The military invasion of Caracas, the violent "seizure" of President Maduro, and President Trump's statements hinting at an... occupation of Venezuela serve as the most eloquent proof that the current Global Order is in a state of collapse. President Trump maintains that the US is the absolute sovereign in the Western Hemisphere and that this region belongs to its sphere of influence, where other major powers like China and Russia have no say or role. This is an extremely dangerous policy, yet it is described in detail in the new US National Security Strategy. Under these rapid geopolitical developments, the big question is how America's "rivals" will react. If we are speaking of a "new Yalta" where the planet's powerful once again divide the world and define their spheres of influence, it will be interesting to see how conflicting interests can be satisfied and what the fate of historic alliances will be. However, if we are talking about unilateral actions where each superpower chooses as it sees fit where and whom to "hit" based on its ambitions, then we are facing an extremely dangerous road where the scenarios seem catastrophic and chaotic.
Dividing the world once again
The arrest of Maduro by the United States has brought Latin America back to the center of international strategy. The rapid developments in Latin America spark the question of how other major powers, such as Russia and China, will react to the loss of their ally. Nevertheless, many analysts view the developments in Venezuela as an opportunity for potential exchanges of spheres of influence with the US on other fronts, such as Ukraine.
Initial reactions from China and Russia
China, for its part, seems willing to "sacrifice" its influence in Venezuela if this development secures its freedom of movement around Taiwan. It is recalled that China considers that Taiwan—which the US has for decades been intensively arming militarily to prevent a Chinese invasion—belongs to it. In Russia, the US move was seen as a signal that "behind closed doors" agreements ("sphere for sphere") are now possible. As a senior Russian analyst commented to Reuters, "Russia lost an ally in Latin America, but our sphere of influence remains, and we can leverage the new geopolitical arrangement." The Financial Times adopts the same spirit, pointing out that the regime change in Venezuela has global significance and demonstrates the US intentions to organize the world around the spheres of influence of the great powers.
The strategic proposal
These are developments that undoubtedly recall the... aura of the Cold War. Characteristic is the position of Russian journalist Alexey Zhivov, who proposed placing Russian Zircon missiles in Cuba—another country that the Americans... covet. Despite criticisms that these are unfeasible scenarios, Zhivov emphasizes that the strategic value is not the immediate use of the missiles, but the projection of power, noting that the presence of the Russian fleet in the Caribbean will distract US military resources. "A few Zircon launches would theoretically be enough to endanger the American fleet in Venezuela. You don't need to fire. The mere existence of the missiles is enough to change the strategic balance," says Zhivov.
Uranium, chips, and hybrid war
Zhivov underlines that modern hybrid conflicts require the creation of "counter-threats" and strategic power projection. Russia continues to reduce supplies of enriched uranium to the US, while America plans full disengagement from Russian uranium by 2028. Correspondingly, Russia could restrict access to dual-use technology, such as chips from Texas Instruments. This strategy strengthens Russia's autonomy in critical sectors and increases its negotiating capital on a global scale.
Lessons from Khrushchev and Cuba
Zhivov refers to the 1962 missile crisis when then-Soviet leader Khrushchev averted nuclear war by placing Soviet missiles in Cuba. This presence forced the US to take the Soviet Union into account, showing that the projection of military power can secure diplomatic advantages. Today, according to Zhivov, Russia can follow a similar strategy, combining:
-
Military presence in critical regions.
-
Diplomatic agreements within spheres of influence.
-
Hybrid tools of pressure to influence geopolitical decisions.
The spheres of influence
Under this light, the international scene is now being shaped around spheres of influence, with the US repositioning itself in Latin America, Russia considering sphere-exchange strategies, and China weighing its interests around Taiwan. Zhivov's proposal for Zircon missiles in Cuba is an indication that Russia is actively considering power projection through military and hybrid means, drawing lessons from history while also preparing the ground for new international agreements.
