Opinions #3/25

Tense, anticipated, and possibly decisive days. At least that’s what one usually hopes for. On Monday, January 20, the White House will host the inauguration of re-elected Donald Trump and a corresponding farewell for Joe Biden. A program that had a problematic prologue. Because the old Democratic president was doing all he could to make it difficult for his Republican successor to start the presidency. This concerns Ukraine, where he was still supplying millions of dollars and weapons, as well as authorization to strike Russian territory, far from the battlefield, with ATACMS missiles. But also, the Middle East, and in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Netanyahu’s actions beyond the historical boundaries of the dispute: something akin to a truce, not quite “American peace,” which would put Trump in the position of inventing something different and perhaps better than what Washington did in the massacre of Palestinians (mostly civilians) after the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023. Whether and how long the compromise on Gaza will last, we will be able to see in a relatively short period of time. What Trump intends to do is a matter of predictions and prophecies. There’s no certainty. The world of international politics, with its diplomatic and intelligence apparatuses, is vision-driven. We wait to see which of the statements Trump has made in recent months will prove true upon his return as commander-in-chief. The tycoon’s latest antics are perplexing, to say the least. Saying that American national interests should be protected in Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and perhaps even Mexico, he expressed a vision that worries his G7 and NATO allies more than his strategic adversaries like Russia and China. Trump has effectively revived a doctrine that has often accompanied the most aggressive concept of American presidents’ neighborhood policy, the Monroe Doctrine, named after President James Monroe, who coined it two centuries ago, in October 1823. A doctrine for which there can be no absence of the presence of foreign powers on the American continents: North, Central, and South America are generally regarded as territories of vital importance to the interests and national security of the United States. A vision that in the last century never questioned the autonomy of friendly countries, such as Canada, a faithful partner in all the initiatives launched by Washington. This logic of “zones of influence” cannot but please Moscow, Beijing, and even Ankara. Recognizing national interests in territories adjacent to the (great) powers may prove to be a factor of sudden pacification in the current situation of permanent escalation. We can only wait and see if this is just a joke on the part of Trump, who is no stranger to exaggerations of any kind, or if it is a prelude to a “Trump Doctrine” that in the long run may reflect this logic, which ruled the world from Yalta to 1991. Dividing the planetary chessboard based on defined and respected spheres of influence. At the same time, it may be useful to take stock of the most destructive and prolonged war currently underway. And Gianandrea Gaiani’s focus gives us a sense of what the reality is on the long Russian-Ukrainian front, propaganda aside. An analysis that makes Zelensky’s change in position in recent weeks regarding the start of talks with Putin understandable. Meanwhile, Thomas Flichy de La Neuville takes us through a historical excursion into the complex Korean reality, into the heart of the crisis that shook Seoul, the capital of yet another stronghold of Western interests, this time in Asia.