By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published in Negocios.
December 15, 2025
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
Today’s map doesn’t depict an “unstable” planet in the abstract. It shows a West that is beginning to understand — sometimes through blows, sometimes too late — that security is not a luxury but the moral foundation of freedom. The antisemitic massacre in Bondi (Sydney) is not just an attack on a community; it is a direct challenge to liberal coexistence, pluralism, and every citizen’s right to live their faith without fear.
At the same time, the advance of organized crime to the point of attacking military and police installations in Guatemala reminds us of something too many governments prefer to forget: without a legitimate monopoly on force, there is no State; and without a State, there are no rights. And, in the background, Russia is “exporting chaos” — to borrow the words of the new head of MI6 — while Europe negotiates in Berlin under the Sword of Damocles of a “cheap” peace that could turn out to be very expensive.
Chile, for its part, offers an uncomfortable lesson: when a hard left disguises itself as moderation and government management erodes due to insecurity, stagnation, and frustration, the pendulum swings strongly; but that doesn’t automatically make the winner a guarantee of sound judgment. Votes can punish — and sometimes overreact — and the job of analysis is to avoid easy enthusiasm and sterile defeatism.
II. THE 10 MOST IMPORTANT NEWS ITEMS FROM THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Australia: Antisemitic Attack in Bondi (Sydney) and a Political Response That Risks Falling Short
Facts
On the night of December 14, two attackers opened fire at a Hanukkah event on Bondi Beach with about a thousand people present. Authorities described it as a targeted antisemitic attack. The assault lasted around ten minutes and caused mass panic at an iconic location filled by the heat of the southern summer.
According to the most recent update, there were 15 fatalities and one attacker was shot dead, bringing the total to 16 deaths including a 10-year-old girl and a rabbi. Dozens were wounded, with 40 people still hospitalized and two officers seriously injured but stable.
Police indicated the alleged attackers were a father and son. The father (50 years old) died at the scene, and the son (24) remained in critical condition. The father had held a gun license since 2015 and owned six registered firearms. A civilian — identified by local media as Ahmed al-Ahmed — was filmed subduing and disarming one attacker, an action authorities say prevented even more deaths.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the event “pure evil,” “antisemitism,” and “terrorism,” and said that antisemitism “is a scourge” that must be eradicated. However, his immediate political focus turned to reviewing limits on the number of guns per license and the duration of licenses, arguing that people can radicalize over time.
Implications
The criticism here is not about responsible gun control — which is part of the debate — but about priority. Australia already has a strict regime since 1996. Still, Reuters notes that the number of legal guns has risen to around four million, above levels before the major reform. Pretending the problem is only about “how many licenses” confuses the means with the end. The strategic issue is something else: radicalization, hatred, and detection failures.
Albanese said the right words (“antisemitism has no place”), yes. But conventional rhetoric — limited to rituals of condemnation and administrative reforms — falls far short of a reality that has been worsening for some time: antisemitism is growing and does so through three mutually reinforcing channels: jihadist extremism, ultra-left ideological extremism that trivializes or justifies hate, and the unsettling emergence of far-right neo-Nazism.
Reducing it to a “license” problem sends a dangerous message: that fanaticism is fought with paperwork.
The democratic state has concrete duties: reinforced protection of places of worship and community events; effective criminal prosecution of hate crimes; dismantling networks of financing and propaganda; and an integration policy that doesn’t become naivety. And above all, moral clarity: antisemitism is not “rhetorical excess” nor “a social tension”; it is a political pathology that precedes the worst European catastrophes.
London and New York increased security at Hanukkah events after the attack, a sign that the risk is perceived as systemic, not local.
2. Chile: Victory of José Antonio Kast; Defeat of Jeannette Jara; and the Reckoning with a Hard Left That Tried to Pass as “Center”
Facts
Chile elected its president in a runoff on December 14. José Antonio Kast won with 58% against Jeannette Jara, who received 42%. Reuters describes a “brusque” shift to the right, with Kast campaigning on security and immigration and promising military deployments in high-crime areas, border walls, and deportations.
The Financial Times highlights that the win was driven by social concerns about crime and immigration, and notes that the homicide rate has more than doubled since 2015, though Chile remains comparatively safer than many in the region. The Guardian and Times emphasize Kast’s “ultra-conservative” character and admiration for Pinochet, painting Jara as communist or linked to the hard left.
Implications
Here it’s important to be clear: Jara represents an ideological tradition that, when in power, has tended to curtail freedoms, justify authoritarian “friends,” and treat the economy as a continuous social experiment ruining countries. For part of the international press to focus almost exclusively on “the extreme right” while handling Jara’s ideological pedigree with kid gloves is simply moral asymmetry.
That said, caution is obligatory: Kast does not deserve a blank check. Chile needs neither dogmas of social engineering nor identity crusades of the opposite kind. The electoral mandate is above all a cry for security and order; but order without guarantees degenerates, and security without the Rule of Law becomes arbitrariness. In a country that lived through a dictatorship, “tough talk” must be tied to institutional controls and proportionality.
As for Gabriel Boric: his domestic governance — economy, perception of insecurity, failed reforms — fueled public frustration. But it would be dishonest to deny that Boric, compared with the hard left in Latin America, did show a braver stance in foreign policy by denouncing abuses in Venezuela and Nicaragua: Reuters captured his rejection of Maduro’s “self-proclaimed” victory and denunciation of “serious human rights violations.” Even voices in the U.S. press noted his willingness to speak about abuses in Venezuela and Nicaragua, rare in some progressive circles.
The strategic conclusion for Chile is twofold: a governmental left cannot keep playing ambiguity with regional authoritarianism; and a victorious right must not mistake social frustration for a mandate to strain the liberal framework. Chile needs security, yes, but also strong institutions and an economy credible again without sacrificing social cohesion.
3. Berlin: Zelensky and Trump Envoy Steve Witkoff; Ukraine Offers to Renounce NATO in Exchange for “Article 5-Type” Guarantees
Facts
In Berlin, President Volodymyr Zelensky held more than five hours of talks with U.S. envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, aiming to explore a negotiated end to the war. Talks were set to continue on Monday.
Most notably, Zelensky offered to drop Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO — even though it is in the Ukrainian constitution — in exchange for Western “Article 5-type” security guarantees (meaning collective defense comparable to NATO) that are legally binding and involve the U.S., European partners, Canada, and Japan.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned that guarantees without significant U.S. involvement “wouldn’t be worth much,” recalling Ukraine’s bitter experience with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
Implications
This is a turning point. Ukraine offered Russia one of its historic strategic demands: halt NATO expansion. And it did so in a context where Moscow has shown — with actions, not words — that it interprets concessions as encouragement. The question isn’t whether negotiating is bad (it isn’t); the question is whether negotiating without enforceable guarantees is suicidal.
A “quick” deal that doesn’t include real deterrence will be a truce that allows them to rearm… but they will be the ones rearming, not us. Europe must abandon rhetorical comfort and enter the realm of hard power: capabilities, ammunition, industry, intelligence, and will. A ceasefire without security architecture would be the prelude to a new Russian offensive when conditions become favorable.
Regarding Trump’s diplomacy and team: pragmatism can be a virtue, as long as it doesn’t become naivety. No reasonable person wants eternal war. But rewarding territorial gain by force would undermine the principle that has sustained the European international system since 1945. The dilemma isn’t “peace or war”; it’s “just peace or apparent peace.”
4. United Kingdom: New Head of MI6 Places Russia as “Aggressive, Expansionist, and Revisionist” Threat
Facts
Blaise Metreweli, the first woman to lead MI6, delivered her first major public message since taking the position in October. In excerpts previewed, she described Russia as an “aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” threat and said British support for Ukraine is “enduring.”
Metreweli used stark language: Russia’s “export of chaos” is not a flaw but a feature of its approach. She called for strengthening the technological and innovative component of intelligence, saying agents must be as comfortable with “lines of code” as with human sources, “as fluent in Python as in multiple languages.”
