The geopolitical landscape remains defined by unrelenting tension. Established norms are being challenged, and the traditional structures of international relations are in a state of visible decay. From the brazen capture of Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, in early January 2026, to the attritional war in Ukraine and the lack of progress in negotiations, the world remains in a state of volatile flux. In Iran, a fresh wave of protests triggered by the dramatic collapse of the rial, has met with threats of military strikes from Washington, while even the status of Greenland has become a flash point for the Western alliance. The world is multipolar, and the relative power of the United States vis-à-vis countries like China is declining. In response, Washington is retreating closer to home. What the Trump administration is currently articulating is more than a mere policy shift; it is a comprehensive hemispheric strategy now widely dubbed the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine. Consequently, the outlook for 2026 suggests a global environment that will be more unpredictable, more unstable, and far more volatile than the tumultuous events of 2025. We take a closer look in this article.  

The Venezuelan Crucible 

Within this framework, Venezuela emerges as a primary focal point. As a nation in Latin America possessing incredible potential wealth, Venezuela has spent the better part of the last thirty years actively countering American influence, seeking instead to deepen its strategic and economic ties with China and Russia. From the perspective of the current administration in Washington, this alignment transitioned from a nuisance to an unacceptable threat to national security.  

However, the aggressive actions taken to rectify this—specifically Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3, 2026—risk opening a Pandora’s box. The surgical strike to abduct a sitting head of state and transport him to New York for trial was a display of raw power, yet it has not resulted in a democratic ‘Spring.’ Instead, by backing Delcy Rodríguez as a stabilizing figure while sidelining the opposition, Washington has signaled that its priority is oil-secured stability. Rather than signaling the end of instability, these maneuvers represent the beginning of a new, escalated cycle of confrontation.  

The Acceleration of the War Cycle and the European Impasse 

The global cycle of war has accelerated since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Regardless of one’s political stance on the war in Ukraine and its complex root causes, it is increasingly difficult to deny that the eastward expansion of NATO played a fundamental role in the lead-up to the hostilities. Even Donald Trump, in his characteristically blunt fashion, has admitted as much. It has become painfully clear, following the failure of various peace initiatives, that the war in Ukraine will ultimately be settled on the battlefield rather than at the negotiating table. 

Absent a viable peace agreement, Russia will likely seek to take more lands; a final, decisive battle for Odessa appears more likely than not. Odessa is about control of the black sea and losing it to Russia will mean that Ukraine will no longer be a viable state.  

The predicament for the European powers is exceptionally dire. To prevent a total Ukrainian collapse and fight Russia directly would require European nations to commit their own ground troops to the theater of war. Such an escalation would necessitate the reintroduction of conscription across Europe—a policy that would undoubtedly face fierce resistance from the populations of member states. This opens the distinct possibility of widespread civil unrest in major European capitals. Despite the looming shadows, European elites appear largely oblivious to the magnitude of the crisis, seemingly committed to continuing the conflict even in the absence of a clear path to victory. The stakes are existential, yet a coherent European security architecture remains entirely non-existent. 

The Genesis of the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine 

The intervention in Venezuela should not be viewed as an isolated event. It was not simply about ‘our oil,’ nor about drugs or ‘narcoterrorism.’ The underlying motivation is the reassertion of United States hegemony within the Western Hemisphere. This strategy is squarely aimed at neutralizing the influence of China and dictating the terms of trade in Latin America. This strategy, which Trump himself has embraced as the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine, represents the most consequential shift in American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. 

First articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, the original doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere ‘closed’ to further European colonization. While initially conceived as a defensive shield, the doctrine evolved over the decades into an offensive tool. In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt added a corollary that transformed the United States into an ‘international police power.’ It stated that the US had the right to intervene in Latin American countries to stabilize their economies or prevent European intervention. The ‘Donroe’ Doctrine represents the latest evolution of this concept, articulating a fundamental reorientation of American global priorities. 

The Mechanics of Hemispheric Hegemony 

The practical application of the Donroe Doctrine can be broken down into several key strategic pillars. First, the Western Hemisphere has been officially designated as Washington’s number one priority. Trump’s December 2025 National Security Strategy identifies non-hemispheric competitors—specifically China, Russia, and Iran—as existential threats within the region. The strategy states that the United States will utilize its leverage in finance and technology to induce regional countries to reject Chinese infrastructure projects and loans. 

Second, this doctrine is characterized by economic coercion. While tariffs are a visible part of the toolkit, the truly potent weapon is the application of secondary sanctions. Countries that maintain deep economic relationships with China face escalating penalties. Third, the use of military force is explicitly on the table. The intervention in Venezuela serves as proof. However, in the grand scheme of ambitions, Venezuela was arguably an ‘easy’ target intended to demonstrate resolve. 

The scope of this doctrine is also expanding geographically. Trump’s team has broadened the definition of the Monroe Doctrine’s reach, extending it from the Aleutian Islands to Greenland and the North American Arctic, and down to Antarctica. This is a direct reaction to the scale of Chinese inroads. In 2000, China’s trade with Latin America was approximately $12 billion. By 2024, that figure skyrocketed to $518 billion. Today, China has surpassed the United States as the top trading partner for Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, and even Argentina. 

The Greenland Anomaly and the Iranian Conundrum 

The push for Greenland, summarized by the administration’s ‘by hook or by crook’ rhetoric in early 2026, appears driven by a desire to secure the ‘Polar Silk Road’ against Chinese and Russian incursions. While the US already possesses rights in Greenland via the 1951 treaty, the current drive for formal annexation or total dominance signals a willingness to risk the end of the NATO alliance for the sake of hemispheric consolidation. 

Regarding Iran, nobody really knows what is going on inside the country. The state remains an authoritarian entity with a grip on information flow. This round of protests appears driven by a collapse of the currency, the rial. But what makes them distinct is that it involves the merchant class, the ‘Bazaaris’. This is the class that joined with the clerics in 1979 to overthrow the Shah, and now they were in the streets. But protests don’t bring down regimes. Regimes typically collapse from the inside, only when the internal security apparatus – the IRGC or military in Iran’s case – turns against the leadership. Currently, there is no evidence of such a fracture. The available data suggests that despite the domestic pressure, however induced, the Iranian state is not yet at a breaking point. 

Conclusion – The Transactional Empire 

The overarching theme of this new era is the emergence of a transactional United States. Washington is behaving as an empire that intends to exploit its vassals or simply abandon them if the relationship no longer yields an immediate advantage. This is particularly evident in the growing uncertainty regarding Europe. 

If the world is increasingly multipolar, and it is, the undermining of the international liberal order—the system that sustained American power from 1945 until roughly 2020—has profound economic implications. As the world moves toward multipolarity, the global status of the dollar is set to decline, leading to more volatile inflation. In such an environment, capital will naturally seek other alternative paths. These are signals that the world is fundamentally changing around us. 

The true turning point will come when a US president is forced to impose genuine spending cuts and move toward a balanced budget. Until that day, we will live in a world defined by the clash of great powers, where ‘might makes right,’ and where the dollar undergoes progressive debasement. It is a world where individuals and nations alike must constantly search for safe havens in a landscape of shifting sands. 

Economist, blogger and freelancer, President of the Cyprus Economic Society. The article is also published on the author’s personal blog, https://ioannistirkides.substack.com/