Politico is decidedly bullish on 2025 in its analysis and sees signs of a positive 2025. Tomorrow, of course, is unknown: Predictions have a nasty habit of falling out. Soothsayers are praised for getting it right – even if the bulk of their predictions are incredibly wrong and conveniently forgotten.

There were people who insisted that the internet would fail and that television would not succeed. And even the nearly foolproof American election prognosticator Allan Lichtman was wrong this year with his prediction that Kamala Harris would beat Donald Trump. And, of course, unexpected events can turn everything upside down, like pandemics.

Still, and acknowledging that forecasting is a fool’s game, Politico presents a few—not mutually exclusive—scenarios for a more optimistic 2025.

Stopping wars

Donald Trump may be strangely portrayed as a peacemaker, but he promised on the campaign trail to “stop the wars” raging around the world, including in the Middle East and Ukraine.

And he can do it.

Of course, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suspects that might happen, saying that Russia’s war in Ukraine will end “quicker” when Trump takes office. Perhaps the Ukrainian president was just putting on a brave face and trying to stay on the right side of the American leader, signaling his willingness to engage in negotiations. Saying no would probably look bad.

In some European countries, there is hidden optimism that Trump can bring the war to an end. And some believe he is more likely to strike a better deal with Moscow than if Kamala Harris were president. Despite Western promises to stand by Ukraine as long as necessary, there is a growing realization that the war is unwinnable if the goal is to get Kiev back all the territory seized by Russia. Ukraine’s Western allies never really considered what it would take to do so.

If Trump brokers a deal that involves territorial losses for Ukraine, then there is the added bonus that he can be blamed for any concessions, letting the Europeans and US hawks get away with the empty promises they gave too lightly. This is bleak perhaps, but financially strapped Europeans can’t afford to finance an “eternal war” and voters aren’t going to be happy with the idea of ​​troop deployments. And at least stopping the war will save some lives – if only temporarily, as Putin is unlikely to be satisfied with a partial victory for long.

In the Middle East, Israeli ultranationalists and Jewish ultranationalists are celebrating Trump’s re-election, and his choices for foreign policy and national security officials have added to their good mood. The way they see it, Trump will give them what they want. After all, his nominee for US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has rejected the very idea that there is a people called Palestinians – he believes they should be moved to another country.

Nevertheless, Trump did not give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what he wanted the last time he was in the White House — an endorsement of the annexation of the West Bank, or at least of Israeli settlements. And some close to Trump’s inner circle believe that Netanyahu will not be given a blank check this time either. Netanyahu is flirting with Trump, trying to make up for the blunder he made by congratulating Joe Biden on his 2020 election victory, while Trump disputed the vote count and claimed the election was rigged. “Bibi could have kept quiet,” an exasperated Trump later said.

If the Israeli leader expects an easy victory, “I think he will be disappointed and will have to readjust his approach because Trump wants to end the fighting in the Middle East almost as much as he wants to end the fighting in Ukraine,” said one Republican official. A prediction: The Palestinians will get a piece of the West Bank and a destroyed Gaza for their state, and Ukraine will lose 20% of its land, but that’s better than nothing or further war.

Farewell to Pax Americana

This is not a difficult prediction after Trump’s re-election. The last time Trump was in the White House, European leaders thought they could weather the storm until everything was back to normal. And up to a point they were right. “America is back, the transatlantic alliance is back,” Joe Biden told the Munich Security Conference a few weeks after his election – to the huge relief of Washington’s allies, who are still suffering from the lingering effects of post-Trump stress.

And indeed, transatlantic relations have been smoother – although there has been concern over Biden’s decision to allow Afghanistan to fall into Taliban control, with European officials reacting with a mixture of mistrust and a sense of betrayal. But was it good that the old normalcy returned? Wasn’t it always just a false image? Isn’t it time for Europe to stand on its own two feet?

Europe will once again have to endure theatrics and aggressive tweets in all caps, along with threats to withdraw from NATO and impose tariffs, but isn’t this an opportunity? Will the European leaders now find their courage? For years they have been talking about strategic autonomy and taking on more weight in defense. Now they have the chance to determine their own destiny.

All of this will be a bit traumatic – adulthood is always traumatic, like babies experiencing the arrival of baby teeth. But Trump’s return to the White House may be what wakes Europe up. Admittedly, this is a huge challenge because, as noted by commentator Mujtaba Rahman, head of Eurasia Group’s European practice, they will have to overcome differences on security, defense, immigration and fiscal policy.

Focusing on these issues does run the risk of fueling populism and political fragmentation, but we should remain confident that there will be a full convergence of views between Ursula von der Leyen, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni , Robert Fico of Slovakia, Emmanuel Macron of France, etc.

Trump and Musk

Still not convinced that next year will be better than 2024? The mutually assured disruption that is inevitable between top ally Trump and Elon Musk will be a big spectacle. Two cooks in one kitchen never works well.

Musk will claim that his $200 million campaign contribution gets him more than the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

There is already friction between Musk and Trump’s advisers, with reports of a huge tension between the Tesla billionaire and Boris Epshteyn – a lawyer who coordinated the legal defense of Trump’s criminal cases. Epshteyn oversees Cabinet picks, and during a dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, the two clashed sharply, with Musk questioning some of the choices and accusing the longtime Trump adviser of leaks to the press.

Musk then took to X, the social network he owns, to publicly pressure Trump on economic policy and cabinet picks, praising a foreign leader for cutting tariffs, the exact opposite of that that Trump is planning, and stating who he thinks should be Treasury Secretary. Trump loyalists say a friendship cannot last between headstrong men, arguing that there will come a time when Musk will cross the line.

The new world of Artificial Intelligence

Speaking of Musk, the age of artificial intelligence is fast approaching.

Doomsayers worry about how AI will make it even more convenient for those in power to manipulate and misinform with deepfakes. Other doomsayers worry that democracies will lose out in the race to be winners in artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, which “have become vital to the global competition between the free world and our malevolent authoritarian adversaries,” according to the general Nick Carter, former UK Chief of Defense Staff and Robin Scott, CEO and co-founder of Apolitical. “And it is the winners of this competition who will be able to determine our future,” they emphasize.

Henry Kissinger and others feared that AI would strengthen the power of non-state actors and corporations, such as those controlled by Musk and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, or tip “the age-old balance of power into a new, uncharted imbalance.” .

If some states adopted AI at the highest level more easily than others, the world would be even less predictable. “In situations where some people could be confronted militarily or diplomatically with a state possessing high artificial intelligence technology or with artificial intelligence itself, people would struggle to survive, let alone compete,” Kissinger recently wrote with Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google and Craig Mandy, former senior advisor at Microsoft.

Gloomy stuff. But it is better to remain optimistic about AI and embrace the scenario Kissinger posits, in which companies form alliances to consolidate their already considerable power. “These corporate alliances could assume the traditional functions of the nation-state, and instead of seeking to define and expand bounded territories, they would cultivate digital networks as their territories.”

Musk, of course, has already implanted a Neuralink brain chip in two patients, which is designed to allow them to control a computer or device wherever they are. Obviously, there were problems and glitches. But we can look forward to the day when we don’t need to yell at Bezos’ Alexa and instead simply think, “It’s time to turn off the lights.”