2025: A Year That Could Make History

There are rare occasions when significant, transformative changes occur globally. The year 1968, marked by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Paris protests, and the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in the US, exemplifies such a period. Similarly, 1989 was pivotal with the Tiananmen Square protest, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the disintegration of the Soviet bloc.

Having witnessed these moments, I can’t help but feel that 2025, just seven weeks in, may also be a watershed year: a time when foundational beliefs about our world are fundamentally challenged.

The core factor driving these changes is undeniably Donald Trump.

Post-World War II, each of the 13 US presidents prior to Trump’s current term at least acknowledged essential geopolitical tenets: that the security of the US hinged on safeguarding Europe from Russia and Asia’s non-Communist nations against China.

Trump has radically altered this stance, prioritizing American interests above all else, often reducing issues to a single query: the financial implications for the US.

This shift poses significant challenges for his international partners, particularly in Europe. Trump’s personality only complicates matters further; unlike any recent US president, not even Richard Nixon, has Trump’s character so prominently influenced his strategies.

“He resembles Louis XIV,” remarked a former American diplomat, likening him to France’s self-centered monarch.

Critics argue that Trump embodies both staggering vanity and remarkable sensitivity, leading advisers like Elon Musk and JD Vance to believe their roles hinge on their unwavering support and endorsements of his views.

When President Trump makes unfounded claims about President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine being corrupt and having low public support, Musk amplifies this narrative, asserting that Zelensky is loathed by Ukrainians and profiting from the sacrifices of soldiers.

It seems that no one within Trump’s circle is prepared to diplomatically suggest, “Mr. President, perhaps you should reconsider that statement.”

Based on his past experience, it is evident that everyone surrounding him understands his aversion to dissent. They are also aware that a significant portion of voters endorses Trump’s strategy, feeling they are financially supporting security efforts in a distant continent.

Trump has vowed to halt the Ukraine conflict by Easter, a goal he believes aligns with Vladimir Putin’s desires. Russian forces are slowly making headway in eastern Ukraine, owing to sheer troop numbers.

However, this advancement comes at an enormous cost in Russian lives. A continuation of this strategy could lead to the need for conscription, which risks public backlash and potential upheaval of Putin’s regime. Trump’s calls for peace resonate strongly with the Kremlin.

John Bolton, who served as Trump’s assertive national security adviser, recently remarked that the Kremlin would be celebrating upon hearing Trump’s peace strategy. It appeared to be a pivotal juncture, not just for Moscow but for the entire globe.

Putin has notably endorsed the notion that Trump rightfully won the 2020 election. This sentiment may not be accurate, but Putin understands that Trump favors allies who share his perspectives.

Why then have Trump and his close associates responded so aggressively towards Zelensky? It may be attributed partially to Zelensky’s insubordination, particularly regarding negotiations for US access to Ukraine’s vital mineral resources.

At the same time, Trump recognizes that Zelensky is the most vulnerable of the US-Russia-Ukraine triad and can be manipulated more easily than Putin. The mounting pressure on Zelensky may expedite a peace settlement.

Publicly, President Trump rarely displays any real interest in the intricate details of agreements. It is the agreements themselves that hold significance for him, regardless of whether Ukraine and its allies perceive them as fundamentally unjust and opening the door for Russia to reignite the conflict later.

British and German diplomats I know are furious about Trump’s approach to bringing Russia to the negotiation table. “He held two critical cards,” one diplomat noted. “The first was Russia’s isolation. Putin would have made numerous concessions just to engage in talks with the US – yet Trump didn’t demand any concessions. He allowed them to sit down and talk freely.”

The second card, the diplomat continued, was the condition that Ukraine be permitted NATO membership. “Trump could have leveraged this to extract concessions from Putin before eventually agreeing to postpone NATO membership for Ukraine.” In European capitals, there’s a consensus that he squandered both crucial cards before negotiations even commenced, without setting any preconditions.

Currently, however, some seasoned European diplomats are advising their administrations that this seemingly absolute phase of Trump’s presidency, where his advisers defer to his judgment (he literally referred to himself as a “king” this week), is unlikely to persist.

Trump presently commands a compliant Congress and a conservative Supreme Court, but in just 20 months, the mid-term elections in November 2026 will reshape the political landscape.

Indicators suggest an uptick in inflation in the US, potentially unsettling many who might be inclined to penalize Trump’s Republican party at the polls.

Should he lose authority over one or both Houses, his current ability to push through contentious policies will likely diminish.

However, the next year and eight months hold considerable uncertainty. Trump’s policies could provoke assertiveness from China, and a major international trade conflict arising from his tariffs is plausible. The European Union appears poised to grow more politically and economically vulnerable than ever.

Negotiating peace in Ukraine on Russian terms would represent an unprecedented shift for the US. Since 1945, Russia has typically struggled to assert its interests against America’s potent economic and military capabilities.

Now, however, following the costly decision to invade Ukraine three years ago, Putin may find himself with a favorable outcome, potentially thriving as a result.

Should this occur, then 2025 will indeed be etched in history: a pivotal moment when the trajectory of global affairs shifted irreversibly.