Trending Now
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 }}
Marine Tondelier, of Les Ecologistes party, talks to journalists next to colleagues as they leave a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Dec. 10. They had met with the French president as part of consultations aimed at appointing a new prime minister.
Macron works to end France’s political deadlock
France finds itself unable to form a government and pass a budget because Macron called an election for July that empowered both right- and left-wing hardliners with no political bloc winning a majority. France has no prime minister at the moment because these hardliners ousted Michel Barnier – who held his post for just 90 days – in a no-confidence vote. That’s the shortest tenure for any PM in the history of France’s Fifth Republic, which began in 1958.
For now, France’s Green Party says it won’t join a “national interest” government. The Socialists insist they will only support a left-wing prime minister, a non-starter for conservatives.
Opinion: The world prepares its go bags
The abundance of volatility in the global system since at least the start of the pandemic has meant that we should expect more geopolitical risk rather than less. Now, in addition to multiple ongoing conflicts, a year of electoral instability, and pandemic hangovers, the return of Donald Trump as the US president injects further unpredictability into this landscape.
Already since his reelection, an unusual set of waves have crested. In South Korea – a key US ally – the declaration of martial law last week stunned the domestic and international audience. After widespread protests broke out, President Yoon Suk Yeol issued a quick (but not immediate) retraction with more fallout yet to come. Elsewhere, in France, Prime Minister Michel Barnier lost a no-confidence vote after parliamentary budget talks stalled. The measure reveals the fractures and radicalized forces that continue to plague one of Europe’s leading economies. And in Syria, Islamist militants turned Aleppo and Damascus into a hot zone once again – raising tensions in an already active neighborhood – before spectacularly overthrowing Bashar Assad’s government on Saturday.
Trump is, of course, not responsible for any of these developments. But the world is on edge. His posts in recent weeks on Truth Social have done little to assuage the anxieties and instead serve as kerosene to various burning fires. Trump roiled markets in late November when he announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on all products coming into the US from Mexico and Canada with an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The market remarkably found the news surprising despite Trump’s avowal throughout his 2024 election campaign that he would again rely on the tariff lever as president.
More recently, Trump posted to warn that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration there will be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” Trump’s commitment to “hit harder” those responsible at a historic level strikes a distinctly different tone than the one regional actors have become accustomed to with Joe Biden’s administration.
In response to the preexisting condition of volatility and the forthcoming infusion of Trumpredictability, the world is preparing “go bags” for the year(s) ahead. For both global political leaders and private sector firms, this preparation involves kicking the tires on current strategy, stress testing supply chains and sourcing, evaluating budget plans, and checking in with the man himself.
After Trump’s tariff threats, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew immediately to Mar-a-Lago to assess the damage. Inremarks afterward, Trudeau said it was an “excellent conversation” and that he “look[ed] forward to the work we can do together, again.” In his own posts, Trump said the two had discussed many important topics that would require the US and Canada to work together, including trade, illegal drugs, and energy. In the days that followed, Trump posted a photo of himself staring out at snow-capped mountains with the Canadian flag at his side – after jokingly saying the country could become America’s 51st state. It was a reminder to Trudeau that one dinner will not resolve everything.
European leaders, meanwhile, are debating a lot more defensive spending for the journey ahead. At early December meetings of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary-General Mark Rutte thanked Trump for getting NATO territory allies to the 2% defensive spend target, calling it the “Trump push.” Rutte went on to say that – and not just because of Trump – he now believes strongly the 2% is not enough for long-term deterrence. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock similarly called on NATO to make big investments in European security beyond the standard 2% defensive target.
In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has seemingly demonstrated a new willingness to consider negotiations as a Trump return looms. After repeatedly vowing to continue the fight, Zelensky indicated this week he would be open to Western troops deploying in Ukraine as a security guarantee and step toward NATO membership to halt the war with Russia. The shift comes as polls suggest that Ukrainians are increasingly inclined toward a negotiated solution, but also after months of Trump campaign pledges to swiftly drive settlement and end the war. With Assad’s toppling in Syria, having long been propped up by Russia, Putin will be recalculating his own ambitions in Ukraine in real time in the coming weeks.
