Last year left a deep mark in global history, becoming an era of rapid changes and challenges. Conflicts, economic instability and climate disasters have once again reminded how fragile the world order is. New hotspots on the world map, unexpected technological breakthroughs and sweeping political changes have created an atmosphere in which unpredictability is becoming the new norm. In this context, 2025 looks like a continuation of global turbulence. With this in mind, the key task is to understand the possible scenarios of the development of events and to identify potential “black swans” – phenomena that can change the course of history, going beyond the usual predictions.
Trump and his double standards regarding the war in Ukraine
In 2025, Donald Trump will become the most important figure in the world geopolitical space, but his unpredictability and tendency to non-standard solutions can turn any step into a global risk. That is why this year the “black swan” theory, which has long become a symbol of the unpredictability of events with potentially serious consequences, appears before the world in new manifestations. Donald Trump, who has returned to the political arena, wants to go down in history as a “peacemaker”, but his initiatives regarding Ukraine may turn into a dangerous geopolitical maneuver with unpredictable consequences. This year, it is increasingly likely that he will try to end the war in Ukraine through negotiations with Russia and promises of long-term support for Ukraine. However, in reality, this strategy rests on a fragile foundation.
A key risk is that any signs of a weakening of US support for Ukraine could prompt Putin to escalate the conflict. If he believes that American aid is coming to an end, he will once again believe in his ability to capture Kyiv and force Ukraine to surrender. Such a scenario will be a disaster for Trump, because instead of the coveted title of “peacemaker”, he will receive his own analogue of Afghanistan – a symbol of political failure and loss of international authority.
On the other hand, strong and sustained support for Ukraine, which demonstrates US steadfastness, could be a game-changer. If Putin realizes that victory is impossible, he will be forced to seriously consider ending the war. But even if a lasting ceasefire is achieved, it will only be the first step. The future of Ukraine and its place in the global order will depend on long-term assistance capable of providing stability and protection from the Russian Federation in the future.
At his last press conference, Donald Trump actually did not condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he shifted the blame to Joe Biden, saying that supporting Ukraine’s entry into NATO “forced Putin to act.” Moreover, Trump drew an equal sign between Russia and Ukraine, saying that “people are dying on both sides” and therefore the war must be stopped at all costs. However, it is obvious that it is Ukraine that must pay this “any price”.
The cynicism of these statements is difficult to overestimate. First, Trump knows full well that NATO was not going to accept Ukraine until a full-scale Russian invasion. So either he’s deliberately lying or he’s showing gross incompetence – both options are equally troubling. Second, he tries to reduce the war to a matter of compromise, ignoring the fact that it is a violation of international law, crimes against humanity and an attempt to destroy a sovereign state.
His constant tendency to make empty promises deserves special attention. Even before his inauguration, Trump claimed that he would end the war in 24 hours. Now he promises to finish it in six months – that’s 4,400 hours, which is 183 times more than the original deadline. I wonder what his next “promise” will be?
Obviously, Trump’s words should be treated with caution. He repeatedly changed his position, expressing opposing opinions depending on political advantage. The basis for evaluating his policies should be actual actions, not his statements. However, here too the question arises: is he ready to stand up for justice, or is his goal only to preserve his own political image, even at the cost of concessions to Russia?
The “black swan” of this situation is the unpredictability of its consequences. A conquered Ukraine will be a triumph not only for Russia, but also for China, Iran, and North Korea, which are increasingly acting as a single “axis of autocracies.” At the same time, Trump may make a strategic choice that will actually jeopardize both the stability of NATO and the credibility of the United States as the key guarantor of global security.
The support of allies in Europe is another key to success. Trump, no matter how skeptical he is about the EU, must admit that without a united and strong Europe, his strategy is doomed to failure. European countries must stand side by side with the USA, because this is the only way to guarantee peace and stability. So Trump now faces a dilemma that will determine not only his political legacy, but also the fate of the world order. This is not just a struggle for peace in Ukraine, but a battle for the future of global democracy, its consequences will have echoes far beyond the borders of Europe.
The “Black Swan” of US political revisionism
One potentially high-profile event that would seem to belong in the realm of political fiction is the change in the administrative boundaries of states in the United States. Donald Trump’s support for the “Greater Idaho” movement in the matter of moving 15 counties from Oregon to Idaho can mark the beginning of this process. This movement, at first glance, looks like a regional initiative with modest ambitions. However, Trump’s statements during the press conference caused a “domino effect”. In eastern Oregon, where the rural population feels alienated in the state’s progressive context, the idea of joining Idaho instantly catalyzes a broad public movement. The national media picks up on the topic, and protest sentiment begins to spread across the country. There are initiatives not only to change borders, but also to create new states, reviving old territorial ambitions and regional conflicts.
This situation is taking an unexpected turn. Radical groups, including armed groups of white supremacists, are taking to the streets, turning local initiatives into sites of conflict with the police and other protesters. Meanwhile, new referendums are being prepared in states that have long dreamed of autonomy or border revision. Consequently, the national unity of the USA is endangered, and the idea of an “indissoluble union” begins to crack under the pressure of regional ambitions.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Trump’s ambitions are not limited to the borders of the United States. An example of this is that he does not rule out the use of military force to gain control of Greenland. In an attempt to bring this idea back to life, he declares that Greenland is a strategic resource necessary for the future of the United States. Trump’s announcement sparked a wave of criticism from Denmark and the European Union, but also sparked a serious debate about the future of the Arctic. While Copenhagen rejects any talks, Washington is launching new investment projects in the region, strengthening its presence in the territory.
No less provocative is Trump’s public offer to Canada to become the 51st American state and to revise the Northwest Treaty. He hints that the US must gain control over a number of key territories that are strategically important for trade and defense. The Canadian government is responding with tough rhetoric that only increases tensions on the northern border. Now the geopolitical situation is intensifying to such a level that the question of NATO’s role in this conflict is again being raised.
Another direction that can become the epicenter of the crisis is the Panama Canal. Recalling Roosevelt’s policy, Trump expresses the idea of regaining US control over this key point of world trade. Such rhetoric provokes a strong reaction from Panama and support from Latin American countries. Suddenly there are proposals to create an alternative channel in Nicaragua with the support of China, which only increases global competition.
Also, Trump once again provoked the indignation of the world community with his eccentric proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America with a beautiful ring.” His statements are heard against the background of general destabilization. The world, accustomed to established borders and rules, is facing a new reality, where Trump’s territorial ambitions, his ideas of revisionism and his desire to redistribute power are reborn. The US, being the epicenter of these processes, demonstrates how easily the idea of one leader can turn into a wave of unpredictable consequences that can change the global order.
Such a move looks not just like the political trolling that Trump is so fond of, but a well-thought-out tool to test the reaction of the world community and at the same time strengthen his nationalist image. His sharp statements have already been called “imperialist”, but behind them may be a game on emotions, as well as a strategic calculation. Chaos and confusion are Trump’s favorite tactics. His words are often perceived as chaotic or even nonsensical, but they serve a specific function: they make everyone wonder about his next steps. It is this unpredictability that allows him to balance between different interest groups and keep the focus of attention on himself. It also confirms that his “America First” slogan indicates a new format for American aggressive diplomacy.
The rhetoric about Panama, Canada, Greenland, and Mexico, although seemingly disjointed, has a common thread — opposition to the growing influence of Russia and China. The Panama Canal is a strategic object for Trump, as well as a symbol of American global superiority. And in his opinion, it is precisely this that is under threat due to the strengthening of the Chinese economic presence. Therefore, the American leader’s statements about Panama’s “unfair” tariffs or hints at regaining control over the canal are not only an economic ultimatum, but also a message that the US is ready to fight for its interests on key transport routes.
As for Greenland, its importance to Trump goes far beyond the traditional notion of resources. Indeed, this Arctic island nation possesses rich reserves of strategically important resources such as cobalt, copper and nickel. However, global warming is changing the Arctic landscape, opening up new sea routes near Greenland that are the subject of growing interest from China and Russia. The US is seeking to reduce its reliance on mineral imports from China and other countries where Beijing has invested heavily to take control of mining operations. In addition, the American military presence on the island has a deep strategic basis. It is home to a key base that plays an important role in early detection systems for ballistic missile launches. This is no accident: the shortest path between Europe and North America passes through the Arctic.
Consequently, Greenland becomes a source of minerals, as well as an important geopolitical node and a field of competition in the competition of great powers. Therefore, Trump’s statements can be perceived as a signal that the US will not allow a change in the status quo in the region. The desire to gain access to rare earth resources and strengthen the American military presence in the area only strengthens its Arctic strategy.
With Mexico, the situation looks even more complicated. On the one hand, Trump is escalating tensions over migration and drug cartels, threatening tariffs and even military operations. On the other hand, Mexico remains the largest trading partner of the United States, and such statements are more reminiscent of tough bargaining than a real threat.
However, Trump cannot afford a game that will lead to isolation or the loss of strategic allies. His rhetoric may appear aggressive, but it is likely that it is aimed at achieving better deals for the US. New agreements with Canada, discounts for ships passing through the Panama Canal or expanding control over Greenland’s resources are the ultimate goals that Trump can pursue under the guise of scandalous statements.
His strategy, despite all the external chaos, is most likely political blackmail and testing the limits of what is possible. But whether he will be able to achieve the desired result depends not only on his determination, but also on whether he can maintain a balance between provocations and real actions, without turning the global arena into a field for dangerous conflicts.
It is here that the “black swan” manifests itself: the combination of seemingly local ideas, populist statements and ambitious revisionism creates unforeseen consequences that endanger both the internal stability of the United States and the global balance of power. Events previously perceived as improbable are turning into key factors shaping a new political reality, changing the course of history not only for America, but for the entire world.
An unexpected alliance: Donald Trump and Xi Jinping
Despite the long-standing confrontation between the US and China, predictions of a possible war between them and the dispute over the Panama Canal, 2025 could be marked by an unexpected alliance between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. Although Trump’s previous presidential term was remembered for the trade war and the escalation of tensions, the new geopolitical reality is pushing for drastic changes. Instead of confrontation, the world’s two most powerful economies can begin to cooperate, responding to the challenges facing both sides.
China, which finds itself in a difficult economic situation, has more reasons to be pragmatic. Its economy is facing a housing crisis, record youth unemployment and an aging population. The harsh Covid-19 lockdowns have left a deep mark, and recovery efforts are still not bringing the desired results. Xi Jinping realizes that escalating tensions with the US will only worsen the situation, so cooperation appears to be a strategically sensible choice.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who is eager to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, also has reasons to seek compromises. His previously promised 60 percent tariffs on Chinese imports could trigger a sharp rise in U.S. prices, which would be a political disaster for Trump. His priority is domestic stability, controlling inflation and reducing immigration, not increasing tensions with Beijing.
A possible alliance between the US and China could be a profound transformation of the world order. At first glance, it looks utopian, but the pragmatism of both leaders can change the balance of power. Joint efforts to stabilize the world economy and end the war in Ukraine look win-win for both sides. Xi can use this opportunity to strengthen domestic legitimacy by showing that China is capable of influencing global processes, while Trump will get a chance to implement his “peacemaker” plan.
However, such an alliance carries significant risks. Other countries may perceive it as a threat or an attempt to establish a new world order, where the interests of other states will be relegated to the background. In particular, the US’s European allies may lose confidence in Washington if such a move is seen as a betrayal of the principles of cooperation within NATO. In addition, any agreements with China may cause internal criticism in both countries, because the public may perceive them as concessions to a rival.
It should be noted that the invitation to the inauguration of the Chinese leader, whom Trump enthusiastically describes as “a king who rules 14 billion people with an iron fist”, clearly indicates his intentions to build cooperation with China, despite previous tensions in relations between the countries.
