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.
{{ subpage.title }}
NATO summit, the future of US-China, Elon vs. Zuck, and more: Your questions, answered
It's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which means: you get to ask me anything.
That's right — it's the time of the year when I take your best questions on anything politics, geopolitics, and personal. Want to know what I think about the 2024 US elections? The war in Ukraine? The meaning of life? Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn and look out for future AMAs if you want a chance at getting your question answered.
I picked 10 questions this time. Some of them have been slightly edited for clarity.
What do you make of the NATO Summit outcomes? (Sophia Müller)
The big news was Turkey's President Recept Tayyip Erdogan finally agreeing to let Sweden into the alliance. It was going to happen eventually, but it’s a nice surprise for the US and NATO members that it happened now. Much less surprising (aka not at all) is that Ukraine’s NATO accession keeps getting pushed off into the indeterminate future. While military support for Ukraine will keep expanding week in and week out, core NATO members (especially the US and Germany) have no intention of getting automatically dragged into a direct fight with Russia. They’re perfectly happy fighting a proxy war, but they don’t want to risk a World War III that puts their own troops in harm’s way. That’s the same reason why the Americans refuse to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Not everyone agrees, of course: the Poles, the Balts, the Finns, and even the French (of late) want immediate membership. That said, the other thing the summit showed is that NATO only keeps getting stronger. Members are overall very well aligned, and the alliance has become critical to their national security — not just in the North Atlantic but everywhere (watch your step, Beijing). I guess Russia starting a land war in Europe will do that...
Was it the right call for the US to approve cluster munitions for Ukraine? (Chloe Li)
On balance, I say no. There’s a reason why these weapons are banned (though neither the US, Russia, nor Ukraine are signatories to the ban): they are brutally dangerous to civilians for many years after they’ve been used. Yes, the Russians have been using them throughout the war, but that doesn’t mean we should want more of them in the fight. Now, I understand why Biden is doing this. The US and its allies are running very low on artillery ammunition, which the Ukrainians need much more of to take back and defend their territory. But the US has plenty of cluster munitions, which would actually be pretty useful on the battleground for Ukraine. And Biden wants to do everything he can to help ensure the Ukrainian counteroffensive is successful. Be that as it may, the US dragging itself down to the level the Russians have been fighting on is ultimately detrimental to core American interests and our moral standing.
With some level of Putin opposition building in Russia, what are the chances of Putin being unseated? (Jeff Muchow)
The odds of Putin being unseated are zero … until right after it happens. In other words, if it happens, it’s likely to be sudden and with no external signaling or foreknowledge. The downside of taking Putin on for any Russian citizen and their family/loved ones remains absolute if they fail. And we haven’t seen any grassroots demonstrations or major defections. The Wagner “coup” was unprecedented, but it had no immediate impact on Russia’s status quo. Clearly, though, there’s lots more pressure now that Prigozhin openly challenged him and lived to see another day (for now). Deeper, systemic, and potentially existential fault lines in the system have been exposed – and they can’t be un-exposed. The war in Ukraine has gone terribly for Russia’s military, and a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive could make this even more evident. Elite fracture, especially within the national security complex, is much more likely in an environment where Russia’s strongman no longer looks so … strong. A successful challenge to Putin’s rule is still a tail risk, but whereas a month ago it seemed unthinkable, today it’s considerably more plausible.
Why is Gavin Newsom not running for president? (Ade of Nigeria)
Nobody serious is prepared to challenge Biden if the incumbent president decides he wants to run (as he has), even though most Democratic leaders I know privately tell me they would rather he didn’t run again. While Biden’s age is a massive liability, he is the incumbent president and has the full support of his party’s establishment, so he’d have the overwhelming advantage in a contested primary (not to mention that he has reformed the primary calendar in his favor). Most Democratic voters and elites correctly recognize that Biden, a known quantity with proven electability and a 1-0 record against Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, is their best chance of keeping the White House. No one else in the field can boast about that.
Do you still believe that the US is the best country to live in the world? (Mahadi Hasan)
For me personally, absolutely. I’m never going to move. But that answer is dependent on so many factors. There are lots of countries that the US could (and should) learn from to improve our quality of life and well-being: most every advanced democracy on keeping money out of politics, Canada on reasonable gun control, the Nordics on health care and primary education, and the list goes on and on. But all these countries can also learn things from the United States — especially on how to integrate immigrants, entrepreneurship, and fostering a culture of risk-taking, invention, and innovation. There’s a reason why people from all over the world want to move to America despite its many flaws ...