She also announced a call for a “whole society” approach to rising threats and the increased likelihood — according to officials — that Russia could attack a NATO country.
Implications
MI6 is loudly stating what many governments still treat as an “academic debate”: Russia is not only fighting in Ukraine; it is fighting against Western cohesion through sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, corruption, and strategic interference. The “front line” is no longer a trench; it is an intimidated university, an attacked power grid, a social media misinformation campaign, dark funding of extremists, and migrant pressure used as a tool.
The consequence is clear: timidity multiplies risk. If Europe does not elevate defense to a national priority, it will remain dependent on decisions made by others. And if the idea that Russia can win “by attrition” takes hold, there will be more aggression, not less.
5. Hong Kong: Jimmy Lai Convicted; Beijing Sends Message to the Free World About Press and Dissent
Facts
Hong Kong’s High Court found Jimmy Lai guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces under Beijing’s national security law and conspiracy to publish seditious material. He faces life imprisonment, with mitigation hearings scheduled for January.
Reuters notes that the case has become a major symbol of shrinking freedoms since 2019–2020. The Associated Press highlights that the trial took place without a jury, with judges appointed for national security cases, and that Lai — founder of Apple Daily — has been in custody since 2020.
Implications
This isn’t just an “internal” legal process. It’s a strategic message: freedom of the press can be redefined as a crime when power feels unaccountable. That has consequences on three levels.
First, Hong Kong loses what made it unique: legal certainty and openness. Second, democracies are challenged: what does it mean to be allied to values if a British citizen is judicially crushed for writing and associating with foreign politicians? Third, a model that can be exported becomes normalized: when there is no cost, authoritarianism becomes cheap.
6. Guatemala: Cartels Attack Military and Police Posts; State of Emergency; Organized Crime Tests the Strength of the State
Facts
President Bernardo Arévalo declared a 15-day state of emergency in Nahuala and Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán (Sololá) after armed men attacked a military post and a police station, cut roads, and hijacked buses. At least five people were killed. Arévalo said the gangs aim to expel security forces and take control of the area. The decree restricts public gatherings, demonstrations, and the carrying of weapons.
In the regional context, El País recently recalled an incursion linked to the Sinaloa Cartel into Guatemala involving weapons, explosives, and drones, illustrating the phenomenon’s growing sophistication and transnational nature.
Implications
Functionally, this is narco-insurgency: not defined by ideology but by objective. The cartel doesn’t want only “money and silence”; it wants territory and the removal of the State. That is a qualitative frontier.
The challenge demands toughness, yes, but not indiscriminate brutality: financial intelligence, border control, purification of infiltrated bodies, cooperation with Mexico and partners (including anti-drone technology), and shielding judges and prosecutors. Naivety here is paid for with cemeteries.
7. Venezuela-U.S.: Sanctions, Seizure of an Oil Tanker, and Political Clash; Domino Effect on the Energy Market
Facts
Reuters reports rising tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela after the seizure of an oil tanker and new measures that have hit exports. At the same time, the Venezuelan opposition (with María Corina Machado) is intensifying its international political offensive.
Implications
Pressure on the Maduro regime is politically legitimate when oriented toward democratic transition and cutting opaque funding sources. But it has two risks: regional escalation (migration, incidents in the Caribbean) and energy market volatility, which can be exploited by Russia and Iran to put pressure on Europe.
Here the Western key is coordination: effective sanctions, not theatrical; support for civil society, not just elites; and closing financial loopholes without unduly punishing the population.
8. Gaza: Death of a Hamas Commander and Direct Threat to the Ceasefire; Debate Over International Force
Facts
Reuters reports that Hamas described the death of a senior commander in an Israeli action as a threat to the ceasefire. This comes amid discussions about stabilization formulas and Hamas’s rejection of disarmament.
Implications
The calculation is simple and cruel: without a security architecture, any incident can break the truce. The international community must stop living on slogans: stabilizing Gaza without genuine disarmament or effective territorial control is building on sand. At the same time, ignoring the humanitarian dimension fuels radicalization and gives propaganda ammunition to Tehran and its proxies.