Who else is US President-elect Donald Trump betting on in foreign policy? The answer lies in the list of foreign leaders he invited to his inauguration. Volodymyr Zelensky is not among the guests, instead Trump demonstratively chooses the company of those he calls “strong leaders”. Among the guests is the president of Argentina, Javier Millay, his “favorite president”, who shares Trump’s rhetoric, calling political opponents “parasites” and “a rat’s nest”. El Salvador’s President Naib Bukele, elected to a second term in defiance of the ban, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Maloney will also be there. The list also included Jair Bolsonaro, the former leader of Brazil, who became famous for his attempts to stay in power after losing the elections.
This set of guests clearly signals what principles Trump is willing to support. The “black swan” of this situation is the unpredictability of the consequences. In particular, the alliance between Trump and Xi can both stabilize the global system and cause new conflicts. In any case, this scenario will be decisive for the formation of a new geopolitical reality, where the priorities and interests of major players will be significantly reformatted.
Nuclear weapons in South Korea and the new order in the Middle East
The world is shocked by the news: South Korea declares itself a nuclear state, defying all expectations. This is not just another crisis on the Korean Peninsula, but an event that fundamentally changes the global balance of power. President Lee Jae-myung officially confirms that the country possesses nuclear weapons and withdraws from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As it became known, the program was secretly started under the previous president Yoon Seok-yeol, who was removed from power and imprisoned for an attempted coup d’état. However, his legacy turned out to be greater than expected: nuclear weapons became a fact.
The situation is aggravated by the reaction of the administration of Donald Trump, which, weakened by internal strife, not only did not reveal this program in time, but also approved the actions of South Korea. Trump said that the “big beautiful bomb” is proof of the seriousness of Seoul’s intentions to defend itself against the North Korean threat. The move quickly resonated in the region, with Japan and Taiwan announcing almost simultaneously the start of their own nuclear programs, ushering in a new era of the East Asian arms race.
The emergence of new nuclear players is changing the very nature of the international system. What was previously considered impossible is becoming the new norm. The era of mutually assured destruction is being restored, which destroys one of the key principles of the postwar world order — the idea of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. For the first time since the Cold War, nuclear confrontation is moving beyond the usual players, creating a multipolar world where the risk of a nuclear disaster is greatly increased.
The “black swan of this situation” lies in the sudden legitimization of nuclear weapons as a means of protection. Events that were previously unthinkable are now perceived as strategically justified. This endangers the stability of the region, as well as trust in international treaties and security mechanisms. In a world where new states are acquiring nuclear weapons, the balance of power is becoming increasingly unstable, and the possibility of the mistaken or deliberate use of weapons of mass destruction is reaching a critical limit.
Instead, at the other end of the world, another ancient geopolitical scenario is beginning to be realized: an independent Palestine is separating from Israel. To do this, the government in Israel is changing, rejecting the right-wing radical positions, and the Palestinian leadership is being renewed, becoming capable of representing the people in negotiations. Major Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are supporting the process, creating the conditions for a historic deal.
However, even in this scenario, the “black swan” does not disappear. New state formations and border changes always carry the risk of new conflicts. The world is entering a new era where every step towards stability can turn into a new point of instability. And in this context, the growing “nuclear club” becomes the greatest threat to all international security. At the same time, one of the unexpected factors may be a secret agreement between the United States and Russia aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The idea, which at first glance seems like a political fiction, looks more and more real. If Putin invites Trump to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear ambitions for five years in exchange for deterring Israel from military attacks, it could open a new chapter in global diplomacy. Especially if the deal is underpinned by the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, with the US acting as a key mediator.
Such a scenario can have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, the temporary freeze on Iran’s nuclear program looks like a significant diplomatic breakthrough. However, on the other hand, it can further weaken the position of the US in the eyes of allies, who already doubt the stability of American leadership. If the deal remains secret, it risks provoking mistrust among partners in Europe and the Middle East.
