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 }}
UK’s new COVID strain problematic but economic pain is a greater risk
Ian Bremmer discusses the World In (more than) 60 Seconds:
Number one, what's the story with the new COVID strain in Britain?
Well, I mean, it's a mutation. Apparently, it is equally combatable by the vaccines that we've developed, and I've heard that directly by some of the people that are running those companies. So, it's not a concern about the ability that we have to stop the disease once we get vaccinations, thank God. But it is a problem in terms of how much more quickly the virus can be transmitted. Now, in the United Kingdom, they do an awful lot of testing, especially compared to many countries in Europe, and they have found an extensive amount of this new strain, which has led them to bring the UK into Tier 4, as they call it, which means basically Christmas is canceled. No one's going anywhere. Everything's locked down. That also has meant that a lot of countries have suspended travel to the United Kingdom, which I understand, but we've already seen some of this new strain in Italy, for example. I suspect it's going to pop up in a bunch of other countries in the continent. If it's everywhere, do you really want the additional pain economically?
Look, one thing I would say is that over the course of the next couple of months, as we see much more vaccinations, and we're going to, we've got 500,000 people vaccinated already in the United States which is a fantastic number, frankly, so quickly. These are the people that are most vulnerable. Mortality rates are going to go down significantly. As it does, there needs to be much more focus on the economic side of the equation. $600 in the pocket of the average American that is suffering on the back of all of these lockdowns is not adequate for them. And I think the new coronavirus task force under Biden should be doctors and epidemiologists, should also be economists and business leaders. You need a balance between both, and I am worried that especially as we do a better job, finally, in fighting the healthcare impact of this disease, we are not doing nearly an adequate job for the average American in fighting the economic consequences, and that is something we're going to live with for a very long time.
Okay, next question. Did Aleksei Navalny really prank his poisoner?
I don't know that I'd call it a prank in the sense that Navalny only could have died, but he did pretend to be the boss of this one Russian spy, got him on the phone, and was chewing him out with the fictitious name and say, "How was it that, Navalny, you didn't kill this guy?" And I'm sure at least psychologically it was good for Aleksei to feel like he was able to do that and get it out there. And apparently, they put this agent, this chemical agent inside the seams of Navalny's boxer shorts. I mean, I didn't need to know what kind of briefs Navalny wears personally, but now it's all out there. He wore them, it got into his body. He immediately fell very ill. Apparently when the Russians provided his body, they allowed it to fly to Germany, all the clothing was of course not there because that's evidence. And now he's trying to get that clothing. And I'm fairly certain that that clothing no longer is gettable. But does Putin care? Probably not. Navalny's considered a pest, but also, if Putin really wanted Navalny dead, Navalny would be dead by now. I think that's also pretty clear. Putin likes to show that he can play a cat and mouse game with these dissidents, that he is so much more powerful than them. I feel fairly confident that if there were more significant threats to Putin's power, the level of direct repressive measures against a lot of these people would be even greater. It's not as if Putin has any respect for human life in this context, a very depressing thing.
Did you see the Christmas Star?
I actually did. This is Jupiter and Saturn coming as close together as they've ever been since the 1600s, apparently 1623. Galileo's time. And you look out and it was right after sunset. And even in a city like New York with all the ambient light, you could actually see this very bright, two planets kind of look like stars, right? Because how the hell would we know, right where the sun had set for a couple of hours? And I mean, it was nice. It didn't excite me, but I thought it was kind of a cool thing. Interestingly, everyone talks about how it's the first time since 1623, but the astronomers are saying that back in 1623, they were too close to the position of the sun so no one could have seen it. It's like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? Does it matter? And the answer is, well, yeah, maybe, but it's not as exciting as if the humans can put it in context, document it, has experience for us. And that's important because this does happen every few hundred years. In fact, it happened back in the early 1200s when people could see it. And then, that was the time of Genghis Khan. And that was the kind of world that we have today, more GZERO, more kind of like mass destruction, and we don't care about people. And it just feels more appropriate generally that the last time we've had this kind of a convergence of the two largest planets in the solar system... People saying Jupiter and Saturn, but they're the two largest planets. It's like the United States and China, but on a solar system kind of scale, right? I'm just going to stop right now because I clearly know nothing useful about astronomy, but you asked this question and so I'm giving you what I have.
Leading health journalist Laurie Garrett on COVID lessons learned from Japan
When it comes to preparedness for this global crisis, Japan had a key advantage—a universal healthcare system that provides medical attention to all at no or low cost to the patient. But there were other cultural and institutional factors at play, as Pulitzer Prize-winning health journalist Laurie Garrett explains. The video is part of a limited "Japan in 60 Seconds" series produced in partnership with the Consulate General of Japan.
This video is sponsored by the Consulate General of Japan.
Biden's controversial Defense pick may need bipartisan support
Jon Lieber, Managing Director of the United States for the Eurasia Group, shares his insights on US politics this week:
First question. Why is Biden's nomination of Lloyd Austin for Secretary of Defense controversial?
It's controversial because Austin has not been out of the military for the required seven years that are needed, under the National Security Act of 1947, to ensure civilian control over the Department of Defense. As a result, he'll need a waiver from Congress in order to serve. This would be the second waiver that Congress has approved in the last four years with the first one coming for Trump's Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis. That was justified at the time because Congress was a little concerned about President Trump and really wanted somebody with a steady hand like Mattis on the till. But Biden has other options, including Michele Flournoy, who has a lot of supporters in Capitol Hill. And so, you're seeing some Democrats suggest they may not be willing to give a waiver this time. Austin may require a lot of Republican votes in order to get confirmed.
