Warren Hammond's Personal View: A violent summer - The World on edge
Acts of Violence – The World Is on Edge This Summer. Image: LinkedIn/warren-hammond
Home » Warren Hammond's Personal View: A violent summer – The World on edge
Acts of Violence – The World Is on Edge This Summer. Image: LinkedIn/warren-hammond
June and July 2025 will shape up to be two of the most geopolitically intense, heated, and combustible months in recent geopolitical memory, with acts of terror and war escalating.
From Washington to Warsaw, Gaza to Islamabad, Khartoum to Kyiv, the geopolitical temperature is rising. Tensions are no longer simmering. They're flashing.
The last time I viewed the world in this way was 4th February 2020, whereby I prepared (on the short side) for a seismic geopolitical event to disrupt markets, at which point I communicated a selective short basket of airline, shipping, logistics, cruise line, hotel, and theme park-oriented stocks. This short basket was held until 6th April 2020, at which time, turning bullish, it was covered, and I built a net long in the S&P500, placing a 5+ year target of 8,500 on the index, a call rooted in structurally bullish high conviction during extreme volatility. At the time, all was communicated via The Personal View.
Over the past decade, The Personal View has predicted major inflexion points in global stability, including:
– The storming of Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021
– The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022
Both events were forecast in magnitude and timing. The signals were there. They are here again.
What's unfolding now is a sharp escalation in the risk of terrorism, military confrontation, sabotage, and politically driven violence. This is not a call on a single event, but a recognition of a rising tide of instability spanning regions.
Hotspots to watch:
– Ukraine & Eastern Europe: Russian aggression continues; NATO mobilisation intensifies.– Middle East: Iran-Israel tension, asymmetric threats, and proxy volatility.– India & Pakistan: Fragile calm masking deep structural risk.– Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Myanmar: Fragile states with regional contagion potential.
– Western cities: Heightened alert around lone-wolf and coordinated attacks.
This is not about fear. It's about foresight.
The Netherlands is hosting a critical NATO summit amid this intensification. The symbolism is clear: the West is no longer reacting, it is preparing. Alliances are being tested. Defence strategies are shifting.
And yet, global markets remain largely focused on rate cuts and inflation, underpricing the true driver of risk this summer: global instability.
This may not be a season defined by a single headline. It may be defined by a drumbeat of escalating events, destabilising, violent, and politically consequential.
For investors, executives, and policymakers: Now is the time to recalibrate portfolios, assumptions, and geopolitical expectations.
June and July 2025 are a season of aggression. The world is on edge. And in a moment like this, ignoring the tension is the most dangerous strategy of all.
What are your thoughts on the unfolding geopolitical risks? We invite you to share your perspectives, analysis, or questions in the comments below.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Six killed, 80 wounded in intense Russian air attacks on Ukraine
Russia launched an intense missile and drone barrage at the Ukrainian capital Kyiv in the early hours of Friday, killing at least six people, Ukrainian officials said, as powerful explosions reverberated across the country. The attacks followed a warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin, conveyed via US President Donald Trump, that the Kremlin would hit back after Ukrainian drones destroyed several strategic bomber aircraft in attacks deep inside Russia. President Volodymyr Zelensky said three emergency responders were killed in the missile and drone salvo against the capital. Two died in an attack on the northern city of Chernihiv and at least one more in the northwestern city of Lutsk. 'Those killed in Kyiv were rescue workers who arrived at the scene of an initial strike and, unfortunately, were killed in a repeat Russian strike,' Zelensky said in his nightly video address. Foreign minister Andrii Sybiha, writing on X, said Russia had "'responded' to its destroyed aircraft ... by attacking civilians in Ukraine ... Multi-storey buildings hit. Energy infrastructure damaged.' Russia's defence ministry said its forces had carried out the strike on military and military-related targets in response to what it called Ukrainian 'terrorist acts' against Russia.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
How Ukraine's drone attacks jeopardise peace efforts with Russia
Since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. Image: Tetiana Dzhafarova / AFP IN a much-anticipated telephone call this week, US President Donald Trump was at pains explaining to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, that Washington absolutely had nothing to do with Ukraine's astoundingly provocative drone attacks on five Russian airbases. The airbases, attacked simultaneously, house Russia's strategic bomber fleet. The attacks appear to put a spanner in the works for Trump's strenuous efforts to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. The timing is also curious. The well-orchestrated drone attacks took place at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to beam with brightness. Despite the deep-seated mistrust and tension between the two next-door neighbours who've been at war since February 2022, the latest round of rare face-to-face