By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.

December 9, 2025

I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION

The international scene over the last 24 hours ties together several layers of the same strategic game. In Ukraine, Washington proclaims that a deal is “very close,” Moscow demands “radical changes,” and Zelensky resists any formula that would cement Russia’s territorial gains.

This is the most dangerous moment in any war negotiation: when peace seems within reach, the parties push to test how far the other is willing to yield. Europe fears an “ugly peace” that sacrifices principles for speed.

At the same time, the new Trump National Security Strategy softens its language toward Russia and speaks of “strategic stability,” while framing the war in Ukraine as a file to close in order to focus on the real systemic challenge: China. Moscow applauds, Europe watches with a mix of concern and resignation.

In the Asia-Pacific, Beijing responds with actions: a carrier launching about a hundred sorties near Japan and fighters pointing their targeting radar at Japanese aircraft, normalizing intimidation around Okinawa and, by extension, Taiwan.

In parallel, the border war between Thailand and Cambodia reopens, a failed coup shakes Benin, Germany tries at last to behave like a strategic power toward China, the “second phase” of the plan for Gaza enters the decision zone, the White House toughens its immigration policies toward the Somali community of Minnesota, and the Venezuelan crisis becomes a testing ground for a maximum pressure doctrine in the Caribbean.

All of this draws a clear pattern: strategic ambiguity is ending and hard deterrence is back. The question is no longer whether the West will use its power, but whether it will know how to do it intelligently, without selling its soul in a bad deal and without leaving gaps that others will happily fill.

II. TEN KEY NEWS ITEMS (FACTS + IMPLICATIONS)

1. Ukraine: a “very close” deal that may be an unacceptable peace

Facts

• Trump’s envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, says that the peace agreement is “really close” and that only two major points remain open: the future of Donbas and control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
  
• Leaked drafts of the so-called “Kellogg Plan” point to freezing current lines, with Russia retaining around one-fifth of Ukrainian territory and NATO ties strongly limited for years.
  
• Zelensky calls talks with the United States “constructive but not easy,” stresses he will not accept territorial concessions without internal support, and announces intense consultations with European partners.
  
• Meanwhile, the Kremlin insists that “radical changes” are needed to the draft, but without closing the door, a clear sign that it is already operating in ground it considers negotiable.
  

Implications

Any agreement that validates annexation by force and freezes the occupation of about 20% of Ukraine would be a devastating precedent for European security and the international order. It would confirm that with patience and brutality, borders in Europe can be changed. Washington’s pressure to “close the file” clashes with Kyiv’s vital interests and with Europe’s responsibility not to simply nod in agreement.

The only exit compatible with a serious, responsible Atlanticism involves robust security guarantees, long-term allied military presence, clear commitments to rearmament in Europe, and a formal mechanism to refuse recognition of the occupation. Peace must reduce risk, not reward armed revisionism nor send Beijing the message that faits accomplis come free.

2. New U.S. Security Strategy: Moscow applauds, Europe holds its breath

Facts

• The Kremlin celebrates that Trump’s new National Security Strategy “largely aligns” with its worldview and, above all, with the idea of “strategic stability” between Washington and Moscow.
  
• The document tones down rhetoric toward Russia, moves it from being the top threat, and focuses attention on China, while insisting that the war in Ukraine should be closed soon to reorder resources.
  
• Several European allies privately express fear that this shift could lead to a de facto “reset” with Moscow, right in the middle of the Ukraine negotiation.
  

Implications

Talking with Moscow about arms control and nuclear stability is essential; whitewashing its aggression in Ukraine is not. Russia’s enthusiasm about the new text is no coincidence: the Kremlin reads it as an opportunity to consolidate its gains and keep presenting Europe as the weak link in the Western chain.

If Washington leans toward transactional realism without counterbalance, Europe’s responsibility multiplies. The old reflex of looking to the White House for moral and strategic guidance is no longer enough: Berlin, Paris, Warsaw and the Baltic capitals will also have to politically sustain a firm position toward Putinism, even if the wind in Washington blows toward accommodation.

3. Venezuela: closure of airspace and consolidation of Operation Southern Spear

Facts

• Trump has declared on social media that airspace “over and around” Venezuela should be considered “closed in its entirety”, without detailing through official channels how that order is applied — generating confusion and panic in Caracas.
  
• Operation Southern Spear, a massive naval and air deployment against drug trafficking in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, now includes about a dozen ships and up to 12,000 personnel, with attacks on vessels Washington ties to narco-terror networks.
  
• Venezuela denounces a “colonial threat,” revokes licenses for several airlines, and the latest foreign companies suspend flights for security reasons and due to increasing interference with navigation signals.
  

Implications

The de facto closure of Venezuelan airspace and the intensification of Southern Spear are the first large-scale application of a maximum pressure doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. From a perspective that does not deceive itself about the mafia-like, narco-terrorist and pro-Iranian nature of the Chavista regime, it was only a matter of time before patience ran out.

The maneuver has clear advantages: it isolates the Chavista leadership, hits its logistical routes, and forces Moscow and Beijing to measure how far they are willing to risk to support an exhausted pawn. The risk lies in an armed incident — a shoot-down, a naval collision — that would force Washington to respond militarily and precipitate a monumental humanitarian crisis. Firmness is necessary; recklessness is suicidal.

