Augustan geopolitical breviary

(Review of the geopolitical August 2025.)

“The old world is disappearing, the new one fails to be born. In that gap is the time of monsters.” Antonio Gramsci – Prison notebooks

It is not an easy task to write a newspaper article from extensive notes on the international events of August that would possibly help readers understand today's chaotic world. By many accounts, the world system – whatever one may mean by that – has been on the edge of an abyss for some time.

Due to the intensity of diplomatic events, there is often talk of an August of historic dimensions. So, the "historic" US-Russian summit in Alaska, followed a few days later by the "historic" meeting in Washington between Trump and seven European leaders.

We also add the August continuation of the systematic degradation of the International Criminal Court and its judges, who are not only under blockade but also under serious threats from certain states. All of this as a new contribution to the collapse of international law.

There are about fifty armed conflicts going on in the world – from Sudan to Cambodia – and two are in the spotlight, in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Two wars that differ, not only in terms of media coverage.

The essential difference, which is often hypocritically concealed, is reflected in the fact that in Ukraine two state armies are fighting on the military terrain, while in Palestine one state army is destroying civilians in many ways. Without a state. According to what we see and read, there is actually no war in Palestine. There is a camp there.

Everyone is wondering about further plans, including the one that sounds almost romantic – the “Riviera Plan”, i.e. Gaza as a tourist and agricultural center – except for the Palestinians from Gaza. It is not yet known for sure whether they are planned to stay or leave the territory. This second option is currently “spoiled” by the attitude of neighboring Arab states not to accept the expelled Palestinians from Gaza.

In August, many, even spectacular, international games took place around Ukraine, including the so-called peace initiatives, sometimes permeated with inflammatory incentives for the continuation of the war. On the other hand, Palestine has no peace initiatives – it is accompanied by total international impotence. There, hunger has also been turned into a weapon of war.

Putting everything into the broader context of changes in the international system, accompanied by words with difficult meanings – genocide, anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, world war, aggression – somehow the words of Antonio Gramsci quoted in the title appear.

It is evident that in the face of major geopolitical changes, the world system is changing, and with it the global security architecture and power relations. In the past period, World War III was also mentioned with ease, a new traumatic topic for the inhabitants of the planet. People almost started looking at the hands of the nuclear apocalypse clock.

All this raises great concern, and even the question – is the world collapsing? No, it is not collapsing. The impression is that a new world is emerging, albeit with difficulty, instead of the old one, which was fraught with contradictions. Namely, the international system has been collapsing for a long time, in many segments. To the extent that international law and once jointly adopted norms became irrelevant, the dominance of force and interests, often combined with cynicism and hypocrisy, spread.

Let's take a brief look at what happened during August. And with the help of a roadmap – a term that was once repeated here at summer and winter schools of democracy – let's try to see where everything is headed next.

Propaganda fogs in the world (and in Montenegro)

And in order to understand something, we need to emerge from the thick fog of propaganda and diplomatic "strategies of ambiguity" of which there are many in the world.

War is always a "story about war", where it is important for "our truth" to pass through, with the intention that it becomes part of the collective perception and consciousness. The propaganda of all sides should be supplemented by imposed censorship, both overt and covert, as well as voluntary self-censorship.

Giving importance to propaganda in war, the famous British Prime Minister Churchill stated it elegantly and brutally at the same time with the sentence "Truth is so important in war that it is necessary to surround it with strong guards - lies."

Meanwhile, the matter of propaganda, especially in war, has advanced considerably.

It did not bypass Montenegro, especially in the conditions of the rise of protectorate consciousness and practice. Even the war in Ukraine, with foreign inputs and internal political combinatorics, almost created the atmosphere of an informburo, another tragic page of Montenegrin history. In this phase of normalizing American-Russian relations, Russophobia has somewhat diminished, if not disappeared, as a political investment for domestic conditions.

We can imagine the confused state of mind in the network of Montenegrin political traders, paid seekers of malignant influences with an accompanying network of informants, now watching the Russian president on American territory and the red carpet before entering the American president's Cadillac.

They should be distinguished from moderate citizens, who, without the trappings of Russophobia and political calculations, criticize Russia's invasion of another country, thereby violating international law.

What (didn't) happen in Alaska?

But if we have emerged from the aforementioned fog of propaganda in the world, of course including Russia's – the question is: what specifically happened in Alaska? A lot – and nothing.

There is a very wide range of interpretations of the content of the meeting, especially those hidden from the public. Even the American hosts did not try too hard to explain everything: "It was as you thought it was."

In short, there was bad news and good news. The summit did not bring peace. But it may significantly lead to it. In addition to the expected personal protagonism, the summit was a combination of protocol-media effects and attempts to seek realism as a basic principle that would lead to some solution to the war conflict.

Both elements led to the, for many unexpected effect, that the American president, the author of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) concept, as the host – consciously or unconsciously – produced the image of “Make Russia Great Again”.

Trump was careless, or maybe he doesn't know what he's doing - how can you hear that? It's hard to confirm, especially if you follow the American domestic scene and the state of consciousness there.

On the one hand, it is about fulfilling the very pragmatic election promises that Trump won on. But it is also about the views of influential circles, in the overall pluralism of different views of American democracy.

