By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.
December 17, 2025
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The day is already clearly structured around four key threads: Trump’s maximum pressure shift against the Chavista narcodictatorship, the jihadist and antisemitic terrorism striking Bondi under the distracted gaze of authorities, the strategic contest in Ukraine — where Russia advances slowly while Europe tests mechanisms of reparations — and the combination of hard realism and economic calculation in Washington’s domestic and foreign policy, from Gaza to the migration veto and the AI economy.
In the background, but no less important, the tactical withdrawal of the M23 in Congo and Europe’s push to close the EU-Mercosur deal complete a picture where Atlanticism is playing its credibility against the axis of autocracies and state mafias.
December 16, 2025 confirms that the White House has decided to abandon half-measures with Caracas: by formally designating the Maduro regime as a “foreign terrorist organization” and ordering a naval blockade of sanctioned tankers, Trump places Chavismo in the same category as friends and allies — the jihadist terrorists of Hezbollah and the drug cartels the Chavista regime has been sheltering for years.
At the same time, the Bondi massacre holds a mirror up to democracies that tolerate with troubling resignation the rise of antisemitism and Islamist radicalization, while in Ukraine a “slow but steady advance” by Russia is consolidating and Europe launches a war damages commission aimed at at least making the destroyer pay.
In Gaza, Trump’s plan for a stabilization force with troops from Muslim-majority countries — particularly Pakistan — reveals an intelligent but risky realpolitik bet, measuring Tehran and its proxies’ ability to sabotage any security architecture they don’t control.
All of this happens in a global economy where generative AI promises revolutions that corporate balance sheets still don’t see, while the EU accelerates the Mercosur deal and the contest for regulatory and commercial leadership against China and the United States is reconfigured.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Total naval blockade of Venezuelan tankers and terrorist designation
Facts
Trump has ordered a “total and complete blockade” of all sanctioned tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, instructing the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard to intercept, search, and, if necessary, seize vessels that violate sanctions. Simultaneously, the U.S. government has designated the “Venezuelan regime” as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), arguing its involvement in drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking, and support for armed groups in the region, with immediate impact on the prohibition of financial and commercial transactions with entities tied to Caracas. Markets reacted with nearly a 1% rise in crude prices amid expectations of further contraction in Venezuelan exports already hit by years of sanctions, while Maduro denounces a “grotesque act of war” and Democratic congress members accuse Trump of overstepping his powers.
Implications
From a legal and moral standpoint, the measure is impeccable: if the Cartel of the Suns has been designated a terrorist organization, there is no possible coherence in keeping the government of which its generals and leaders are part intact, having turned Venezuela into a narco-state serving a mafia elite.
The naval blockade, however, enters a delicate zone where maritime incidents — a miscalculation, a captain defying orders, a Russian or Iranian escort playing at provocation — could escalate quickly if not managed with transparent engagement rules and maximum diplomatic coordination with Caribbean and NATO allies.
Politically, Trump’s turn aims to strangle PDVSA’s finances and, by extension, the Chavista ability to fund domestic clienteles, armed groups, and far-left ideological campaigns in the region and beyond.
It aligns fully with an editorial line that demands we stop treating Caracas as an “authoritarian regime” and start calling it what it is: a vast criminal organization in pseudo-revolutionary clothing, whose collapse should not be lamented but managed to minimize humanitarian cost for a kidnapped people.
2. Background of the Bondi terrorist and rise in antisemitism
Facts
Investigations into the attack on the Hanukkah Jewish festival at Bondi Beach, Sydney reveal that the main suspect, Naveed Akram, 24, was a street preacher linked since 2019 to “dawah” Islamic groups and was briefly on Australian intelligence radar for possible ISIS sympathies, though then dismissed as not dangerous. Akram and his father Sajid — killed in a police shootout — had recently traveled to the Philippines, where jihadist affiliates operate, and homemade flags and Daesh propaganda material were found in their home; authorities believe the motivation was explicitly Islamist and antisemitic. Meanwhile, outlets like the BBC document an exponential increase in antisemitic incidents in Australia, without authorities deploying solid security for the Hanukkah event.
Implications
This case starkly displays a pattern repeating in too many democracies: individuals known to intelligence services as potentially problematic but classified as “low priority” end up materializing the worst scenario, while bureaucracy hides behind protocols.
That a Jewish event, amid a surge in antisemitic threats, lacked reinforced protection reveals a mix of political frivolity and fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” for strengthening surveillance in environments susceptible to radicalization, confirming how deeply woke culture has anesthetized the basic self-protection instinct of open societies.
For an editorial line that combats both antisemitism and racism and Islamophobia, the path is clear: zero tolerance for jihadism and its apologists — no matter if wrapped in black flags or pseudo-progressive rhetoric — while firmly defending full citizenship for Muslims who reject barbarism.
The Bondi lesson is that speeches against hate aren’t enough; real investments in intelligence and a crystal-clear political message are needed: those who incite, finance, or look the other way at terrorism will pay a price.