Where’s the US-China relationship heading? (Brian Li)
Right now, in a negative direction. Despite ongoing (and moderately successful) efforts by both sides to improve high-level diplomacy, the relationship itself isn’t improving … and it’s unlikely to in the near future. There’s a floor under it, but it’s being tested by challenging domestic politics and an increasing misalignment between economics and national security. The strong economic interdependence between the two countries will remain for the foreseeable future, even as it’s progressively eroded by “derisking” on both sides. But in an environment of zero trust and no high-level military-to-military dialogue, the potential for “accidents” will continue to grow. And the more the two economies decouple, the higher the odds of direct conflict – most likely over Taiwan, as the hotspot where the underlying status quo is most quickly changing.
Do you still believe we’re in a G-Zero world? (@KaroshiProspect)
Yes, sadly. Global institutions are still not aligned with the underlying balance of power. But as I explained in my recent TED Talk, I also think we are quickly moving away from this leaderless G-Zero world and toward a world with three different global orders: a multipolar economic order, a unipolar security order, and a digital order whose balance of power is still to be determined.
When people talk about geopolitical risks, it's always implicitly downside risks. But what are some of your top *upside* risk scenarios over the next 1, 5, and 20 years? (Alex Holmes)
My answer’s the same for all time horizons: AI being used to massively improve education, health, climate, and, heck, every field of science. I’ve never been more excited about the upside potential of humanity than I am by the promise of AI. (Simultaneously, I’ve never been more concerned about the tail risks that we’re not going to be around for long). Yay, us!
Is your money on Elon or Zuck if they throw down in the octagon together? (Joshua Morganstern)
This fight is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard in a long time – and the bar is high. Having said that, if there’s anyone who should be in a cage match, it’s probably two men who think Ayn Rand is high literature ... I expect that if they go through it (big if), they’ll probably play-fight for two or three rounds before they announce a tie or some such BS.
What’s your beef with cats? (@freeulysses_tj)
It’s unclear whether they have any use for people.
The Graphic Truth: Who bans cluster bombs?
The Biden administration recently made waves after agreeing to provide Ukraine with cluster munitions. That put the US at odds with key allies, like the UK, that disapprove of the move.
But what are cluster bombs, and why are they so contentious?
The explosives are versatile: They can be dropped from the air or fired from the ground or sea. Crucially, they might contain hundreds of smaller weapons — known as bomblets — that can be activated mid-air or on the ground. The combined fuze of these submunitions can cover an area the size of several football fields.
Cluster bombs are particularly contentious because some submunitions fail to explode. When they land on the ground, they become like landmines that are extremely dangerous for civilians — particularly children who might pick them up.
Because of the breadth and unpredictability of these weapons, since 2008 more than 100 countries have signed the UN Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the use, stockpiling, and production of these arms. Still, neither the US, Russia, nor Ukraine are signatories to the treaty, and the weapons have already been used by both sides during the ongoing war.
We take a look at which countries have ratified the treaty (they are legally bound by it), only signed on (showed an intention to comply with its terms), and those that have rejected it altogether.
Biden attends NATO Summit
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a happy Monday to you. A Quick Take to kick off your week.
And this week the big news is coming from NATO, the summit that will start within a day in Vilnius. Heads of state from all the key NATO countries, including of course President Biden. And the big topic will be Ukraine. Not the only one big question about Sweden, whether or not they're joining NATO or not. Erdogan can always decide to change his mind and cut a deal at the last minute. But the big news is what's going to happen with Ukraine, with continued military support for Ukraine that we still see expanding pretty much every week. And all, both in terms of the amount and also the types of armaments, and I'll get into that in a moment. And also as to where we stand on NATO membership and a pathway to that for Ukraine itself. Erdogan interestingly very strongly supporting Ukraine to get into NATO, also providing directly some Asov battalion leaders to the Ukrainians that, you know, he had told the Russians he wasn't going to do. This is a couple of indicators and there are many that the grain deal between the Ukrainians, the West and the Russians is not going to get extended in another week's time. Erdogan was critical to that deal. That relationship with Russia is getting more brittle by the day. At the same time, Ukraine is not about to get an immediate pathway into NATO, and Biden made that clear with my friend Fareed Zakaria. Over the weekend, Biden's perspective is, "Hey, we're fighting a war in Ukraine by proxy. We're giving all of the equipment, all the weapons, but we don't want the Americans directly fighting on the ground."