talks between the two nations has taken place in the Turkish capital, Istanbul. Trump had been visibly encouraged by their direct negotiations, which resulted in the mass exchange of prisoners of war. A leading German-based civil society organisation, the Schiller Institute, has been vehemently campaigning for an end to the war, actively supporting dialogue in an effort to give peace a chance. Responding to Ukraine's provocative attack on Russia on June 1, Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute wrote: 'Whether 40% or only 10% of Russia's airborne nuclear capability was destroyed in the attack is irrelevant; the fact is that whoever prepared, trained and gave the final green light for Kiev's drone operation was itching to unleash a nuclear-strategic conflict between the world's two greatest nuclear weapons superpowers.' Trump told Putin that the White House was not even given any prior warning about the attacks. Therefore, like most of the international community, Washington was caught off guard, totally taken by surprise. Now, since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. NATO has also been visible and loud in defence of Ukraine, supplying intelligence and weaponry to Kyiv, among others. All this support was provided on the back of the imposition of an unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions on Moscow. As things were, the entire script was written by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who had vowed that the West would support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. When Biden and his Democrats lost the elections last November, Trump's Republican Party was determined to end the war in Ukraine. 'This is a war that would never have started if I were in office,' Trump has said repeatedly. It is therefore no wonder that since assuming office at the beginning of 2025, Trump has prioritised peace in Ukraine. He came into office at a time of great antagonism and mistrust between Washington and Moscow. In the midst of it all, he managed to re-establish contact with the Kremlin, leading to the accentuation of bilateral diplomacy between the two nuclear powers. Through it all, some in Europe had not been too pleased about the looming brokering of peace between Ukraine and Russia. Key EU powers in the form of the UK, France and Germany have publicly displayed displeasure at Trump's approach and efforts. As Washington was pushing too hard to bring a reluctant Zelensky to the negotiating table, the three European powers stated above were actively mobilising for an 'alternative' approach. They birthed a curious idea labelled a 'Coalition of the Willing', a military force to be deployed to Ukraine in the event Trump succeeded with his peace mission. Their rationale is premised on their deep mistrust of Russia that borders on downright Russophobia. They claim that their mooted indefinite military presence inside Ukraine would deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again. The EU's biggest powers are trapped in the Joe Biden war-mongering era that has passed. They speak of no approach to peace, nor how they could engage with Russia at the negotiating table to reach an amicable settlement to the war. Of great interest, the pro-war EU states want Trump's US to guarantee what they call a back-stop, some military assurance that in an event of confrontation with Russia, whilst 'guarding' Ukraine, the US would jump in to defend their Coalition of the Willing. Of course, Trump has already disappointed most of the war-mongering European powers by expressing no taste for military activities inside Ukraine post-war. Trump's offer of a guarantee for the protection of Ukraine will instead come in the form of the economic deal between Kyiv and Washington that includes rare earth minerals. The minerals would contribute toward Ukraine repaying the US for the unconditional assistance Zelensky received during the tenure of Biden, which totalled several billions of dollars. Ukraine's audacious drone attacks of recent days beg for more questions. For instance, where does Zelensky get the guts to launch such a sensitive attack on Russia without informing the White House? As the Schiller Institute puts it: 'Who has the (usurped) power to launch an attack targeting the nuclear deterrent forces of the planet's leading nuclear weapons nation, without telling the of the United States?' Clearly, and surely, an attack of that kind and magnitude would inevitably and logically trigger a response? The Zelensky regime is not politically naive to be unaware of the consequential ramifications of their actions, but then, what is the end-game? The Schiller Institute's conclusion is rather ominous. It read: 'The world may have dodged the bullet of nuclear war — for the moment. But that gun is still loaded, and it is still being wielded by the British and American intelligence circles that are intent on driving a permanent wedge between Trump and Putin, and who are prepared to stage a coup d'état and even assassinate both heads of state, as well as launch another nuclear provocation.' I believe that the UK, France and Germany, that is now under the war-mongering Chancellor Friedrich Merz, need to be confronted by Washington to come out clean about their role in ordering or advising Kiev to attack Russia in this manner. Trump and Putin spoke by phone for one hour and 15 minutes in the aftermath of the attacks. Trump said afterwards: 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked aeroplanes, by Ukraine,' he posted on his Truth Social account on June 4, adding: 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' In my book, that's the scary part indeed!
