China

by

Why 2025 is going to be more dangerous than you think | RT

By Dmitry Trenin

Predicting the future of international relations is always a risky endeavor. History shows that even the most confident forecasts can fall flat. For instance, the last Pentagon propaganda pamphlet on ‘Soviet Military Power’ was published in 1991 – the year the USSR ceased to exist. Similarly, the Washington-based RAND Corporation’s 1988 scenario on nuclear war included the Soviet Union engaging Pakistan over Afghanistan in 2004. Nevertheless, the urge to anticipate the future is natural, even necessary. What follows is not a prediction, but an attempt to outline reasonable expectations for the state of the world in 2025.

Ukraine

US President Donald Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan to “stop the war” ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions for peace – outlined by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024 – will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat. 

The fighting will continue. In response to the rejection of his plan, a frustrated Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. However, he will avoid any serious escalation that might provoke Russia into attacking NATO forces. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, US aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations. While the EU is prepared to step in, the quality and scale of Western material support for Ukraine will likely decline.

On the battlefield, the tide will continue to shift in Russia’s favor. Russian forces are expected to push Ukraine out of key regions such as Donbass, Zaporozhye, and parts of Kursk Region. Ukraine will mobilize younger, inexperienced recruits to slow Russia’s advances, but this strategy will lead to limited success. Kiev will rely increasingly on surprise operations, such as border incursions or symbolic strikes deep into Russian territory, in attempts to demoralize the Russian population.

Domestically, the US and its allies may push for elections in Ukraine, hoping to replace Vladimir Zelensky – whose term expired in the middle of last year – with General Valery Zaluzhny. While this political reshuffling might temporarily strengthen Kiev’s leadership, it will not address the underlying challenges of economic collapse and deteriorating living conditions for ordinary Ukrainians.

United States

Despite a peaceful transfer of power, Trump’s second term will remain fraught with tension. The risk of attempts on his life will linger. Trump’s foreign policy, while less ideological than Biden’s, will focus on pragmatic goals. He will:

  • Keep NATO intact but demand higher financial contributions from European members.
  • Shift much of the financial responsibility for Ukraine onto the EU.
  • Intensify economic pressure on China, leveraging Beijing’s vulnerabilities to force unfavorable trade deals. 

Trump will also align closely with Israel, supporting its efforts against Iran. Tehran, already weakened, will face harsh terms for a nuclear deal, and a refusal may prompt US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Trump is likely to meet Putin in 2025, but this will not signal a thaw in US-Russia relations. The confrontation between the two powers will remain deep and enduring. Trump’s strategy will prioritize America’s global dominance, shifting the burden of US commitments onto allies and partners, often to their detriment.

Western Europe

European nations, wary of Trump’s return, will ultimately fall in line. The EU’s dependence on the US for military and political leadership will deepen, even as European economies continue to act as donors to the American economy. Over the past three decades, Western European elites have transitioned from being national actors to appendages of a transnational political system centered in Washington. Genuine defenders of national interests, such as Alternative for Germany or France’s Rassemblement National, remain politically marginalized.

Russophobia will remain a unifying force in Western European politics. Contrary to popular belief, this sentiment is not imposed by the US but actively embraced by EU and UK elites as a tool for cohesion. The Russian military operation in Ukraine has been framed as the first stage of an imagined Russian attempt to “kidnap Europe.” 

In 2025, Germany’s new coalition government will adopt an even tougher stance toward Moscow. However, fears of a direct military clash with Russia will deter other European nations from deploying troops to Ukraine. Instead, Western Europe will prepare for a new Cold War, increasing military spending, expanding production, and fortifying NATO’s eastern flank.

Dissent within Europe will be suppressed. Political opponents of the confrontation with Russia will be branded as “Putin’s useful idiots” or outright agents of Moscow. Hungary and Slovakia will remain outliers in their approach to Russia, but their influence on EU policy will be negligible. 

Middle East 

After significant military victories in 2024, Israel, with US backing, will attempt to consolidate its gains against Iran. The US-Israeli strategy will involve combined pressure, including military actions, against Iranian proxies like the Yemeni Houthis and efforts to deepen ties with Gulf Arab monarchies under the Abraham Accords.

While Russia signed a treaty with Iran in January 2025, it does not obligate Moscow to intervene militarily if Tehran is attacked. Thus, a full-scale Middle Eastern war involving Russia and the US remains unlikely. Domestically, Iran faces uncertainty as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, now 86, nears the end of his leadership.

Russia’s influence in the Middle East will wane as its military presence diminishes. However, logistical routes connecting Russia to Africa will remain a strategic priority.

