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 }}
50 Years on, have we learned the Vietnam War's lessons?
Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies—and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to becoming a regional economic powerhouse.
For North Vietnam, the war was a hard-fought victory for independence; for South Vietnamese refugees, it marked a heartbreaking loss of homeland. For the United States, it was a national trauma and a cautionary tale about military overreach and unclear objectives. But beyond the battlefield, the country’s postwar path tells a remarkable story of recovery.
After years of economic stagnation and international isolation—including a costly occupation of Cambodia and reliance on a crumbling Soviet Union—Vietnam had little choice but to pivot. The collapse of the USSR forced the country to look elsewhere, and by the late 1990s, it began opening its economy to the West. With the normalization of ties under President Clinton, Vietnam entered a period of rapid economic growth, joining the WTO and becoming a major global exporter, particularly in manufacturing.
Today, Vietnam plays a careful geopolitical balancing act, especially as tensions rise between the US and China. When President Trump slapped sweeping tariffs on Vietnamese goods in April—only to pause them 90 days later—Chinese President Xi Jinping seized the moment to deepen ties with Hanoi. Now, Vietnam must decide whether Trump’s aggressive trade policy will push it further into China’s orbit, a reversal of centuries of resistance to Chinese influence.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Trump’s 4D checkers, China’s opportunity, climate hopes, and more: Your questions, answered
Welcome to another edition of my mailbag, where I attempt to make sense of our increasingly chaotic world, one reader question at a time. If you have a burning question for me before I go back to full-length columns, ask it here and I’ll answer as many as I can in next week’s newsletter.
Let’s dive in (with questions lightly edited for clarity).
Is the US currently a kleptocracy?
The United States is the most structurally kleptocratic of any advanced industrial democracy, with public policy increasingly captured by monied special interests and the rules of the marketplace determined by the highest bidder. The wealthiest Americans not only can fund political campaigns but also buy favorable regulatory and legal treatment and lobby for policies that perpetuate their economic interests. This system is two-tiered alright, but it doesn’t see red and blue – only green.
President Donald Trump is a beneficiary and an accelerant of this disease, but it long predates him. Which is why Trump faced so little pushback from the business world both times he was elected. After all, a system where the connected can buy their preferred policy outcomes is a system much of the private sector is both used to and comfortable with.
Has Trump done to brand USA what Musk did to Tesla?
He’s working on it. The long-term damage to America’s reputational capital has been incalculable (though it hasn’t been as great as the >50% in value Tesla has lost since its mid-December peak). Sometimes you have a personal relationship and someone does something that can’t be unseen. That’s what has happened particularly with Canadians and Europeans of late. I think that damage is permanent. And we are not even 100 days in …
How do other nations view America in light of Trump’s aggressive tariffs, threats, and general disdain for allies?
They all see the United States as the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty. In the near term, most countries – especially smaller, poorer ones – will look to cut trade deals with Trump relatively quickly because the alternative, direct confrontation with the world’s sole superpower, is too costly to bear. We’re seeing that already with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and many other delegations coming to Washington to try to do everything they can to secure at least functional relations with the US.
At the same time, every country recognizes the longer-term need to hedge away and “de-risk” from the United States as much and as fast as possible to reduce their exposure to Trump-driven disruption. Even those that manage to come away with deals know the president could change his mind. After spending the last decade focusing on the dangers of having too much exposure to Beijing’s opaque, arbitrary, and personalistic decision-making, policymakers, businesses, and investors all over the world now suddenly see de-risking from the US as the more urgent priority. That’s an extraordinary shift when you stop to think about it.
Granted, de-risking from the US is a tall order given America’s asymmetric power advantages and the global embeddedness of so many of the things it provides – defense, advanced technologies, finance – that are hard to substitute (read: to break free from). But many US allies see no choice but to start seriously looking for alternatives. We’re already seeing the European Union and Latin America speed up their conversations to fast-track approval of the EU-Mercosur trade deal. Trump-aligned India is likewise moving to improve its trade relations with the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others. Canada is trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans. Even Vietnam, which has long harbored deep mistrust of China, signed 45 new economic cooperation agreements with Beijing days after Trump trade czar Peter Navarro rebuffed its offer to lower its tariffs on US goods to zero.
Can China capitalize on Trump’s global trade war to peel off US allies?
