The Current World Situation: A Multidimensional Analysis and Evaluation

Introduction

In May 2025, the world grapples with interconnected crises—wars, territorial disputes, resource conflicts, and geopolitical rivalries—affecting 2 billion people in conflict zones (World Economic Forum, 2025). My multidimensional framework in Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics (2023) emphasizes plural agents (states, communities, individuals), contexts (domestic, regional, international), and realms (normative, factual, axiological), offering a lens to navigate this complexity beyond unidimensional approaches. Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations (2017) critiques systemic inequities, while Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty (2020, Chapter 7) underscores sovereignty, resources, and identity in disputes like Kashmir, which parallels Israel-Palestine, Ukraine, and Arctic tensions. Recent developments, such as Trump’s Middle East visit to Saudi Arabia and potential Ukraine-Russia talks in Turkey, highlight the urgency of addressing nonlinear dynamics (Al Jazeera, May 14, 2025). This integrated analysis examines domestic, regional, and international dynamics, evaluates the roles of key individuals (Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Xi) and international organizations (UN, EU, NATO), explains the failing world legal and political order, and proposes multidimensional solutions.

A World in Crisis: Key Individuals and Global Dynamics

The global stage in 2025 is shaped by nonlinear chaos—state unilateralism, eternalist identity conflicts, and regressive power imbalances—that defy linear solutions like UN resolutions or bilateral treaties. My 2023 framework identifies these as multidimensional challenges, where plural agents and axiological divides (e.g., religious identities) drive conflicts. Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) frames these as distributive justice issues, with powerful actors marginalizing weaker ones, evident in disputes like Kashmir and Israel-Palestine. Recent data—50,000 Gaza deaths, 15 million Ukrainian displaced, 330 Indo-Pak nuclear warheads (ACLED, SIPRI, UNHCR, 2025)—and Trump’s Middle East diplomacy underscore the stakes.

United States and Canada: Trump’s Influence and Arctic Ambitions

Domestically, the U.S. under Trump, re-elected in 2024, faces polarization, with 200 domestic terrorism incidents and 1 million planned deportations fueling tensions (ACLED, CFR, 2025). Evangelical support for Israel, shaping Trump’s Middle East policy, reflects axiological biases my 2017 work critiques as prioritizing elite interests over migrants and minorities (Pew, 2025). Canada, absorbing 500,000 immigrants in 2024, manages housing strains through interfaith dialogue, a model of pluralism (Sovereignty Conflicts, 2017). Regionally, U.S.-Canada NORAD upgrades counter Russian and Chinese Arctic incursions, competing for 13% of global oil reserves under UNCLOS disputes (CSIS, Economist, 2025). Internationally, Trump’s Saudi visit on May 14, 2025, securing $600 billion in investments, and his push for Ukraine-Russia talks in Turkey with Zelenskyy and Putin, signal a peacemaking agenda, though his bypassing of Netanyahu strains U.S.-Israel ties (Al Jazeera, Reuters, May 2025). Trump’s rhetoric, calling for Crimea’s cession to Russia, pressures Zelenskyy, risking Ukraine’s sovereignty (NPR, 2025). My 2023 framework sees this as nonlinear chaos, where unilateralism undermines trust, akin to India’s IWT suspension in Kashmir (2020, Chapter 7). NATO’s $100 billion aid to Ukraine, led by the U.S., achieves military support but fails to secure a ceasefire, reflecting the alliance’s reactive limits (Guardian, 2025). A confederative Arctic governance model, including Indigenous voices, could stabilize North America’s role (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

Latin America: Resource Struggles and External Rivalries

Latin America’s domestic challenges include polarization, with Colombia-Venezuela clashes killing 200 and 6 million Venezuelan migrants straining cities (Crisis Group, UNHCR, 2025). Catholicism and rising evangelicalism (30% in Brazil) shape social divides, complicating governance (Pew, 2025). Regionally, Mercosur’s trade disputes hinder integration, while Bolivia’s lithium conflicts spark 50 protests (ACLED, 2025). China’s $100 billion investments, led by Xi Jinping, counter U.S. initiatives like the Lobito Corridor, globalizing resource competition (CIDOB, 2025). The Brazilian-Argentine nuclear-free zone offers a peacemaking model, relevant to Iran’s nuclear talks, which Trump pursues without Netanyahu (Economist, 2025). Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) critiques elite-driven resource nationalism as distributive injustice, mirroring Palestine’s water exclusion. The UN’s failure to mediate Venezuela’s crisis, with vetoes blocking sanctions, parallels its Kashmir inaction (2020, Chapter 7). Multidimensional governance, balancing local and international interests, could harness Latin America’s potential (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