3. U.S. pressure on Pakistan for stabilization force in Gaza
Facts
Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir is at the center of intense diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to provide troops for a future multinational stabilization force in Gaza, composed mainly of Muslim-majority countries, under a 20-point “day after” Hamas plan promoted by Trump for the post-Hamas phase. A high-level visit to Washington is being considered to discuss rules of engagement, political command, and financing, while Islamabad weighs the internal cost of joining a mission perceived by Islamist sectors as “working for Israel.” Trump has publicly declared he counts on “100% support” from Munir and Prime Minister Sharif.
Implications
From a realpolitik perspective, the idea that Muslim armies — not Western troops — disarm Hamas and guarantee security in Gaza is clever, defusing much of Tehran and its proxies’ propaganda about “occupying forces.” But Pakistan is not a neutral actor: it is a nuclear power with a strong internal Islamist pull, making its possible involvement a double-edged bet.
Success for this architecture would be a strategic blow against Tehran’s export of theocratic terrorism and would reinforce Trump’s credibility. But a failure — translated into mass protests in Lahore or Karachi — could embolden extremists and destabilize a key ally.
4. Russian advance in Ukraine and International War Damages Commission
Facts
Analyses confirm that the Ukrainian front is experiencing a “slow but steady advance” by Russian forces consolidating positions in the east through a war of attrition. Meanwhile, in The Hague, more than fifty countries and the European Union have launched the International Commission of Claims for Ukraine, tasked with evaluating and determining compensation for war damages, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The commission is based on a damages registry that already has over 86,000 claims, and there is discussion of using frozen Russian assets to finance part of the reparations.
Implications
The launch of this commission is an important gesture: it sends the message that there will be no patrimonial impunity for the aggressor. However, without Russia at the table or a clear mechanism to enforce resolutions beyond already frozen assets, there is a risk that the process becomes a legal liturgy parallel to a de facto peace that would cement Russian territorial gains.
Our line demands clarity: no agreement that implicitly or explicitly recognizes the annexation of Ukrainian territories can be acceptable because it would open the door for any power to see force as a viable way to redraw borders.
5. Tactical withdrawal of M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Facts
The M23 rebel group has announced a partial withdrawal from positions taken in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, citing “humanitarian reasons” and mediation efforts led by regional actors. Congolese authorities remain skeptical, noting that the movement has used similar pauses in the past to regroup militarily. Rwanda officially denies supporting M23, despite multiple UN reports pointing to logistical, intelligence, and material backing.
Implications
The withdrawal should not be read as a genuine de-escalation but rather as a tactical adjustment under international pressure. M23’s history shows that humanitarian rhetoric often masks efforts to consolidate territorial gains and avoid sanctions or direct confrontation.
For Central Africa, the conflict remains a classic example of proxy warfare fueled by mineral interests, weak state structures, and regional rivalries. Without a robust and enforceable security framework, eastern Congo will continue to oscillate between fragile ceasefires and renewed violence, with civilians paying the highest price.
The credibility of African-led mediation will depend on whether Kigali is genuinely pressured to disengage or allowed to continue operating in the gray zone of plausible deniability.
6. Acceleration of the EU–Mercosur agreement
Facts
The European Union has accelerated negotiations to finalize the EU–Mercosur trade agreement, with Brussels signaling willingness to offer additional environmental and labor guarantees to overcome resistance from France and other skeptical member states. South American governments, particularly Brazil and Argentina, see the deal as a strategic hedge amid slowing Chinese demand and growing protectionism elsewhere.
Implications
For Europe, the agreement is no longer just a trade issue but a geopolitical one. Securing preferential access to South American markets and resources reduces dependency on authoritarian suppliers and strengthens Europe’s strategic autonomy.
However, the internal European debate reveals a persistent tension between climate ambitions and economic realism. Blocking Mercosur on ideological grounds risks pushing the region further into Beijing’s orbit, undermining precisely the values Brussels claims to defend.
If concluded, the agreement would mark one of the largest free-trade zones in the world and send a clear signal that Europe intends to remain a relevant global economic actor rather than a regulatory island.
III. OTHER RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS
Generative artificial intelligence continues to dominate political and corporate discourse in the United States, yet major firms admit that productivity gains remain more theoretical than tangible. Washington debates whether current antitrust and labor frameworks are fit for an AI-driven economy, while markets grow impatient for measurable returns.
On migration, Trump’s renewed veto rhetoric reinforces a hard line that resonates with his electoral base but risks further polarizing U.S. society and complicating relations with Latin American partners already under pressure from economic stagnation and organized crime.
Meanwhile, China watches these dynamics carefully, adjusting its commercial and diplomatic posture as Europe and the United States redefine their regulatory competition and industrial policies.
IV. FINAL ASSESSMENT
December 16, 2025 illustrates a world sliding away from ambiguity. The United States signals that it is willing to escalate pressure on criminalized regimes like Maduro’s Venezuela, while democracies face the uncomfortable consequences of years of complacency toward jihadist radicalization and antisemitism.
In Ukraine, time favors the aggressor unless political will is matched with sustained military and economic support. In Gaza, experimentation with non-Western stabilization forces could reshape regional dynamics — or expose new fault lines.
Europe, caught between principles and pragmatism, must decide whether it wants to be a geopolitical actor or merely a moral commentator. The coming weeks will show whether these decisions translate into coherence or further fragmentation in an increasingly unforgiving international system.