Antonio Navalón
One of the most significant challenges of our time is accepting that the world we live in is no longer the one we know. This is not just a question of logical cycles or transformations but a total break with the past. The technological revolution, combined with a radical change in power relations, ideologies, perceptions, and global structures, redefines the game’s rules. The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House is an example of this—and a consequence.
Whether we like it or not, we are in a new era. New does not mean better, just different.
The boundaries of power are being reconfigured, and the rules that seem immovable have been gradually disappearing. For decades, international politics functioned under certain unwritten principles and agreements, which, although fragile, maintained a certain balance. However, the rise of new leadership has put this order in check. Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House was not just a change of administration; it was an earthquake in the global power structure. His pragmatic, disruptive vision, far removed from political conventions, has altered the dynamics of international geopolitics.
Today, although nationalist sentiments remain a central place in the discourse of many nations, the world finds itself trapped in a curious, but above all dangerous, contradiction. Power continues to be concentrated in the hands of a few, but the decisions that those few make affect us all. The serious thing is when – as is the case – the destiny, the life, and the survival of many are in the hands of the few who seek to look after nothing more than their own interests. The most worrying thing is that these decisions are generally made as if the lessons of the past have simply been forgotten.
What happens in the world is not the result of the majority’s will but of the strategic decisions of those who manage power structures. And the war in Ukraine is the starkest expression of that reality.
The relationship between Trump and Putin is no coincidence; it reflects a critical historical moment. For different reasons, both represent the tension of their respective countries in a period of global redefinition. With his implacable style and fierce determination, Putin opted for a war that was intended to be swift, overwhelming, and decisive. But what began as a lightning offensive in Ukraine turned into a protracted and, above all, costly conflict. Contrary to what some analysts and the Kremlin had predicted, Kyiv did not fall in days or weeks, and the Ukrainian resistance — led by Zelensky and backed by the West — has defied all expectations.
The intervention of the United States and Europe in the war is not some kind of altruistic endeavor; it responds to geopolitical logic. Both know that if Ukraine falls, not only will territory be ceded, but a dangerous precedent will be set. Ukraine could have become the first of who knows how many pieces would come in that domino effect provoked and devised mainly by Vladimir Putin.
At the heart of this dispute lies an uncomfortable truth: after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a condition was established that made it clear that Ukraine should not be part of NATO or become part of the Eastern military and defensive structure. In short, it would be a country that was neither as close to the West nor as close to Russia. That was the unwritten agreement that guaranteed a certain stability in the region. However, geopolitics is not static, and, over time, the ambitions of both sides blurred those boundaries until war became inevitable.
For Russia, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO was always considered a direct provocation. It is not an ideological issue or an obsession of Putin’s; it is a matter of strategic survival. No matter how often the discourse of Ukraine’s national sovereignty is repeated, the truth is that there are rules on the global chessboard that, when broken, bring consequences that can be devastating in some cases. And the West, aware of this, played with fire.
In this scenario and in this context, Donald Trump has proposed a solution based on the crudest pragmatism: land for peace. It is not a new idea. Throughout history, territorial conflicts have been resolved through compromise. But there is one thing that Trump needs to understand, and that Woodrow Wilson found hard to understand in his time, and that is that neighbors usually hate each other and have historical reasons for trying to free themselves from the – often oppressive – yoke of those who have superiority over them. This is something that neither treaties nor agreements nor diplomacy in its strictest practice can fully understand until it is too late and the damage has already been done.
If Putin miscalculates and demands unconditional surrender, he will push Europe – which is not prepared – into a position where it is preparing and lining up for the next war. If Ukraine and its allies insist on maintaining a nationalist, intransigent stance and seek to collect the accumulated historical account, the conflict will be prolonged indefinitely with unknown consequences and dimensions.
Realities cannot be ignored when conducting an objective analysis. Today, despite theories that seek to prove otherwise, the United States is still the world’s leading power. Far from being weakened, Russia has learned from its initial mistakes and strengthened its military capacity. If it decides to launch a definitive strike, it will not only put Ukraine in check but could also push the conflict beyond its borders.
Trump has decided to cement his leadership through military power. His world vision is clear: force is the only argument that matters. In this context, war redefines political borders and alters the global economic structure. Beyond the dispute with China and the rhetoric about trade and technology, the real question is whether we are entering an era where conflicts will no longer be resolved at negotiating tables but on the battlefield.
Everything is new. Although it re-editions historically known elements, there are no signs or parameters to help us foresee what may happen from this moment on. What we face today is not just another war but the collapse of the established order after the Second World War. The logic governing international relations is replaced by a chaotic scenario in which uncertainty is the only constant. The old world, with its agreements, tacit pacts, and fragile equilibrium, is disappearing.
Weapons are once again the protagonists of this world full of doubt and uncertainty. What cannot be resolved through diplomacy, what cannot be achieved through innovation or development, is defined by what comes out of a gun barrel.
It is always essential to understand the origin of the fears that condition the violent explosions of humanity. As the poet Rainer Maria Rilke said, “Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are just waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage.” Meaning that tenderness is the greatest confession of strength. On the other hand, violence is the greatest proof of weakness.
For Americans, it can be difficult to understand that the old European continent—from which the culture to which it undoubtedly belongs—has been marked above all by centuries of mutual fear and simultaneous destruction. Judeo-Christian civilization is a story of greatness and a legacy of endless conflict.
ivi585 on Shutterstock
As recent events have shown, Russia will never accept that its neighbors have hostile intentions towards them. Similarly, those countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, due to the weight of history, will never trust the good intentions of the Russians.
That is why, beyond the negotiations, the world reeks of gunpowder. Cannons have once again taken the place of missile launch pads for one simple reason: we are reliving the oldest essence of people, which has been passed down from century to century.
The world must understand that, between the fear, the distrust, and the desire for domination, the atrocities committed by both sides in the Ukrainian grain fields are the reflection of a disturbing reality. This war is not just an isolated conflict; it could be the spark that ignites a general war in Europe.
Further Reading: