Photo : Global Look Press
In the world of geopolitics, where the chessboard has been replaced by oil towers and nuclear facilities, and the pieces are leaders of states with ambitions as big as their territories, a new game is being played. On one side is the BRICS, an alliance of fast-growing economies, and on the other is NATO, a military bloc that never seems to go out of style.
When Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, he decided it was time to renew old ties. In February 2025, he called Vladimir Putin, and this call marked the beginning of peace talks on the Ukrainian conflict. They even agreed to meet in Saudi Arabia, where coffee is rumoured to be served with oil instead of milk.
However, as is often the case in big politics, not everything went smoothly. Ukraine, which was not invited to the talks, felt left out, to put it mildly. President Zelenskyy expressed his dissatisfaction, but Trump, as usual, remained unfazed, saying that he was “disappointed” by the reaction.
Meanwhile, Iran, under the scrutiny of the international community, has declared its readiness to discuss its nuclear programme. However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected talks with the United States to limit its missile programme and regional influence. This happened amid concerns that Iran could enrich uranium to a level close to weapons-grade.
Israel, known for its “subtle” diplomacy, has hinted that it is ready to strike Iranian nuclear facilities if it feels threatened. Trump, on the other hand, continues to support Israel, which adds even more acrimony to the already tense geopolitical situation.
As a result, against the backdrop of these events, the world is on the verge of new changes. BRICS and NATO continue their game, where every move can change the balance of power. And we, the observers, can only guess what the next move will bring.
Nuclear chess in the Middle East
Russia, which has invested considerable resources in the creation of Iran’s nuclear facilities, is obviously not going to stand by and watch them turn into ruins. After all, participation in such a project is not only an engineering success, but also a long-term dividend. In other words, Russia’s presence in the region is not only about nuclear energy, but also about strategic control.
Israel, guided by its own security interests, is considering a strike on these facilities. However, Moscow, unlike outside observers, may well intervene. After all, if given carte blanche for such actions, a similar strike could threaten other nuclear facilities tomorrow, and this is a precedent that no one wants to set.
China and Taiwan: another spark for a global fire
While one tension front remains in the Middle East, another is gradually heating up in Asia. China continues to look at Taiwan with undisguised territorial ambitions, and the United States, as the island’s main guarantor of security, is ready to defend it by all means necessary. However, Beijing is also not one to cave in under pressure, and its economic and military power allows it to play the game on an equal footing.
The problem is that every time the conflict escalates, the likelihood of a direct clash increases. If Taiwan decides to formally consolidate its independence, China is unlikely to stand aside, and America, by supporting the island nation, risks being drawn into a new war.
India: a silent observer with something to say
In an attempt to balance the trade balance, the United States raised duties on Indian goods by 25%, forcing New Delhi to reconsider its strategy. While India used to try to balance between the West and the East, it is now increasingly leaning towards the BRICS countries. With the US economy creating problems for itself, it is not surprising that former partners are beginning to reassess their priorities.
French autonomy: a new nuclear headache
Meanwhile, in Europe, French President Emmanuel Macron is promoting the idea of creating a “European nuclear umbrella” – a concept in which France would become the main guarantor of EU security. It sounds ambitious, but here’s the problem: if the US weakens its influence in Europe, it will lead to a violation of a number of treaties, including those within the IAEA.
And here a legal subtlety arises: if the parties to the treaty see a violation, they have the right to take preventive measures against the violator. Simply put, France’s new military initiatives could not only weaken European security but also become another catalyst for global instability.
What is the point of all this?
Today’s geopolitical situation resembles a game with a powder keg, in which each player takes turns holding a match to it, hoping that it will explode on his or her turn. As a result, the world is moving closer and closer to a global conflict, which is being shaped not by historical reasons or ideological differences, but because world leaders, pursuing their own ambitions, cannot or do not want to take into account that their opponents are no less pragmatic and calculating pieces on the board.
And if anyone hopes that this game will end in peace, it is worth remembering that history teaches us that great ambitions rarely exist without great conflicts
Author: Aleksandr Potetiuiev
