Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zelensky, and the EU can breathe a sigh of relief. The danger of peace in Ukraine has passed. Trump says he is disappointed with the Russians, and he has assured that Ukraine can win the war and restore the 1991 borders. He promised support with US weapons for as long as it takes, on the condition that somebody else pays. Why did Trump fail?

US President Donald Trump thinks that the main problem in the US economy is the persistent deficit in foreign trade. His preferred tool is tariffs. He is using tariffs and the threat of more tariffs to impose commercial deals on friends and foes to bring down imports and increase exports. Has it worked?

US President Trump is using tariffs and the threat of more tariffs to push for favourable trade deals with friends and foes. His stated goals are to reduce the US trade deficit, raise revenue for the Treasury to reduce the persistent government budget deficit, and force private companies to move production to the US. But is there any logic to what he is doing? Or is he just a madman romping around like a bull in a china shop?

The US president Donald Trump has steam-rolled friends and foes alike with tariffs and threats of more tariffs if they don’t accept a deal on terms dictated by the US. Some, as the EU, have capitulated without a fight, making themselves the laughingstock of the world. But other countries are resisting these bullying tactics. To the Trump team’s surprise, one of these is India.

The strategic decision of the European countries to stand unconditionally by Israel despite the genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza and the occupied West Bank can be difficult to understand. It greatly damages the European countries' reputation in the Global South and among their own populations. It smacks from afar of double standards, and one would have to be blind not to see that. The talk of "European values" comes across as what it is: empty talk.

A new political consensus has formed within the European NATO countries. It is argued that as they can no longer count on an automatic US security guarantee, they face an existential threat and there is therefore an urgent need for a dramatic rearming. They should be prepared for a war with Russia within 3-4 years, it is said. This consensus is supported by the whole political spectrum, from right to left. Only problem: facts don’t support it.

Life was easier in politics during the 40 years of neoliberal globalisation, as it would set strict limits for what the politicians could do. Whatever they proposed, they had to argue that the markets, and in particular the hyper-mobile international capital, would accept it. With the demise of neoliberal globalisation we have a new situation.

After being the dominant policy globally for 40 years, the neoliberal globalisation has been discretely ditched by the advanced economies. However, this doesn’t mean a general abandonment of neoliberalism, but rather a modification of how globalisation works. The main other elements of neoliberalism are still intact, but there may be some new opportunities for policies in favour of common people. Maybe. Or maybe not.

Things don’t look particularly good for the EU lately. Economic stagnation, reports pointing to falling competitivity in key sectors, negative economic impact of the sanctions, increasing financial burden from the Ukraine war, caught up in the middle of the US-China confrontation, and so on. There are ways out of this, but political and institutional factors question the ability of EU to succeed.

It is increasingly clear that Russia is unlikely to be defeated militarily by NATO in Ukraine, and it looks as if its economy will be able to overcome the obstacles created by the unprecedented sanctions. The sanctions and the war have produced profound changes in the Russian economy and society, including within the ruling classes, the contours of which by now it is only partly possible to discern. So what does its future look like after the Ukraine war ends?