9. China-Japan: Beijing Sanctions a Former Japanese Defense Official; Political Coercion Over Taiwan
Facts
Reuters reports that China imposed sanctions on a former Japanese defense official connected to the Taiwan dispute, in another episode of Beijing’s coercive diplomacy.
Implications
China seeks a disciplinary effect: to deter political contacts, sow fear among businesses, and divide allies. It’s the classic “individual cost” technique to avoid collective responses. The Western response should be the opposite: collectivize the cost when normal diplomatic exchanges are punished in democracies.
10. Syria: Attack in Palmyra Against U.S. and Syrian Forces; Detentions; Reminder That Jihadism Has Not Disappeared
Facts
Reuters reports arrests in Syria following an attack in Palmyra that affected U.S. and Syrian troops. The episode fits within the ongoing threat of jihadist groups, despite ISIS’s territorial degradation.
Implications
Jihadist terrorism survives on two things: power vacuums and propaganda. Syria offers both. And if the West mentally withdraws from the problem, it will find it again in the form of attacks, radicalization, and returning fighters. Antiterrorist vigilance can’t be cyclical; it must be structural.
III. MEDIA RACK
A) Agencies and the “Baseline” Information Line
Reuters, AP, AFP, and DPA set the factual pace of the day: figures, chronologies, official reactions, and early economic impacts. In Chile, Reuters and the FT emphasize security, migration, and market reaction. In Guatemala, AP describes the qualitative leap of organized crime toward direct attacks on state forces. This “baseline” is essential: without facts, analysis becomes catechism — and facts alone don’t explain why. That’s the editorial job.
B) United States: Domestic Polarization and the Security Lens
In the U.S. media ecosystem, NYT, Washington Post, CNN, and CBS tend to frame attacks and violence with social-political and regulatory emphasis; WSJ and CNBC prioritize economic and market implications; Politico and The Hill read it tactically, institutionally, and in terms of power. On the Australia–antisemitism topic, U.S. press often oscillates between the frameworks of “armed violence” and “hate crime,” not always integrating the whole triangle: jihadist extremism + identity-driven ultra-left + neo-Nazism. That omission is not neutral; it’s a form of moral disarmament.
C) United Kingdom: Russia as Total Threat and Hybrid War
The Guardian and Reuters highlight Metreweli’s message of Russia as an “aggressive” threat and the notion of “frontlines everywhere.” The Times and The Telegraph often accompany this with concern about defense, intelligence, and national cohesion; the difference between outlets is the degree of alarm and emphasis on “whole society” response.
D) France and Francophone Space: Ideological Reading and Rights
Le Monde and Libération tend to prioritize rights frameworks and fear of “illiberal turn”; Le Figaro stresses public order and failed progressive experiments; AFP provides factual backbone; LCI/BFM amplify European domestic political debate with a security focus. In Chile, the recurrent temptation in parts of French media is to present “extreme right” as the sole explanation, without analyzing with equal severity the risk of a hard left with authoritarian leanings.
E) Germany, Italy, Vatican: Europe Facing Its Mirror
FAZ, Die Welt, Die Zeit, and DPA commonly read Berlin as proof of German leadership and as a thermometer of U.S. commitment. Corriere della Sera balances European and domestic dimensions; L’Osservatore Romano often introduces moral and humanitarian lenses, especially in conflicts like Gaza.
F) Ukraine and Eastern Europe: Strategic Memory
Ukrainska Pravda, Ukrinform, Kyiv Post, and The Kyiv Independent remind that Russia already violated agreements and that vague guarantees are worthless; their narrative is less diplomatic and more existential. That converges with Pistorius’s caution about guarantees without strong U.S. backing.
G) Russia: Propaganda as a Weapon
RT, TASS, and Vesti tend to present any Ukrainian concession as a Russian victory and any Western guarantee as provocation. The goal isn’t to inform but to erode Western legitimacy and fracture consensus.
