The year that has passed, not without some twists and turns, ultimately served only to confirm certain trends.
Let’s start with the “surface geography,” the interplay of global powers.
Who dominated 2024?
Three players shook the table: the United States, Israel, and Turkey.
The United States accelerated its qualitative production in advanced technologies, surpassing China and leaving Europe—set back by a decade for other reasons—far behind.
They reaffirmed their economic supremacy and even their newer energy dominance, maximizing shale fracturing (fracking) and securing 20% of global oil production and 25% of gas production.
The U.S. managed to maintain its role as a playmaker in strategic world zones, often from a distance, capitalizing on Russia’s unwitting gift of NATO’s revival and effectively turning the Baltic into an Atlantic lake.
Meanwhile, Starlink, with its 6,400 satellites, defeated geostationary networks and now dominates global strategic communications.
Lastly, with innovative policies for startups and a reimagined relationship between the state and capital, the U.S. gained a decisive advantage over everyone else.
Tel Aviv secured the support of Arab states invested in its role as a Middle Eastern energy hub and continues to work tirelessly toward the realization of Greater Israel—a map of which is proudly displayed on the bracelets of its army (a much larger territory than its current borders). Over a year of bloody conflict, marked by masterstrokes like the detonation of pagers in Lebanon, Israel has blatantly increased its power, territory, and explicit ambitions.
Turkey, through admirable political management—worthy of serious study—has achieved a political-diplomatic centrality that goes beyond the regional level and made significant strides in its neo-Ottoman project, with successes in Syria and Azerbaijan.
This year’s losers are also three
Russia was left picking up the pieces.
Not only has it failed to make significant advances in the Donbas, but since this summer, it has faced a Ukrainian thorn in its side within its own territory. Despite the Kremlin’s declaration that it would address the issue within a month, the problem persists.
In the Sahel, where it stepped in to replace France, Russia has lost several battles to Islamist forces, who have doubled the territory they control.
Moscow has even been pushed out of Syria.
Economic conditions, and even the state of its arms industry (as reported by the Russian Deputy Prime Minister), are concerning. At the BRICS summit, none of the Kremlin’s positions were adopted, while Sino-Indian mediation looms over an exciting Indo-Pacific contest, marked by Japan’s military resurgence.
Apart from its increasingly tiresome nuclear threats, Moscow is left clinging to the hope that Trump might save its face and cohesion.
Iran has suffered internal and external setbacks, costing it Syria and potentially Lebanon, and appears to be on the brink of an internal regime change.
Germany, the main strategic and economic target of the Russo-American war in Ukraine, is in shambles, dragging with it the collapse of Europe’s momentum.
In countertrend
There is a growing conviction that Europe must change its direction, functionality, and pace. It’s unclear how much traction this idea will gain or who might champion it, but it’s a start.
Meanwhile, Italy has regained a significant political role, both within Europe and along Mediterranean, African, and even Indo-Pacific vectors.
Furthermore
Economically, the trend of wealth concentration and middle-class decline has continued, increasingly threatening the sustainability of Europe’s welfare state, already condemned by demographic trends.
On the political/societal front
Two significant and positive trends were confirmed.
The psychological defeat and inability of the left to chart a clear course, having retreated into hysterical fetishes (anti-fascism, anti-patriarchy, anti-wolf scapegoats), led to its defeat everywhere—in Europe and even in the United States.
Populist and demagogic right-wing parties, when put to the test, were forced to abandon their nonsensical narratives and adapt. While this doesn’t necessarily mean subservience, it suggests a pragmatic capacity may emerge, bringing at least common sense and natural principles into new political approaches.
Unfortunately, even here, we lag behind. A preliminary synthesis between capital and state, modernization and continuity, past and future, rules and freedoms has been offered in the U.S. by Elon Musk, the man behind 6,400 satellites.
Of course, it’s an American synthesis, rooted in the titanic, gun-slinging mentality of the Western nation. Ours must be different—but, above all, it must arrive.
From all this, we can conclude that this year brought many issues to the surface.
Now, however, it’s time to equip ourselves.