Unsurprisingly, Trump is not immune to the effect he is having on global behavior. He launched a site to track the “Promises Kept,” which tallies “securing our border,” “working towards international peace,” and “propelling economic growth” among his pre-inauguration successes.
The world at the close of 2024 stands on the precipice, awaiting the impact that another Trump presidency will bring. Trump 2.0 will be all-encompassing. His administration will pursue policies that reshape the global economy and international trade patterns. It will target ongoing fault lines and new challengers. And there will be unpredictability. Global leaders of all stripes are counting on being kept on their toes. Some across Europe have even begun ramping up crisis capabilities for citizens with initiatives advising on stockpiling and bunker building. They have six weeks to pack their bags.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
French Prime Minister Michel Barnier reacts during the result of the vote on the first motion of no-confidence against the French government, in Paris, France, on Dec. 4, 2024.
Lawmakers vote to oust French government
Just three months ago, President Emmanuel Macron chose Barnier to lead the government after elections earlier this year empowered Macron’s critics on both the left and right, but without giving either side a working parliamentary majority.
On Monday, Barnier tried to break a bitter legislative deadlock over his proposed state budget, which proposes sharp state spending cuts, by using a constitutional provision to push his package through without a parliamentary vote. Barnier haswarned that France spends more to service its debt than on defense or higher education.
Lawmakers were then faced with a choice: Accept Barnier’s powerplay or vote no-confidence in his leadership. They chose to oust him and his budget, and France will now face weeks, perhaps months, of political uncertainty as lawmakers of the left and right fight for control of an institution that neither has enough votes to lead.
Some critics have suggested the only way out of this impasse is for twice-elected President Macron to resign, allowing for elections next year rather than in 2027 as currently scheduled. Macron, though deeply unpopular, has dismissed that idea as “make-believe politics.”
It appears Macron will ask Barnier to remain as prime minister until a replacement can be named, but it will be months before voters can return to the polls. New elections can’t be held within a year of the most recent vote, which took place in July. France’s polarized politics have now left its government unable to pass a budget. It’s unclear how this problem can be resolved.
What France's government collapse means for Macron and Europe
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Parma, Italy.
First question, obviously, is what's happening in France?
The Barnier government didn't last more than 57 days. It was brought down by the populists of the right and the populists of the left. And Barnier tried to do what needs to be done. Bring the French budget under control. They have a deficit of roughly 6% of GDP. That's double what is allowed under the European Union rules and they were headed to 7%. He had proposed a budget of tax cuts and expenditure cuts, take it down to 5%, which is too high anyhow, and brought down. So what will happen now? Well, Marine Le Pen would like to get rid of Macron. I think that's unlikely to happen in the short perspective anyhow. And Macron, the president, will have to find a new prime minister and a new government. That will take its time. And from the wider European perspective, of course, less than ideal. We have an extremely weak government in Germany heading for elections and likely to lose that particular election. We now have a situation where France doesn't have any functioning government either, and we have things happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
Second question, is there any way for the European Union and other Europeans to influence the course of events in Georgia?
Well, one would hope so, but I think prospects are not particularly good. We have an increasingly seemingly authoritarian, I would call it, government leaning towards some sort of, call it, Putin-esque regime, consolidating power using violence, have evidently falsified and rigged elections to a very large extent, and intending to stay in power. And now, we have a fairly significant popular opposition developing on the streets of not only Tbilisi, but several other Georgian cities. Will that result in violence? Will that result in some sort of accommodation? Will that result in it all being repressed? We don't know. EU will have to, and America as well, contemplate sanctions and other measures in a fairly short period of time in order to have any possibility of influencing the course of events. Otherwise, I fear the prospects are rather grim.
French Prime Minister Michel Barnier leaves following the weekly cabinet meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, on Nov. 27, 2024.
French government barrels toward a brick wall
To stop this bill from becoming law, lawmakers must call and pass a vote of no-confidence in government and, given the unpopularity of both Barnier and the bill with populist critics on both the left and right, that’s what next for France’s latest political meltdown. Facing near-universal condemnation from the left, Barnier has been relying on support from the right-wing populists of the Rassemblement Nationale. The party’s true leader, Marine Le Pen, made her party’s intention clear with a post on social media that accused Barnier of failing to listen to the 11 million voters who backed her party at the last election.
Expect Barnier’s government to collapse on Wednesday. It’s unclear how many weeks or months it will take to form the next French government and to produce a budget that can steady the nerves of investors who’ve become increasingly squeamish about France’s future.
Participants make their way past the Notre-Dame Cathedral as they attend the 13th edition of the stand up Nautic Paddle race on the river Seine in Paris, France, December 1, 2024.
Hard Numbers: Notre Dame’s stones gleam after cleaning, Trump threatens yuge tariffs, Iceland gets new gov, Vaccine promises AIDS end
42,000: Workers restoring Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral after the fire that ravaged it five years ago had to clean 42,000 square meters of stone. They used special techniques to minimize damage to the original masonry in the process and the results are stunning: See it for yourself: The medieval cathedral reopens to the public on Dec. 8.
100: President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to impose 100% tariffs on goods imported from BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, as well Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE), should the organization try to issue its own currency or displace the dollar’s place in world trade. It’s an odd threat, as some members – namely Russia and Iran – are already so heavily sanctioned that trade with the US is non-existent, while others – Brazil, Egypt, and the UAE – are major US allies.
15: Iceland’s Social Democrats gained 15 seats in the Althing – one of the world’s oldest parliaments – and will unseat the ruling conservatives after seven years of power following Saturday’s snap election. It’s yet another example of the anti-establishment trend few democracies seem able to escape in this election-studded year.
2: A twice-yearly vaccine against HIV/AIDS has proven 100% effective against contracting the virus, which a UN report for World AIDS Day on Sunday called a “historic crossroads” in the fight to end the epidemic. Generic versions of the drug will be available in 120 low-income countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, but the manufacturer has not approved generic patents for Latin America, which may represent a crucial weak spot in distribution.
Putin's strategy in Ukraine ahead of Trump's return
Putin has been warning them not to do that. They decided they were going to, the Russian response has been to formally change their nuclear doctrine so that they would be considered to be in a state of war legally against any country that allowed Ukraine to use their missiles against Russia. In other words, essentially, Russia is claiming that they're now at war with France, with the UK, with the United States. And also, the Russians used a medium range missile hypersonic nuclear capable directly against the Ukrainian target in Dnipro.
In other words, what we're seeing from Putin is, "I'm showing you what you're doing is moving towards World War III, and that's how I'm responding." Does that mean that Putin is actually escalating towards direct war with NATO allies? The answer to that is no. He wasn't doing that when he was losing the battle in Ukraine in the early months. He's certainly not doing it now that he's winning.
And he is winning. He has more troops on the front lines, including those from North Korea, those from Yemen, those that he's getting from other countries. Also, he's taking more territory on the ground in Ukraine at a faster pace now, more significant amounts of territory in Southeast Ukraine than at any point since the opening months of the war. Plus Trump is President-elect. Trump has said, "I want to end this war." And he is coming in just in a couple of months.
So what Putin is doing is not threatening World War III. He's instead showing off just how bad this Biden policy is, this existing NATO policy is. He's making it easier for Trump to pivot away and say, "I'm the peacemaker. We were heading towards World War III, this horrible escalation. I'm the guy that got the great deal done and look how brilliant I am." Putin is facilitating that.
Now, of course, to make that happen Trump still has to give Putin something that he wants. He has to give an outcome that is acceptable to Putin. And Putin's made clear, at least thus far, that he's not going to give up any territory that he has. That he's not prepared to accept that Ukraine would be able to join NATO. He's also said that Ukraine can't continue to have a functional armed forces which is something that would be completely unacceptable to Ukraine.
