By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.
December 18, 2025
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The day reveals a clear pattern: economic coercion has once again become pure foreign policy, and technology has, quite literally, reached the status of a strategic weapon. In Washington, the Trump Administration is intensifying its crackdown on the Chavista narco-state by blocking sanctioned oil tankers, and is aligning this action with a national discourse focused on security, border control, and energy.
In Brussels, the EU summit is entering its decisive phase: the question is no longer whether to support Ukraine, but how to finance it without committing legal suicide and without giving the Kremlin a precedent to undermine confidence in the euro. The debate over frozen Russian assets is thus becoming a test of European geopolitical maturity.
And in parallel, Beijing is accelerating its “Manhattan Project” for chips, that is, the attempt to break the Western monopoly in EUV lithography: if China reduces that dependence, it changes the balance of power in AI, defense and industry.
II. THE 10 MOST IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. The “Russian assets summit”: The EU discusses using frozen funds to support Ukraine (2026-27)
Facts
EU leaders are debating a mechanism to finance Ukraine with a large loan backed by frozen Russian assets. The central figure today is approximately €210 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets held in the EU, with the largest concentration in Belgium, held at Euroclear (in the region of approximately €185–€194 billion depending on the cutoff and methodology).
The most widely circulated proposal is a “reparations loan” to Ukraine of approximately €90 billion for 2026–27, backed by these assets. Belgium is demanding legal safeguards and risk-sharing; and there is open political resistance in Hungary and Slovakia, which maintain operational ties with Moscow.
Regarding private funds, the verifiable and documented figure at the EU level is approximately €28 billion in frozen (non-sovereign) Russian private assets. Other, higher estimates often mix jurisdictions or categories, but the
reliable reference here is that of the European Parliament.
Implications
Europe faces its most agonizing dilemma: either it transforms Russia’s immobilized assets into strategic leverage, or it accepts a future of political dependence. The obstacle is not technical; it is political and legal. Belgium and Luxembourg fear becoming the “lightning rod” for Russian retaliation: lawsuits, countermeasures, the freezing of Western assets, and reputational sabotage of the European compensation and settlement system.
Hungary and Slovakia’s reluctance has a different scent: it’s not prudence, but ideological calculation and opportunism. And that’s corrosive, because Moscow doesn’t need to defeat the EU militarily; it’s enough to fracture it.
If the EU fails to resolve this, the message to Kyiv will be devastating: “resist, but without guarantees”; and the message to Moscow even worse: “hold on, because time is on your side.” The strategic consequence is clear: annexation by force cannot be normalized, nor can territorial revisionism be rewarded.
2. The GRU’s war of intimidation: Russian pressure on Belgium and Euroclear
Facts
European intelligence services are warning of a GRU intimidation campaign targeting Belgian officials and financial executives to block the plan to use frozen Russian assets, with a focus on Euroclear. The report mentions approximately €185 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank held there.
Implications
This confirms that Moscow understands perfectly where it hurts: the financial infrastructure. It’s not just a war fought in the trenches; it’s a war against the very nerves of the European system. If Europe gives in out of fear, it opens a highway: tomorrow it will be Euroclear; the day after, ports, power grids, satellites, or submarine cables. Intimidation is a form of inverted deterrence: it aims to make Europe deter itself.
3. Ukraine resists and reconfigures its military position: Pokrovsk and the logic of attrition
Facts
On the Pokrovsk axis, Kyiv maintains it has recaptured approximately 16 km² in the northern sector, while Russia insists it has made advances and encircled areas. Russia’s difficulties in urban combat and the dispute over effective control of the terrain remain unresolved.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is closing deals with Germany: a package of approximately $1.4 billion is reported, focused on air defense, maintenance and drone production, within a growing industrial support architecture.
Implications
The war is now a protracted conflict of attrition: victory will go to whoever maintains a defense industry, civilian resilience, and external political support. The Atlanticist point is obvious: Russian military pressure is incompatible with any European stability. Therefore, any negotiation must be accompanied by solid guarantees for Kyiv, as close as possible to a NATO “Article 5”—even if phrased differently—without turning the occupation into a prize.
