued conflict.
Implications
Canada's rapprochement with India comes at an opportune moment geopolitically. The conclusion of the EU-India trade agreement just days ago demonstrates the dynamism of India's relationship with the West. Canada, as a North American nation, wants to secure access to India's rapidly expanding markets. At the same time, India is interesting to Canada as a counterweight to China's growing power in the Asia-Pacific region.
For Canada, rapprochement with India is practically mandatory given that its influence in Asia has historically been limited. India, with 1.4 billion people, the world's most dynamic economic growth, and growing geopolitical ambitions, is a partner that no major Western nation can ignore.
Outlook and scenarios
India is increasingly positioning itself as an indispensable partner for Western democracies seeking to diversify their supply chains and reduce dependence on China. Canada, rich in critical natural resources—copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt—and rare earths that India desperately needs for its industrial expansion, could benefit significantly from a formal bilateral trade agreement.
Carney's visit in March will be a critical test to determine whether the two nations can overcome their previous political differences and build a pragmatic relationship based on mutual interests. Success in these negotiations could pave the way for future cooperation in technology, defence, scientific research, and academic exchanges.
Media rack
The following leading international media outlets have covered the main geopolitical news stories of the last 24 hours:
Reuters (British Press Agency)
Focus: Factual coverage of trade agreements, intelligence data on Venezuela, Africa-China capital flows. Tone: Neutral and based on verified facts. Reuters is the go-to source for global economic and business information.
CNN (American Television Network)
Focus: Contextualised analysis of India-EU agreement, Trump tariffs on South Korea, progress of the Doomsday Clock. Tone: Analytical, with emphasis on implications for US audience.
Al Jazeera (Qatari television network)
Focus: Detailed coverage of the war in Ukraine (day 1434), India-EU agreement, Trump tariffs, Middle East geopolitics. Tone: Critical of the West, but factually rigorous. Non-Western perspective.
USA Today (American newspaper)
Focus: Informative communication about the Doomsday Clock advancing to 85 seconds before midnight. Tone: Alarmist but responsible, aimed at the general American audience.
CNBC (American business television network)
Focus: Commercial and financial implications of the India-EU agreement. Analysis of impact on stock markets, investment flows, supply chains. Tone: Financial focus, aimed at investors.
Deutsche Welle (German public broadcaster)
Focus: Historic agreement between the EU and India. Tone: Pro-European and cautiously optimistic. Emphasis on the role of the European Commission.
BBC (British Public Broadcaster)
Focus: Balanced description of the India-EU agreement as the ‘mother of all agreements.’ Tone: Neutral and descriptive. Reference to credibility.
The Telegraph (British newspaper)
Focus: Negotiations on Ukraine, Russian position, strategic analysis of military implications. Tone: In-depth strategic analysis.
ABC News (American network)
Focus: Scientists announce Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight, existential threats. Tone: Scientific and concerned.
Channel News Asia (Singapore)
Focus: Trump's tariffs on South Korea. Tone: Asian perspective, concern about regional impact.
Straits Times (Singapore)
Focus: Coverage of Russian attacks in Ukraine, Doomsday Clock advance. Tone: Asia-Pacific perspective.
European Commission (Official Institution)
Focus: Communications on India-EU Summit, technical details of trade agreement. Tone: Institutional and promotional.
Editorial commentary
The fundamental contrast of this geopolitical day could not be more eloquent, nor more disturbing: while the world's most eminent atomic scientists move the Doomsday Clock closer to disaster than at any time in its 79-year history, reaching 85 seconds before midnight, the European Union and India simultaneously demonstrate that trade diplomacy is still capable of producing historic agreements that benefit billions of people. We live in dangerous times of paradox. We live simultaneously in the best possible trade scenario and the worst imaginable existential security scenario.
Regarding the India-EU agreement:
This pact represents exactly the kind of constructive economic multilateralism that the international order needs at a time of fragmentation and uncertainty. Faced with Washington's aggressive tariff unilateralism — which today punishes even staunch allies such as South Korea — Brussels and New Delhi are opting for patient negotiation, the search for mutually beneficial compromises, and the building of lasting relationships. It is no coincidence that this pact comes after nearly two decades of often stalled talks: truly robust trade agreements require sustained time to build trust, not threatening tweets posted at three in the morning.
However, it would be naive to celebrate this achievement without critical nuances or reservations. European tariffs on Indian cars are falling, but competition between European and Indian producers will be intense. India gains access to European markets, but it also accepts European standards of sustainability and labour rights that will eventually push up its production costs. This is the natural balance of a genuine agreement: everyone gains something, everyone gives something up.
As for the Doomsday Clock:
The global scenario painted by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in moving the clock forward to 85 seconds is terrifying. This is not a metaphor. It is the professional verdict of experts who have studied the existential risks facing humanity for decades: the combination of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, accelerating climate change, artificial intelligence without clear international regulation, and multiple simultaneous armed conflicts in different geographical theatres forms a potentially lethal cocktail for civilisation.
Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues to wreak unparalleled havoc. Yesterday, a passenger train in Kharkiv. Tomorrow, likely, additional civilian targets. Four years ago, no one in their right mind would have predicted that a Russian invasion on a massive scale would be possible in the twenty-first century. Yet it happened. It happened because international leadership failed to stop the aggression in its early stages. It happened because the deterrence mechanisms that functioned imperfectly during the Cold War have rusted through decades of institutional neglect.
As for Iran:
That Tehran is now calling Riyadh to negotiate is an implicit admission of weakness. The Ayatollah regime faces direct US military pressure for the first time in its modern history. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf is a persuasive argument that no amount of revolutionary rhetoric can counter. The explicit mention of US and Israeli bombing of Iran in the Doomsday Clock report confirms that military confrontation with Tehran's terrorist regime has moved from diplomatic rhetoric to actual kinetic action.
So be it. Iranian proxies — Hezbollah spreading terrorism from Lebanon and Syria, the Houthis destabilising Yemen and attacking international shipping, Hamas perpetrating massacres of civilians, pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, proxy forces in Central Asia — have sown death, destruction and instability for too many decades with impunity that was virtually total until very recently. If the Ayatollah regime is now trembling and seeking to negotiate, it is because it is finally facing real consequences for the first time in its existence.
As for Ukraine:
The signs of peace are mixed at best. Trump speaks of ‘positive developments’ in negotiations, while press reports persist that the US is pressuring Kiev to agree to cede territory in exchange for security guarantees. This is deeply problematic. Territorial integrity is not a negotiable luxury. Accepting territorial conquests by military force sets a disastrous precedent for the international order. It invites future aggression, not only from Russia but from any revisionist power that observes that territories captured by force are not recovered.
The Ukrainian population has suffered four years of constant bombardment. More than a million people have been killed or wounded. Total economic losses exceed $500 billion. Infrastructure is destroyed. Fields are mined. Society is traumatised. Ukraine deserves peace, but a peace that preserves its territorial integrity and national dignity, not a peace of capitulation masquerading as ‘diplomatic pragmatism’.
As for Venezuela:
The doubts expressed by US intelligence about the cooperation of the post-Maduro Venezuelan leadership are understandable and reflect an uncomfortable reality: that Nicolás Maduro is the face of the regime, not its root cause. Chavismo is a mafia-like system that has been entrenched in every state institution for a quarter of a century. Its dismantling will require more than the capture of one man: it will require systematic institutional reconstruction from the ground up.
Venezuelan military officers who have enriched themselves by plundering state resources will not naturally accept accountability. Security services that have tortured political dissidents will not spontaneously reform. Drug trafficking networks that move hundreds of billions of dollars annually will not voluntarily relinquish their power. This is reality.
However, the prospect of a Venezuela free from the Chavista regime is a cause for genuine hope. The Venezuelan people deserve to finally live in freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. Just three decades ago, Venezuela was one of the most prosperous nations in Latin America, with oil wealth among the largest in the world. That this has been transformed into widespread misery under the Chavista regime represents a historic crime against humanity.
As for China and Africa:
The reversal of financial flows between China and Africa, where African nations now send more money to Beijing in debt payments than they receive in new loans, is a fact that should set off alarm bells in all Western foreign ministries. Through front infrastructure financing, China has achieved what Western colonisation did not fully achieve: guaranteed access to strategic African resources and control over the geopolitics of key African nations.
The West should be watching this with the utmost attention. If China consolidates its position through debt-for-assets swaps, Beijing will have control over supply chains of materials critical to the global technology industry and the global energy transition. Rare earths. Cobalt. Copper. Lithium. Gold and diamond deposits. All in the hands of a regime that does not hesitate to use its control over strategic materials as a geopolitical weapon.
The West should respond by offering financing alternatives that avoid African dependence on a single creditor with an obvious geopolitical agenda. The African Development Bank, Western multilateral institutions, Western private investment in African infrastructure—all could compete with the Chinese model. However, this would require political will and the mobilisation of financial resources that the West currently seems reluctant to commit on the scale necessary. This may be a strategic error of historic proportions.
Final Reflection:
We close this day of analysis with an uncomfortable reflection: 85 seconds before midnight is not a poetic metaphor. It is the technical verdict of experts who have studied for decades the specific existential risks facing humanity. Only responsible leadership—which atomic scientists deeply miss in the current international system—can pull us back from the brink.
Unfortunately, such leadership is in short supply in a world where nuclear powers and key strategic decision-makers seem to prefer confrontation over cooperation, the imposition of their own will over sincere dialogue, and the defence of particular interests over the preservation of the common good of humanity.
We certainly live in paradoxical times. Times of unprecedented commercial opportunity and times of existential danger without recent historical parallel. The fundamental question we face is whether our capacity for economic cooperation can eventually translate into political and security cooperation. The coming months will tell us a great deal about this.