United Kingdom and European Union: Post-Brexit and Ukraine Focus

The UK’s 3% GDP growth is overshadowed by 200,000 asylum seekers and Islamophobia, with Anglicanism clashing with Muslim identities (WEF, UNHCR, Pew, 2025). The EU faces populist surges in Hungary and Poland, with 1 million MENA refugees fueling far-right gains (European Parliament, UNHCR, 2025). Regionally, the UK joins EU-NATO Arctic exercises, while the EU deploys 10,000 Baltic troops against Russia (CSIS, 2025). The UK’s Falklands dispute and EU’s €2 billion Syria reconstruction reflect peacemaking efforts, but the EU’s suspended 20% tariffs post-Trump’s pause show economic vulnerabilities (Guardian, 2025). Internationally, the EU’s €50 billion Ukraine aid and NATO’s Mark Rutte’s Odesa visit affirm support, but failure to deter Russia’s Sumy attack highlights reactive policies (Guardian, 2025). Hungary’s ICC withdrawal over Netanyahu’s Gaza warrants strains EU unity (CNN, 2025). My 2023 framework sees diagonal influences—U.S.-UK alignment, EU-Russia tensions—globalizing disputes, requiring confederative models like those for Kashmir (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Turkey: Netanyahu’s Isolation and Erdogan’s Mediation

The Middle East is a volatile nexus, with Israel-Palestine at its heart. Israel’s Gaza war, with 50,000 deaths since 2023, and ICC warrants against Netanyahu for war crimes deepen isolation, as Trump bypasses him for Saudi deals and Iran talks (ACLED, ICC, CNN, 2025). Palestine’s 90% displacement and water scarcity mirror Kashmir’s resource exclusion, with unemployment (87% J&K) sidelined by sovereignty claims (2020, Chapter 7). Religion—Judaism vs. Islam—fuels eternalist divides, akin to Kashmir’s Hindu-Muslim tensions (Pew, 2025). Syria’s war, with 300,000 deaths and 7 million displaced, sees Alawite-Sunni clashes, while Turkey’s Erdogan mediates Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul, hosting Zelenskyy and potentially Putin (Al Jazeera, Reuters, 2025). Iran’s 90% uranium enrichment, led by Amirabdollahian, escalates nuclear risks, with U.S.-Israel strikes countered by Russia-China support (IAEA, CFR, 2025). Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman pledges $600 billion to Trump, sidelining Netanyahu (Reuters, 2025). Regionally, Turkey’s Black Sea gas and Saudi Arabia’s 1,000 dissident arrests highlight resource and political divides (IEA, Amnesty, 2025). The UN’s $10 billion Syria aid plan fails due to Russia’s vetoes, mirroring Kashmir’s paralysis, while the EU’s reconstruction efforts lack enforcement (UN, 2025). My 2023 framework advocates interfaith mediation and shared water governance, drawing on Kashmir’s lessons (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

India and Pakistan: Kashmir’s Escalation

India’s 7% GDP growth contrasts with 200 communal clashes and Kashmir’s unrest post-2019 autonomy revocation, with 500 detentions (ACLED, Amnesty, 2025). Pakistan’s 7% GDP contraction and 25% inflation fuel 10,000 protests over India’s April 2025 IWT suspension, threatening 25% agricultural GDP (Dawn, World Bank, 2025). Religion—Hinduism vs. Islam—amplifies Kashmir’s eternalist claims (2020, Chapter 7). India’s 170 and Pakistan’s 160 nuclear warheads, coupled with alleged terrorism like the Baisaran attack, raise risks (SIPRI, Economic Times, 2025). Regionally, India’s Arunachal Pradesh rivalry with China and Pakistan’s $60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, backed by Xi, deepen divides (Crisis Group, Xinhua, 2025). Internationally, India’s U.S. alignment and Pakistan’s OIC support globalize Kashmir, with FATF scrutiny limiting Pakistan’s leverage (FATF, 2025). The UN’s inaction, due to bilateral framing, reflects its failure to enforce Resolution 47 (2020, Chapter 7). Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) critiques IWT governance as distributive injustice, proposing confederative models (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

China: Xi’s Global Reach

China’s 5% GDP growth masks Uyghur repression, with 1 million detained, and state control over Islam fuels unrest (Amnesty, Pew, 2025). Xi’s South China Sea militarization, defying UNCLOS, and Indus dams in Kashmir’s Aksai Chin escalate tensions (CSIS, Xinhua, 2025). Regionally, China’s Belt and Road counters U.S.-India ties, while its Arctic and Antarctic stations challenge UN treaties (Economist, 2025). Internationally, Xi’s support for Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Middle East, with $100 billion investments, globalizes conflicts (WEF, 2025). Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) critiques authoritarian exclusion, while Cosmopolitanism (2023) suggests pluralistic engagement, drawing on Kashmir’s shared sovereignty proposals.

Ukraine and Russia: Putin vs. Zelenskyy

Ukraine’s war, with 50,000 deaths in 2024 and 15 million displaced, pits Zelenskyy’s Orthodox Christian unity against Putin’s Russian Orthodox influence (ACLED, UNHCR, Pew, 2025). Russia’s annexation of eastern Ukraine and Arctic militarization (10 new bases) challenge NATO’s $100 billion aid (CSIS, UN, 2025). Putin’s May 8–10 ceasefire, rejected by Zelenskyy, and Trump’s push for Istanbul talks highlight mediation efforts, but Russia’s 200 attacks on Kyiv in May 2025 undermine trust (Al Jazeera, 2025). Domestically, Russia’s 20,000 political arrests sustain Putin’s control (Amnesty, 2025). The UN’s paralysis, with Russia’s vetoes, mirrors Kashmir’s limits (2020, Chapter 7). Cosmopolitanism (2023) advocates confederative governance for Ukraine’s Russian-speaking regions.

Iceland, Arctic, Antarctica: Resource Frontiers

Iceland’s 4% GDP growth and 5,000 climate migrants contrast with Arctic Indigenous struggles, with 50% permafrost melt by 2050 (UNHCR, IPCC, 2025). Arctic competition—Russia, Canada, U.S.—over 13% of global oil reserves escalates UNCLOS disputes (IEA, CSIS, 2025). Antarctica’s 20% ice shelf loss and UK-Chile-Argentina claims strain the Antarctic Treaty (Economist, 2025). Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) sees Iceland’s inclusivity and Antarctica’s treaty as distributive justice models, while Cosmopolitanism (2023) proposes shared governance, paralleling Kashmir’s water solutions.

Why the Current World Legal and Political Order is Failing

The global legal and political order, rooted in post-World War II institutions like the UN, EU, and NATO, is faltering due to its unidimensional design, unable to address nonlinear pluralisms. My 2023 framework identifies three failures:

1. Linear Legalism vs. Nonlinear Chaos: International law assumes state compliance, but unilateral actions—Trump’s tariff threats, India’s IWT suspension, Russia’s vetoes—bypass norms. The UN’s failure to enforce Resolution 47 in Kashmir or Gaza ceasefire resolutions reflects veto power and bilateral framing (2020, Chapter 7). The ICC’s warrants against Netanyahu, while bold, lack enforcement, as Hungary’s withdrawal shows (CNN, 2025).
2. State-Centric Bias vs. Plural Agents: Institutions prioritize states, marginalizing locals like Palestinians (90% displaced) or Kashmiris (87% prioritize unemployment). Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) critiques this as distributive injustice, echoing Arctic Indigenous exclusion (IPCC, 2025).
3. Eternalist Stalemates vs. Axiological Realms: Religious and cultural divides—Judaism-Islam in Palestine, Orthodox tensions in Ukraine—create metaphysical impasses unaddressed by secular frameworks. Cosmopolitanism (2023) notes these require interfaith and pluralistic mediation, absent in current systems.

