We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Europe
On GZERO World, David Sanger, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist and author of "New Cold Wars," argues that while China seeks to become the top global power by 2049, Russia, lacking such aspirations, acts as a disruptor on the international stage. Sanger also notes how both countries have an interest in fueling instability in the U.S., amplifying chaos to distract American focus from their strategic ambitions. He tells Ian Bremmer, "China wants to be the top dog by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution and of Mao declaring the state. And they want to be the top dog of something worth being the top dog of. The Russians have no hope for that. So their only source of power is as a disruptor, and that's the friction between these two that may come into play."
Sanger also argues that both Russia AND China have an interest in sowing internal discord in the United States. "They have every incentive, both of them, Russia and China, to be subtle actors in the background of this coming presidential election. And that's one area where if they are not cooperating, it would pay them off considerably to coordinate."
Watch Ian Bremmer's full interview with David Sanger on GZERO World - Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Are we on the brink of a new cold war? ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger ›
- What China and Russia share ›
- Trump: I would encourage Russia to attack 'delinquent' NATO allies ›
- The threat of foreign interference to the US election ›
- Who would Putin vote for? ›
- It’s election interference season — always ›
FILE PHOTO: A view shows parts of an unidentified missile, which Ukrainian authorities believe to be made in North Korea and was used in a strike in Kharkiv earlier this week, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv, Ukraine January 6, 2024.
The United Nations found evidence that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv with a North Korean Hwaseong-11 missile in January, according to a new report. The US and allies have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells to Russia, but this is the first concrete evidence that Pyongyang has sent more advanced weapons.
Not that the Hwaseong-11 is all that advanced. It’s a knock-off of the Soviet OTR-21, which debuted in the 1970s and has a range of under 200 miles. But it shows how little heed Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un pays to the sanctions the UN has levied against him for his ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
Speaking of, Russia vetoed the annual renewal of UN sanctions monitors overseeing North Korea just last month for the first time in 15 years. We’re watching for more signs that Moscow is using its diplomatic heft to help out the Hermit Kingdom, as well as deepening relations between Pyongyang and Tehran, Russia’s other increasingly important ally.American parents are more than four times as likely as their peers in Estonia to lose a baby during or shortly after birth. It is one of the most devastating human experiences – and a key indicator of a country’s development. After all, if even the most vulnerable babies survive, the healthcare system must be doing something right. By that metric, the US looks more like Chile or Slovakia than the global superpower it is.
And it’s not just babies who are more at risk in the US. A study from the Commonwealth Foundation found that American mothers are twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth than their Canadian peers, and more than 10 times as likely as women in New Zealand.
Part of the problem comes down to a shortage of care for expectant mothers. The US has about 15 gynecologists per 1,000 live births, compared to 54 in the UK and 78 in Sweden. That means less attentive care during and after pregnancy, which can lead to early warnings going overlooked.
David Sanger, Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times journalist and author of "New Cold Wars," discusses the evolving relationship between China and Russia, highlighting its asymmetry and significance in today's geopolitical landscape. He points out how much the tables have turned. During the Cold War of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union was the dominant power when it came to its relationship with China. Decades later, it's clear that China holds the upper hand. "China holds more cards than the Russians do," Sanger tells Ian Bremmer. Not only that, Russia's Vladimir Putin needs China's Xi Jinping by his side in order to prevail in his war with Ukraine. "He [Putin] needs that Chinese technology desperately... He does not have a choice except to deal with the Chinese on Chinese terms right now."
And what does that mean for China's interests when it comes to the United States? "If you're Xi," Sanger says, "the two best things that can happen to you is that the US is tied up in Ukraine or ripping itself apart about the aid and consumed again in the Middle East." And at least in that respect, Xi seems to be getting everything he wants.
Watch Ian Bremmer's full interview with David Sanger on GZERO World - Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger ›
- The limits of a China-Russia partnership ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Xi’s “peace” plan for Ukraine: China “wins” ›
- Russia & China vs “the West” ›
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. US Secretary of State Tony Blinken in the Middle East right now. But he just came from China, Beijing and Shanghai, and the US-China relationship is what I'm thinking about. Want to give you a state of play.
It continues to be better managed and more stable than we've seen in a long time. Now, not clear that would necessarily be the case, given the number of issues and places where we have friction between these two countries. Just over the course of the last couple weeks, you've got President Biden, putting new tariffs on Chinese steel, opening a new investigation into Chinese shipbuilding. You've got this anti TikTok policy that's coming down from US Congress. You've got $2 billion in additional military aid for Taiwan from the United States. You've also got lots of criticism from the Americans on ongoing Chinese support, dual use technologies for the Russians, allowing them to better fight the war in Ukraine.
Given all of that, is the relationship starting to become much more confrontational? And the answer is not really. It's true that the Chinese foreign minister said that the Americans need to choose between having a relationship of containment and a relationship of partnership, and it's certainly true that the Americans would rather have it both ways. They want to have partnership in areas where it suits the Americans, and containment in areas where it suits the Americans. The Americans getting away with more than that than other countries can because the US is the most powerful country in the world and ultimately the Chinese need Americans more than Americans need China. Still, there's a lot of interdependence, and there is an ability to push back. How much is China actually doing that? And the answer is there's been very little direct Chinese tit for tat, despite all of the policies I just mentioned. It is true that overnight, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that there would be resolute and forceful measures if the supplemental support for Taiwan, which is a red line for the Chinese, is signed and Taiwanese assistance from the US moves ahead, and I suspect that means we're going to see some more sanctions from China against US defense contractors.
That is largely symbolic. It is a tit for tat. But on all the other policies I've mentioned that the Americans have just brought against China, we've seen Chinese focus on making their country and their economy more resilient against American efforts to contain, but not hitting the Americans back, not calibrated, moves of sanctions or reciprocal investigations. In fact, the Chinese have been pretty stable.
Also. We saw that Xi Jinping still met with Secretary of State Blinken directly, a meeting that would be very easy for the Chinese government to take down, and historically certainly wouldn't have been present if there had been a lot of tension in the relationship. They chose not to do that. And in fact, Blinken went to a record store, you know, he plays guitar and sings, and he's into music. And the coverage from the Chinese state media of that trip was very humanizing, was very friendly, frankly, better coverage of a US secretary of state than I've seen at any point since Xi Jinping has been in power. That's something it's very easy for the Chinese government to put their thumb on the scale if they want to show that they're unhappy with where the US relationship is. I think about Obama and the town hall, that he wanted to put together and the Chinese unwilling to give him the kind of coverage that the Americans at the time had wanted. You know, this is a lesser official from the US and is still getting, frankly, tremendous treatment from the Chinese government. I think that matters a lot.
Having said all of that, this is a relationship that is becoming more challenging to manage. And that's true because in the United States, whether you're Democrat or Republican, one of the very few things you can agree on in foreign policy is that there is a benefit in going after China. So the policy from the US is not just about Biden making decisions himself, but it's also about members of Congress. It's about governors. It's about the media. All of whom are taking their own shots. And they're not coordinated. Where from China, if Xi Jinping wants it, everyone basically rose in the same direction. Now, there are lots of American corporations and banks that are sending their CEOs, making trips with China right now. And there's much more people to people engagement between the two countries, something that Chinese officials are strongly focused on.
There's a lot more communication and cooperation on things like climate, as well as in response to America's fentanyl crisis, where the Chinese are shutting down the labs, the companies that have been exporting the precursor chemicals. Those things matter. They are engaged. There's also a lot of willingness of the United States, at the highest level, to provide more information to China, just on what the Americans are seeing happening around a confrontation in the Middle East that China would like to see a cease-fire for, so would the Americans at this point. And also, the Chinese don't have a lot of high level diplomats and a lot of ability to collect information that the Americans do. And when high level Americans are talking to their Chinese counterparts about the Middle East, the Chinese are very much in taking notes mode and appreciating that they're getting that information from the US.
So overall, I continue to see a lot of high level engagement that is very constructive. But coming against a relationship that has virtually no trust and where the baseline of conflict is going to pop up in a lot of different ways and a lot of different places around the world. Over time it's going to be harder to maintain that stable floor on US-China relations. But for now, I think we're likely to continue to see it, at least until elections in November.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez gives a statement to annonunce he will stay on as Prime Minister after weighing his exit from the Spanish government, at Moncloa palace in Madrid, Spain April 29, 2024.
After nearly a week of uncertainty, Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish prime minister, announced he would remain the country’s leader. Last Wednesday, he threatened to leave the position because of what he termed a “harassment and bullying operation” being waged against him and his wife by political and media enemies.
The move came hours after a Madrid court opened an investigation into his wife, Begoña Gómez, for influence peddling and corruption. The trial was brought by Manos Limpias, a self-styled trade union with far-right links, who accused Gómez of using her influence to secure sponsors for a university master’s degree course she runs. Madrid's public prosecutor asked Thursday that the case against her be closed.
Sánchez’s threat to resign spurred demonstrations around Spain over the weekend calling for him to stay put. More than 10,000 people gathered in front of the Socialist Party’s headquarters in Madrid in a show of support.
Sánchez attributed his decision to stay to this weekend’s mobilizations, and he has called for Spaniards to rise above “the global reactionary movement that wants to impose its retrograde agenda through defamation and falsehoods.”
First Minister Humza Yousaf and his wife Nadia El-Nakla leaving Bute House, the official residence of First Minister, after he announced that he will resign as SNP leader and Scotland's First Minister, avoiding having to face a no confidence vote in his leadership. Mr Yousaf's premiership has been hanging by a thread since he ended the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens last week. Picture date: Monday April 29, 2024
On Monday, Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, announced he would resign following a controversial move last week to end the SNP’s power-sharing agreement with the Scottish Green Party. Once Yousaf’sresignation is formalized, Scotland will need a new first minister within 28 days.
In the coming days, it will become clear whether SNP officials can settle on a consensus party leader to engineer a hoped-for political comeback ahead of national polls or whether they will have to hold a leadership contest.
Yousaf’s resignation is just the latest sign ofturmoil within the party that has dominated Scotland’s politics for the past decade. Yousaf became first minister 13 months ago following a scandal that led to the arrest of former party leader Nicola Sturgeon.
Across Britain, this move will further boostBritain’s Labour Party, which looks poised to reclaim its place as the first party of Scotland, adding to the seats in parliament it’s likely to win in national elections expected later this year. The Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 amid hopes in London that a devolution of more decision-making power to Scotland would help ease demand for its independence from the UK.Latest
UN: North Korean missiles were used in Ukraine
Graphic Truth: Infant mortality in the OECD
Putin needs Xi to win the war in Ukraine
Spain’s prime minister isn’t going anywhere
Turmoil in Scotland as first minister resigns