Xi Jinping just wrapped up a Southeast Asian charm offensive to try to do exactly that. For the first time since the Vietnam War, most Vietnamese are now more well-disposed toward China than the US. That’s not true everywhere (e.g., the Philippines is still about 80% pro-American), but the trend line is clear. China sees the moment as a historic opportunity to move economically closer to many countries and portray itself as a champion of globalization and a force for stability.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean America’s loss will be China’s gain everywhere. The Europeans don’t suddenly trust the Chinese more just because they now trust the Americans less. They still have big issues with Chinese dumping, overcapacity exports (especially in the auto industry), data surveillance, and other beggar-thy-neighbor practices that have not gone away. Europe’s de-risking will be less about tilting to China and more about strengthening its own capabilities and hedging with pretty much everybody else. Plus, as I mentioned above, while Trump has worked hard to alienate US allies, America remains the only game in town for most Western countries in many strategic sectors and critical networks. Going cold turkey is unthinkable.
If everyone thinks tariffs are a bad idea even for the American economy, why is Trump persisting? Do you see a way the US can win on this?
As much as I’d like to believe so, I just can't see any way the US comes out ahead on this. Myself and others have written extensively about why the tariffs (and the massive ongoing uncertainty surrounding US policy) are an economic lose-lose, not only for America’s trade partners but for American consumers and businesses, and not just in the short term but also in the long run. Rather than boost domestic manufacturing, they will accelerate the country’s deindustrialization. And if the administration had really intended to use the tariffs as a cudgel to forge a united front against China (as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others have claimed), it wouldn’t have slapped punishing duties on friendly countries already inclined to join this alliance before asking for their help. I’m afraid there’s no “4D chess” strategy or master plan.
It’d be one thing if the Trump team were only picking this one fight. But it’s going to be much harder to convince the world not to hedge away from the United States when at the same time as they’re hitting everyone with tariffs, they’re also picking all sorts of fights on other fronts. They are directly and indirectly threatening other countries’ sovereignty and territoriality, whether it’s Greenland and Denmark, Panama, Canada, or Ukraine. They are exporting algorithms and disinformation that undermine democracies around the world. They are destroying the transatlantic alliance. They are aligning with Russia over longstanding allies at the United Nations and the G7. They are driving away foreign tourists and international students. And they’re picking fights domestically, trying to weaken checks and balances, undermine the rule of law, and erode state capacity in ways that will make the US a worse place to live, invest, and do business.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but this policy set looks hands down like the most extraordinary geopolitical own goal I’ve ever witnessed.
Is it possible that Trump is purposely upsetting the economy in an effort to lower interest rates, reduce the US government’s debt servicing costs, and shrink the federal deficit?
Nope. That’s another one of those 4D chess stories flying around, and it’s nonsense. It’s true that a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced US recession can make existing US government debt (and mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, etc.) cheaper to refinance by bringing down long-term interest rates. But if long rates decline because the real economy has deteriorated to the point where the Fed has to cut short-term rates to boost aggregate demand, the money saved on debt interest payments probably will be offset by the lower tax revenue collected and the higher unemployment benefits paid out during the recession. The overall deficit will likely be higher than if said recession hadn’t been engineered in the first place – destroying trillions in economic value and hurting millions of real Americans in the process.
And all this assumes that long rates will in fact go down when the US enters a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced recession, which financial markets are currently telling us is not guaranteed in light of growing inflation and default risks. Thus far, Trump’s stagflationary policy mix and erratic policymaking style have made the world’s safe-haven assets relatively less attractive, prompted investors to sell US bonds, and caused long rates to rise rather than fall.
Will Trump succeed in brokering a ceasefire in Ukraine like he promised on the campaign trail?
Only if he’s willing to effectively use both carrots and sticks on Russia and Ukraine alike. So far he hasn’t, deploying mostly sticks (suspending military aid and intelligence sharing) to force the Ukrainians to come to terms and principally only carrots (the promise of sanctions nonenforcement and relief, and even full normalization of relations) to get the Russians to back off their maximalist demands.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week the administration is giving the talks “a matter of days” to make progress or else they’ll walk away from the peace effort altogether. The problem is that Vladimir Putin continues to be uninterested in a durable ceasefire, at least not unless the so-called “root causes” of the conflict are addressed through a permanent settlement. He started this war to change the facts on the ground and is convinced he still has what it takes to win it. What’s more, he’s betting that if he can keep slow rolling the peace talks and convince Trump that it was Kyiv’s intransigence that tanked them, Russia could plausibly get a US rapprochement while it continues to wage war against a Ukraine deprived of US assistance. I’m not a betting man, but at this point, it’s a reasonable wager for Putin to make.
