By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.
20 January 2026
I. INTRODUCTION
The past 24 hours condense—almost to the point of caricature—the tensions marking the start of 2026: a President Trump who has turned Greenland into a touchstone of power and tariffs; a Europe attempting to respond without breaking the Atlantic bond; a peace architecture for Gaza that is becoming global; and a European Union seeking to shield Ukrainian resilience through 2027 by means of joint borrowing. All of this is taking place 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 struggle between democracies and autocracies.
In Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney sums up the atmosphere with an unequivocal message: the rules-based international order is in full rupture, and the central question is whether democracies will be able to respond with adult firmness or will remain trapped between the unilateralism of their allies and the aggressiveness of their adversaries.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Trump raises the stakes 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—starting 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 have 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 reaction of 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: the defense of NATO and the Atlantic bond cannot serve as an excuse to accept 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, fueling anti-Atlantic narratives and misguided temptations toward poorly understood strategic autonomy that only 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 formulas of reinforced U.S. presence in the Arctic without altering Danish sovereignty or triggering tariff escalation; Trump preserves the hard-line narrative without crossing the Rubicon.
Risk scenario: The president follows through on his threat to impose tariffs 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 its disinformation campaign about the “decadence” of a divided West.
Extreme scenario: The clash over Greenland triggers a toxic debate in some European capitals about the U.S. military presence on the continent; even if this scenario remains marginal, the mere fact that it is raised 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 to cover Ukrainian budgetary and defense needs starting in the second quarter of 2026.
The January 20 ECOFIN meeting in Brussels must convert this political agreement into an operational mandate; formulations such as “conclusions adopted” or “mandate to the Commission to implement the joint borrowing mechanism” would signal a positive outcome, while “reservations recorded” or “deferred for further examination” would indicate 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 Kremlin doubts about Europe’s medium-term resilience.
The structure of the loan—interest-free and repayable through Russian reparations—is consistent with our editorial line: holding the aggressor responsible for the bill, safeguarding internal EU stability, and preventing European taxpayers from becoming the permanent victims of Putin’s aggression.
An unjustified delay caused by vetoes or maneuvering by governments close to the Central European illiberal axis would send an extremely dangerous signal: that European unity in the face of the Russian invasion is negotiable, weakening deterrence and reinforcing the Kremlin narrative of a tired and divided Europe.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive scenario: ECOFIN adopts clear conclusions, grants a mandate to the Commission, and moves the package into the implementation phase; markets interpret this as reduced liquidity risk for Kyiv and strengthened credibility of Europe’s commitment through 2027.
Risk scenario: Language is limited to “substantial progress” without formal adoption, with references to “additional national consultations,” leading to weeks of delay and rhetorical ammunition for both Moscow and U.S. skeptics of military aid.
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 strength.
3. The “Board of Peace” is born: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan join the Gaza framework
Facts
Following the announcement of the Gaza peace plan and the creation of a U.S.-led “Board of Peace,” Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have accepted invitations to join as founding members, alongside other Eurasian and Latin American partners.
President Tokayev expressed his gratitude in a letter to the White House, committing to support reconstruction, stability, and the prevention of renewed violence in Gaza.
President Mirziyoyev emphasized that Uzbekistan’s participation reflects a commitment to durable solutions in the Middle East and to an international framework with global ambition, while discussions continue regarding the possible inclusion of Canada and other G7 actors in the initiative’s governance.
Implications
The incorporation of Central Asian capitals and other non-Western partners transforms the “Board of Peace” into more than an ad hoc Gaza instrument: it is emerging as a platform for multilateral legitimization of Washington’s strategy, with potential projection into other conflicts where Iran and its proxies play a destabilizing role.
For Moscow and Beijing, seeing former Soviet republics align with a Trump-led body represents a symbolic setback that erodes the narrative of Central Asia as a Russian-Chinese “protectorate.”
From our perspective, structuring Gaza’s post-war framework around an international body that includes non-radical Muslim actors and is controlled by democracies or moderate regimes is positive: it weakens Hamas, reduces Iran’s leverage, and offers an alternative to the Turkey-Qatar-Muslim Brotherhood axis.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive scenario: The “Board of Peace” consolidates with the accession of additional moderate Arab states, accompanied by a robust reconstruction and security oversight mechanism that effectively excludes Hamas and limits pro-Iranian militias.
