Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Edited by: Admiral
When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced, When the 2025 Peace Prize was awarded to Venezuelan opposition politician Maria Corina Machado, the controversy followed.
The Commission’s motivation was to recognize her relentless advocacy for democratic freedoms in Venezuela. However, the medal is not a consensus for peace, but a multi-faceted interpretation and political use around it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, October 10, 2025, local time, commented in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on the question of whether “US President Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.”
clearly expressed "Trump's efforts to resolve international conflicts are beyond doubt".
It is no longer just an honor, but a political symbol placed on the stage by all parties.
There are two explanations for one medal
Behind the decision of the Nobel Committee is a clear set of value yardsticks, the core of which is Western-style * and freedom. In their view, rewarding machado is the adherence and defense of this universal value. This narrative is full of idealism, and it is believed that the award can withstand the pressure, which itself proves its gold content.
But at the other end of the globe, this statement is completely unacceptable.The Kremlin has never had a good face on the award, and this time it is more open. Nikolai Korchunov, Russia's ambassador to Norway, immediately condemned it, pointing out that it was gross interference in Venezuela's internal affairs and a tool that serves Western political intentions.
Russia even warned that this move might aggravate tensions in the Caribbean. This perception is strongly echoed in Venezuela. President Maduro's government was already supported by the Kremlin. They vehemently opposed the award and accused Machado of being a "fascist" who sent American funds to anti-government groups.
On the one hand is the highest idealist measure, on the other hand is the relentless realistic criticism. Two narratives about this medal, with a sharp contrast, are deeply rooted in opposition.
Putin’s thanks to Trump.
This controversy surrounding the Nobel Prize soon surpassed the prize itself, and unexpectedly provided an excellent performance stage for the leaders of the other two big countries. It became a window of opportunity, cleverly used by Putin and Trump as a political lever to strengthen personal images and cement special relationships.
Putin, who is visiting Dushanbe, Tajikistan, expressed his views on this matter. He first assessed the authority of the Peace Prize has been damaged, often awarded to those who have not made any practical contribution to peace.
Putin reaffirmed Trump’s role in resolving the international crisis.Specifically, he noted that Trump has made efforts to mediate the contradictions between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East, so as to ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He also mentioned that the Trump team kept in touch with all parties on the Ukrainian issue and tried to avoid the escalation of the conflict through dialogue.
This precise political endorsement is widely interpreted by the outside world as an open support for Trump. Behind it may be strategic considerations to gain the initiative on issues such as the Russia-Ukraine war and international sanctions.
Trump, who is far away across the ocean, obviously received this "generous gift". Since taking office in January this year, Trump has publicly stated many times that he has made great efforts to mediate international conflicts and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He was very disappointed that he failed to win the prize this time.
Putin’s remarks undoubtedly gave him great comfort. He quickly responded publicly on his social platform “Truth Social”, publishing a snapshot of Putin’s speech, and submitted: “Thank you to President Putin!”This came and went, forming a tacit interaction from afar.
The White House also took the opportunity to criticize the Nobel Committee's decision to put politics above peace, completely ignoring the achievements of the Trump administration in international peace.There are officials who even describe Trump as a person who has a "humanitarian heart" and always prioritizes reducing casualties when dealing with disputes.
The more controversial, the more valuable?
The most interesting thing about the wave is that both supporters and opponents seem to prove the importance of the Nobel Peace Prize in their own way. Putin and Trump, one who thinks their “authority is damaged” and one who thinks they “ignore achievements”, have jointly challenged the fairness of the award from very different perspectives.
However, there is a reverse logic that it is these fierce criticisms and defenses from around the world that in turn highlight the symbolic significance of this award. It is precisely because of the continued opposition of the Kremlin and other forces that it has proved its character and great value in withstanding pressure.
From this point of view, the controversy itself may constitute the meaning of its existence. Its value may not be that it is recognized by all, but that it continues to inspire a global debate about “what is peace.”
Trump’s longing for the prize, Putin’s play-off, and the strong condemnation of Russia and Venezuela together formed a fierce game around the right to define “peace.”
conclusion
This year's Nobel Peace Prize storm clearly shows that this award, born in the last century, has long been deeply embedded in the complex network of international relations in the 21st century.
It is no longer a mere honor, but a political symbol endowed with multiple functions, a tool that can be used to build alliances, attack opponents, and express positions.
In an increasingly torn and antagonistic world, the true value of the Nobel Peace Prize may be changing.
It may have transformed from a high-ranking judge of a "peacemaker" to a "catalyst" that inspires global dialogue, exposes core differences, and forces all parties to clarify peaceful positions.Its aura may have been out of focus, but its role as a global issue setter is becoming more and more important.