Here Comes 2025 - Everything Evolves

"The boundless mass of humanity flows on a stream without banks; upstream, the past is lost in time; while downstream, a future clouded by starless possibilities awaits. Watching all this are men of zest, overawed - the romantic era of empires is over. They declare the Caesars will return, driven by will to power.

​So, finally, nations sit as economic units, stripped of their identity, with the populace cushioned from grim reality by social media wrecked attention spans. They bickering over gender, porn consumption, and other matters of the day, then drift on."

I stole and twisted Oscar Spengler's words above. He wrote pessimistically of the West as World War 1 concluded. My version, written in May 2023, still rings true. 

​At this time of year, it's natural to look ahead and assess what's on the horizon. On the geopolitical front, we're witnessing significant evolutions. Imagine a world without empires. This thought experiment quickly becomes complex, requiring us to envision a reality vastly different from what we're accustomed to.

As we approach 2025 and a second Trump presidency, we witness the convergence of several transformative shifts. Notably, the era of the U.S.'s post-World War II global policing is drawing to a close, a paradigm shift underscored by the failed interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Arguably, the Vietnam War foreshadowed the limitations of U.S. power projection. All the think tanks and analyses can ruminate the details; the facts are inescapable. Hence, the de facto empire or hegemony run from Washington is much more brittle and retreating.

For example, we've just seen regime change in Syria that wasn't driven by the Americans. Turkey played the lead role in the removal of Assad. Then overnight, Washington delisted the new rulers from its list of terrorists. They turned on a dime from trying to kill Al-Joulani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, to engagement. 

The unfolding conflict in Ukraine is a stark reminder of the West's strategic calculations. While not fully committed, the U.S.-led West provides enough resources to keep the Ukrainians in the fight, which serves its interests. This geopolitical chess game, while cynical, is a testament to the complex power dynamics at play.

Likewise, Putin can't be pushed to defeat because he may come out swinging with nukes when cornered. Nobody wants that. So, the war rumbles on, and young men die without an absolute winner. Meanwhile, the Europeans pay for higher fuel costs, stuttering economies and instability on their borders. Polls point to waning European public support for Ukraine as the inevitable fatigue takes hold.

It's essential to cut through the propaganda around why Russia moved on Ukraine. As the reunification of Germany was under negotiation in 1989, the USSR participated in the talk. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and European leaders assured the then-Sovert leadership that NATO would not expand eastward. That undertaking led to the reunification of Germany, which tied up the loose ends of World War II. These assurances are recorded on tapes and in documents.

Putin, the successor to the Sovert leadership, believed these guarantees would be sustained. In this regard, Russia was a continuation of the USSR, accepting all international treaties and legal obligations, including nuclear arms agreements.

Indeed, when first appointed, Putin sought a rapprochement with NATO and even discussed possible membership. The Americans scorned this idea. Their aim of 'full-spectrum dominance' in the geopolitical sphere, including military, financial, industry, and culture, made no room for Russia. On the contrary, the Neocon policy sought to surround Russia.

Hence, within years, NATO expanded eastward, encroaching on Russia's border. This move destroyed Russia's sense of security and trust that the West would honour its word. Thus, we arrive at today's 'forever' war.

Now, Trump is making it clear that U.S. continued support for Ukraine is not a given, and he expects the Europeans to stop freeloading off American military power. How he manifests this stance remains to be seen. If Ukraine accepts neutrality, there is a solution to all this. If that doesn't happen, as Godfrey Bloom discusses here, are you prepared to risk World War 3?

The time has come for Europeans to define what they stand for and what they're willing to defend. This will necessitate developing a comprehensive strategy and a plan for funding it without heavy reliance on the U.S.

Simultaneously, the U.S. is losing influence in the global south. Its support of Israel is among several positions that have damaged its standing. Again, Trump's election for a second term may set a path to a less prominent U.S. global footprint.

Elsewhere, signs emerge that the Western-style democratic model is struggling to meet public expectations. There's a palpable sense of change in the air. In Germany, far-right politicians are gaining ground in the formerly communist part of the country. France's government is in turmoil as another unknown prime minister takes office.

Across Europe, legal and illegal migration are causing rifts in the open-border model as countries assert their sovereignty.