Risk scenario: Russia and China attempt to infiltrate or create parallel bodies to sabotage Washington’s design, while Iran activates Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis to raise the cost of any architecture that diminishes its influence.
Blockage scenario: Internal divisions within the EU or among Arab partners over burden-sharing leave the “Board of Peace” trapped in bureaucratic limbo, repeating the script of previous peace processes.
4. NATO: Chiefs of Defence meeting in Brussels as a strategic hinge
Facts
NATO’s Military Committee meets on January 21–22, 2026, in Brussels at the level of Chiefs of Defence of the 32 allies, chaired by Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, with the participation of SACEUR and SACT.
The agenda includes sessions on allied military readiness, capability acceleration, coordination with Indo-Pacific partners, and a NATO-Ukraine Council format to review the situation on the ground and support through the NSATU mechanism and the JATEC center.
A press conference scheduled for January 22 will be key: references to “operational planning directives” or “tasks assigned to SACEUR to develop options” will distinguish substantive decisions from mere referrals to the North Atlantic Council.
Implications
This meeting takes place amid the Greenland dispute; if the message emerging from Brussels is one of operational unanimity, a firewall will have been built between the tariff dispute and the deterrence architecture vis-à-vis Russia.
For Ukraine, concrete mandates to SACEUR and reinforcement of NSATU are as important as financial packages: without air-defense superiority and ammunition, European billions translate into precarious resistance rather than just victory.
Any reference to “lack of consensus” or “need for further consultations” will be read in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran as a green light to escalate, and in Kyiv as a symptom of political fatigue.
Outlook and Scenarios
Positive scenario: A communiqué is adopted, explicit backing is given to reinforcing the eastern flank, and SACEUR receives a mandate to update plans, sending Putin the message that despite the noise, NATO is more cohesive than ever.
Risk scenario: Calculated ambiguities conceal divergences over the pace and scope of support for Ukraine or Indo-Pacific projection; such tepid language has historically preceded aggressors’ miscalculations.
Blockage scenario: Political disputes spill into the military level, forcing decisions to be “elevated” to the North Atlantic Council—an unsettling precedent amid confrontation with Russia.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
There are days when the international system resembles a theatre of shadows: lofty speeches in Davos, measured communiqués in Brussels, impeccable press conferences in New York. Yet behind the rhetoric, what is at stake is painfully concrete: Ukrainian families waking to the sound of missiles striking power plants; Iranian youth risking their lives against a theocracy exporting terror from Beirut to Sana’a; entire regions—from the Sahel to Central America—poisoned by narcotrafficking while parts of Europe still indulge in ideological naïveté.
The Greenland crisis, turned into a presidential obsession, is symptomatic of something deeper: when a great power begins to treat its allies as vassals through tariffs, the security architecture fractures; but when those same allies merely complain without strengthening their defense, unity, and strategic capacity, they become complicit in their own irrelevance. The problem is not that the United States defends strategic interests in the Arctic—this is understandable and, if done properly, desirable—but that it seeks to buy or coerce the sovereignty of allied territory as if it were the nineteenth century.
At the same time, the game over Ukraine is entering a decisive phase: either Europe translates its grand declarations into money, weapons, and long-term guarantees, or the Ukrainian sacrifice will have been in vain, and the message to tyrants will be devastating—hold out long enough and democratic fatigue will do the rest. The €90 billion loan is not an act of generosity; it is an investment in our own security. Every missile not fired at Kyiv is a missile not normalized as an instrument of pressure against Warsaw, Berlin, or Madrid.
The creation of the “Board of Peace” and the accession of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan demonstrate something often forgotten: when the United States offers orderly and realistic frameworks, its leadership retains a magnetism neither Moscow nor Beijing can match. But that advantage erodes with every rhetorical excess, every misdirected tariff, and every complacent gesture toward autocrats who understand only the language of force.
This moment demands more than headlines. It demands an adult Atlanticism—one that unapologetically supports Ukraine’s defense, the containment of Tehran’s terror regime, and resistance to Chinese expansionism, while also having the courage to tell Washington that friendship among democracies cannot be built on commercial blackmail. Above all, it demands a Europe that stops behaving like an indignant spectator and begins acting as what it claims to be: a political power capable of defending its values—freedom, rule of law, and human dignity—not only in international forums, but in the hard test of reality.
Between the whims of new Caesars and the resignation of peoples lies a narrow yet indispensable space: that of those who still believe that prudence, firmness, and decency can change the course of history. That is where one must stand—without complexes and without fear.