The crisis affecting reality has a dual dimension. The first, fundamental one, occupies our perception and is the subject of public discourse. It consists of processes occurring here and now. These processes sometimes fill us with anxiety. We cannot precisely diagnose them. We are even less able to cope with them. Such processes unfold at different levels and in many areas: the climate crisis, democratic challenges, and ongoing armed conflicts. For example, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, now in its fourth year, has undoubtedly left its mark. Still, our ability to assimilate and adapt to this prolonged situation reveals our remarkable flexibility as a species. We can rationalize everything and grow accustomed to it. The second aspect is the power struggle triggered by the crisis. Various actors, especially politicians and business leaders, seek advantage, motivated by ambition. Crises provide opportunities to challenge existing rules and reconfigure power dynamics. These actions can even run counter to previously unquestioned norms.
When we think about these temptations, ambitions, and raw power that occasionally manifest openly, we immediately recall what is happening in the geopolitical sphere — and the ease with which the United States seeks to portray itself as the primary player in this game marked by chaos and reconfiguration.
Thus, we have Donald Trump on stage — someone who treated his presidency as a kind of spectacle, for indeed, this theatricality, this ease in wielding spectacle, secured him another term. Recent events — the theatrical, spectacular nature of the aggression against Venezuela — serve as proof. The paradox lies in the fact that Trump, as the actor setting the tone of events, feels no constraint whatsoever from the existence of certain rules — even at the level of language. Once he speaks of a large-scale, police-style — yet in reality, armed — operation involving the seizure, arrest, detention, and abduction of a sitting president. And we may say different things about Maduro — including that he is a dictator — yet this does not alter what was done to him. So finally, one must acknowledge that although this operation is narrowly framed as a non-military one, it is openly declared to be about control over Venezuela itself — control to be exercised by Trump’s appointee. Although ostensibly, a new president rules Venezuela, in practice, Marco Rubio will govern there as a viceroy, a consul — overseeing a de facto collapsed state that formally exists but is stripped of autonomy. Trump’s actions show that unregulated, autonomous forces now influence global affairs, undermining international institutions and their norms. These bodies are unable to meaningfully restrain ambitious actors who dismiss their foundational values. State powers and mega-corporations—especially tech and media giants—unconstrained by functional international institutions now shape global affairs. These private entities wield quasi-governmental power over information flows and public discourse, while remaining largely unaccountable. Beyond Trump’s America, China and Russia also pursue imperial ambitions. China’s government, prioritizing control over individual rights, and Russia, under Putin’s unpredictable rule, both contribute to global instability and revive competition between major powers.
Now, we face a situation like the one in 1913. The world feels stable, with close economic ties, but empires act freely and put their own interests first. Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, and their rivals tore each other apart in a struggle for dominance. Britain fought to protect its position; France had its own issues with Germany. The United States was readying to join the global stage.
Thus, summarising what is happening now, I conclude that we are in a situation analogous to that of 1913. I will not say more, so as not to tempt fate or sound like Cassandra.
Zostaw odpowiedź