A war flares up. The price of petrol rises. Donald Trump says something outrageous. Another protest erupts. Markets fall, then recover. Politicians argue. The media moves breathlessly from one controversy to the next.
And somewhere in all that noise, we can lose sight of something much more important:
What if the world itself has changed?
That is the provocative argument made by historian Victor Davis Hanson in a recent Daily Signal video. His starting point is worth considering regardless of whether you agree with all his conclusions.
Hanson says that living through periods of great change can be rather like standing in the eye of a hurricane. The events around us are so immediate that we fail to recognise the larger pattern.
His suggestion is simple: stop looking at today's headlines and compare the geopolitical map with the world of five years ago.
When you do that, the picture becomes rather interesting.
Russia: From Expansion to Attrition
Start with Russia.
When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, there was widespread concern that Russia might overwhelm Ukraine and demonstrate the impotence of the West.
That didn't happen.
Hanson describes the invasion as a strategic disaster for Russia: enormous casualties, economic damage, attacks on Russian infrastructure and the erosion of Moscow's wider sphere of influence.
Some of Hanson's language is stronger than the evidence warrants — Russia remains a formidable military and nuclear power and the war is certainly not over. Ukraine itself continues to suffer devastating Russian attacks.
But the economic strain on Moscow is real. Russia is proposing significant increases in defence spending for 2027 while cutting planned expenditure on health, education and social programs.
Whatever the eventual territorial settlement in Ukraine, this is hardly the triumphant Russian resurgence many feared in 2022.
China: Powerful, But Not Invincible
Then there is China.
For much of the past two decades, China's rise has often been discussed as though it were almost inevitable — a rapidly growing economy, an expanding military and an authoritarian government capable of thinking decades ahead.
Hanson sees something rather different.
He points to China's ageing population, very low fertility, economic difficulties and turmoil within its military leadership.
China's manufacturing sector has recently returned to modest growth, and it remains an enormous economic, technological and military power. But weak domestic consumption, a prolonged property slump and low investment remain significant problems.
More strikingly, two of China's most senior generals have recently been expelled from the Communist Party and military amid allegations of corruption and disloyalty. Analysts differ over what this means: it may temporarily weaken military readiness while simultaneously strengthening Xi Jinping's personal control.
China remains America's principal strategic competitor.
But inevitability is a dangerous word in history.
Latin America Turns
One of Hanson's more interesting observations concerns Latin America.
For years we heard about the region's "pink tide" — the movement of Latin American governments towards the political Left.
That picture has changed considerably.
Hanson argues that much of Latin America is moving towards governments more favourably disposed towards the United States and less receptive to Chinese, Russian and socialist influence.
The details are more complicated than his sweeping description suggests, but the broader rightward movement is visible. Reuters recently described the election of Keiko Fujimori in Peru as extending a wider regional shift towards conservative governments, driven partly by public concern over crime, weak economic growth and political instability.
That represents a significant change in America's own strategic neighbourhood.
Greenland: The Outrage and the Outcome
Remember the ridicule when Trump started talking about Greenland?
At the time, much of the discussion centred on the apparent absurdity of America wanting to "buy" a vast territory belonging to Denmark.
Strip away Trump's characteristically extravagant language, however, and the strategic issue becomes clearer.
The Arctic is becoming increasingly important. Russia has enormous Arctic interests. China wants greater access. New shipping routes and natural resources are increasing the region's strategic value.
And the shortest missile routes between Russia and North America pass across the Arctic.
Hanson's argument is that Trump's underlying objective was never really about real estate. It was about ensuring that Greenland remained securely within the Western strategic system.
And look at what has now happened.
The United States, Denmark and Greenland have signed a new security agreement permitting an expanded American military presence, including two additional bases, while Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty and retains its right to self-determination.
One can dislike the negotiating style while acknowledging the strategic result.
And Then There Is Iran
This is where Hanson's argument becomes most consequential — and most uncertain.
He believes we may be witnessing the collapse of the geopolitical order that Iran constructed across the Middle East over several decades.
Iran's economy is under enormous pressure. Its oil revenues have been severely constrained, sanctions have intensified and ordinary Iranians are suffering substantial economic hardship.
Hanson goes much further. He argues that if sustained pressure ultimately causes the Iranian regime itself to crack, the consequences could rival the fall of the Berlin Wall as a geopolitical turning point.
That remains a prediction, not an established fact.
Iran has not collapsed. It retains the ability to inflict considerable damage, directly and through regional allies. The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical bargaining chip, and negotiations between Washington and Tehran have so far failed to produce a settlement.
Indeed, this is precisely why perspective matters.
History has a nasty habit of refusing to follow anyone's timetable.
Join the Dots
Now stand back.
Russia is badly damaged by a war that was supposed to demonstrate its strength.
China remains powerful but faces serious demographic, economic and internal military challenges.
Much of Latin America has moved politically towards governments seeking closer relationships with Washington.
American and NATO strategic control of Greenland and the Arctic has been strengthened.
Iran — for decades one of the principal challengers to Western interests in the Middle East — is under extraordinary military and economic pressure.
Look at each event separately and you see today's news.
Join the dots and you may be looking at a geopolitical realignment.
That is Hanson's helicopter view.
His further argument is explicitly political. He credits much of this transformation to Donald Trump's willingness to abandon conventional diplomatic assumptions and use American economic and military power much more aggressively in pursuit of American and Western interests.
That interpretation is certainly contestable.
Critics point to the continuing Iran war, higher energy prices, tensions with traditional allies and unresolved confrontations with Russia and China as evidence that American power has limits. Recent reporting from the UN described considerable international scepticism about Washington's approach and noted that several of Trump's foreign-policy objectives remain unresolved.
But perhaps that disagreement actually reinforces the value of Hanson's argument.
It forces us to ask the right question.
Not: What did Trump say today?
Not: Who won today's news cycle?
But:
Is the strategic position of the Western world stronger or weaker than it was five years ago?
That is a much bigger question.
History Doesn't Arrive With a Headline
There is another lesson here.
The fall of the Soviet Union didn't begin on the day the Berlin Wall came down. The forces producing that extraordinary event had been accumulating for years.
Only afterwards did the pattern appear obvious.
Perhaps nothing comparable is happening today.
Perhaps Hanson is too optimistic, particularly about Iran. Russia could recover. China may overcome its present difficulties. The Middle East could descend into another cycle of conflict. American alliances could weaken rather than strengthen.
History hasn't finished writing this chapter.
But Hanson is surely right about one thing: we should occasionally lift our eyes from the daily headlines and look at the map.
Because while we have been arguing about tweets, personalities, opinion polls and the controversy of the day, some of the geopolitical assumptions that shaped the world only five years ago have changed substantially.
Whether Donald Trump ultimately receives credit or blame for where this leads will be argued for decades.
For the moment, something simpler is worth recognising.
The world has changed.
And there is at least a reasonable case that, from the perspective of Western security and influence, some of those changes may ultimately prove to have been for the better.
Watch Victor Davis Hanson's argument here:
