Antonio Navalón
With less than four weeks to go before we bid farewell to 2025—amidst the fury, the din, the missiles, and the drones—it is inevitable that we pause and take stock of how, in our political and social sphere, we will close out the year. Now that the first quarter of the century is over, we understand that we are not living in exceptional circumstances. Each period leading up to the world wars was unique in its time, yet they all shared the same air of menace.
Today, something similar is happening. The world faces numerous conflicts, but they all revolve around one essential issue: the dispute over hegemony. We are witnessing the reconfiguration of empires, technological competition, cultural fracture, and the separation between a Western bloc that is trying to sustain itself and an Eastern bloc that is advancing with discipline and strategic patience.
On this chessboard coexist the United States, the European Union, China—the great global competitor—and a Russia that, from Ivan the Terrible to Putin, has defined its identity through wars and territorial claims. Added to this is a silent but constant player: India.
The economic dimension also carries weight. The United States-Mexico-Canada bloc accounts for nearly 30% of global GDP. It is an enviable base, but one that is increasingly facing the sustained rise of the Asian axis. However, beneath the figures and the rhetoric lies a determining factor: control of rare earths and strategic minerals.
What some call “the power of magnets” is, in reality, the essence of contemporary military power. Due to the importance of these strategic minerals and rare earths, the construction of a US F-35 requires approximately 418 kilograms of rare earths. These materials—which enable the manufacture of advanced engines, missiles, radars, electronic systems, quantum capabilities, and smart weapons—define the present and immediate future of the real capacity for aggression between states.
This context frames the two formal wars the world is currently experiencing: real conflicts, with tanks, ships, drones, and thousands of deaths.
The war between Russia and Ukraine remains Europe’s open wound. Napoleon believed that a subjugated Germany was necessary to dominate the continent. Otto von Bismarck, in his time, expressed it with brutal clarity: “Whoever has a hand in Central Europe will have a hand on Europe’s throat.”
In his day, Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and then of the Soviet Union. Today, Ukraine has become a vital point of European balance.
Despite Russia’s initial superiority and after almost four years of invasion, Moscow has still not achieved a decisive victory. The most reliable estimates speak of hundreds of thousands of deaths and more than a million combined casualties, in addition to monumental economic devastation. On one side is the owner of the gas and oil that still heat and power Europe; on the other is the owner of the grain and fields that feed the world.
With such an unsustainable and prolonged cost, the question inevitably arises: what is Trump up to in the Caribbean? Maintaining a large-scale US military deployment, such as the one on Venezuela’s doorstep, costs around $200 million a day. And while no one sees a total victory on the European front as possible, the Latin American front raises strategic questions that the US seems unable or unwilling to resolve.
Could Venezuela be the Vietnam of the new era? No. Would Chávez and the region have consolidated that wave of populism if the attack on the Twin Towers had not occurred? Probably not. Only 9/11 and its devastating impact on US policy explain the emergence of these movements as a result of a drastic change in the prioritization of US interests.
Trump may generate mistrust about his ability to lead what, without exaggeration, is the most significant military movement in the Caribbean since the missile crisis of the 1960s between Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro. But the comparison has a fundamental nuance: that confrontation was fought in the shadows, between diplomatic cables and hotlines. Today’s conflict is being fought in full view of everyone, in headlines, polls, and social media, where every gesture is evaluated for its electoral effect and impact on popularity polls.
The US military is watching with growing concern the type of commander-in-chief it has. Special units—the same ones that carried out operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden—do not understand the logic of publicly announcing, through social media, the existence and execution of covert CIA operations. No president has ever done this before.
The critical point is not only in Washington, but also in Caracas. At this point, the Chavistas—especially the military and Vladimir Padrino—hold the key to handing over Maduro. And if that “surrender” were to occur, it would not be explained as an isolated event, but rather within the framework of a war to the death against the drug cartels.
In this context, Trump’s temptation to offer pardons or unilateral gestures to leaders convicted of drug trafficking—such as the one granted to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández—only adds to the uncertainty. In Trump’s own words, this full and complete pardon was justified because “many people whom I respect greatly believe that he has been treated very harshly and unfairly.”
Meanwhile, Europe watches with anguish. Beyond what Trump may desire—an agreement with Putin, a quick exit, a de-escalation—Europeans know that if the war does not end well for Ukraine, the continent will be vulnerable to the Russian bear. That is why they insist, pressure, demand, and fear. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the United States is no longer the absolute world leader or the commander-in-chief of NATO, but rather a country that has abandoned its international commitments. That is why Trump cannot make up his mind to invade Venezuela, impose his will on the European Union, or end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
We live in times of decisions and uncertainty. Although the only thing we can be sure of is that, at the start of the year, we will be neither safer nor more stable. On the contrary, today, the real danger and risk lies in the finger of the leader of the bloc to which we belong and who, with the push of a button, would be capable of unleashing a holocaust. That is the harshest, most uncomfortable, and most revealing fact with which we will welcome 2026.
Further Reading: