Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical analysis of 20 November 2025
- The most dangerous decade since 1945
- Gaza: the international plan is not just another option; it is the only viable solution
- US-Saudi Arabia: a decisive strategic axis for the 21st century is born
- Venezuela: the modern “big stick” is already deployed
- NVIDIA: Immediate oxygen for the markets, but the battle for AI continues
- Japan–China: a ‘long winter’ begins with Taiwan at the centre
- Ukraine: peace based on territorial concessions is not desirable, but it may be the pragmatic option
- United States: Epstein files, Texas electoral map and institutional resilience
- Dubai Air Show: the Gulf consolidates its position as the world's new military industrial centre
- Media rack
- Editorial conclusion – merged and reinforced version
- And Europe?
The most dangerous decade since 1945
In less than twenty-four hours, the great tectonic plates of geopolitics have shifted once again. The war in Ukraine is entering a decisive phase in which negotiations are no longer seeking absolute victory but rather the institutional survival of the Ukrainian state.
The United States is redefining its alliance architecture through strategic pacts that consolidate the expanded Atlantic axis, but at the same time relegate Europe to the role of a latecomer.
The Persian Gulf and the Arab monarchies of the Gulf as a whole are acquiring unprecedented industrial and military autonomy: they are no longer just buyers of weapons systems; they are becoming manufacturers and exporters. China and Japan are entering a ‘long winter’ that will define the balance of power in East Asia for the next decade, with Taiwan at the epicentre of a structural clash.
Artificial intelligence is accelerating the most decisive technological race of the 21st century, in which Nvidia embodies Western technological supremacy against a Chinese bloc that is trying to close the gap at a rapid pace.
Gaza is hurtling towards a point of no return. Either a minimum of international order is imposed, or the Strip will become a black hole of terrorism, organised crime and expansionist projects of the Iranian axis.
Poland, for its part, offers an example of a firm and proportionate response to Russia's hybrid warfare following the railway sabotage on the Warsaw-Lublin axis. And at the G20 summit in South Africa, a silent battle is being waged over the narrative of development and inequality between a demanding but open Western model and an authoritarian alternative that exploits the fatigue of the global South.
We are experiencing an accelerated return to strategic realism with democratic awareness: a scenario where military coercion, brutal technological competition, energy resilience as an existential factor, principled diplomacy and the need to sustain an international order that, without determined guardians, would dissolve into chaos of territorial revisionism, insecurity and systematic violence coexist.
The West is gambling its future on three simultaneous fronts:
- The preservation of an open international order, based on rights and freedoms, in the face of those who favour force and opacity.
- Technological, economic and military resilience in the face of China, Russia and Iran.
- The internal cohesion of the United States, an indispensable prerequisite for global stability.
- The coming months will be decisive in determining whether the Atlantic axis will be strengthened or weakened, whether Europe will wake up or remain absent, and whether the global South will perceive the West as a serious partner or as a distant and incoherent power.
Gaza: the international plan is not just another option; it is the only viable solution
Facts:
The Security Council has approved a resolution authorising a Western-led international stabilisation force in Gaza and a US-chaired Peace Board. This Board will temporarily take on administrative, reconstruction and security tasks. Israel supports the plan operationally because it allows it to withdraw troops without leaving a complete power vacuum. Hamas rejects it outright, threatening to attack any international force and announcing a permanent insurgency.
The United States, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan share a realistic assessment: without solid and prolonged international intervention, Gaza would sink into total chaos within weeks. Without a robust presence, the territory would be taken over by rival Islamist factions, criminal networks and Iranian proxies. Without international administration, there would be no basic services, no reconstruction and no minimally rational political horizon.
Implications:
The discourse that presents the plan as a ‘colonial protectorate’ is not only simplistic but also deeply irresponsible. There is no operational alternative that does not involve a combination of international authority, credible force, and coordinated reconstruction. The experience of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon speaks for itself: where the state disappears and the world looks the other way, the worst beasts of chaos emerge.
The UN plan for Gaza:
- It does not replace the Palestinians, but seeks to protect them from Hamas's suicidal logic.
- It offers Israel structured security under the umbrella of international legitimacy that, without the plan, would simply not exist.
- It restores prominence to moderate Arab countries, which can finally challenge Iran for the Palestinian flag.
- It reinforces the role of the United States as the indispensable architect of regional order.
- It gives the Palestinians a horizon of stability, reconstruction and political future outside Islamist hijacking.
The alternative is clear: either a robust international mission or Gaza as a black hole of insecurity for the entire Middle East and the Mediterranean. Under these conditions, the plan is not just another option, but the only viable solution.
US-Saudi Arabia: a decisive strategic axis for the 21st century is born
Facts:
The United States has designated Saudi Arabia as a ‘major non-NATO ally’ and has formalised a defence and strategic cooperation agreement covering:
- Expanded territorial defence and protection against external threats.