The “black swan” of the economic shift
The financial world is also now plunged into chaos. In 2025, Donald Trump’s administration begins sweeping deregulation, shrinking the state apparatus and loosening controls over financial markets. Technocrats are convinced that minimal government intervention will promote economic growth, but this approach becomes an ideal breeding ground for attackers.
Using artificial intelligence, hackers analyze the activities of key market players, looking for companies with vulnerable financial indicators or bad reputations. A coordinated information campaign begins: through bot farms and fake news, rumors of bankruptcy or fraudulent activities of these companies are spread. Investors begin to panic, causing large funds to quickly sell stocks.
However, this attack is not limited to the information field. By using high-frequency trading, criminals create artificial supply and demand that fuels panic. That is why the collapse of the stock market is becoming inevitable, the Dow Jones is already losing several thousand points in a matter of hours, and the US stock market is experiencing the biggest collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration appears completely unprepared for such a threat. Weakened regulation, a lack of cybersecurity experts, and a governance crisis are contributing to further worsening of the situation. Panic is quickly spreading beyond the US, with exchanges in London, Tokyo and Shanghai becoming the next victims. Investors withdraw capital en masse, leading to a global financial crisis.
The “black swan” of this situation is an innovative approach to attacks on the financial system. Criminals are using a combination of disinformation, artificial intelligence algorithms and high-frequency trading to undermine the foundations of the global economy. This indicates both an economic collapse and a collapse of confidence in financial markets as an instrument of stability.
Another surprise is who is behind these actions. Rumors are rife that far-left tech cells are behind the attack, seeking to discredit Donald Trump by exploiting his vulnerability — his personal wealth. The idea that financial collapse can be used as a tool of political struggle disrupts the conventional understanding of geopolitics and reinforces general instability.
Therefore, the world economy is entering a new era, where technology is becoming both an engine of progress and an instrument of destruction. Confidence in financial systems has been eroded, investors are looking for alternatives, and countries are starting a vigorous debate about the need for new global regulation. But isn’t it too late? “Black Swan” has already taken off.
As we can see, the year 2025 can be a turning point for the entire world economy and geopolitics. China will probably become the world’s largest economy, leaving behind the US in purely economic terms. However, in the military sphere, Beijing will be inferior to Washington for a long time. This shift symbolizes the beginning of a new era where the economic power of the East is able to shape the global order. At the same time, BRICS, the association of developing countries, is showing more and more cohesion. The economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, supplemented by potential partnerships with ASEAN, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), are creating a powerful new force. Forecasts indicate that by 2040-2050, the combined GDP of these countries may equal the economies of the Big Seven, and already in 2025, these alliances will begin to form new economic and political standards.
However, this is where the “black swan” is hiding. Global food demand could increase by 50%, setting the stage for wars over resources, both food and energy, which will further increase global tensions. New energy technologies are currently being developed that promise to replace oil and gas as the main energy carriers. Although full transition is still decades away, extractive economies are already in a state of decline. This provokes them to a tougher struggle to maintain their positions, possibly even through military conflicts. At the same time, the governments of weak countries, which are unable to provide their citizens with basic needs, risk facing civil wars. The resulting wave of refugees will pose a real challenge to the stability of neighboring countries.
Added to this is the fact that NATO may lose some of its influence, yielding to individual strong countries. This will lead to the fact that global conflicts will be resolved at the level of individual states or new regional alliances. Such a shift creates the danger of a fragmented world order where major players act independently, often bypassing international institutions.
Thus, 2025 may be the year when the world finally ceases to be predictable. Black swans, which previously seemed like isolated anomalies, begin to form the new norm in the form of hidden sudden transformations. From the war in Ukraine, Trump’s loud statements, new economic alliances and leaders, nuclear ambitions of states to the financial apocalypse and the collapse of old energy systems — each event opens a new front of instability. This year will be an endurance test for the global order: can countries adapt to a multipolar world where nothing remains stable? The answer to this question will determine not only the course of 2025, but also the future of the entire XXI century.
Oksana Ishchenko
