Wednesday, January 21, 2026
By Gustavo de Arístegui
I. INTRODUCTION
The events of the last 24 hours condense the tensions of this early 2026 almost to the point of caricature: a President Trump turning Greenland into a touchstone of power and tariffs; a Europe attempting to respond without fracturing the transatlantic bond; a peace architecture for Gaza that is becoming globalized; and a European Union seeking to armor Ukrainian resistance through 2027 by means of joint loans.
All of this is unfolding while NATO calibrates its military posture in Brussels, markets price in the risk of a new transatlantic trade war, Iran endures the bloodiest repression since 1979, and China posts 5% growth in 2025, keeping the systemic rivalry between democracies and autocracies alive.
In Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney captures the atmosphere with an unequivocal message: the rules-based international order is in full rupture, and the central question is whether democracies will be capable of responding with maturity and resolve or will remain trapped between the unilateralism of their allies and the aggressiveness of their adversaries.
II. MOST IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Trump escalates the confrontation over Greenland and threatens Europe with tariffs
Facts
President Trump has reiterated that U.S. control over Greenland constitutes a non-negotiable strategic objective, explicitly linking it to missile defense (“Golden Dome”), space surveillance, and the containment of Russia and China in the Arctic.
He has announced the imposition of 10% tariffs on all imports from eight European allies—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—effective February 1, with escalation to 25% on June 1 should no agreement be reached regarding the “complete and total purchase of Greenland.”
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen openly questioned Trump’s reliability and warned that the European Union is prepared, for the first time, to activate its anti-coercion trade instrument in response to tariffs explicitly tied to geopolitical pressure.
Implications
Trump is effectively breaking with the culture of cooperative alliance management by subordinating trade policy to a logic of geopolitical reward and punishment directed at full-fledged allies rather than merely “problematic partners,” reviving the spirit of the Iraq crisis on an economic terrain far more sensitive for European societies.
The reaction from Macron and von der Leyen positions Europe as a defender of the rules-based order in the face of a White House openly embracing power politics; our editorial line must remain clear: defending NATO and the transatlantic relationship cannot serve as a pretext for accepting economic blackmail against allied democracies.
The systemic risk is not purely commercial. If European publics conclude that Washington is prepared to punish partners for refusing to cede territory, confidence in the U.S. security umbrella will erode, fueling anti-Atlantic narratives and misguided temptations toward “strategic autonomy” that ultimately benefit the Kremlin and Chinese expansionism.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive scenario: Coordinated pressure from the European Union, the NATO Secretary General, and several G7 leaders steers the crisis toward arrangements involving reinforced U.S. presence in the Arctic without altering Danish sovereignty or triggering tariff escalation; Trump preserves a hard-line narrative without crossing the Rubicon.
Risk scenario: The president follows through on tariff implementation on February 1, the EU responds with calibrated countermeasures, and an intra-Western trade conflict emerges, weakening the common front against Russia, China, and Iran while Moscow intensifies its disinformation campaign about a “decadent and divided” West.
Extreme scenario: The dispute over Greenland triggers a toxic debate in some European capitals regarding the U.S. military presence on the continent; even if marginal, the mere emergence of such a debate would constitute a strategic victory for Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
2. The European Union moves toward political closure on the €90 billion loan to Ukraine (ECOFIN)
Facts
EU leaders agreed in December 2025 on a €90 billion loan package for Ukraine covering 2026–27, financed through joint borrowing and repayable through future Russian reparations, with backing from the EU budget.
The European Commission’s legislative proposal translates this political agreement into a continuous financial support mechanism intended to cover Ukraine’s budgetary and defense needs beginning in the second quarter of 2026.
The January 20 ECOFIN meeting in Brussels must transform the political commitment into an operational mandate; formulations such as “conclusions adopted” or “mandate granted to the Commission” would indicate success, while references to “reservations recorded” or “deferred for further examination” would signal blockage or delay.
Implications
For Kyiv, the transition from the December agreement to a formal ECOFIN decision is decisive: uncertainty regarding timing and conditionality fuels financial volatility and reinforces Kremlin doubts about Europe’s medium-term staying power.
The structure of the loan—interest-free and repayable through Russian reparations—aligns with our editorial stance: holding the aggressor accountable, protecting internal EU stability, and preventing European taxpayers from becoming permanent victims of Putin’s war of aggression.
Any unjustified delay resulting from vetoes or tactical maneuvering by governments aligned with the Central European illiberal axis would send an extremely dangerous signal—that European unity in the face of Russia’s invasion is negotiable—thereby weakening deterrence and reinforcing the Kremlin’s narrative of a fatigued and divided Europe.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive scenario: ECOFIN adopts clear conclusions, grants a mandate to the Commission, and moves the package into implementation; markets interpret this as reduced liquidity risk for Ukraine and enhanced credibility of Europe’s commitment through 2027.
Risk scenario: Language is limited to “substantial progress” without formal adoption, accompanied by references to “additional national consultations,” resulting in weeks of delay and providing rhetorical ammunition to both Moscow and U.S. skeptics of continued support for Ukraine.
Bleak scenario: A member state formally registers reservations and reopens the package; Ukraine’s political risk premium spikes, the EU’s reputation as a reliable wartime partner deteriorates, and naïve pacifist currents that effectively whitewash Russian aggression gain ground.