In early 2026, the global security landscape is dominated by the fallout of the Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the subsequent military operation in Venezuela. These actions have ignited a fierce debate over whether the administration’s “America First” doctrine is a path to restraint or a new era of aggressive unilateralism.
In a December 2025 address, Vladimir Putin declared Russia’s nuclear forces “92% modernized,” showcasing high-tech weapons like the Oreshnik, Burevestnik, and Poseidon. With the New START treaty nearing expiration and Oreshnik missiles now deployed in Belarus, Moscow is leveraging strategic uncertainty and doomsday capabilities to deter Western interference and gain diplomatic advantage in Ukraine.
Sudan faces the world’s most severe humanitarian crisis, with 21.2 million people suffering from acute food insecurity and 12 million displaced. Despite confirming famine and widespread atrocities by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the conflict remains largely neglected by U.S. media. Drastic 2025 U.S. aid cuts and foreign arms supplies continue to fuel the devastation, leaving millions at risk of starvation and death.
With 25 million people facing extreme hunger and 14 million displaced, Sudan’s civil conflict has escalated into a genocide largely ignored by the global spotlight. As the Trump administration’s 2025 aid cuts and foreign military interventions fuel the fire between warring factions, the collapse of Sudan’s democratic transition has left half the population in famine conditions, desperate for a diplomatic breakthrough that remains out of reach.
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), released on December 4, is viewed by Timothy Hopper as more of a “farewell statement” to the post-Cold War order rather than a strategic roadmap. It undermines American-led institutions, indicating a voluntary retreat from its role as a global hegemon. This represents a structural dismantling of the mechanisms that supported U.S. primacy. Hopper highlights a contradiction in Washington’s desire for global influence without the willingness to incur the necessary costs.
