In January 2026, the strategic fallout from the Ukraine war has fundamentally dismantled the “post-Cold War” playbook. Western leaders now operate under a new, grimmer set of assumptions: that war is a contest of industrial stamina, not just initial tech; that economic ties can be weapons of coercion; and that “red lines” mean nothing without the munitions to back them up.
As we enter the first week of January 2026, the global landscape is defined by the fallout from the U.S. military operation in Venezuela and a critical “election-year” posture from Washington. The year ahead suggests a shift from the post-war multilateral order toward a more transactional, high-stakes era of “sovereignty-first” politics.
In January 2026, the security of Taiwan is being redefined by “battlefield truths” exported from Ukraine. As Taipei faces intensifying pressure from Beijing—most recently via the “Justice Mission 2025” drills—it has fundamentally pivoted its defense strategy toward asymmetric “porcupine” warfare, prioritizing millions of low-cost drones over traditional “big toy” platforms like submarines and fighter jets.
Russia views the U.S. escalation in Venezuela as a strategic opportunity to finalize a “global bargain” on Ukraine. By equating American intervention in its “backyard” with Russian actions in Eurasia, the Kremlin aims to secure a transactional peace that formalizes its influence over the ex-Soviet neighborhood.
Trump’s 2025 peace push centers on a transactional deal trading Ukrainian NATO aspirations for long-term U.S. security guarantees. The framework involves potential territorial concessions in Donbas and a national referendum, shifting away from previous demands for full Russian withdrawal to prioritize a rapid, comprehensive end to the war.
The suspicious crash of a Libyan military jet near Ankara has killed Chief of Staff Mohammed Al-Haddad, sparking fears of Russian sabotage. Turkey’s decision to send black boxes to a “neutral country” highlights its strategic fragility, leaving western Libya in a power vacuum and threatening the Turkey-Tripoli alliance.
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.
The Ukraine conflict has prompted a broader geopolitical realignment, notably through China’s economic integration with Russia’s Far East. This integration is accelerating due to Moscow’s vulnerabilities and supports Beijing’s long-term positioning, irrespective of Russia’s political stability.
The North Atlantic relationship is undergoing a significant transformation due to shifting American strategic priorities from alliance-based internationalism to sphere-of-influence arrangements among major powers. This change, evident in recent policies and diplomatic actions, raises important questions regarding the sustainability of the transatlantic security architecture and its implications for both American and European interests.
The 2025 National Security Strategy marks a significant shift from longstanding American foreign policy by recognizing resource limitations and emphasizing geographical proximity rather than global intervention. This change, while controversial, aims to address the “insolvency” issue—highlighting the disconnect between national goals and the means to accomplish them.
The intersection of commercial interests and diplomatic decision-making is a defining feature of current American foreign policy, as evidenced by dropped prosecutions, controversial pardons, and Gulf investments. These cases highlight the influence of personal business relationships on international relations, raising questions about conflict of interest, transparency, and strategic coherence.
The October 2025 summit in Moscow between Vladimir Putin and Ahmed al-Sharaa highlights a shift in Russia’s diplomatic strategy following the collapse of the Ba’athist regime in Syria. Contrary to predictions of diminished Russian influence, the Kremlin has adapted its approach, favoring transactional pragmatism over ideological loyalty. By engaging with former adversaries, Russia seeks to preserve its strategic interests in the Mediterranean, underscoring that its foreign policy is primarily motivated by practical concerns.