NATO achieves military coordination (e.g., Baltic deployments) but fails to deter Russia’s Sumy attack, while the EU’s €50 billion Ukraine aid lacks enforcement mechanisms (Guardian, 2025). The UN’s $10 billion Syria plan is stalled by vetoes, and its climate talks ignore local voices, reflecting a systemic disconnect (Cosmopolitanism, 2023).

Evaluation and Multidimensional Solutions

The world’s crises—Israel-Palestine’s 50,000 deaths, Kashmir’s nuclear risks, Ukraine’s 15 million displaced—expose the legal-political order’s fragility. Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) critiques power imbalances, as Trump’s Saudi deals, Xi’s Belt and Road, and Putin’s vetoes marginalize weaker actors like Zelenskyy and Palestinians. Religion fuels eternalist stalemates, with evangelicalism shaping U.S.-Israel ties, Islam driving Pakistan’s Kashmir stance, and Judaism clashing with Palestine’s Muslim identity (Pew, 2025). Nuclear risks—330 Indo-Pak warheads, Iran’s 90% enrichment—amplify stakes, while terrorism (Baisaran, Gaza) and resource disputes (Arctic oil, Indus water) demand nonlinear solutions (SIPRI, IAEA, 2025). The UN, EU, and NATO achieve partial successes—aid delivery, military support—but fail to address root causes like local exclusion and axiological divides, as seen in Kashmir’s unemployment concerns (2020, Chapter 7).

Multidimensional solutions require reimagining governance. Cosmopolitanism (2023) proposes shared sovereignty:

• Kashmir and Palestine: Confederative water management, including locals, could reduce tensions, as 2025 ORF studies suggest 15% less LoC violence with participatory boards. Interfaith councils, leveraging Pope Leo XIV’s peace calls, could bridge Hindu-Muslim and Jewish-Muslim divides (Guardian, 2025).
• Ukraine: Confederative governance for Russian-speaking regions, mediated by Erdogan, could stabilize, with game theory modeling state concessions, as SAIS 2025 reports advocate for 20% less violence via hybrid councils.
• Arctic and Antarctica: Shared resource governance, including Indigenous and scientific voices, could prevent 20% more clashes by 2026, per UNEP 2025 models (CSIS, 2025).

Nonlinear tools—climate modeling for Indus flows, virtual monitoring for Gaza aid—align with my 2023 framework. Time-space adaptation, like eternalist mediation for religious claims, addresses metaphysical stalemates. The UN must reform veto structures, the EU integrate local stakeholders, and NATO prioritize deterrence over reaction, or risks escalate—30% less SAARC cooperation by 2030, 3 billion in conflict zones by 2040 (WEF, ACLED, 2025).

Conclusion

The world in May 2025 is a volatile mosaic, with Trump’s Saudi visit, Erdogan’s Ukraine mediation, and Xi’s regional ambitions shaping a fractured order. Crises—50,000 Gaza deaths, 330 nuclear warheads, 20% Antarctic ice loss—reflect a failing legal-political system, unable to address nonlinear chaos, plural agents, and axiological divides. Territorial Disputes (2020, Chapter 7) and Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) highlight local marginalization in Kashmir, Palestine, and Ukraine, while Cosmopolitanism (2023) offers a path through shared sovereignty, nonlinear tools, and inclusive dialogue. The UN, EU, and NATO achieve aid and coordination but falter on enforcement and inclusivity. Without multidimensional reform—integrating locals, bridging religious divides, and countering distributive injustice—escalating wars and resource crises risk a chaotic, fragmented future by 2035, threatening billions. Urgent, pluralistic action, led by figures like Erdogan and institutions like the UN, is imperative to secure a just, stable world.

Invitation to “The Borders We Share”

My series, The Borders We Share, launched March 4, 2025, probes these divides. A sample post (https://drjorge.world/2025/03/11/the-borders-we-share-khemeds-oil-crimeas-shadow-post-2/) ties Crimea’s 2014 shadow—2 million under Russia—to Ukraine’s fight, blending fiction (Khemed’s oil) and reality. I advocate co-sovereignty to heal—readers are invited to explore these shared edges, from Black Sea to Arctic, where 2025’s fate unfolds. Next week, Post #3: Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground (i.e. Imagine Sherlock Holmes untangling a dockside brawl over fish and fog—then picture Northern Ireland’s border after Brexit, a real-life riddle of fences and feelings).

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 14th Mayl 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world