H) Asia and Indo-Pacific: Chinese Coercion and Regional Rebalancing
SCMP and China Daily frame disputes with Japan and Taiwan as “sovereignty issues”; Straits Times and Yomiuri Shimbun emphasize regional stability and strategic calculation; WION, Times of India, Hindustan Times, and Indian Express read it through the balance-of-power lens against Beijing. China’s sanction of a former high Japanese official fits the pattern of selective coercion.
I) Arab World and Israel: Gaza at the Center
Al Jazeera prioritizes humanitarian and political regional dimensions; Al Arabiya brings intra-Arab rivalries and Iran’s prism; Israeli media (like Haaretz and Jerusalem Post) split between government critique, security, and war. The common point today is the fragility of the ceasefire following the death of a high Hamas commander.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
• High risk of territorial capture by organized crime in Central America: Guatemala shows direct attack on state symbols and paramilitary tactics.
• High risk of terrorism and antisemitic violence in Western democracies: Bondi confirms a leap in lethality and targeted communities.
• High-medium risk of poorly designed Europe–Russia negotiations: Ukraine’s NATO renunciation without solid guarantees could encourage further aggression.
• High-medium risk of regional escalation in the Middle East: Gaza’s ceasefire exposed to shocks and proxy agendas from Tehran.
• Medium risk in the Indo-Pacific due to coercive Chinese actions: sanctions and pressure over Taiwan point to a strategy of attrition.
• Medium risk of operational jihadist resurgence (Syria/Iraq): Palmyra shows residual capacity and opportunity.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENT
The West has a problem that is not technical but one of will. We legislate with enthusiasm, condemn with solemnity, and administer with prudence; but we avoid the core: there are enemies — terrorists, cartels, and revisionist powers — who have understood before us that freedom only prospers under the umbrella of security.
Bondi is the cruelest mirror. Albanese said “terrorism” and “antisemitism,” yes; but if his response remains within the debate over the number of gun licenses, he will have committed the classic error of the well-intentioned ruler: confusing what is measurable with what is decisive. Fanaticism is not defused with paperwork. It is countered with intelligence, policing, justice, civic education, and — above all — a discourse that is neither soft nor timid.
Because timidity, when it comes to hate, is an invitation to repeat.
Chile, with Jara’s defeat, sends a regional message: the hard left can disguise itself, but its ideological DNA shows when the choice is between freedom and “cause.” The problem is not recognizing leftist radicalization in Latin America and its colonization by populist communism. The problem is its indulgence with “friendly” dictatorships and the sectarianism that turns an adversary into a moral enemy.
Boric has paid — in part — the price of governance that wasn’t up to the security challenge and economic confidence; but it should be recognized that in Latin America what counts as gold is his willingness to call fraud, fraud in Venezuela and condemn human rights violations. That is the left that serves democracy; not the one that erodes it.
And yet, beware of the mirage: Kast wins, but Chile hasn’t voted for a catechism. It voted for a corrective. Whoever interprets the corrective as a carte blanche to strain the liberal state will commit a mistake already known in Europe. The only legitimate “toughness” is the one chained to the Rule of Law.
In Berlin something even bigger is at stake: the credibility of the West. Ukraine offers to renounce NATO in exchange for “Article 5-type” guarantees. That only works if the guarantees are real, binding, verifiable, and backed by military capacity. Metreweli said it with British precision: Russia exports chaos as method. Pretending a professional aggressor will change for diplomatic courtesy is a dangerous fantasy.
And while we argue nuances, Guatemala reminds us that the State can also be lost from below, not just from above. When a cartel attacks a military post, it doesn’t seek money; it seeks sovereignty. Against that, the Western community must abandon paternalism and invest in real cooperation: intelligence, financial control, training, technology, and support for institutions that resist corruption.
The West doesn’t need hysteria; it needs clarity. It doesn’t need relativism; it needs conviction. And certainly, it doesn’t need timidity in the face of antisemitism, jihadism, or neo-Nazism: it needs the same firmness we rightly demand of those who face dictatorships and aggressors. Because freedom is not inherited; it is defended.