By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.
December 12, 2025
I. Introduction
The last 24 hours confirm a qualitative shift in how the United States has decided to confront criminal regimes and tyrannical revisionisms: less rhetoric, more real leverage.
The seizure of a large Venezuelan oil tanker is not an isolated gesture or a legal oddity; it is the most visible and effective expression of a doctrine of multidimensional pressure that combines financial coercion, attacks on the cartels that finance the regime and enrich its leaders, and political pressure.
This hardening coincides with two parallel realities. On one hand, the progressive exhaustion of authoritarian economic models, especially the Russian one, which survive through military spending, controls, and propaganda, but are beginning to show structural cracks. On the other, the reconfiguration of global power around technology, energy, and strategic raw materials, with India emerging as a central actor, not subordinated, on that board.
In this context, the international reappearance of María Corina Machado in Oslo is not merely a human or symbolic episode: it is a heroic political act of the highest order that aligns with the central idea of the historical moment: dictatorships fall when their flow of rotten money is cut off, not when they are lectured.
II. Most Important News of the Last 24 Hours
1. The United States Seizes a Large Venezuelan Oil Tanker: A Direct Blow to the Regime’s Cash Flow
Facts
The United States confirmed the physical seizure of a large tanker carrying Venezuelan crude in an operation carried out outside Venezuelan territorial waters and formally presented as part of a legal process linked to violations of international sanctions.
This is not a simple administrative detention or a later fine: the ship was taken under U.S. control, its cargo intervened, and its destination redirected. It is an extraordinary measure, rare even within the framework of sanctions, and it marks a before and after in the policy of pressure on Caracas.
U.S. authorities link the cargo to sanction-evasion networks, the use of shell companies, and routine practices of the so-called shadow fleet: transponders switched off, ship-to-ship transfers, falsified documentation, and opaque routes with intermediaries in Asia and the Middle East.
The regime’s reaction was immediate and predictable: accusations of “piracy,” diplomatic victimhood, and rhetorical threats without real capacity to respond. But the relevant thing was not the discourse, but the subsequent silence of many actors who until now benefited discreetly from cheap Venezuelan oil without uncomfortable questions.
Implications
This seizure is not symbolic punishment; it is a surgical attack on the financial heart of the narco-dictatorship. The Maduro regime does not govern: it manages a mafia structure whose main fuel is hydrocarbon exports. Every shipment is liquid money to buy military loyalties, finance repressive apparatuses, and sustain transnational criminal networks.
By intervening in transport —not just sales— Washington exponentially raises the cost of the business. Not only for PDVSA, but for shipowners, insurers, banks, traders, and ports that participate, directly or indirectly, in the chain. The message is clear: anyone who handles Venezuelan oil assumes legal, financial, and reputational risk.
From a strategic point of view, this path has several decisive advantages:
- It does not require military deployment on land.
- It reduces the regime’s capacity to play the victim.
- It fragments the internal corrupt coalition by reducing available revenue.
- It forces third countries to rethink their “interested neutrality.”
Are there risks? Yes. All real pressure has them. There could be attempts at asymmetric retaliation, international litigation, or even maritime incidents. But Washington’s calculation is evident: the cost of inaction is greater than that of sustained pressure.
2. “Sanctions and Seizures”: The Trump Doctrine Against Chavismo Consolidates
Facts
The Financial Times and other major media describe this operation as part of a broader strategy: combining traditional sanctions with direct executive actions, especially seizures, to prevent the regime from continuing to finance itself through legal loopholes and parallel economies.
It is no coincidence that this policy has intensified under President Donald Trump. His foreign approach, far from rhetorical idealism, is based on a classic premise of political realism: criminal regimes do not respond to speeches, they respond to incentives and costs.
The White House has hinted that this is not an isolated action, but the beginning of a more persistent campaign against the logistical routes of Venezuelan crude, with special attention to Asian intermediaries and the connivance of state actors who turn a blind eye.
Implications
We are at a change of phase. For years, chavismo learned to live with “on paper” sanctions, adapting through financial engineering, front men, and opacity. The seizure breaks that logic because it interrupts physical flow, not just declares it illegal.
Moreover, this policy has a corrosive internal effect. When revenue drops, dictatorships based on corruption enter into internal competition. Less money means less capacity to buy silence, less margin to arbitrate conflicts between clans, and more tensions within the apparatus.
From an Atlantic perspective, this strategy is preferable to the alternative. It is not military intervention; it is the application of international rule of law against a regime that has completely dismantled it. And it forces Europe into an uncomfortable reflection: will it continue to look the other way while the United States does the dirty work, or will it assume its responsibility?