East Asia

US-China tensions will continue to rise, fueled by American efforts to contain China’s economic and technological ambitions. Washington will strengthen alliances in Asia, particularly with Taiwan and the Philippines, to counter Beijing. While an armed conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea remains possible, it is unlikely to erupt in 2025. 

Russia’s partnership with China will grow stronger, though it will stop short of a formal military alliance. From a Western perspective, this relationship will increasingly resemble an anti-American coalition. Together, Russia and China will push back against US global dominance in geopolitical, military, and economic spheres.

Russia’s near abroad

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is expected to secure another term in January 2025, cementing his alignment with Moscow. Meanwhile, Russia will work to stabilize its relations with Kazakhstan, though Moscow’s lack of a compelling vision for Eurasian integration could come back to bite.

The year 2025 will be marked by strategic instability, ongoing conflicts, and heightened geopolitical tensions. While Russia has achieved notable successes in recent years, it must guard against complacency. Victory is far from assured, and the world remains nowhere near equilibrium. For Moscow, the path forward will require resilience and a clear focus on long-term goals. Peace will come, but only through continued effort and eventual victory – perhaps in 2026.

Source: Profile.ru & RT

by

From a military standpoint who would win WWIII? | Grok

Predicting the outcome of a hypothetical World War III involves considering a myriad of factors including military capabilities, alliances, technological advancements, economic strength, and strategic positioning. Here’s a balanced analysis based on current military strengths and geopolitical dynamics:

U.S. and NATO:

  • Military Power: The United States has the world’s most advanced military technology, with significant investments in cyber warfare, space capabilities, and nuclear forces. NATO allies, particularly countries like the UK, France, and Germany, add to this with their own substantial military forces and advanced technologies.
  • Alliances: NATO provides a collective defense framework, which could potentially involve 31 member countries, offering a broad base of support in terms of troops, logistics, and strategic depth.
  • Technological Edge: The U.S. leads in military technology, including stealth technology, drones, cyber warfare capabilities, and missile defense systems. This could give NATO an initial advantage in precision strikes and defensive operations.
  • Global Influence: The U.S. has numerous military bases around the world, providing strategic flexibility and the ability to project power globally.

Russia, China, and Potential Allies:

  • Military Hardware: Russia has one of the largest nuclear arsenals and has been modernizing its conventional forces, particularly with advanced missile technology. China has been rapidly expanding its military, focusing on both quantity and quality, with significant advancements in hypersonic missile technology and naval capabilities.
  • Economic and Industrial Base: Both Russia and China have substantial industrial capabilities. China’s ability to produce military hardware at scale could be crucial in prolonged conflict.
  • Cyber and Space: China has shown significant capabilities in cyber operations and has been advancing in space technology, which could disrupt communications and satellite operations.
  • Alliances: While less formal than NATO, countries like North Korea, Iran, and potentially others might align with Russia and China for ideological or strategic reasons. However, these alliances are less predictable.

Potential Outcomes:

  • Conventional Warfare: NATO might have an early advantage due to technological superiority and global reach. However, if the conflict drags on, China’s production capabilities could become a significant factor. Russia’s ability to endure prolonged conflict, learned from its experiences, would also play a role.
  • Nuclear Escalation: If nuclear weapons come into play, the scenario becomes unpredictable. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) could deter nuclear use, but regional conflicts or miscalculations could lead to escalation.
  • Geopolitical Shifts: The involvement of other global powers or neutral nations could shift the balance. For instance, India’s stance could be pivotal due to its military strength and strategic location.
  • Economic Impact: A global conflict would severely impact the global economy, potentially leading to a situation where no clear winner emerges due to the destruction of economic infrastructure.
  • Cyber and Information Warfare: This aspect of modern warfare could be decisive, where neither side might achieve a traditional military victory but could dominate in terms of information control and cyber capabilities, influencing global perception and control of critical infrastructure.

Conclusion:

From a purely military standpoint, without considering the nuclear aspect:

  • If it remains conventional: The U.S. and NATO might have an upper hand early on due to technological advantages and global military presence. However, a prolonged conflict might see China’s industrial might and Russia’s resilience become more influential.
  • With nuclear escalation: All bets are off as the scale of destruction could be so immense that the concept of ‘winning’ becomes meaningless, leading to a scenario where no one truly wins.

The discourse around such scenarios often leans on the idea that in a modern World War, the real losers would be humanity and the planet, with victory being a hollow concept amidst global devastation.

Source: Ask Grok Any Question