By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published in Negocios.
December 3, 2025
INTRODUCTION: EUROPE FACING ITS MOST SERIOUS STRATEGIC CROSSROADS SINCE 1945
In less than twenty-four hours, the international board has experienced an acceleration that confirms we have entered a dangerously unstable phase. Ukraine faces a deadlock in negotiations with the United States and Russia, worsened by Russian military advances in Donbas and by a reckless statement from the French Chief of General Staff that has provoked a swift response from the Kremlin: “if Europe wants war, Russia is ready right now.”
The phrase is not just a threat, but a brutal reminder that Europe seems to have forgotten the basic rules of strategic deterrence.
The United States, for its part, has decreed the suspension of immigration from 19 countries, intensified attacks against drug-running boats, and deployed rhetoric of total firmness against narcoterrorism. That firmness is understandable: Maduro leads one of the most dangerous criminal regimes on the planet, a macro-mafioso structure that has turned the Venezuelan state into an instrument of drug trafficking.
Any responsible country has the right to combat that threat, always within international law, but without naïveté or double standards.
Added to this are two major scandals: the release of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted of drug trafficking, whose release can only be explained by the value of the information he provides on the links between chavismo and criminal networks; and the Minnesota case, where massive fraud in public aid may have ended up financing Al-Shabab.
The negligence that allowed that hole is a shame that demands political responsibility, not the guilty silence of the radical wing of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, the Middle East lives a moment of maximum tension: Gaza is moving toward a de facto international protectorate, Hezbollah is rearming its arsenals in southern Lebanon, and the Houthis are attacking maritime routes vital to the global economy. China remains trapped in its own contradiction: it needs economic stability, but feeds a militarist nationalism that increases the risk of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait.
Surprisingly, Europe seems to be the only region willing to accept the narrative of the “inevitable clash.” Instead of strengthening its strategic autonomy, it behaves as a hasty actor, without doctrinal clarity and without political direction. Deterrence does not consist of announcing wars hypothetically, but of being so robust that no one dares provoke them.
This report collects, with the depth and rigor the situation demands, the eight most relevant news items of the last 24 hours, followed by the Media Rack, a Risk Traffic Light, and a final commentary that synthesizes the gravity of the moment.
1. Ukraine: Negotiations Stalled and Russian Advance in Pokrovsk
Facts
Talks between the United States and Russia for a peace plan have entered a dangerous “impasse.” Washington is trying to impose a plan that demands from Ukraine territorial concessions, military limitations, and permanent renunciation of NATO, while Moscow advances militarily in Donbas.
Russia claims to have taken the strategic city of Pokrovsk, which, if confirmed, would reinforce its leverage in negotiations. Moscow presents the advance as a “liberation,” in its usual propagandistic distortion, while Kyiv maintains that the fighting continues and that this is an attempt to influence negotiations by creating faits accomplis.
Implications
Russian aggression admits no euphemisms. It is a blatant attempt to modify borders by force. Rewarding that behavior with territorial concessions would be a strategic error with historical consequences: it would send the message to all revisionist powers that it is enough to resist long enough for the West to give in.
The diplomatic stalemate, combined with Russian military advances, increases the risk that the United States will force Ukraine to accept an agreement that does not guarantee either its full security or its sovereignty. Weakened and divided, Europe appears as a secondary actor in a conflict that defines its own strategic future.
The real danger today is “toxic peace”: an agreement that does not stabilize, but freezes aggression and leaves Ukraine amputated, vulnerable, and exposed to future offensives.
2. Putin’s Warning to Europe: “If Europe Wants War, Russia Is Ready Right Now”
Facts
Putin launched a direct threat to Europe in response to statements by the French Chief of General Staff, who called for “preparing to lose sons in a war against Russia.”
The Russian president’s phrase — “if Europe wants war… and it begins, Russia is ready” — is one of the most aggressive messages directed at Europe since the end of the Cold War.
Implications
Europe has made a serious mistake by allowing a military high command to publicly declare that it must prepare for war with Russia. It is a strategic imprudence that has given the Kremlin the perfect narrative to justify its verbal escalation.
Deterrence does not consist of announcing the unthinkable. It consists of preventing the adversary from believing it can win a war. The French general’s statement — although perhaps intended to strengthen defense awareness — has been interpreted as a sign of political weakness that Russia wastes no time exploiting.
Putin seeks to divide, intimidate, and delegitimize. But the worrying thing is that Europe seems incapable of producing a coherent strategic posture. The Russian threat, however brutal, must be met with diplomatic firmness, real reinforcement of defensive capabilities, and doctrinal clarity — not improvisation or alarmism.
Europe must recover serenity, unity, and a clear notion of its vital interests.
3. United States Freezes Immigration from 19 Countries: Security and Political Calculation
Facts
The Trump Administration has suspended immigration — including applications for residency and naturalization — from 19 countries considered at risk in terms of terrorism or organized crime. Among them are Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Venezuela.