Don't want, a no fly zone with, you know, American fighter pilots defending Ukraine directly. That would both risk a direct war with the Russians, essentially, World War III is what we're talking about. And it's also just unacceptable. The Americans and other NATO allies don't want their own troops directly in harm's way. They're happy to fight a proxy war. They're not happy to fight directly. And that is not a unified position, by the way, the Polish government, the Balts, the Fins now a part of NATO increasingly willing to say, "Yes, we should be giving Ukraine membership now. And that doesn't mean we have to deploy Article 5, everybody knows we're not going to be fighting directly, but they need that security umbrella going forward. It's the only way that we can guarantee that the Russians won't invade again."
And by the way, Macron, who in the early days, the French president, of the war thought that was entirely too provocative, has flipped his view. And now in terms of NATO is aligned with the Poles and the Balts, which is very interesting, while the Americans, I think, are still closer to the German position. Be that as it may, there's an enormous amount of support that the West is providing to Ukraine militarily, the US is leading it. And I think what we are moving towards are multilateral guarantees. In other words that NATO collectively would be prepared to provide commitments to Ukraine, that going forward, they will continue to ensure that Ukrainian troops are trained, are equipped. Intelligence is provided. In other words that there are treaty obligations to Ukraine to help them defend themselves very effectively. That prevents the Russians from believing they get another bite of that apple, that they can wait NATO out, and that eventually Russia will be able to accomplish militarily what they've not been able to accomplish in the first 500 plus days of this war.
The other big thing that's being debated are the cluster munitions that are now going to be provided by the United States. They are not a signatory, of the ban of cluster munitions. And these things are banned because they are so brutally dangerous to civilians. A lot of those bomb pieces that are then on the ground and can sit around for a long time until, you know, civilian inadvertently months, years later walks, trips over it, it acts like a landmine, a kid curious picks it up, maims or kills the kid. I mean, anyone that has seen these cluster munitions in operation, and I know a lot of people that have been involved in NGOs that have tried to help clean them up in places in war zones they've been used, understands just how brutally dehumanizing these weapons are.
So, no, you absolutely don't want them in the fight. Having said that, the Russians aren't signatories. The Ukrainians aren't signatories, and the Russians have been using these weapons all the way through the war. So it's not with the fact that the Kremlin has come out and they said, how dare the Americans provide cluster munitions is just yet another point of massive hypocrisy of the war crimes that the Russians have committed. Now, I understand why Biden is doing this. The Americans are very very low on ammunition all in and want to give the Ukrainians everything they can to help ensure that the counteroffensive is successful. So far, the last couple months, very little land, Ukrainian land has been retaken by the Ukrainians, even as they have initiated this counteroffensive. Part of that reason, not all of it, part of that reason is because they lack ammunition. Part of it is they don't have any air defenses that are effective, any air cover in the region. And so as the Ukrainians take more land, they'll have a hard time defending those soldiers that'll be exposed. But be that as it may, you know, there is a question that the Ukrainians are not in the same position as NATO, you know, the Biden administration is saying, "we're going to defend Ukrainians as long as it takes that the Ukrainians are in charge of these negotiations." It makes one think that the Ukrainians are basically an American core national interest. The reality is that NATO is a core American national interest. The United States is a core national interest and long-term fighting and long-term security, long-term American ability to ensure that its values are promoted globally does mean that you don't want to be dragging yourself down to the same brutal fighting that the Russians are doing.
This has gotten the Americans in trouble in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Gotten Americans in trouble in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib. And so if I were Biden, would I approve these weapon systems for the Ukrainians? It would be very hard after many months of, you know, sort of thinking about it, maybe I would, but maybe that's why I'm not Biden. I mean, look, I'm never going to be elected president, but also is, I never would be interested in serving in a position like that, in part because the Americans do not have the same level of moral authority on the global stage that say, Canada does or Germany does, or Japan does. And you know, let's keep in mind, Japan and Germany, we're talking about countries that were involved in fighting World War II and actually being the initiators of World War II with massive brutality, but also systems that recognized that what they did was fundamentally inhumane and brutal and needed to be never repeated. And therefore the institutions had to grow and learn and become more morally accountable to their own people and globally. And I fear that the United States does not have that level of lesson taking from so many of its mistakes over the past several generations, you know, from Vietnam and from some of the others that I've just mentioned. And in that regard, even as it makes it harder for the Ukrainians to take additional territory in the counteroffensive, I would be a "no", on these cluster munitions. But I think it's a good place to debate and I'm more than happy to have that debate publicly over the coming weeks and months.
That's it for me. I hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.