Thus, in the editorial of the latest issue of the prestigious magazine Foreign Affairs American political scientist, professor at Wellesley College Stacey E. Goddard, analyzing grand strategies on the global level, states that the great powers in their relations – the USA above all – are emerging from the phase of sharp and risky competition, opting for the concept of possible agreements and cooperation. In other words, the American dominance that is not being given up can also be achieved through multilateral forms. With what consequences and to whose possible detriment – ​​is another question.

Besides, in addition to the period of rivalry in US-Russian relations, their history is also characterized by a realpolitik dimension, primarily economic and military interests. The US and Russia have never been at war with each other in history. European countries have been at war with both Russia and America.

In analyzing the Alaska summit, three areas should be highlighted: First – exchange of views on global issues, especially security guarantees and new possible relationships in this area. Second – bilateral relations. In the foreground economic, but also those that are both economic and security-strategic, such as the complex of issues surrounding the Arctic.

Resolution of the war in a frozen conflict or permanent peace

The third important issue at the summit was Ukraine and the search for peaceful solutions to the Russian-Ukrainian war.

It was concluded that peace is not just a proclamation of a ceasefire. A ceasefire does not mean permanent peace. It needs to be constructed. It is the state and system after war actions. Territorial aspects are only part of a complex problem. A solution can be found, among other things, by all actors abandoning their red lines.

That's not easy. That's why uncertainties remain. Someone will immediately add the oft-repeated assessment that Trump himself is uncertain, that it's about game changer.

For now, we know that the American president has changed the policy of the previous administration, that he is striving for a peaceful solution to the war he inherited from his predecessor. Whether Trump will succeed in this remains to be seen.

In any case, the factor of the balance of power, including on the ground, which can change, remains an important element in the mosaic of possible scenarios for the outcome of the Ukrainian-Russian war.

America and Europe – near and far

Ahead of the August summit in Alaska, there was a rather sharp warning from major European states, along with the Kiev authorities, that without them there would be no solution to the Ukrainian crisis.

In addition to the undoubtedly achieved agreements between the two leaders at the summit, Trump decided to pass the ball of the peace process to the Europeans and Zelensky. All this with new problems for them. Because the Europeans and Kiev want to keep the Americans militarily and economically involved in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict at all costs. The knot is clearly intricate.

Immediately after the summit in Alaska, there was a meeting between US President Trump and representatives of seven important European countries, partly as an attempt to save the shaken Western alliance. It is known that for a long time now, a cold wind has been blowing across the Atlantic, between Europe and America. From the right.

The picture of the meeting in the Oval Office quickly went around the world and is today the subject of many comments. On one side, seven European statesmen sat in the same line, while on the other side, the American president sat at the desk. One of the many associations on a symbolic level was the picture: on the one hand, representatives of former colonial countries that colonially ruled more than half of the planet, while on the other, the president of the American state, a former colony. An impressive parable of history. Of the modern world. And of Europe.

All European representatives, including the President of Ukraine, at the August meeting thanked the US President for his peace efforts regarding the Ukrainian-Russian war.

Europe (and the European Union)

It should also be said that the European Union is not present on the scene, or is not present enough. The concept of Europe that escapes political precision is on the scene. It is not the EU, but a collection of states in one form or another. Great Britain, which left the European Union, also acts on behalf of Europe. It was in London that it organized a conference of the so-called Willing, that is, European states that would send military troops to the territory of Ukraine.

And then it took on an unusual dynamic, because immediately after the “Willing” conference, several participating countries announced that they had no “will,” or more precisely, no intention of sending their soldiers to Ukraine. Italy was very vocal about it. The issue is still ongoing.

That Europe, after America, might also discover Europe

Europe, and this is not a metaphor, discovered America a long time ago. Has the time come – this is now a metaphor – for Europe to discover Europe? Its great geopolitical potential.

This will require great navigators, perhaps not as brilliant as Columbus, but capable of always sailing with full sails in the desired direction. Towards a more peaceful world of rules and balance of powers, among which Europe will be one of the most significant. It certainly has the potential for this.

Helping Ukraine in its most difficult time

And finally, or first of all – Ukraine. It comes out of everything with many tragic consequences. It is an increasingly common assessment, which can also be found in the Western media, that Ukraine is not essentially asking for much, at least not decisively. And that started a long time ago – but let's take the "Minsk Agreement", which was recently signed, through the negotiations in Istanbul at the end of March 2022, up to this stage when it is increasingly difficult for Ukraine.

The impression is that the government has allowed Ukraine to become a large chessboard, then a war zone for the competition of great powers – with tragic consequences. US President Trump considers the previous US administration to be one of the most responsible actors for the outbreak of the war and the difficult position of Ukraine today. Without diminishing the responsibility of Russia and the Ukrainian authorities.

That is why Ukraine needs to be helped today, while it still can, this time in the right way and in the long term, primarily in the interests of the Ukrainian people.

September and the anniversary session of the UN General Assembly

August began geopolitically with a significant agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which had been at war with each other for years. Peace is possible elsewhere as well.

But the turbulent world continues to seek its balance – often chaotically – since the beginning of September.

Several major countries, including France, Great Britain... have announced that they will recognize Palestine as a sovereign state in September. Maybe.

The United Nations General Assembly is also in session in September. The UN is celebrating its eightieth birthday, never before in more difficult and sad circumstances, which also represents a metaphor for the deep crisis of the contemporary world.