Daily Maverick
21 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Russia faces struggle to replace bombers lost in Ukrainian drone strikes
By Mark Trevelyan and Tom Balmforth Satellite photos of airfields in Siberia and Russia's far north show extensive damage from the attacks, with several aircraft completely burnt out, although there are conflicting versions of the total number destroyed or damaged. The United States assesses that up to 20 warplanes were hit – around half the number estimated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy – and around 10 were destroyed, two U.S. officials told Reuters. The Russian government on Thursday denied that any planes were destroyed and said the damage would be repaired, but Russian military bloggers have spoken of loss or serious damage to about a dozen planes, accusing commanders of negligence. The strikes – prepared over 18 months in a Ukrainian intelligence operation dubbed 'Spider's Web', and conducted by drones that were smuggled close to the bases in trucks – dealt a powerful symbolic blow to a country that, throughout the Ukraine war, has frequently reminded the world of its nuclear might. In practice, experts said, they will not seriously affect Russia's nuclear strike capability which is largely comprised of ground- and submarine-based missiles. However, the Tu-95MS Bear-H and Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers that were hit were part of a long-range aviation fleet that Russia has used throughout the war to fire conventional missiles at Ukrainian cities, defence plants, military bases, power infrastructure and other targets, said Justin Bronk, an aviation expert at the RUSI think tank in London. The same fleet had also been carrying out periodic patrol flights into the Arctic, North Atlantic and northern Pacific as a show of strength to deter Russia's Western adversaries. Bronk said that at the outset of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia was operating a fleet of 50-60 Bear-Hs and around 60 Backfires, alongside around 20 Tu-160M nuclear-capable Blackjack heavy bombers. He estimated that Russia has now lost more than 10% of the combined Bear-H and Backfire fleet, taking into account last weekend's attacks and the loss of several planes earlier in the war – one shot down and the others struck while on the ground. These losses 'will put major pressure on a key Russian force that was already operating at maximum capacity,' Bronk told Reuters. Russia's defence ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment. PROJECT DELAYS Replacing the planes will be challenging. Both the Bear H and the Backfire are aircraft that were designed in the Soviet era and have been out of production for decades, said Douglas Barrie, aerospace expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, although existing planes have been upgraded over the years. Barrie said that building new ones like-for-like was therefore very unlikely, and it was unclear whether Russia had any useable spare airframes of either type. Western sanctions against Russia have aimed to restrict the import of components such as microprocessors that are vital to avionics systems, although Moscow has so far been comparatively successful at finding alternative sources, Barrie added. Russia has been modernising its Blackjack bomber fleet, and Putin sent a pointed signal to the West last year by taking a 30-minute flight in one such aircraft and pronouncing it ready for service. But production of new Blackjacks is slow – one Russian military blogger this week put it at four per year – and Western experts say progress in developing Russia's next-generation PAK DA bomber has also been moving at a crawl. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said in a report last month that Russia had signed a contract with manufacturer Tupolev in 2013 to build the PAK DA, but cited Russian media reports as saying state test flights are not scheduled until next year, with initial production to begin in 2027. While it would be logical for Russia to try to speed up its PAK DA plans, it may not have the capacity, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the FAS. He said in a telephone interview that Russia is facing delays with a range of other big defence projects including its new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile. RUSI's Bronk was also sceptical of Moscow's chances of accelerating the timeline for the next-generation bomber. 'Russia will struggle to deliver the PAK DA programme at all in the coming five years, let alone accelerate it, due to budgetary shortfalls and materials and technology constraints on industry due to sanctions,' he said.