3. María Corina Machado in Oslo: Democratic Opposition Speaks the Language of Real Power
Facts
María Corina Machado’s appearance in Oslo marks her visible return to the international scene after months of clandestinity and persecution. It was not just another press conference. It was a measured political act, in the right place and at the right moment.
Machado did not limit herself to denouncing repression or demanding abstract solidarity. She explicitly endorsed actions that weaken the regime’s financial capacity, pointing out that without cutting off oil money there will be no viable transition.
She also emphasized a key point many prefer to ignore: the Maduro regime is not just authoritarian, it is a criminal network with connections to drug trafficking, international terrorism, and actors hostile to the West. Treating it as a conventional government is a strategic mistake.
Implications
Machado understands something essential: the battle for Venezuela is fought both inside and outside the country. And outside, it is fought in courts, financial markets, maritime insurance, and international legitimacy.
Her message in Oslo reinforces a necessary narrative: pressure works when it is concrete. By aligning with real measures —seizures, executive sanctions, pursuit of networks— the Venezuelan democratic opposition presents itself not as a moral choir, but as a strategic actor.
This makes many uncomfortable. The naïve who believe in endless “dialogues” with an armed mafia. And the cynics who, from Europe or Latin America, have normalized dealing with chavismo for energy or ideological convenience.
The presence of Machado on an international high-symbolism stage reduces the space for equidistance. Either you stand with liberal democracy, or you are financing a narco-dictatorship. There is no comfortable third way.
4. Disney Invests $1 Billion in OpenAI: Culture Enters Deeply Into the Geopolitics of AI
Facts
Disney announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI, accompanied by a strategic agreement to explore the use of generative artificial intelligence tools —including advanced video capabilities— in content creation and management.
This is not a passive financial investment. It is an industrial and cultural bet. Disney, an emblem of American soft power, has decided not to fight AI from outside, but to integrate itself into its core, setting conditions on rights, licenses, and brand control.
The move comes after years of tension in Hollywood: strikes, copyright litigation, fear of talent replacement, and an ongoing debate about the boundary between technological assistance and creative replacement.
Implications
This operation has a clear geopolitical reading. AI is no longer just an economic or military tool: it is cultural infrastructure. Whoever controls the engines that generate images, narratives, and symbolic universes controls an essential part of the collective imagination.
Disney buys influence, not just technology. It secures a seat at the table where the rules will be decided: what can be generated, with what data, under what licenses, and with what limits. And by doing so, it consolidates OpenAI as a central actor in the Western cultural ecosystem.
The risk is evident. If the public perceives that creativity becomes a template product, the reaction will be harsh. But the greater risk would be staying out of the game. In that sense, Disney acts with strategic coldness: better to shape the monster than to be devoured by it.
5. Russia: An Economy That Does Not Collapse … but Slides Toward an Ever More Expensive and Inefficient Model
Facts
The Economist warns that the Russian economy, presented by the Kremlin as “resilient” against Western sanctions, is beginning to show clear signs of structural fatigue. There is no immediate collapse, but an accumulation of tensions that make the model increasingly unsustainable.
The growth observed in 2023 and part of 2024 was driven almost exclusively by massive military spending, financed by still-high energy revenues and lax fiscal policy. That momentum is now losing strength. Inflation remains high, interest rates stay elevated to contain it, and key civilian sectors —infrastructure, consumption, innovation— show stagnation.
To this is added a demographic problem worsened by the war: forced mobilization, emigration of skilled professionals, and labor market deterioration. Russia produces weapons and ammunition, yes, but sacrifices human capital and future productivity.
Implications
The central question is not whether Russia “endures,” but at what cost and for how long. The current model rests on three fragile pillars: military spending as an economic engine, reinforced political control, and growing dependence on Asian markets —especially China— under asymmetric conditions.
Month by month, Moscow buys short-term stability at the expense of the long term. Military spending does not generate well-being; it creates state dependence, latent inflation, and deep distortions. When the Kremlin reduces civilian investment to sustain the war, it erodes the social basis of passive consent that has kept the regime afloat.
From a strategic standpoint, this has a direct consequence: Russia becomes more dangerous as it weakens. A regime perceiving shrinking margins may be tempted to escalate, block agreements, or use external destabilization as an internal pressure release.
That is why any negotiation on Ukraine must start with a clear premise: you cannot reward aggression with economic relief that consolidates territorial revisionism.
