- May 17, 2026
- 7:10 pm
- World News
World politics increasingly looks not like a system of agreements, but like a chain reaction of personal decisions by a few leaders. Russia’s war against Ukraine, the crisis of trust in Western democracy, Israel’s isolation, fear of a new major war, and societies’ fatigue with politicians once again bring to the forefront the question of the price of power, which has been held for too long by fear, conflict, and division.
The occasion for a new discussion was the publication on May 17, 2026, by international commentator The Guardian Simon Tisdall. At the center of the material is the idea that the decline in influence of three politicians, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu, could change the global atmosphere and restore at least some confidence to Western societies.
The world is tired of leaders who do not provide a way out of the crisis.
The main nerve of this story is not only in the names. It is about a broader fatigue with politics that for years promises security, strength, and order, but ultimately brings war, economic anxieties, international isolation, and a sense of deadlock.
According to the data cited in the original material, a Pew Research Center survey in 2025 in 25 countries showed that many people see the biggest threats in the USA, Russia, and China. But the real picture is more complex. For Turkey, Israel remains an important irritant, for Greece — Turkey, and in Canada, the USA is simultaneously perceived as both a key ally and a source of risk.
This is an important detail for the Israeli audience. Israel lives in a region where trust in international guarantees is always limited, and foreign policy is directly linked to the security of family, business, the army, immigrants, and the entire state system. Therefore, the global leadership crisis for Israel is not an abstract topic from foreign press, but part of daily reality.
Democracies are losing trust, and radicals are getting a chance.
In Western countries, voter irritation is growing. People see rising prices, migration disputes, wars, energy risks, the weakness of international institutions, and begin to look for simple answers where they are most often offered by radical forces.
The material mentions the low ratings of Western leaders: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Donald Trump face varying degrees of distrust. Against this backdrop, movements that promise to “break the system” are gaining strength, but they do not always explain what exactly will be built instead.
This is where Tisdall’s main thesis appears: the turning point may begin not with a new big ideology, but with the departure of those politicians who have become symbols of the current crisis.
Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump: different countries, similar logic of power.
At first glance, these three figures belong to different political worlds. Putin is a dictator who unleashed a war against Ukraine and turned Russia into a closed military system. Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, around whom questions of security, justice, corruption, October 7, and the future of Israeli democracy are concentrated. Trump is an American politician building power on personal loyalty, pressure on institutions, and constant mobilization of his supporters through conflict.
But in one thing they are similar: each of them has become not just a participant in the crisis, but its amplifier.
Russia is weakening because the war has become a trap for the Kremlin itself.
The original material notes that after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s power has become more vulnerable. The Kremlin expected a quick victory but got a protracted war, sanctions, rising costs, economic pressure, and a constant need to explain to society why the “special operation” turned into a years-long exhaustion of the country.
Ukraine not only withstood but also showed the ability to adapt: drones, technological solutions, strikes on logistics, army flexibility, and partner support became the factors that destroyed the image of inevitable Russian victory.
For Israel, this Ukrainian experience is especially important. Small and medium-sized states living next to aggressive regimes closely watch how the weakness of a dictatorship does not manifest immediately, but through the economy, army, elite fear, and the inability to honestly admit a mistake.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers this topic in this context: Russia’s war against Ukraine has long ceased to be only a Ukrainian tragedy. It has become a test for the whole world — who is ready to defend international rules, and who is ready to bargain with the aggressor for temporary peace.
Netanyahu approaches a political milestone.
In Israel, the situation is different, but the tension is no less. Netanyahu remains a central figure in internal division: around him converge the issues of October 7, 2023, government responsibility, judicial reform, the war in Gaza, relations with the USA, international isolation, and the future of the ruling coalition.
According to the logic of the original material, the next elections could become a de facto referendum on trust in Netanyahu. For some Israelis, he remains an experienced security politician. For others, a leader under whom the state has come to the most severe internal and external crisis in many years.
The topic of October 7 remains especially painful. Society still demands a clear answer: how did a state built on the idea of security allow such a catastrophe? Why has an independent investigation become a political issue? Who should bear responsibility — only the army and special services or also the political leadership?
Against this backdrop, any new war, any negotiation failure, any international scandal, and any deterioration in relations with allies reinforce the feeling that Israel needs not only a military strategy but also a renewal of political trust.
Trump is once again turning the USA into a source of unpredictability.
Trump in this connection is important not only as an American politician. The USA remains Israel’s main ally, a key player in NATO, the main security provider for Ukraine, and the central force of the Western world. Therefore, his return to power or weakening of his influence directly changes calculations in Jerusalem, Kyiv, Brussels, Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing.
The original material emphasizes: Trump’s main enemy may be himself. The economy, pressure on allies, trade conflicts, sympathies for authoritarian leaders, a rough management style, and disregard for institutional constraints make him not only a strong figure for his supporters but also a constant source of instability.
If Republicans lose control of Congress in the midterm elections, Trump’s influence could sharply decrease. For Ukraine, this would mean a chance for more predictable support. For Israel, a return to a more familiar model of American politics, where allied relations do not depend so heavily on the personal deal of one leader.
What will change if this political era really ends.
The most important question is not whether these leaders will leave. Sooner or later, any politician leaves. The question is different: what will remain after them and will the world be able to get out of the logic of constant crisis.
After Putin, Russia will not automatically become democratic. The repressive system, security forces, propaganda, and imperial thinking will not disappear in one day. But even a new tough ruler in the Kremlin may be forced to stop the war if he realizes that continuing the conflict is destroying Russia itself.
After Netanyahu, Israel will also not receive an instant solution to all problems. Hamas will not disappear due to a change of government, Iran will not cease to be a threat, and the Palestinian issue will not dissolve into thin air. But a different political atmosphere is possible: more responsibility, less personal dependence of the system on one leader, more space for internal investigation and restoration of trust between the state and society.
After Trump, the USA will also not become an ideal democracy without division. American society will remain divided, and populism will not disappear. But the weakening of his influence may return allies the feeling that Washington is once again acting as an institution, not as a personal project of one person.
Why this is important specifically for Israel.
Israel is at a point where external and internal crises can no longer be separated. Russia’s war against Ukraine affects the balance of power between Moscow, Tehran, and Western capitals. US policy affects military aid, diplomatic protection, and regional agreements. Decisions of the Israeli government affect relations with the diaspora, Europe, Ukraine, Arab countries, and its own citizens.
Therefore, the possible end of the era of Putin, Trump, and Netanyahu is not just a convenient formula for a headline. It is a conversation about whether the world can emerge from a period where politics is too often built on fear, personal power, national trauma, and endless mobilization against the enemy.
For Israel, such a turn would mean the need to redefine itself: as a country of security, as a democracy, as an ally of Ukraine, as a state of the Jewish people, and as a society that must be able to argue but not destroy itself from within.
The end of this era has not yet come. But if three political figures, each in their own way holding the world in a state of tension, really lose power or influence, the global atmosphere may change faster than it seems.