In Britain, the signs of decay and malaise are everywhere. Decades of under-investment, poor governance and apathy are coming to a head. The prisons are in a near state of collapse, forcing the new Prime Minister Kier Starmer to release thousands of thugs, including many who are a threat to women and children.

Concurrently, the police are abandoning a reported 45 per cent of reported crimes, including assault cases, as the London Metropolitan Police routinely achieves zero detections in some neighbourhoods. Yet, the police can find the time and manpower to investigate instances of hurt feelings as they enforce speech codes. That's easier than going after real villains.

The NHS is the most remarkable example of a malfunctioning state. The U.K. spends more on health than most European countries yet receives deeply sub-par returns. The proportion of day-to-day government spending dedicated to the NHS has risen to 44 per cent and will soon exceed 50 per cent. The NHS is the single largest employer in the U.K. The quip that Britain is a health bureaucracy with a government attached is becoming true.

As a result, Prime Minister Starmer is already finding life much more challenging than he ever imagined. Part of the problem is the ongoing British temptation to pretend it still has an empire in every region or time zone. But to do that, you need clout, and the evidence is clear: Britain no longer has a military capable of sustaining even a couple of months of all-out fighting.

All the services are understrength and poorly resourced. A lack of foresight allied to hubris has saddled the Royal Navy with two aircraft carriers it can't deploy. Both are sitting targets in an era of drones and hypersonic missiles. The army is its smallest since the Napoleonic Wars, and currently, 10% of all military personnel are unfit to be deployed.

The once-legendary RAF's training programmes are in perpetual crisis. Pilots take too long to complete courses, and a lack of engineers keeps aircraft grounded. The RAF has had to turn to the U.S. for even basic flight training after ill-conceived and unlawful diversity drives prioritised minorities over competent white men. Shockingly, the country has no effective missile defence system.

Sure, the special forces remain exceptional. But you don't win wars or defend a country by special forces alone.

Starmer and his new Labour government must make some harsh decisions in 2025 to begin tackling this mess. And with the economy showing signs of weakening (again), those decisions become even more formidable.

This brings us back to Trump. While Starmer may wish to lean towards Europe, he must enter the White House and genuflect. After all, the British foreign secretary, David Lammy, has previously remarked that Trump is "deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic," and a "neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath."

Be that as it is, Trump does not present an ideological threat to Britain or Europe. Instead, the danger comes from his demand for 'fair trade' and a pragmatic approach to defence issues. He recognises that the Russians are not knocking at the U.S. door and do not present a significant threat to American interests beyond cybercrime and espionage.

Likewise, China does not pose a military threat to the United States. Instead, the risk comes from China's increasing economic clout and its grip on certain rare earth materials crucial to advancing the new technological age. Plus, the Chinese investment in research, people's education, and engagement with the global south is outstripping the influence the Americans can assert.

If population is power, do the maths: China has 1.4 billion versus 329 million Americans. China's economy has grown over the past forty years at a rate four times that of the U.S. By purchasing power parity, the yardstick the IMF uses to compare national economies, China has surpassed America.

In the process, China has become the World's workshop, the number one trading partner of most nations, and the primary engine of economic growth. Trump appears to have heeded that status, unprecedentedly inviting President Xi Jinping to the inauguration in Washington on January 20, 2025. Whether Xi accepts the invitation will be telling.

Yet Washington still does not understand that the Chinese people will decide China's future. Moreover, many in the West are kidding themselves if they believe the Chinese people view Xi and the CCP through the same lens as them. On the contrary, their popularity remains robust, at numbers Western politicians can only dream about.

Still, China has issues to address, including a falling population and an economy that requires constant attention to stay on track.

And despite attempts by U.S. neocons to inflame the Taiwan situation, I see no immediate conflict. Beijing knows military actions often have unforeseen consequences, and China will not be provoked. It has many other levers to influence the situation, and a military option is the least attractive.

In a May 2023 article, New World Order, I set out a view that remains valid and relevant. So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, the world order is changing, and I suspect that in 2025, the changes will accelerate. Yet, with many factors at play, I recoil at being more definitive than that.

Happy New Year.