6. India: Robust Growth, Macro Stability, and Strategically Guarded Autonomy
Facts
The Economist describes the Indian economy as a singular case: high growth, solid reserves, and the ability to absorb external shocks, even in a context of commercial pressure from the United States.
India continues to benefit from a combination of factors: strong domestic demand, public investment in infrastructure, accelerated digitalization, and sustained attraction of foreign capital. At the same time, structural imbalances persist: social inequality, informal employment, and educational challenges across broad segments of the population.
Despite this, the overall balance is clear: India consolidates as one of the major poles of global growth and as a partial —not total— alternative to China in industrial and technological supply chains.
Implications
India is not a satellite nor does it intend to be. Its foreign and economic policy responds to a firm principle: strategic autonomy. That means cooperating with the West without subordination, maintaining relations with Russia without endorsing its aggression, and competing with China without triggering a direct confrontation.
For the United States and Europe, this demands maturity. India shares more values with liberal democracies than with authoritarian regimes, but rejects any tutelage. Pressuring it with tariffs or unilateral demands is counterproductive.
The strategic opportunity is clear: integrate India into an economic, technological, and Atlantic-Indo-Pacific security architecture based on shared interests, not impositions. Failing to understand this pushes New Delhi toward a more distant balance … and leaves room for Beijing.
7. Phone Call Between Trump and Modi: Commercial Friction, Strategic Convergence
Facts
Reuters reported a call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi focused on the bilateral relationship and commercial tensions arising from tariffs imposed by Washington on certain Indian products.
The conversation took place in a complex negotiation context: the United States seeks to rebalance its trade deficit and press for greater market openness; India defends its national industry and its room for economic maneuver.
Implications
This call is a classic example of a strategic relationship with tactical frictions. Washington and New Delhi need each other, but both play hard. Trump speaks the language of interest; Modi, that of sovereign dignity.
The risk is not rupture, but wear and tear. If the relationship reduces to tariff tug-of-war, the strategic perspective will be lost: cooperation in defense, technology, artificial intelligence, space, and critical minerals. That would be a mistake benefiting only China.
The solution lies in a broad agreement: gradual commercial concessions in exchange for deep strategic alignment. India is key to containing Chinese expansionism in Asia; treating it as a minor partner would be a historical error.
8. The Race for Strategic Minerals: The New Geopolitical Battleground
Facts
The United States is accelerating its strategy to secure supply of critical minerals —lithium, rare earths, graphite, nickel, copper— essential for the energy transition, defense industry, and advanced technologies.
Think tanks like Carnegie and the Atlantic Council agree on the diagnosis: the problem is not just extraction, but processing and refining, where China maintains an overwhelming structural advantage. Washington is exploring a combination of domestic mining, alliances with producing countries, and financial incentives to develop alternative value chains. The debate also extends to Europe, with regulatory delays and social resistance to new extractive projects.
Implications
Here lies a decisive game of the 21st century. Without critical minerals, there is no technological or energy sovereignty. And today the West depends excessively on supply chains dominated by China, which does not hesitate to instrumentalize them for political ends.
But the response cannot be improvised. Accelerating without social consensus can provoke internal conflicts, judicial blockages, and political fatigue that ultimately weaken democracies from within. The correct strategy demands balance: more agile but demanding permits, investment in recycling and substitution, alliances with reliable countries, and active defense of domestic industrial chains. This is not autarky, but strategic resilience.
China understood this two decades ago. The West is late, but there is still time … if it acts with seriousness and a long-term vision.
9. Do Kwon Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison: Rule of Law Reaches the Crypto Bubble
Facts
A court sentenced Do Kwon, founder of Terraform Labs, to 15 years in prison for massive fraud related to the collapse of the TerraUSD/Luna ecosystem, one of the biggest financial disasters linked to crypto assets in the last decade.
The judicial ruling establishes that Kwon falsified essential information, manipulated supposedly “algorithmic” mechanisms, and hid structural risks while promoting TerraUSD as a reliable stablecoin. The 2022 collapse wiped out tens of billions of dollars, ruined hundreds of thousands of small investors, and triggered a domino effect in the global crypto market.
Implications
This conviction marks a turning point. For years, part of the crypto ecosystem hid behind innovation to evade basic responsibilities, presenting fraud as “inherent risk” and opacity as “decentralization.”
The message now is clear: innovation does not suspend the rule of law. The market economy needs rules; without them, there is no economic freedom, only a financial jungle where the most ruthless wins.
From a liberal perspective —the genuine one, not the libertarian caricature— this ruling is positive. It purges the market, protects investors, and reminds us of an elemental truth: trust is the most valuable asset of the financial system. Without trust, there is no market; there is a casino.
