Am I paranoid or is something weird going on worldwide after the US elections?

On November 5 of this year the United States elections were held and the clear winner was Donald Trump.

President-elect Donald Trump knew in advance the great challenges inside and outside the United States that would be ahead of him.

Some of his promises during his presidential campaign were to end the war of attrition in Ukraine and to end the bloodshed in the Middle East (the conflict between Israel and Hamas being the main axis of the conflict), something he ratified on November 14 at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, USA.

Just three days later, on November 17, President Joe Biden lifted the ban on the use of ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) ballistic missiles by the army commanded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attack strategic positions on Russian territory, a red line that the Kremlin had already drawn.

On November 19, two days later, the Russian Defense Minister confirmed the launching by the Ukrainian army of six ATACMS missiles at a military complex in the western region of Bryansk, of which five were intercepted by Russia and one hit the military complex without causing major damage.

On the same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin formalized the expansion of Russia’s nuclear doctrine approving the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power supported by other nuclear powers in case of a massive attack with drones, aircraft or conventional missiles endangering the integrity of Russian territory.

Just one day after the Kremlin’s announcement, on November 20, Ukraine defied Russia by firing at least twelve Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory.

Russia’s response came a day later, on November 21, after it fired an Oreshnik missile from the city of Astrakhan which traveled for 15 minutes at ten times the speed of sound towards the Ukrainian defense industrial complex in the city of Dnipro, where six non-nuclear warheads from the missile hit the target.

The reaction of the world press was one of fear and amazement upon learning that the new Russian ballistic missile had a range of up to 5500 km and could hit in a few minutes any city in Europe or even in the Middle East and that it could also carry nuclear warheads.

Six days later, on November 27, another front opened in Syria after opposition rebel groups led by the fundamentalist group Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS, Organization for the Liberation of the Levant), surprised the government of Bashar al-Assad with a lightning attack that culminated on December 8 with the capture of Damascus and the flight of the Syrian president to Russian territory.

This change of influence in Syria on the one hand weakens Iran’s influence in the Middle East using Syria as a land corridor to Lebanon to supply Hezbollah with weapons and other supplies, and on the other hand completely cancels the Russian presence in the region and complicates its access to the Mediterranean Sea, necessary for the defense of the country’s sovereignty in the event of a war against NATO by losing the airfield at Hmeimin, located in the province of Latakia, and the naval base of Tartus on the western coast of Syria.

In this way, Russia loses in Syria a kind of “rook” in the geopolitical chess with which it exerted its influence from east to west and north to south in the region.

Add to this, the coup attempt in South Korea after South Korean President Yoon Suk surprised the entire country on December 3 by declaring martial law for the first time in more than 40 years.

Although the president’s attempt to change the status quo in South Korea (alleging the existence of political ties between the opposition and North Korea) was blocked by the opposition through a vote in the midst of a strong military contingent and the presence of hundreds of protesters outside the South Korean Parliament, the real reasons for such a controversial decision that has undermined the democracy of a country known for its political stability for several decades, and important for the United States to exercise a counterweight to the presence of North Korea in the region, are unknown.

Likewise, in Georgia, a country of the former Soviet Union, last November 28, protests broke out in its capital after the government suspended until 2028 the negotiations for its accession to the European Union. This generates tension and concern in the region and especially in the Kremlin as it does not want a new Ukrainian-style “Maidan” to happen again near its borders.

On December 4, another statistical anomaly occurred, this time in France, after the government of Prime Minister Michel Barnier came to an end in a record time of three months thanks to a motion of censure by the French Parliament, after Barnier resorted to Article 49.3 of the French Constitution in order to dodge the parliamentary vote to approve the budget. Such an event had not occurred in France since 1962 when the parliamentary assembly dismissed Prime Minister Georges Pompidou for a similar case.

Another unprecedented case has just occurred in Romania, a NATO member country, after the presidential elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court due to reports of Russian interference through an alleged disinformation campaign on social networks to favor the far-right candidate Calin Georgescu. This leaves the country (one of the three NATO countries that share Black Sea coasts with Russia), with enormous political uncertainty in the short, medium and long term.

Coincidence or not, the movements in the global geopolitical chess seem to be increasingly faster and more aggressive since Donald Trump’s electoral victory. The panorama seems to be changing rapidly towards a new configuration of world hegemonies where there are hidden interests at both ends of the board and where all options are shuffled, from a peaceful presidential transition in the United States that helps to stabilize the geopolitical landscape, to that of an unprecedented escalation of war that could end in a Third World War even before January 20, 2025 in the event of a miscalculation in any of the moves in this geopolitical chess game by any of the parties.

What would have happened geopolitically if Kamala Harris had won on November 5? Are all these geopolitical events part of a coldly calculated plan or were they destined to happen regardless of the winner in the United States? That is something we will probably never know for sure, but it will give conpiracy theorists a lot to talk about.