The measure coincides with police and migration operations focused especially on communities linked to countries with significant networks of extremists, following the Minnesota case and possible links between public aid fraud and Al-Shabab.
Reactions have ranged from moral condemnation in progressive sectors to outright support from much of the conservative public.
Implications
States have the right — and obligation — to protect their citizens. But the measure combines legitimate security motives with an evident political dimension: sending a message of firmness to an electoral base that perceives immigration as a systemic risk.
The mistake would be to reduce such a complex phenomenon to a list of prohibited countries. National security requires precise filters, reliable intelligence, and international cooperation, not just broad prohibitions.
The tension between security and social cohesion will continue to rise. In fact, the Minnesota case confirms that the problem is not immigration itself, but the failure of control systems, supervision, and state auditing.
4. Global War on Drug Trafficking: Attacks on Drug Boats and Trump’s New Doctrine
Facts
The United States has intensified its operations against drug-running boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, destroying vessels linked to criminal networks operating from Venezuela, Colombia, and Central America.
Trump has warned that any country that allows the transit of drugs to the United States could be subject to attacks. The doctrine is based on the idea that drug trafficking constitutes a direct threat to national security.
Implications
The fight against narcoterrorism demands extraordinary measures. The Maduro regime has turned Venezuela into the largest narco-state in the hemisphere. The United States cannot look the other way when vessels financed or protected by it transport cocaine destined to flood its internal market.
Action against drug boats is legitimate and defensible as long as it is based on reliable intelligence and precise rules of engagement. The risk lies in broadening the concept of “military target” to include entire countries.
The line between surgical action and exemplifying punishment must remain clear. Legitimacy is lost when the use of force lacks transparent criteria.
5. The Release of Juan Orlando Hernández and the Impact on the Maduro Regime
Facts
Trump has pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking in the United States. The decision has created a political earthquake.
According to government sources, Hernández would have provided highly sensitive information on the international drug trafficking network linked to the Maduro regime.
Implications
The release of Hernández, scandalous at first glance, can only be understood in terms of realpolitik. If his information allows dismantling the mafioso network of chavismo, the impact would be greater than any police operation.
The risk is evident: citizens may interpret the pardon as impunity for high-ranking corrupt officials. However, the narco-state Venezuelan problem is not solved with declarations but with intelligence. If Hernández provides evidence linking Maduro’s regime to international cartels, the decision will have profound strategic effect.
The truth is that the radical left in the United States has preferred to shout “authoritarianism” rather than understand the magnitude of the narcoterrorism challenge.
6. The Minnesota Scandal: Massive Fraud and Possible Links to Al-Shabab
Facts
Multimillion-dollar fraud in Minnesota social programs — food aid, housing, children’s care — has led to more than 100 prosecutions and suspicions that part of the funds ended up in the hands of Al-Shabab, a Somali jihadist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Representative Ilhan Omar has been politically singled out for her closeness to community networks involved in program management, though no direct proof linking her to the financing has been presented. However, conservative sectors have denounced the total lack of oversight and auditing in programs managed by organizations close to her political environment.
Trump has ordered focused deportation measures and accused the radical wing of the Democratic Party of creating “ecosystems of impunity.”
Implications
That U.S. public funds end up in the hands of Al-Shabab is a national disgrace. There is no softening the language. It is a monumental oversight failure and a sign that ideological goodwill can blind entire administrations.
The problem is not the Somali community, which in the vast majority is loyal, hardworking, and respectful. The problem is political negligence by those who should have guaranteed rigorous audits and strict controls. This case will mark immigration, security, and aid oversight policy for years.
7. Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran: The Silent War Approaches a Critical Point
Facts
Israel continues intensive operations in Gaza while reinforcing its presence in the north amid Hezbollah’s accelerated rearmament in southern Lebanon. The Israeli government is preparing a dossier for the United States documenting that Hezbollah has rebuilt much of its arsenal with direct support from Iran.
Iran maintains a multi-theater pressure strategy: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the Red Sea. The Houthis act as the maritime arm of the Iranian axis, attacking commercial ships to punish countries perceived as allies of Israel.
Arab moderate powers — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan — fear a regional collapse if a more robust security mechanism is not established.
Implications
The region dangerously approaches a point of no return. Gaza risks transforming into a permanent international protectorate. Hezbollah seeks to wear down Israel morally and strategically to cement Iranian dominance over the Levant. Iran plays a complex game of chess in which every actor is a piece that can be sacrificed.
Unless a real disarmament of Hezbollah and Hamas is achieved, any ceasefire will be a pause between wars. A lasting solution requires a regional security architecture that today does not exist but will be indispensable to avoid a larger conflagration.
8. China: Hidden Economic Crisis and Growing Risk in the Taiwan Strait
Facts
China is studying massive subsidies to reactivate the real estate sector, which has sunk after years of speculation and indebtedness. The loss of confidence affects growth, regional banking, and internal consumption.
At the same time, U.S. reports warn of the vulnerability of bases such as Kadena in the event of a Chinese saturation attack should war over Taiwan occur. China’s ballistic and cruise missile capability already exceeds many of the defensive systems deployed.
The Communist Party tries to project strength externally to compensate for internal tensions.
Implications
China lives a structural paradox: it needs stability to address a deep economic crisis but fuels a militarist discourse that increases the risk of escalation. The temptation to seek strategic success to distract the country from its difficulties cannot be ruled out.
For the United States, Japan, and Australia, the response is obvious: disperse capabilities, strengthen air defenses, improve interoperability, and accelerate investments in long-range surveillance and strike technologies.
Once again, Europe appears absent. Without security in the Indo-Pacific, there will be no energy or technological security in Europe.
MEDIA RACK
Anglo-Saxon Press (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, The Times, FT)
They insist on Ukraine’s deadlock, Putin’s threat, and the U.S. immigration pivot. Tones are moderate, often wary of Trump’s policies, but surprisingly soft regarding the growth of Latin American narcoterrorism.
European Press (Le Monde, FAZ, Die Welt, Corriere, Le Figaro)
They underscore the risk of a “new Yalta” if Ukraine accepts forced concessions. Severe criticism of the French general’s words, though with little European self-criticism. Concern about the Red Sea and the energy market.
Israeli and Arab Media (Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, Al-Arabiya, Asharq Al Awsat)
They perceive a regional war in slow motion: Gaza and Lebanon as visible axes, Iran and the Houthis as decisive vectors.
Asian Media (South China Morning Post, Yomiuri Shimbun, Hindustan Times)
They emphasize the risk of miscalculation by China and the vulnerability of U.S. bases. India watches the naval escalation in the Pacific with concern.
RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
VERY HIGH RISK
- Ukraine: real possibility of a bad deal that consolidates Russian gains.
- Middle East: Gaza–Lebanon–Iran and the Red Sea form a single volatile front.
- Russia–Europe relations: Putin’s explicit threat raises the risk of a serious incident.
HIGH RISK
- Venezuelan narcoterrorism: necessary operations, but with diplomatic risk.
- Minnesota case: profound political and social impact; erodes institutional trust.
MEDIUM RISK
- China–Taiwan: fragile stability, structural risk in the medium term.
- Energy markets: increasing volatility due to the Red Sea and OPEC+ production.
LOW RISK (MONITORED)
- European internal politics: more noise than real threat, though impacting strategic cohesion.
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Europe finds itself at a historical crossroads it still does not fully understand. For years it has afforded delegating its security to others, reciting mantras about “strategic autonomy” without giving them substance, and acting as if the international order were a permanent, unchangeable structure.
Reality has proven stubborn: we live in a world where aggression, revisionism, and hybrid warfare have displaced diplomatic rhetoric as dominant tools of pressure.
Putin’s threat — as brutal as it is calculated — does not only seek to intimidate; it seeks to divide, erode, and sow the sense that conflict is inevitable. But some irresponsible European statements, like that of the French Chief of General Staff, only help nurture that narrative. Deterrence does not consist of verbalizing apocalypse, but of reinforcing capabilities, unity, and strategic serenity. Europe must relearn this forgotten lesson.
Meanwhile, the United States deals with enormous internal and external threats: Latin American narcoterrorism, massive fraud with extremist ramifications in Minnesota, and migratory pressure that demands intelligent solutions, not simplifications.
In that context, firmness against the Venezuelan narco-state is not only understandable but necessary; and the use of intelligence obtained from former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, though controversial, could be decisive in dismantling chavismo’s criminal network.
The Middle East remains on the brink: Gaza threatens to become a permanent international protectorate; Hezbollah is rearming in southern Lebanon with direct Iranian assistance; and the Houthis are expanding the conflict to the Red Sea, affecting one of the world’s most important shipping corridors. In parallel, China moves toward an economic crisis that could lead to adventurist temptations if the Party fails to control its internal demons.
What is at stake today is not only the balance of global power, but the ability of democracies to defend themselves against hybrid, criminal, terrorist, and revisionist threats without renouncing their principles. Achieving this requires more than declarations: it requires a clear strategic project, firm political will, and leadership that does not tremble before blackmail, whether it comes from Moscow, Tehran, or Caracas.
Europe cannot afford to continue acting as a spectator. It must assume its historical responsibility, reinforce real defense, recover diplomatic weight, and, above all, speak with one voice against those who seek to destroy the international order that guarantees its prosperity and freedom. The world is going through a period of dense shadows; but shadows only advance when those who must confront them hesitate. Today, Europe must decide whether it wants to be an actor or a victim.