4. Trump’s oil “blockade” against Venezuela: escalation of maximum tension
Facts
Markets and diplomacy react to Trump’s announcement to block sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. Reuters highlights the uncertainty of its practical application, but also the precedent: seizures and operational signs of maritime coercion.
Implications
The measure strikes at the heart of the regime: foreign currency, internal loyalties, and corruption networks. A narco-state lives off its coffers; if you cut off its coffers, you cut off its breathing. And here it’s important to say it bluntly: Chavismo is not “a debatable government”; it is a mafia organization that sustains itself through repression, drug trafficking, and alliances with criminal actors.
That said, it must be implemented intelligently: a poorly conceived blockade could hand Maduro the role of victim. A well-calibrated blockade—legal and with clear objectives—is precisely the opposite: the democratic state defending international order against a criminal regime.
4. The oil market on red alert: volatility and opportunity for fracking
Detailed facts
Crude oil reacts positively: Reuters reports prices around Brent ≈$60.10 and WTI ≈$56.38 in the session, in an environment where the market also discounts possible additional sanctions on Russia if it does not accept a peace framework.
In earlier closing, Reuters reported that Brent and WTI had risen >1% following the announcement of the lockdown.
In terms of volume, Reuters estimates that the blockade puts approximately 600,000 barrels/day of Venezuelan exports at risk, with a large part destined for China (and with nuances due to specific licenses).
Table 1. Immediate impact on crude oil futures (Reuters, Dec 17–18, 2025)
| Reference | Movement cited by Reuters | Level cited |
| Brent | +>1% (Dec 17 session) / +$0.42 (Dec 18 session) | $59.68 closing price / $60.10 intraday price |
| WTI | +>1% (Dec 17 session) / +$0.44 (Dec 18 session) | $55.94 closing price / $56.38 intraday price |
Economic implications
Shale oil renaissance: If the Administration is committed to offsetting supply with domestic production, the blockade provides a perfect political argument for “Drill, baby, drill,” and for cutting regulatory barriers under the umbrella of energy security.
A blow to Chinese refineries: discounted, sanctioned crude fuels price-sensitive buyers; if access becomes more expensive, costs rise and China’s industrial competitiveness suffers. It’s an indirect and elegant blow: China isn’t sanctioned; its cheap supply is made more expensive.
6. Trump: yesterday’s speech and the return of the “strong state” (borders, energy and security)
Facts
Trump delivered a live speech from the White House on December 17, framing his agenda around the economy, immigration, and energy, blaming the previous administration for some of the deterioration and introducing security-related measures.
That same day, he presided over the “dignified transfer” ceremony in Dover for Americans killed in Syria, promising retaliation against the Islamic State.
Implications
The speech serves to establish the framework: the Administration wants foreign policy to be an extension of domestic security. Strategically, this has one virtue: clarity. And one risk: turning the complexity of the international order into a sequence of gestures for domestic consumption.
The key is whether this “strong state” translates into solid alliances and credible deterrence, or into isolated incidents. The Dover ceremony and the promise of retaliation serve as a reminder of something fundamental: jihadism doesn’t simply vanish; it regroups when it senses Western fatigue.
7. Congress passes defense behemoth (NDAA): Ukraine and Venezuela enter the law despite political frictions
The Senate approves a defense bill of approximately $901 billion for fiscal year 2026, with provisions including approximately $800 million for Ukraine, Baltic support, and limits on force reductions in Europe.
Implications
The geopolitical reading is simple: even when the executive branch wants to modulate its approach, the legislature anchors its commitments. This isn’t just military accounting; it’s a signal to allies and adversaries alike. For Europe, it’s a warning: US aid may vary in intensity, but the Atlantic axis is not dead; what it demands is shared European responsibility.
8. The anti-Iranian energy axis: the Israel-Egypt agreement (≈35 billion) and gas as a regional architecture
Detailed facts
Israel and Egypt are moving towards a gas export agreement worth approximately $35 billion, with gas flowing from Leviathan to Egyptian liquefaction plants until 2040.
Strategic implications
Physical consolidation of the Abraham Accords: energy interdependence creates extremely high costs for a breakdown, even though Cairo maintains a harsh rhetoric on Gaza. Economics dictate the terms when money is tight.