Second question. Any update with the new stimulus package?
I wish. This has been going on now for six months. There's been very little progress made. What seemed like a compromise of about a $900 billion stimulus where bipartisan members from both chambers of Congress rallied around that was then mostly embraced by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has been basically rejected by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who are kind of circling around each other trying to get a deal right now and not coming to any conclusion. Time is running short. Congress is supposed to adjourn for Christmas on December 18th. They could potentially come back after Christmas to finish a deal if they don't have one in hand by then. But unemployment insurance starts running out at the end of the month and time's getting really short for Congress to act here.
Barrett hearing reflects Supreme Court polarization; predicting US voter turnout
Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, offers insights on the latest in US politics:
What has been most revealing to you about the Amy Coney Barrett hearing so far?
Well, what was interesting about them to me was how nakedly political they are. Normally, you have at least the pretense of probing the justice's judicial philosophy, trying to figure out where they stand relative on the political spectrum. But here, you know, the Republicans know they have a vote, so it's largely been cheerleading. And the Democrats have been running what looks like a political campaign, asking questions about the Affordable Care Act, bringing up constituent stories of people who are going to be affected should the Supreme Court knock it down in a way that just is really unusual for Supreme Court. I think that just reflects the polarization of the court and political polarization more generally.
Will we get a COVID stimulus bill before the election?
Probably not. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to talk to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. They seem to be aligned and wanting to get a deal. Although Pelosi has no political incentive to do so, and Mnuchin very likely doesn't have the votes to pass as large of a deal as they're going to try to cut in the US senate because of opposition from conservative Republicans. So, I would be really surprised if this thing went anywhere.
What do you predict voter turnout will be in this election when all is said and done?
Turn out in this election is going to blow the doors off the previous records. 139 million people voted in 2016. 113 million voted in 2018, which was a record for a midterm election. You already have about 16% of the 2016 level ballots coming back already through early voting. States are expanding access to early voting. They're expanding access to mail voting. A state like California, which has a huge population, is sending out ballots to every voter automatically. You saw massive surges in turnout in the primaries and there's more ways to vote now than ever. Plus, you're going to have fewer rejected ballots because states are extending the deadlines in which mail ballots can be accepted. So, this is a big election. Pollsters are hearing that Americans have a high level of interest in this election. I think it could approach 150 million Americans and potentially even more.
Why Trump won't debate Biden or make a decision on stimulus
Jon Lieber, Managing Director of the United States for the Eurasia Group, shares his insights on US politics this week:
Why wouldn't the president want to debate Joe Biden?
Well, I think the president does want to debate Joe Biden, but he wants to do it on his terms. He wants an in-person debate where he can try to dominate and overwhelm Biden and push him into having what looks like a senior moment, to help make the case that Joe Biden is too old to hold office. The Commission on Presidential Debates has offered a virtual debate where they can mute Trump's microphone and that's the format just doesn't really work for him. So, probably this debate is canceled. We'll see what happens with the third.
Stimulus talks are on again and they're off again and they're back on again. What's happening?
It's really unclear what's happening on Capitol Hill right now. And the reason is the president of the United States keep changing his mind. He originally told his negotiators earlier in the week to pull out of negotiations because it was very clear that Nancy Pelosi's $2.2 trillion bill wasn't going to have the votes to pass the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is mostly concerned about confirming a sixth conservative justice of the Supreme Court at the end of this term but would be happy to let a stimulus go through if the votes were there. And it's unclear if Steve Mnuchin, the president's negotiator, can find the votes for the kind of deal of a size that Pelosi wants to do. The final thing here is that I'm not sure Pelosi wants to give the president a win in the final weeks before the election, but if she does, it's going to be really close to her starting number, which is the $2.2 trillion bill the House has already passed.
Why won't the polls miss as much as they did in 2016?
Well, they might. Polling error in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania average about five points in 2016. So, if you missed by that much right now, if the election were held today, that still wouldn't be enough to help Donald Trump win this election, where he trails in those states by as many as seven points and he trails nationally by nine points. This is a much larger lead for Joe Biden than you saw at this point in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. So, the race tightened a lot in the last couple of weeks. A lot of undecided voters broke for Trump in the last week of the campaign, and that could happen this time around. But it seems like polling error may not be a big part of the story with Biden's margin being this big.
Thanks for watching. This has been US Politics In over 60 Seconds.
Interview with ECB's Christine Lagarde, behind Europe’s united economic COVID response
In an extended interview with GZERO World, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde joins Ian Bremmer to explain how European nations were able to overcome political divisions and act quickly to prevent an all-out economic catastrophe on the continent.
How Europe mounted a united economic response to the pandemic
Ian Bremmer looks at how 27 nations in the European Union were able to put aside decades of inter-continental grievances and come together to aggressively and almost immediately respond to the economic toll wrought by the coronavirus. One person, in particular, played an outsize role in bringing about that unlikely outcome: Christine Lagarde.
Watch the episode: Christine Lagarde, Leading Europe's United Economic Pandemic Response
Unity against COVID: Economic relief & success of the EU’s pandemic response (so far)
How was it that after decades of infighting, European nations were able to come together so quickly on an economic pandemic relief package? "I'm tempted to say because of COVID-19…because the triggering factor for the crisis was not the banks…not the bad behavior of some policy-makers somewhere in the region. It was actually this teeny tiny little virus..." European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde tells Ian Bremmer how a microscopic virus spurred the greatest show of international unity in years.
Watch the episode: Christine Lagarde, Leading Europe's United Economic Pandemic Response