Will 2025 be the year of peace? More than one analyst has ventured into the realm of hypotheses, imagining that the more than 1.000 days of war in Ukraine and the nearly 500 in Gaza were sufficient to practice horror.
Professor Stefano Silvestri, former president of the IAI, Institute for International Affairs, a keen geopolitician, expert in agreements and conflicts, does not think so.
Or, to be precise, he does not accept the question posed: there is no predefined time for peace to be achieved, the men who must build it must be truly convinced of doing so. And since the USA is still the most powerful country on the planet, much will be, once again, in the hands of the tenant of Washington, the White House. Something that worries more than ever, given the unpredictability of the re-elected president Donald Trump. Here is the analysis of the professor in conversation with Firstonline.
Will 2025 be the year of peace?
“The fact is that Trump said that his priority is not so much peace, but rather freeing the US from the burden of wars. And so in reality he is only interested up to a certain point in what happens on the ground as long as it is possible for the US to disengage. And yet, since this disengagement cannot and must not harm American leadership, this means that the US must bring home at least “one peace” this year. And on this Trump found himself in agreement with Biden.
Why was Israel chosen, where a truce was agreed to exchange hostages with Hamas, and not Ukraine?
I think they tried on Ukraine and that polls were also done to see if it was possible to reach a conclusion to Putin's war; but they must have gone badly because Moscow's response, every time advances were made to open negotiations, was inflexible. Putin practically said: I'll negotiate if you accept all my conditions. Which was equivalent to saying: I won't negotiate. So only the Middle East remained. And the two presidents exerted all the pressure in their power on the various actors, Hamas, Iran and Israel. The first two, being quite battered at the moment, perhaps accepted willingly; Israel was a tougher nut to crack. Given Netanyahu's personal problems (let's not forget that once the war is over he risks prison) and the stomachaches of the far-right ministers, who simply want the Palestinians to be uprooted from that land, one might fear that this truce will last as long as the cat on the ring road in the famous film. Not to mention that even if this first phase of the agreement, which only means an exchange of prisoners, were to end well, there are phases two and three, those in which the structure of Gaza and who will administer it will have to be discussed. That is, the true future of the Palestinians. In short, even bringing home this “only” peace will not be easy”.
Why is it so important to Trump that the truce in Gaza be consolidated and that we move toward a real peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians?
"First of all because he can boast about it, it is no coincidence that he wants everything to be regularized before the 20th, the day he takes office. And then because if the war in Gaza ends we can go back to talking about the consolidation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia in an anti-Iran function, relations swept away by the massacre of Israelis on October 7 by Hamas and then by Tel Aviv's retaliation against the Palestinians. An indispensable agreement given that the Americans do not have real troops on the ground in those parts that can intimidate Tehran. If all this were to come to fruition, the US could then deal with the rest of the Middle Eastern issues, which are not few, starting with the role of the Kurds in the region compared to the Turks; and deal with the new Syria, about which we still know very little".
It is not possible to question the role of the United States on the chessboard, but it is difficult to place hopes in a president who in his Christmas greetings threatened to regain control of the Panama Canal, hypothesized that Canada will become the 51st American state, while announcing his claims on Greenland. A vision of "territorial expansion" that brings to mind the national politics of the nineteenth century, as President Mattarella noted...
“Yes, it was precisely in the 2022th century that one imagined that one could make one’s own state more secure by expanding the borders. However, this policy was also followed recently, in 1977, by Putin when he tried to swallow up all of Ukraine. As for the intentions announced by Trump, some are in the tradition of the Republican right, such as wanting to regain control of the Panama Canal. Trump is referring to the Treaty that Carter signed in 1999, together with the president of Panama Torrijos, to put an end to the dispute between the two states that had caused riots and even deaths. The Treaty stipulated that starting in 1903 the US would abandon control of the Canal, control it had had since XNUMX. Something that has happened and that still infuriates generations of Republicans. Trump’s claims on Greenland are completely mysterious, and why it should be indispensable for American security. If it is a question of digging for the riches that it is said to hide under the ice, that can be done without it becoming American territory, given that Greenland is part of a NATO country, Denmark, and hosts a large American base. And if it is a question of Russian and Chinese pressure on those lands, such pressures are also occurring elsewhere in the north, Norway, Sweden. Or is Trump thinking of invading them too? As for Canada, it is simply ridiculous to think that it could be (or become) an American state, so different is its history and so completely peculiar”.