European energy security: some of that gas will end up in Europe. Israel is consolidating its position as a strategic asset for the West in energy as well, which increases its political leverage in the face of European criticism that sometimes suffers from selective moralizing and a lack of geostrategic understanding.
9. Europe and Mercosur: Farmers raise their voices, Brussels struggles with safeguards
Facts
The Economist highlights the political clash: European farmers challenge the Mercosur agreement .
Meanwhile, Reuters details how the EU is trying to save the pact by strengthening agricultural protections and safeguards, in response to social and parliamentary pressure.
Implications
The EU wants to be a trading power, but it cannot achieve this at the expense of its own producers. The issue isn’t being “pro- or anti-Mercosur”; the issue is preventing the agricultural sector from becoming the usual scapegoat for a European project that preaches transition and competitiveness while leaving entire sectors at the mercy of imports lacking regulatory symmetry. If Brussels imposes the agreement by force, it fuels populism; if it blocks it without an alternative, it hands over ground to China in Latin America. A dignified solution requires real safeguards, traceability, and reciprocity, not cosmetic changes.
10. China accelerates its “Manhattan Project” for chips: EUV lithography, Huawei and the end of naiveté
Facts
Reuters describes China’s program (2019–2025) to develop domestic capabilities in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, with an operational prototype in 2025 capable of generating EUV light, though not yet producing advanced chips comparable to Western ones. Former engineers, research institutes, and state coordination are involved, with Huawei as a central player.
Implications
There is no technological romanticism here; there is the State, discipline, and objective. If China achieves domestic EUV, even belatedly, it reduces the effectiveness of export controls and narrows the gap in military AI, surveillance, and electronic warfare. The West must abandon complacency: technological monopoly is not eternal. Europe, in particular, must stop acting as if industrial sovereignty were a French whim and recognize that it is a matter of national security.
III. Media Rack
- The Economist (World in Brief): sets the macro narrative: pressure on Venezuela, European tension to finance Ukraine and agricultural challenge to Mercosur.
- Reuters: provides operational and quantitative details (Chinese EUV, crude oil prices, Russian fixed asset figures, NDAA and European financing architecture).
- AP and Guardian: emphasize legal friction and fear of Russian retaliation; in addition, the political component of European cohesion and the “how” rather than the “what”.
- Le Monde: Mercosur lands amid internal political tension and the Commission’s “strategy on the edge”.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
| Risk | Level |
| EU–Ukraine: Financial blockade (2026–27) due to legal/political dispute | 🔴 |
| Russia: Intimidation and Interference over European Financial Infrastructure | 🔴 |
| Venezuela: Maritime escalation and international counter-narrative of Chavismo | 🟠 |
| Energy: Volatility due to Venezuela + risk of new sanctions on Russia | 🟠 |
| China–West: Technological acceleration (chips/AI) and race for control | 🔴 |
| Mercosur: social fracture (rural sector) and EU commercial credibility | 🟡 |
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Europe is once again stumbling over its greatest sin: tepidity at the decisive moment. The EU has €210 billion frozen from the Russian central bank, and yet it hesitates as if the problem were merely accounting-related. It isn’t. The problem is moral, legal, and strategic all at once: if Russia can invade, destroy, and then keep its spoils without any real cost, the European order becomes a historical footnote.
Legal prudence is necessary, but it cannot be disregarded. Belgium and Luxembourg cannot bear the risk alone; that much is true. But the rest of Europe cannot hide behind them either. And Hungary and Slovakia, with their affinity for Moscow, are not a “dissenting voice”: they are an internal lever of power for the Kremlin.
In the Americas, Trump’s pressure on Chavismo is consistent with an uncomfortable truth: Venezuela is not a “political disagreement”; it is a narco-state. A hardline approach against drug trafficking and its state structures is defensible when implemented intelligently, legally, and with clear objectives. The opposite—empty dialogue—has only served to prolong Venezuela’s agony and export crime.
And while we argue, China builds. Its “Manhattan Project” for chips isn’t technological news; it’s news of power. Whoever controls the foundation of AI will control the most decisive part of the economy and defense. The West has only one dignified response: unity, investment, deterrence, and values, without reservations.