By Gustavo de Arístegui
21 January 2026
The events of the past 24 hours condense—almost to the point of caricature—the tensions shaping the beginning of 2026: a President Trump who has turned Greenland into a litmus test of power and tariffs; a Europe attempting to respond without breaking the transatlantic bond; a peace architecture for Gaza that is becoming global; and an EU seeking to shield Ukrainian resilience through 2027 through joint borrowing. All of this unfolds 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 alive the systemic rivalry between democracies and autocracies. In Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney captures the mood with an unequivocal message: the rules-based international order is in full rupture, and the central question is whether democracies will respond with mature resolve or remain trapped between the unilateralism of their allies and the aggressiveness of their adversaries.
I. INTRODUCTION
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Trump escalates the standoff over Greenland and threatens Europe with tariffs
Facts
Donald Trump has reiterated that U.S. control over Greenland is a non-negotiable strategic objective, linking it to missile defense (“Golden Dome”), space surveillance, and the containment of Russia and China in the Arctic.
The president has announced 10% tariffs on all imports from eight European allies—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—effective February 1, with escalation to 25% on June 1 if no agreement is reached for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland.”
In Davos, Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen openly questioned Trump’s reliability and warned that the EU is prepared, for the first time, to activate its anti-coercion trade mechanism 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 or punishment against full-fledged allies, not merely against “wayward partners,” reviving the spirit of the Iraq crisis on economic terrain far more sensitive for European societies.
The response by 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 be clear: defending NATO and the transatlantic relationship cannot serve as an excuse for accepting economic blackmail against allied democracies.
The systemic risk is not merely commercial: if Europeans perceive that Washington is willing to punish partners for refusing to cede territory, strategic confidence in the U.S. security umbrella erodes, feeding 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 EU, the NATO Secretary General, and several G7 leaders steers the conflict toward 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: Tariffs are imposed on February 1, the EU responds with calibrated countermeasures, and an intra-Western trade war opens, weakening the common front against Russia, China, and Iran while Moscow intensifies disinformation about a divided West.
Extreme scenario: The clash over Greenland triggers a toxic debate in some European capitals over the U.S. military presence on the continent; even if marginal, merely raising the issue constitutes a strategic victory for Putin and Xi.
2. The EU 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 for 2026–27, financed through joint debt and repayable via future Russian reparations, backed by the EU budget.
The Commission’s legislative proposal translates this agreement into a continuous financial support mechanism covering Ukraine’s budgetary and defense needs from Q2 2026 onward.
The January 20 ECOFIN meeting in Brussels must convert the political agreement into an operational mandate; phrases such as “conclusions adopted” or “mandate to the Commission” would signal success, while “reservations recorded” or “deferred for further examination” would indicate blockage.
Implications
For Kyiv, moving from the December agreement to a formal ECOFIN decision is decisive: uncertainty fuels financial volatility and Kremlin doubts about Europe’s medium-term resolve.
The loan structure—interest-free and repayable via Russian reparations—aligns with our editorial line: making the aggressor pay, safeguarding EU internal stability, and avoiding permanent costs for European taxpayers.
Any unjustified delay driven by vetoes or maneuvering from illiberal governments would dangerously signal that European unity against Russian aggression is negotiable.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive: Formal adoption and swift implementation reinforce Europe’s credibility through 2027.
Risk: Ambiguous language delays execution, empowering Moscow and U.S. skeptics.
Bleak: Reopening the package spikes Ukraine’s political risk premium and weakens EU deterrence.
3. Birth of the “Board of Peace”: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan join the Gaza framework
Facts
Following the announcement of the Gaza peace plan and creation of a U.S.-led “Board of Peace,” Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan accepted invitations as founding members.
Presidents Tokayev and Mirziyoyev pledged support for reconstruction, stability, and prevention of renewed violence.
Discussions continue regarding possible inclusion of Canada and other G7 actors.
Implications
The inclusion of Central Asian capitals transforms the initiative into a multilateral legitimacy platform extending beyond Gaza.
For Moscow and Beijing, former Soviet states aligning with a U.S.-led body undermines narratives of Russian-Chinese dominance in Central Asia.
From our perspective, a post-war Gaza framework anchored in moderate, non-radical actors weakens Hamas, limits Iranian influence, and counters the Turkey-Qatar axis.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive: Expansion to additional moderate Arab states with effective security oversight.
Risk: Russian-Chinese sabotage or Iranian proxy escalation.
Blockage: Bureaucratic paralysis repeats past peace-process failures.
4. NATO: Chiefs of Defence meeting in Brussels as a strategic hinge
Facts
NATO’s Military Committee meets January 21–22 in Brussels with Chiefs of Defence of all 32 allies.
The agenda includes readiness, capability acceleration, Indo-Pacific coordination, and NATO-Ukraine Council discussions.
Language on operational planning directives will distinguish substance from symbolism.
Implications
Unity in Brussels would firewall tariff disputes from deterrence architecture.
For Ukraine, military mandates matter as much as financial aid.
Any signal of disunity will be read in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran as strategic weakness.
5. Davos 2026: Macron, Carney, and the EU confront Trump
Davos becomes the stage for a clash between transactional unilateralism and rule-based economic openness.
Supporting firmness against Russia and terrorism does not require endorsing tariff coercion against democratic allies.
Smart, proportional EU firmness could reinforce Europe’s credibility rather than weaken it.
6. Russia maintains its terror strategy against Ukrainian infrastructure
Russia continues mass missile and drone attacks against Ukraine’s energy grid.
The objective is civilian suffering, not military gain.
Europe is reminded of its own infrastructure vulnerability.
7. Syria: fragile ceasefire with Kurdish forces
The ceasefire stabilizes territory but entrenches Assad’s survival.
Without real political transition, Syria remains a hub for terror networks and coercive migration pressure.
8. United Kingdom approves mega Chinese embassy in London
The decision exposes British ambivalence: tough rhetoric, permissive practice.
Embassies must not become hubs of influence, coercion, or intelligence operations.
9. U.S. parliamentary diplomacy in Denmark amid Greenland crisis
Congressional reassurance contrasts with White House maximalism.
Europe must remain firm while preserving transatlantic bridges.
10. China and the Indo-Pacific: signals from Davos and beyond
EU-India trade talks advance amid broader diversification away from China.
Strategic coherence remains the key challenge.
III. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
🔴 High risk: U.S.–EU tariff escalation, Russian energy terror, Iranian repression
🟠 Medium risk: Ukraine loan delays, Gaza governance fragility, Syria instability
🟡 Low but rising: NATO cohesion signals, China influence in Europe
🟢 Opportunity: EU-India trade and Indo-Pacific diversification
IV. MEDIA LANDSCAPE
Coverage ranges from liberal alarmism over Trump to Russian exploitation of Western divisions, with financial press focused on tariff risks and Ukraine loan execution.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Behind Davos speeches and Brussels communiqués lies a stark reality: civilians under missile fire, protesters crushed by repression, and democracies tested by fatigue.
Greenland symbolizes a deeper danger—when allies are treated as vassals, security architecture fractures; when Europe fails to act, it becomes complicit in its own irrelevance.
Ukraine’s fate will define the credibility of democratic resolve. The €90 billion loan is not charity—it is self-defense.
The moment demands an adult Atlanticism: firm against autocracy, honest with allies, and capable of translating values into action.