The fact that we are talking about it means that there is a method in Trump's "madness"...
“These are entirely rhetorical speeches. The least reassuring fact is that this second Trump administration, unlike the first, is not at all influenced by less radical elements of the Republican Party. And Trump is doing everything he can to isolate potential opponents. He is proceeding with a “Trumpization” of the party by purging all those who do not think like him, going as far as changing the presidents of important committees, intimidating or threatening. Just one example: instead of the usual 5 positions reserved for the president’s “loyal” supporters, according to tradition, he seems to have presented a list of 50. Of course, he will not have 50 men of trust, but it is a signal for those who need to understand. There is a climate of fear and purge, they say in Washington, and even some of the appointments that should have attracted dissent from a part of the Republicans, such as the new Secretary of Defense, were received in silence. He has no internal enemies at the moment. And this will be for the next two years. He will start and he will start running. Then we will see with the Midterm vote.”
How much will Musk and the rest of the super-rich weigh?
“I think their presence could be a weakness rather than a strength for him. They are other egocentric people. And to tell the truth, I don't even know how long Trump's friendship with Musk will last.”
But a disturbing picture of the new America emerges: is American democracy in danger?
“I don’t think so, American democracy has solid and very deep roots. On the other hand, let’s not forget that 49,72% of voters voted for Trump and 48,25% for Harris, that is, America is divided in two. The losing party was unable to unite in the center and appeared too radical. The Democrats know this and are now looking for leaders who are capable of doing so. There will be another game.”
And yet there is a worrying context: technological capitalism (Musk, Zuckenberg, Bezos) is all with Trump (with the exception of Apple's Tim Cook). Isn't it a hellish mix?
“Of course, there is a wave of Trumpian conformism. But it is not the first time in American history that such disorder has happened. It reminds me in some way of other ideological waves: prohibitionism, McCarthyism. It strikes us more at this moment because it comes in contrast to everything we expected: a country (and therefore a world) increasingly open, increasingly interested in society, dedicated to inclusion, to saving the planet from the most devastating works of man. But something has broken, the model has appeared unbalanced, and we have gone backwards. But it is not just an American phenomenon. It is also happening in Europe”.
How do you see our Prime Minister's relationship with Trump?
“I believe that Italy is seen in a tactical function. Our country should be hammered because it spends less on NATO and has a high trade surplus with the US. Italy should objectively be an enemy for Trump. But… but Meloni can be a useful latch that weakens the other Europeans. And it is possible that this will happen. It depends on how solid the Prime Minister's European convictions are. On Ukraine she was straightforward. But if Trump, in the context of the disengagement we were talking about, abandons Ukraine, what will Meloni do? And if the other Europeans (almost all) react very negatively, what will Meloni do? Who will she side with?”.
Let's say that the analysis so far has produced a dangerous and risky amalgam for general security. Where can it lead us?
“I still think that the most dangerous point is the Middle East. If the agreement with Gaza fails, if a clash between Israel and Iran looms, the temptation of the American right to get rid of Iran by intervening militarily will be strong. Of course, it would be a worse folly than the war in Iraq, because Iran is a huge country, 3 times bigger than Iraq and it would be impossible to defeat it even by thinking only of bombing it. While this would set the entire region ablaze. As for Ukraine, its abandonment could be dangerous especially for Europe. Putin, having won, would not attack NATO, but would continue to threaten. At that point, if Trump seriously demands 5% of the expenses for common defense, someone will accept, but others might think it is more convenient to build the weapons themselves rather than buy American ones. In short, go on their own. Which is equivalent to breaking, to annihilating Europe. A plan that someone has in mind and not just now. One thing is certain, if the US were to undermine the Atlantic alliance's policy in one way or another, not least by leaving it, it would completely change the international scenario. We would be facing the end of the West as we have known it until now".