4. China-Japan: carrier, targeting radar, and normalization of intimidation

Facts

• The Chinese aircraft carrier (full carrier group) has conducted around 100 takeoffs and landings of its fighters in the last 48 hours near the southwestern Japanese island chain, advancing into the Pacific east of Okinawa.
  
• Japan reports two incidents where Chinese fighters directed their targeting radar — the step before missile use — at Japanese Self-Defense Force aircraft, calling them “dangerous” and “extremely regrettable.”
  
• Beijing denies the accusations, calls it “routine training,” and accuses Japanese aircraft of endangering flight safety by approaching the naval group too closely.
  

Implications

Illuminating another aircraft with targeting radar is not symbolic: it forces that plane to behave as if it could be attacked in seconds. It is another step in China’s calculated escalation, which seeks to accustom Japan, Taiwan and the United States to a permanent level of military tension on its periphery.

For Tokyo, the response must be firm but calm: transparency, unambiguous diplomatic protests and reinforcement of coordination with the United States. For Europe, the message is simple: the contest for 21st century balance is also being fought over the skies of Okinawa. Ignoring it is to give up understanding the world we live in.

5. Thailand–Cambodia: an old border dispute resurfaces

Facts

• Armed clashes have broken out again along the Thai-Cambodian border, particularly in disputed areas near the Preah Vihear region.
  
• Both governments accuse each other of provocations and violations of existing ceasefire arrangements.
  
• Local populations have been evacuated, and ASEAN has called for restraint while offering mediation.
  

Implications

Although limited in scale, the reactivation of this dispute shows how unresolved historical grievances can quickly become flashpoints in a region already under strategic pressure from great-power competition. China’s influence over Cambodia and Thailand’s security ties with the United States complicate any neutral mediation.

If ASEAN fails to act decisively, the organization risks reinforcing perceptions of irrelevance in moments of crisis. Stability in Southeast Asia depends not only on managing China, but also on preventing smaller conflicts from being instrumentalized by external actors.

6. Benin: failed coup attempt and regional fragility

Facts

• Authorities in Benin have announced the dismantling of a coup plot allegedly involving military personnel and foreign actors.
  
• Several arrests have been made, and the government has imposed temporary security measures.
  
• The situation remains tense amid broader instability across the Sahel and West Africa.
  

Implications

Benin had long been considered one of the region’s democratic exceptions. This failed coup attempt underscores how contagion from neighboring military regimes and jihadist pressure is eroding even relatively stable states.

For Europe and the United States, West Africa can no longer be treated as a peripheral theater. Weak institutions, economic frustration, and foreign interference are creating fertile ground for sudden collapses that can redraw regional alignments overnight.

7. Germany and China: timid awakening of strategic realism

Facts

• Berlin has announced new measures to reduce economic dependence on China, particularly in critical technologies and infrastructure.
  
• German officials speak of “de-risking, not decoupling,” while acknowledging past naivety regarding Beijing.
  
• At the same time, German industry warns against abrupt shifts that could damage exports.
  

Implications

Germany is finally beginning to speak the language of power politics, albeit cautiously and late. Years of prioritizing trade over strategy have left Berlin vulnerable to coercion, as Beijing knows well.

The challenge for Germany will be to align rhetoric with action. Without real diversification, investment screening, and coordination with European partners, “de-risking” risks becoming another comforting slogan rather than a strategic pivot.

8. Gaza: entering the decision phase

Facts

• Negotiations over the “second phase” of the Gaza plan have entered what diplomats describe as a decisive moment.
  
• Israel insists on maintaining security control, while international mediators push for humanitarian access and political transition mechanisms.
  
• Hamas signals conditional openness but continues to set maximalist demands.
  

Implications

The second phase will determine whether Gaza moves toward stabilization or sinks further into permanent crisis. Any arrangement that ignores Israel’s security concerns will fail; any plan that excludes Palestinian political reconstruction will be unsustainable.

For the West, credibility is on the line. Balancing deterrence, humanitarian responsibility, and political realism will test whether lessons from past Middle Eastern interventions have truly been learned.

9. United States: tougher immigration stance toward Somali networks

Facts

• The White House has announced stricter immigration and monitoring measures targeting Somali community networks in Minnesota.
  
• Authorities cite concerns over fraud, radicalization, and transnational criminal links.
  
• Community leaders warn against stigmatization and collective punishment.
  

Implications

This policy shift reflects a broader trend toward securitizing migration debates in the United States. While legitimate security concerns exist, the political cost of alienating entire communities is high.

The challenge lies in enforcing the law without feeding narratives that extremists exploit. Poorly calibrated measures risk undermining social cohesion while delivering only marginal security gains.

10. Strategic conclusion: the return of hard deterrence

Facts

• Across all theaters discussed — Ukraine, East Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa — states are moving away from ambiguity toward explicit power signaling.
  
• Military deployments, economic pressure, and coercive diplomacy are increasingly normalized.
  

Implications

The era of strategic vagueness is ending. Deterrence is back, but deterrence without coherence becomes provocation. The West faces a dual risk: cutting bad deals out of fatigue, or leaving vacuums through indecision.

Power, when used without intelligence or principle, corrodes legitimacy. Power, when abdicated, invites aggression. The coming months will show whether Western leadership can still navigate between these two failures — or whether others will decide the rules of the game instead.