- Civil nuclear cooperation under strict international safeguards.
- Massive Saudi investments in US technology, energy and defence.
Riyadh is, de facto, integrated into the hard core of Western allies who receive extensive security guarantees in exchange for strategic alignment against Iran, Russia and Chinese penetration.
Implications:
The formalised alliance is based on a cold and correct calculation:
- A Saudi Arabia clearly integrated into the Western security architecture guarantees stability in a region that remains vital for energy markets, trade routes and the global balance of power.
- The duly verified civil nuclear pact demonstrates that the West can project influence and technology without renouncing non-proliferation, in contrast to opaque models such as Iran's.
- Saudi Arabia's large investment in cutting-edge US sectors creates a web of interdependence that makes the alliance irreversible in the medium term: if Washington is interested in Saudi capital, Riyadh is interested in protection, guarantees and technological access.
- For Europe, all this is vital, but the EU acts as a spectator, not a decision-maker. The Gulf is becoming the energy and military pillar of the expanded Western order, but Europe's seat at the decision-making table carries much less weight than it should. That is a political decision, not a design of fate.
Venezuela: the modern “big stick” is already deployed
Facts:
Trump has authorised covert CIA operations in Venezuela with the explicit aim of containing the narco-state and dismantling the criminal network known as the Cartel de los Soles, which functions as the central cog of the regime. At the same time, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is approaching the Caribbean with some 15,000 troops and a full combat group. The designation of the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organisation is being considered, which would open the door to more forceful and coordinated action.
This is not an ideological adventure, but rather the management of a systemic risk: a state that has turned its apparatus into a structure for drug trafficking and destabilisation is a direct threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere.
Implications:
The United States has decided to prioritise hemispheric security and face the uncomfortable truth: Venezuela is at the heart of a network that supplies the heroin and cocaine that kills tens of thousands of people a year in the Americas and Europe; launders billions that distort financial systems; and pushes millions of citizens into mass emigration, destabilising neighbouring countries.
Covert operations have a legal basis in the fight against terrorism and drugs. This is not a whim, but rather the recognition that the impunity of a narco-state is incompatible with regional stability.
If pressure fails to yield results, the option of limited, rapid and surgical intervention will become increasingly plausible. Its objective would not be an old-style occupation, but rather:
- To neutralise the regime's key military and repressive capabilities.
- To break the operational link between the state apparatus and organised crime.
- To facilitate a transition that has internal democratic legitimacy, reinforced by figures such as María Corina Machado, whose Nobel Peace Prize has given it a not inconsiderable patina of international legitimacy.
The regional reaction will be mixed: liberal democracies will understand the security logic; the Bolivarian axis and its rhetorical allies will cry ‘imperialism.’ The underlying message, however, is unequivocal: the United States will not indefinitely tolerate a narco-state two hours from Florida.
NVIDIA: Immediate oxygen for the markets, but the battle for AI continues
Facts:
Nvidia has once again broken revenue and profit records, driven by global demand for advanced processors for artificial intelligence. The results have dispelled, at least temporarily, the immediate fear of an uncontrolled speculative bubble. The company maintains its undisputed leadership in GPUs for data centres and critical applications.
However, debates persist about ‘circular agreements’ with startups in the sector, financed in part by Nvidia itself and whose business models depend almost entirely on the continued purchase of its chips. Despite this, verified real demand remains very high. The entire ecosystem of generative AI, intelligent defence, cybersecurity and simulation depends on these processors.
Implications:
Nvidia's leadership is a strategic asset of the first order for the West. It is not a state-owned company, nor is it a creature of political laboratory: it is the product of decades of private innovation, market competition and an institutional environment that favours creativity. This marks a huge difference with a more opaque, more state-directed and less transparent Chinese ecosystem.
China's exclusion from access to advanced chips, via export restrictions, is not a technical anecdote: it is a geostrategic decision of enormous significance. In practice:
- It ensures that the Western advantage in AI and high-performance computing will be maintained for years to come.
- It makes it difficult for China to match its military and intelligent surveillance capabilities in the short term.
- It forces Beijing to invest in local alternatives that will take years to mature.
For Europe, the absence of a player comparable to Nvidia is an existential problem. Without a champion of its own, the EU is condemned to depend on foreign technologies. The only reasonable way out is to:
- Fully integrate into the Atlantic technology chain, accepting that its digital security depends on close alliances with the US and its partners.
- Accelerating investment in basic research and semiconductor clusters that, even if they do not reach the size of Nvidia, will reduce the gap.
- The battle for AI is, in reality, the battle for hegemony in the 21st century. In it, Nvidia is today one of the pillars of Western technological supremacy.