The devil's going to be in the details here. There clearly is an opportunity for Trump to end the war. He's promised he's going to end the war, and I think he can. I think he can create a ceasefire. The Ukrainian leadership has already made clear that they are supportive of ending the war, but they're not just going to listen. There has to be a back and forth conversation with the Americans. Seeing what it is that Trump is prepared to put forward, and whether or not the Russians are capable of accepting it, are willing to accept it. Even though it will look like a win for Russia compared to where they would've been under Biden, under Harris, or at any other point in the last couple of years.
Still, if you are Putin, there is an open question. You're taking land right now. The Ukrainians don't have the people to continue to put up a strong defense. Why wouldn't you delay this out for another three, another six months? Take more land. Try to get all the territory that you have formally annexed over the course of the war. Why not settle the war on your terms? A lot easier to do if you're winning than losing. And the question there will be to what extent Trump is willing to cause material punishment to Putin if he doesn't say yes.
And that's an open question. Trump historically has been willing to take easy wins that don't necessarily play well over the long term. Look at Afghanistan. He wanted to get the Americans out. He cut a deal with the Taliban. It was a deal that was clearly very advantageous from a military and from a governance perspective for the Taliban than it was for the United States. He cut that despite the fact that the allies were not supportive or coordinating. That undermined the US deeply. Biden then continued with that plan. And it was one of the biggest losses that the US has experienced over the last four years.
Now, that of course, was a loss that ultimately fell on Biden. This would be a loss that would ultimately fall on Trump. And so does he want to risk that? That's a very interesting question. And of course, you also have to look at Trump's staff because he can make a phone call with Zelensky and with Putin, but ultimately, it is the secretary of state, the national security advisor and others that are going to have to work out the details of that agreement. And those people, at least thus far, are not people that are oriented towards giving away the store to Putin. They're people-oriented towards mistrust of Putin, towards a hard line against the Russians, towards support of Ukraine.
I am thinking here that number one, there's a reasonably high chance that Trump can get the win that he wants, but number two, this isn't likely to be a walk in the park for the Russian president. The Europeans need to play here as well. And what will be important, there's been a few formulated conversations thus far between President-elect Trump and some of the European leaders.
They haven't gone very far, but they've also not blown up the bilateral relationships. Their ability to work with Trump advisors on Trump, and on a greater coordination of what an ultimate solution or settlement of the Russian-Ukraine war would be, will make a dramatic difference as to what extent this is sustainable. To what extent this leads to not only Ukraine that can continue to defend itself and the territory that it is left with, but also can integrate into Europe, can be politically successful as a democracy over time. And that NATO will stay strong and stay together and stay aligned with the United States because they don't have another choice. There is no autonomous European military capacity. It's either NATO sticks together or it fragments.
Those are all things that we're going to watch very carefully over the course of the next couple months. But for now, an escalatory period. And it's all performative and it's all oriented towards what happens when Trump becomes president. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Graphic Truth: BRICS economies eclipse the G7
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist coined an acronym for the four largest and most promising “emerging market” economies: Brazil, Russia, India, and China became known as the “BRIC” countries.
Five years later, reality imitated art when the countries decided to begin meeting regularly at “BRIC summits,” with the latest occurring in Kazan, Russia, this week. The subsequent inclusion of South Africa upgraded the “s” to a capital letter: the BRICS.
The group, which lacks formal treaties or binding obligations, has always been united more by what it opposes — US dominance of global financial systems — than by what it supports.
After all, it’s a hodgepodge: energy exporters (Brazil and Russia) and importers (China and India), democracies (India and Brazil) and non-democracies (China and Russia), allies (Russia ❤️China) and adversaries (India x China).
But the economic clout of the group is, on paper, formidable. With the addition of Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates this year, the BRICS+ economies account for 36% of global GDP – while the G7 group of wealthy democracies amount to just 29%. But, of course, there’s a catch: China and the US each contribute more than half of their respective group’s GDP.
Here’s a look at the economic size, and breakdown, of the BRICS+ and the G7 group it hopes one day to eclipse — not only economically but also geopolitically.