The new US military doctrine
The new US military doctrine—as articulated in the 33-page National Security Strategy document released last December—makes it clear that the Americans are changing course. In this document, the Trump administration changes US strategic priorities, moving from the model of the Global Hegemon to dividing the world into spheres of influence. In short, one could say they share the idea held by Russia and China of a multipolar world model. The US will dominate the Western Hemisphere, China in Asia, and Europe... nowhere. It is a strategy that rearranges the balance and aims to bring the US closer to the... reality of the 21st century. Analysts argue that this is not just a change of course, but a warning for the new world about to emerge.
Overturn
Although every US president issues a National Security Strategy (Trump did so in 2017 during his first term, and Biden did so in 2022), the new US national security strategy document radically overturns US global priorities, geopolitical commitments, and strategy. When the 33-page NSS document was published, analysts argued that this report stands out for its realistic (rather than idealistic) analysis of the global geopolitical situation and the US position/role within it.
Recognizing the rise of China
The report recognized the rise of China and hinted that the US can no longer maintain a hegemonic position worldwide. Instead, Washington should focus on strengthening its sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere—a Trumpian variation of the famous 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. Hegseth’s speech at the annual defense forum held in Simi Valley, California, further consolidated this position, offering an even clearer analysis of this view.
The 3 key goals and 4 lines of action
But it is not just the bureaucratic mentions in the new US National Security Strategy. Shortly after the publication of the new US strategy came Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Defense Forum, in which he developed the US strategic defense priorities for the immediate future. Essentially, Hegseth's speech can be summarized into three basic policy goals of the Trump administration:
-
Avoiding conflict with China in the Asia-Pacific region—meaning, confronting Beijing with strength but not conflict.
-
Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security.
-
Renewed attention to maintaining US supremacy in the Western Hemisphere, which includes a more aggressive stance not only in Central and Latin America but also toward Canada and Greenland. Taking the US Defense Secretary's speech into account, the new US defense strategy prioritizes "four basic lines of action at the War Department":
-
Defending the American homeland and its hemisphere.
-
Deterring China through strength and not conflict.
-
Increasing burden sharing between the US and its allies.
-
Strengthening America's defense industrial base. In other words, this policy signals a radical departure from the stated US foreign policy goals of the last four decades.
The end of Hegemony
During his speech, Hegseth launched a fierce attack on US foreign policy goals in the post-Cold War era, an era also known as the "Unipolar World" or, as incorrectly described by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama in his controversial theory, the "End of History." "Out with idealism and utopia. In with hardcore realism," Hegseth characteristically stated. Explaining further, Hegseth said the US should not be "distracted by democracy building, intervention, undefined wars, regime change, climate change, moralizing lectures, and unnecessary nation-building. Instead, we will put the practical, concrete interests of our nation first," the US Defense Secretary stated.
What they say about China
Hegseth's speech made it clear that the Donald Trump administration is moving toward a policy that recognizes "spheres of influence" led by the great powers: China in Asia, Europe for Europe, and the US in the Western Hemisphere and generally in Europe. Regarding China, Hegseth stated that relations between the US and China are stronger than ever in recent years. "President Trump and the current administration seek a stable peace, fair trade, and respected relations," Hegseth said, adding that the US Department of Defense is committed to opening a wider range of military communications with China's military to avoid conflicts and de-escalate. "This line of action is based on flexible realism... an approach that aims not at dominance, but at the balance of power... which will allow all countries to enjoy a dignified peace in the Indo-Pacific, where trade flows openly and fairly, where we can all prosper and all stakeholders respect their interests," Hegseth underlined, adding that "this is the world we see in the Indo-Pacific, and this is the goal of our approach." Recognizing China's growing military capabilities, Hegseth said the US would follow a policy of "respecting the historic military buildup undertaken by China," and the Pentagon "maintains a clear understanding of how rapid, impressive, and holistic their military development has been."
Europe to take its responsibilities
Regarding Europe, Hegseth emphasized the need for "increased burden sharing." He said many who have shaped US foreign policy "have lost their orientation" when it comes to treating their allies as incapable of helping themselves. "This, of course, is obviously ridiculous—and, frankly, offensive to our allies," Hegseth said, adding that it is important for America's allies and partners to assume their responsibilities for collective defense. "Allies are not children," he said. "We can and should expect them to do their part." Regarding the Trump administration's strategy for US supremacy in the Western Hemisphere, Hegseth said the US "must prioritize the homeland and our hemisphere... Threats remain in other regions, and our allies must take action, and truly do so." In other words, Europe will have to handle its defense alone, as the US will remain focused on the Western Hemisphere.