Japan–China: a ‘long winter’ begins with Taiwan at the centre
Facts:
China has once again suspended imports of seafood from Japan and added symbolic and economic pressure measures: cancellation of film premieres, flight restrictions and aggressive messages in the official press. All this in response to statements by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who has explicitly linked Japan's security to the defence of Taiwan.
Tokyo has responded by strengthening its ties with Washington, Canberra and India within the framework of the Quad and by accelerating its own military modernisation. It has set aside ambiguity: an attack on Taiwan will be treated as a direct threat to its national survival.
Implications:
China's trade retaliation confirms a familiar pattern: Beijing uses the economy as a weapon of political coercion. It seeks to punish those who challenge its red lines and intimidate others into not daring to imitate them. However, the strategy has the opposite effect to that intended:
- It reinforces the perception of China as a coercive and unpredictable actor.
- It accelerates the diversification of markets and supply chains in Japan.
- It consolidates Tokyo's alignment with the US strategy of containment in the Indo-Pacific.
Japan has decided to bear economic costs today in exchange for strategic clarity tomorrow. It prefers to be a reliable partner in a robust alliance system rather than an economic hostage to an increasingly assertive neighbour.
The Indo-Pacific is confirmed as the centre of gravity of world politics. Freedom of navigation, control of semiconductors, Taiwan's autonomy, the credibility of the US alliance system and the overall balance of power are at stake there. If Europe does not decisively insert itself into this architecture, it will see its geopolitical weight further reduced.
Ukraine: peace based on territorial concessions is not desirable, but it may be the pragmatic option
Facts:
Converging reports, led by Reuters and other media outlets, confirm that the United States and Russia are working on a 28-point peace plan that would include at least the following elements:
- Limited territorial concessions by Ukraine to Russia, consolidating some occupations de facto.
- Verifiable international security guarantees for the rest of Ukrainian territory.
- Relative military neutrality of Kyiv, with ‘frozen but potential’ Western institutional and economic integration.
At the same time, Russia continues to attack civilian targets. The bombing of a residential block in Ternopil, with at least 26 dead (including minors), dozens missing and more than 100 wounded, shows that Moscow continues to use terror against the population as a tool of pressure.
In parallel, sabotage on the Warsaw-Lublin railway line, attributed by Poland to Russian military intelligence (GRU) with logistical support from Ukrainian citizens who have taken refuge in Belarus, underlines that hybrid warfare knows no clear boundaries.
Implications:
The existence of a negotiation process is, in itself, positive: a frozen war with no end in sight is wearing down Ukraine and the West. However, the quality of peace matters as much as its mere existence. A peace that enshrines the cession of territories without robust guarantees would send a devastating message: aggression pays off. Other actors from the Caucasus to the Sahel would take note.
From a strictly Atlanticist point of view, the dilemma is brutal but unavoidable: a limited territorial cession, accompanied by solid guarantees, military reconstruction and progressive accession to Western structures, could preserve Ukraine's real sovereignty and stabilise the European front.
The alternative could be an indefinite prolongation of the conflict, with Russia's ability to continue destroying infrastructure and lives, and with growing fatigue among Western public opinion.
Poland, the Baltic states and other frontline partners fear a repeat of the history of appeasement. Their concern is legitimate. The response cannot be to deny reality, but to demand a seat at the table where decisions are made and to make peace conditional on:
- Verifiable security guarantees.
- Massive reinforcement of NATO's eastern flank.
- Clear commitments to Ukrainian reconstruction and rearmament.
Only then can Ukraine become a kind of ‘Israel of the East’: perhaps with less territory than it rightfully belongs to it, but with sufficient military capabilities, intelligence and resilience to deter any new aggression.
United States: Epstein files, Texas electoral map and institutional resilience
Facts:
Trump has signed the law known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the Department of Justice to release the unclassified files on the Epstein case. This initiative has virtually unanimous support in Congress and responds to a deep social demand for transparency regarding the connections between the tycoon and part of the political, economic and media elites.
At the same time, a court has blocked the new electoral map of Texas, ruling that it discriminated against minorities and violated electoral law. The episode is a further example of the extent to which American politics is increasingly being fought out in the courts.
Implications:
The release of the Epstein files is an act of clean governance that marks the difference between democratic systems and authoritarian regimes. The disclosure of documents, however painful it may be for many, is precisely the mechanism that allows a democracy to correct itself and hold those responsible to account. The immediate cost will be high for some names; the long-term benefit in terms of institutional credibility is incalculable.
The deadlock in Texas illustrates the normalisation of electoral lawfare: the struggle for power is being transferred to the courts. This entails risks (politicisation of justice) but also opportunities (the ability to correct abuses and ensure minimally equitable rules).
For Atlanticist allies, the essential message is this: yes, the United States is polarised, turbulent and noisy, but it is also a country with institutions capable of examining, correcting and purging themselves. This combination of open conflict and institutional resilience is, paradoxically, one of the reasons why the American system remains the irreplaceable pillar of the liberal order.
Dubai Air Show: the Gulf consolidates its position as the world's new military industrial centre
Facts:
The Dubai Air Show has confirmed the transformation of the Gulf into a global military powerhouse. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other players in the region are signing contracts worth billions of dollars, not only to purchase Western weapons systems, but also to produce, assemble and export them.
EDGE (UAE) seals joint ventures with Leonardo (Italy) and Indonesia; South Korea offers its KF-21 fighter jet in multi-million dollar packages; China competes with drones and fighter jets as a cheaper alternative; and major Western manufacturers are vying to position themselves alongside partners who no longer accept a passive role.
Implications:
The Gulf has ceased to be a simple market and has become an industrial defence platform. This has several consequences:
- It increases Arab strategic autonomy, but in practice it does so in an Atlanticist key: critical technology remains, for the most part, Western.
- It strengthens the axis with the United States and, to a lesser extent, with some European countries, provided that the latter are able to offer competitive solutions.
- It weakens the ability of China and Russia to use arms sales as their exclusive lever of influence in the region.
Europe, once again, appears blurred. Its political fragmentation and regulatory sluggishness are gradually pushing it out of the core of global industrial decision-making. While the Gulf, the United States and the Indo-Pacific are rapidly reconfiguring themselves, the EU remains mired in endless internal debates.
Media rack
Reuters (wires + podcast): highlights the day's key issues: peace plan for Ukraine, Nvidia results, Japan-China deterioration, Epstein files, Texas electoral map, resolution for Gaza.
The New York Times / Washington Post / CNN: focus on the domestic dimension of US politics (Epstein, Texas, polarisation) and the external impact of decisions such as the authorisation of covert operations in Venezuela or the plan for Gaza.
Wall Street Journal / Financial Times / The Economist: emphasise the economic-strategic equation: AI bubble, Nvidia's leadership, US-Saudi Arabia alliance, Gulf industrial autonomy and Europe's structural vulnerability.
Le Monde / Le Figaro / FAZ / Die Welt: express concern about the plan for Ukraine and the possibility of peace based on territorial concessions, as well as Europe's growing irrelevance in major decisions.
Al-Arabiya / Arab News / Asharq Al-Awsat / Saudi Gazette: present the Washington–Riyadh axis as a strategic triumph for the Kingdom and a consolidation of Saudi leadership in the Arab world, while viewing the plan for Gaza with ambivalence.
Yomiuri Shimbun / The Japan Times / South China Morning Post / China Daily: highlight Japan's hardening stance on Taiwan and China's coercive response in the commercial and cultural spheres, all framed within a context of structural rivalry.
Latin American media (Clarín, El Mercurio, Reforma, etc.): interpret the US deployment towards Venezuela as proof that the narco-state is no longer a local problem but has become a major hemispheric issue.
Editorial conclusion – merged and reinforced version
The West is entering its most dangerous phase since 1945, but also one of its most lucid since the end of the Cold War. It has finally understood that the world is governed not by desires but by forces; not by solemn declarations but by capabilities; not by rhetoric but by political will.
Despite criticism of the current administration's isolationism, the facts prove otherwise. The US is once again exercising clear leadership on the geopolitical stage.
It sets the agenda, builds alliances, makes difficult decisions on Ukraine, takes responsibility for stabilising Gaza, confronts the Venezuelan narco-state and shields the technological axis of AI.
Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Japan, Australia and other partners are reinforcing an expanded Western order that includes consolidated democracies and reformist monarchies that have understood that their future lies in the Atlantic anchor, not in adventures with revisionist powers.
The Indo-Pacific is consolidating its position as the centre of gravity of the 21st century.
It is there that the future of freedom of navigation, Taiwan's independence, the balance of naval power, the global semiconductor chain and the success or failure of containing an increasingly assertive China will be decided. Iran, Russia and, to a lesser extent, China are exerting pressure from the margins, but they still fail to offer a credible alternative model of order.
What they offer is not a better system, but a more dangerous, more opaque and more violent world.
And Europe?
Europe comments, analyses, expresses outrage, moralises... but acts too little and too late. It clings to rhetoric that is no longer enough, while the real redistribution of power is decided in Washington, Riyadh, Dubai, Tokyo, New Delhi and Canberra.
Now is the time for Europe to rediscover its Atlantic vocation, renounce the mirage of false equidistance, reinvest in defence, embrace its Western identity without complexes and return to the playing field as an actor, not a commentator.
The world will not wait. By the time the European Union finally decides that it wants to be in the circle where the big decisions are made, the rules may already have been written, the alliances sealed and the critical resources committed.
The window of opportunity is narrow, but it still exists; the question is no longer whether Europe can; the question, brutal and simple, is whether Europe wants to.