In 2025, the anticipated rise of middle powers continued, but it was eclipsed by another event: a powerful impulse for the entire system’s reconfiguration, emanating from a leading economic and military power. The decisive turn of the United States toward a policy of sovereign egoism under the leadership of Donald Trump forced every country and region to define its place within this new, unpredictable configuration.
At the inception of our expert programme, “Globalisation and Sovereignty,” we expected to focus on small and medium-sized powers, many of which have shown a growing appetite for agency on the world stage in recent years. This expectation was largely met, as our experts illuminated the strategic cultures of nations from most world regions. The unforeseen development of 2025, however, was the conduct of one of the greatest powers – the United States – following Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.
His administration’s policies signal a decisive departure from the preceding era, in which Washington styled itself as the architect of a liberal international order, committed to shaping the world both within and beyond the West. The United States today has not merely retreated from global leadership; it has unequivocally signalled to its closest allies that its own national interests now hold absolute priority.
Donald Trump’s distinctive foreign policy style is the focus of a detailed analysis by Natalia Tsvetkova, Acting Director of the Institute of the USA and Canada. It is also crucial to note the concurrent transformation of US domestic political discourse. Within this context, Trump’s policy of a symbolic “rectification of names” – exemplified by the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Mount Denali – is particularly revealing. While the efficacy of such symbolic acts in “making America great again” is debatable, their intent is unambiguous: they signal the reassertion of US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere as a paramount goal. This objective is further advanced by persistent US interest in establishing control over Greenland. Although seemingly outlandish, this idea has not been abandoned by Trump. We examined Greenland’s prospects as a territory under potential US control in the article “Does the Monroe Doctrine Work Above the Arctic Circle?”, and Nikita Belukhin analysed
the internal political dynamics of this autonomous territory. Travis Jones, in turn, explored
the meaning of the American president’s trade war from the perspective of residents of the deindustrialized Midwest.
Political leaders and strategists around the world are being forced to take the “Trump factor” into account. Marco Fernandes detailed
the evolution of Brazil’s foreign policy and the obstacles standing in its way of becoming a regional leader. Andrei Lankov discussed the conditions under which a new US-North Korea summit could take place. Alireza Noori explored
the implications of a possible rapprochement between Russia and the United States for Iran, and Almas Haider Naqvi analysed
the implications for Pakistan. Gabor Stier discussed
how Trump’s success expands Viktor Orbán’s room for manoeuvre, while Ján Čarnogurský described
what he calls a “geopolitical awakening” of Central Europe.
Central Europe has commanded special analytical attention this year, owing to its critical importance for Russian security and its role as a potential incubator for political trends that may soon reach the core EU states. We wrote about Central European “sovereigntists”, the emerging regional divide between a “Baltic” and a “Danube” bloc, presidential elections in Poland and Romania, as well as how the Polish authorities are using the bogeyman of “pro-Russian sentiments” in the domestic political struggle. Aleksandar Raković discussed
the prospects for overcoming the political crisis in Serbia, while Ekaterina Entina described
the dire consequences of the first thirty years of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post-Dayton history.
As for “Old Europe”, at the current historical juncture, the military-political aspects of its functioning are of greatest interest. We examined
the “Russian threat” factor in European strategic documents, comparing them with corresponding US documents, and discussed
the dangerous trend in Western expert circles toward marginalising views that recognise the rational nature of Russia’s strategic behaviour. Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky discussed
the prospects for the European Union to gain strategic autonomy amid deepening disagreements between the EU and the US, while Alexey Chikhachev analysed
the new Franco-British ‘entente cordiale’ and the goals Paris is pursuing by supporting Ukraine.
In April, we held an expert discussion featuring Vladislav Maslennikov, Director of the European Department at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which focused on the radicalisation and militarisation of European society and consciousness. Meanwhile, in February, we examined modern diplomatic approaches from both Western and non-Western perspectives in our discussion, “The Diplomat’s Work in New Realities.”
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