In the medium term, we will see more regulation, more litigation, and more demands for transparency. Some will be excessive, undoubtedly. But the damage caused by impunity was already unsustainable. The crypto adolescence cycle has ended.
10. Bulgaria: Political Crisis on the Doorstep of the Euro, a Warning for Europe
Facts
Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov and his government resigned just weeks before the country’s scheduled entry into the euro zone. The decision came after massive protests against corruption, parliamentary tensions, and the looming threat of a no-confidence motion.
Bulgaria had met the technical criteria for euro adoption, but the political climate deteriorated rapidly. A significant portion of the population perceives that monetary integration benefits discredited political and economic elites without improving institutional quality or fighting endemic corruption.
Implications
This episode is a severe warning for the European Union. Monetary stability does not substitute political legitimacy. Entering the euro requires more than ratios: it demands trust in institutions, effective rule of law, and a perception of social justice.
When these elements fail, the euro becomes the perfect scapegoat for populists, extremists, and disinformation campaigns, many of them encouraged from Moscow. Europe cannot afford this voluntary blindness.
The lesson is clear: without deep institutional reforms, integration becomes fragile. And a fragile Europe is a vulnerable Europe, unable to project power, defend values, or resist pressure from revisionist powers.
III. Media Rack (Comparative Analysis)
Anglo-Saxon Media
Financial Times / Reuters / AP converge in emphasizing the U.S. escalation against Venezuela as a deliberate and sustained policy, not episodic. In economics, they highlight Russian wear and regulatory shifts in cryptoassets. The Economist offers the most robust interpretive framework: Russia endures but slides; India emerges as a hinge actor; AI and minerals define new geopolitics.
Continental European Media
Le Monde / Le Figaro / FAZ / Die Welt emphasize the consequences for Europe of U.S. pressure on Caracas and internal political fragility, exemplified by Bulgaria. Corriere della Sera warns about energy sanctions’ impact and European dependency on decisions made in Washington and Beijing.
Middle East and Asian Media
Al-Arabiya / Asharq Al-Awsat closely watch the pressure on Caracas and its connections to Iran. Times of India / Indian Express highlight New Delhi’s negotiating position and India’s central geopolitical role. South China Morning Post / China Daily downplay the Western mineral race and portray China as a “responsible” actor —a classic propaganda posture.
Eastern European and Ukrainian Media
Kyiv Post / Ukrinform / The Kyiv Independent insist that any economic relief for Russia without territorial withdrawal would be a historical mistake.
IV. Risk Traffic Light
| Risk | Level | Assessment |
| U.S.–Venezuela escalation at sea | High | High probability of incidents; controlled but sustained impact |
| Asymmetric chavista retaliation (drug trafficking, disinformation) | Probable | Especially in the Caribbean and Latin America |
| Kremlin radicalization amid economic wear | Risk | Possible more aggressive decisions to compensate weakness |
| U.S.–India relationship deterioration due to commercial friction | Manageable | If strategic vision prevails |
| Political instability in EU peripheral countries | Real risk | Potential contagion to broader EU politics |
| Social conflicts over mining of critical minerals | Potential high | If there’s no social license |
| Regulatory shock in cryptoassets | Medium | With positive purging effects |
| Cultural war over generative AI | Growing | Gradual impact |
V. Editorial Commentary
The seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker is not an excess: it is a proportional response against a narco-dictatorship that has turned the state into an instrument of plunder, repression, and collusion with terrorism.
For too long, part of the West confused caution with cowardice and dialogue with complacency. The result is visible: emboldened dictatorships, enriched state mafias, and abandoned citizens. Cutting the money is not an “Trumpist” extravagance; it is a moral and strategic necessity.
Russia, for its part, shows that a war economy can be sustained for a while, but not without cost. Month after month, the Kremlin sacrifices the future for the present. And Europe would do well not to forget that rewarding aggression only guarantees more aggression.
India emerges as the great strategic opportunity of the decade. Treating it with respect, without paternalism or short-sighted commercial threats, is necessary for those who believe in an international order based on balance, not vassalage.
And Europe must look in the mirror. Without rule of law, solid institutions, and moral leadership, no currency, market, or project can withstand pressure. Bulgaria is not an anecdote; it is a warning.
In short, this is not a time for relativism or diplomatic softness. It is a time to prioritize liberal democracy, rule of law, and firm, realistic foreign policy. Everything else is noise — an irresponsible invitation to irrelevance or the implosion of the system.