Europeans understand the danger
There is no doubt that Europe is aware of the serious problems it faces within the context of the new US foreign policy and strategy. It is confronted both with the risks of a continuing war in Ukraine and an uncertain peace process, as well as the very real possibility of a confrontation with the United States over Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, an EU and NATO member state. European leaders met yesterday, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine; however, they also issued a joint statement rejecting any American territorial ambitions for the Arctic island, emphasizing that: "Greenland belongs to its people. Only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide on matters concerning them."
Intense diplomatic activity and messages from Washington
Earlier today, Wednesday 7/1, intense diplomatic activity followed. The Foreign Minister of France, Jean-Noël Barrot, stated that he had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. According to the French official, Rubio "ruled out the possibility of what happened in Venezuela happening in Greenland." At the same time, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rubio allegedly said in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill that the Trump administration is not planning an invasion of Greenland, but is seeking its purchase from Denmark.
Contradictory messages for Greenland
However, the picture is complicated by statements from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told CNBC that the American government is considering "a wide range of options" for the acquisition of Greenland—including the "use of the American military." Greenland and Denmark have requested a formal meeting with Rubio to clarify US intentions. On Monday, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that: "If the US chooses to attack another NATO country, then everything will stop."
Existential crisis in transatlantic relations?
It is not the first time the transatlantic relationship has appeared fragile under Donald Trump's leadership. The American president has repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considers Europe's weaknesses—mainly in the fields of defense spending, investment, and economic power. It is recalled that the US warned in the National Security Strategy that Europe is at risk of decline. Trump called European leaders "weak" and spoke of a continent that is "decomposing." These statements caused intense irritation in European capitals, but the fundamental question raised was whether, behind the rhetoric, there was a core of truth. In its security strategy, Washington listed the economic slowdown, migration policies, and the "loss of national identity and self-confidence" as reasons for concern regarding Europe. At the same time, it warned of "cultural extinction" and questioned whether European states can remain "reliable allies."
Europeans persist in the deadlock
At the same time, Europe does not seem to perceive the new data being shaped. During yesterday's meeting of the "Coalition of the Willing" held in Paris, exactly what the participants wanted took place. That is, a decisive step toward the full and final disappearance of any real prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. Kyiv's European "allies" unequivocally supported all of Zelensky's most unthinkable "wants" for Russia, thereby proving their determination for military confrontation with Moscow. The final documents of the summit are 100% proof of this. The most significant point signed is undoubtedly the declaration of intent to deploy "multinational forces" in Ukraine after the completion of military operations, signed by Ukraine, France, and Britain. Essentially, this was the "Rubicon" in negotiations that the "Coalition of the Willing" decided to cross, despite Russia's categorical opposition. Even if the plans for the entry of occupation forces into Ukraine are still "in draft form," this does not change the essence of the matter. Whatever the detailed plans, Moscow will not agree to their implementation under any circumstances. Europe no longer hides its desire to settle permanently in Ukraine through NATO, creating a unified military infrastructure that will naturally be directed against Russia. This was the very reason Russia's special military operation began in 2022.
Unacceptable Plans
Germany, through the head of government Friedrich Merz, announced that its forces will not enter Ukraine but are ready to "position their forces near its borders, on NATO territory." Merz even went so far as to make the provocative statement that "Germany will take responsibility for the security not only of Ukraine but of the entire continent." It is clear that this is not a "peace plan," but something entirely different. European leaders are trying to project the image of an agreement, while in reality, they are attempting to make Ukraine a forward fortress against Russia. The "Coalition of the Willing" certainly does not intend to stop here. The next step is likely to convince President Trump to sign their unacceptable demands. One way or another, they will try to exert pressure on the American leader, using every means, even promises of "security" for American interests in Ukraine. If Trump yields to this pressure, the next steps could be extremely dangerous, with further escalation of the conflict, the imposition of stricter sanctions on Russia, and even military attacks.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών