A World Between Eras
Analysis of power shifts by Daniel Tarshish, former British diplomat turned geopolitechy based in London.
It feels as though we are living in a hinge-moment in history — where the old structures are still visible but hollowing out, and the new ones haven’t quite solidified. This is the uneasy space between eras, a place where power is contested not just on battlefields but in the theatre of words and symbols. From the Caucasus to Gaza to the Republican primary stage, the same question keeps echoing: who really holds control, and for how long?
I’ve been struck lately by the widening gap between what leaders project and what the underlying reality suggests. The policy highlights of the summer — Trump’s meeting with Putin, Netanyahu’s “full control” of Gaza, and the curious dance between Trump and JD Vance — all point to the same theme: power is shifting, and the main players are scrambling to shape their audiences’ perception of who wields it.
Trump’s peace in the Caucasus
Whenever Trump meets Putin — whether in a gilded ballroom or a dimly lit side room at some international gathering — there’s always a strange choreography. These two men thrive on projection, on being the gravitational centre of their own narratives. But this time, the background music is different. The political sands are moving beneath them.
Russia’s influence in the Caucasus, once almost taken for granted, is visibly eroding. Armenia — traditionally a client state of Moscow — is now openly questioning that relationship, moving towards the West with a mix of necessity and disillusionment. Azerbaijan, with its oil and its Turkish backing, and fresh from its total victory in Nagorno-Karabakh, is visibly more confident than it has been in decades. The war in Ukraine has left Russia overstretched militarily and diplomatically. The “peace” emerging between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t driven by Russian arbitration but by new regional dynamics, including Turkey’s growing role and EU mediation. For the Kremlin, that’s an indignity; for the U.S., a quiet win — although you’d be forgiven for missing that amidst the noise.
So what happens when Trump, who has never shown much interest in the subtleties of the Caucasus, sits down with Putin in this context? My suspicion is that the meeting is less about the region itself and more about projecting the illusion of relevance. Putin will want to appear as though Moscow is still the indispensable powerbroker — the tsar of Eurasia. Trump will want to show his supporters that he alone can “deal” with Russia. But underneath, there’s an irony: they’re playacting a world that is fading. The post-Cold War order, where Russia could play its near abroad like a chessboard and the U.S. could treat it as someone else’s problem, is ending.
Power is not merely the possession of force; it’s the perception of inevitability. Once the inevitability of Russian dominance in the Caucasus is gone, it’s almost impossible to get it back. Will this impact on the Ukraine negotiations? Will tariffs on India add to the pressure? Who knows, but Putin will be feeling his world getting smaller.
Netanyahu’s “Full Control” of Gaza: A Move to Close the Door on a Two-State Future
Political language is never neutral — it performs as much as it describes. In mathematics, a function is fixed; in politics, it shifts with the audience, the moment, and the underlying agenda. So when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declares that Israel will take “full control” of Gaza, the question is not only what he means, but what he intends.
Israel has long controlled Gaza’s airspace, coastal waters, and key border crossings. But Netanyahu’s statement goes further. “Full control” implies a transition from military operations to return the hostages and destroy Hamaz to imposing political realities. It is not simply a tactical shift; it is a strategic message.
The timing of this rhetoric is the key to understanding it. As more countries move toward recognizing a Palestinian state, the reality of what that state currently looks like becomes unavoidable: a fractured polity with Hamas controlling Gaza and Fatah holding sway in the West Bank. For Israel, this is an unacceptable scenario — not only because both factions pose security threats, but also because neither are palatable, or even realistic negotiating partners for a future two-state solution.
Crystalising Palestinian leadership by recognising Palestine now strengthens Hamas and therefore prevents ordinary Palestinians from realigning behind a more progressive vision for their future. Netanyahu, as he sees it, has no choice: by asserting “full control” over Gaza, Netanyahu is doing more than addressing domestic political pressures, he is actively working to erase the possibility of a Palestinian state led by either Hamas or Fatah. It is a political manoeuver designed to preempt the implications of premature recognition that effectively rewards terrorism, to ensure that no Palestinian state represents an existential threat to Israel.
Sadly, this stance risks confirming the view internationally that Israel is no longer interested in negotiations, only in containment. Domestically, it resonates with a public that increasingly sees coexistence as a fantasy and unilateralism as the only option. Either way, the message is clear: the path to a two-state solution is being blocked by the combination of a security-focused Israeli government, Western governments desperate to contain anti-Israel voices, and the Hamas propaganda machine that keeps the wheel spinning.
The Trump Vance Dance
Trump’s grip on the Republican imagination has always been part performance art, part primal scream therapy for the base. But lately, the energy feels… diminished. The Epstein connection — not new, but newly sharpened in public consciousness — doesn’t help. In politics, scandals only really damage you when they confirm something people already suspect. For Trump, the perception of moral rot is baked in; the danger is when the rot starts to smell in ways even loyalists can’t ignore.
And then there’s JD Vance — the one-time author who was supposed to be the thoughtful conservative, now fully morphing into a Trumpist without the Trump. His recent summer holiday in England is a curious thing to note, but it speaks to a man who still sees himself as culturally literate, someone who can move in elite circles while keeping a populist base. The British trip, in itself, is trivial — but in the subtle theatre of politics, it marks him as someone comfortable on the world stage in a way Trump never was. That matters.
Could Vance replace Trump as the GOP’s centre of gravity? Possibly. Trump is still a performer without equal in the arena of grievance politics, but performers burn out. Vance’s advantage is that he can present himself as the heir without looking like a cheap copy — at least for now. He has the Ivy League polish, the rural backstory, and the calculated pugnacity to straddle the different tribes of the right.
From a psychological angle, what’s happening here feels like the slow transfer of archetypes: Trump as the Chaos Bringer, Vance as the Disciplined Avenger. Archetypes don’t disappear; they just change their human vessels. The GOP might soon decide it wants the latter more than the former.
Control, Illusion, and a New Age
What links all of these moments is the tension between performance and reality. Putin can no longer truly arbitrate the Caucasus, but he’ll sit with Trump to look like he can. Netanyahu can proclaim “full control” of Gaza, but the truth of governance in hostile territory is more elusive. Trump can rally crowds and sneer at opponents, but the shadow of scandal and the presence of ambitious heirs like JD Vance suggest his grip on the Republican psyche isn’t eternal.
Philosophically, it’s a reminder that control is as much about the story you tell as the levers you actually hold. Mathematically, it’s the difference between a function that describes the world accurately and one that’s just a fit for the data you wish were true. Politically, it’s the art — and the danger — of making perception do the work of reality.
In the coming years, we may see more of this — leaders playing at being indispensable in a world that is already quietly replacing them. The question for us, as observers and citizens, is whether we can learn to look past the performance to the tectonic movements beneath. Because it’s those shifts — not the photo ops, not the slogans — that will decide the next era.