What do you expect from incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz?
Less capacity to spend and lead than many people hope, despite having managed to pass a historic fiscal package through the Bundestag lifting the country’s “debt brake” for defense spending and creating a 500 billion euro special fund for infrastructure investments. The incoming coalition is serious but relatively unpopular and divided, facing a stronger-than-ever far-right Alternative for Germany leading the opposition in the new parliament.
This political weakness, combined with the sheer scale of the challenges it faces, will water down the government’s ambitions. Germany is undergoing a severe, decade-long economic crisis. Merz will be under considerable pressure to jumpstart growth quickly amid global trade wars and under tight budget conditions. Just a few weeks ago, he was well-disposed to take on a European leadership role. Now that talk is no longer cheap, his constraints and risk tolerance will change. And if the Germans won’t step up, who in Europe can?
Is climate action possible in a disintegrating world? Have the odds of avoiding catastrophic climate change worsened in the past three months?
I’m more optimistic here. We’ve already broken the back of the most catastrophic climate change scenarios. Economic self-interest – not ideology or idealism – is driving the clean energy revolution as technological innovation and steep learning curves have dramatically reduced the price tag of clean power technologies, making them the cheapest and most profitable option in a lot of markets regardless of politics. Deep-red Texas and Florida lead the US in solar and wind power deployment. China is set to hit its emissions peak several years ahead of schedule. Europe sees renewables as an energy security imperative. Emerging markets from India to Indonesia and Pakistan are eager to develop using cheaper and cleaner domestic energy sources than high-volatility, dirty imported fuels.
I don’t want to be glib. The planet is still heating up faster than we’d like, and the present state of geopolitics – from Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” to the G-Zero vacuum of global climate leadership – will slow the pace of decarbonization. With every fraction of a degree of warming causing bigger and more frequent disasters, lower growth, and more deaths, that’s not good news. But for every environmental regulation repealed, clean energy policy revoked, fossil fuel project approved, and international commitment abandoned, there’s another, much more structural force pulling even harder in the opposite direction. As my colleagues and I put it in Eurasia Group’s 2025 Top Risks report, the global energy transition “has reached escape velocity.”
Would you ride Moose like a jockey if given the opportunity?
I’d train him with a well-disposed toddler first. That would be must-see television. Any volunteers?
Inside the Harvard-Trump showdown
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I'm here at the Kennedy School at Harvard University, with my buddy Steve Walt.
Stephen Walt: Nice to see you, Ian.
Ian Bremmer:
And kind of ground zero for a lot of things happening geopolitically right now. How does it feel to be an independent variable?
Stephen Walt:
It feels better than it felt two or three weeks ago when many people at the university were worried whether we were going to actually bend the knee, cave in, give the administration what it wanted, do pretty much what Columbia did. And when the administration, perhaps mistakenly, sent that letter last week or so, and the president responded appropriately, I think there was a huge collective sigh of relief in the Harvard community. And the response that Harvard has gotten now, including from people who don't like Harvard, that someone finally stood up and said, "This is unacceptable," has been quite gratifying.
Ian Bremmer:
Harvard, huge endowment, not a poor campus, lots of influence in Boston community and around the world, but we're talking about billions of dollars of funding a year. We're talking maybe about not providing green cards for international students, lifeblood of the Kennedy School. What's at stake here, do you think?
Stephen Walt:
What's at stake is the presence of independent centers of thought in a free society. I mean, ultimately this is an attempt by the administration to bring Harvard, as the world's most prominent private university, under its control. If you read the letter carefully, they were basically wanting to have control over who got hired, control over what got taught, control over content of curriculum, control over admissions, in a variety of different ways. At which point the university is no longer independent. It has to get up every morning, say to itself, "Gee, what does the president think of what we're doing here?" And that means you don't have independent thought.
So two big problems. One is of course this is going to reduce scientific and technological progress in the United States in a whole series of areas.
Ian Bremmer:
Because that's so much of what the funding is actually going for.
Stephen Walt:
That's exactly right. Particularly medical research in particular. But it's also important in a free society you have a wide range of opinions, people who can challenge what's going on, and can challenge it from the right, challenge it from the left. One of my colleagues is one of the people who discovered the China shock, that a bunch of American jobs had gone to China due to previous economic policies. Something that of course Trump has played on, etc. So the point is you want lots of different ideas in a free society. You don't want the government to be able to control what people can teach, control what people can think, because how you get big mistakes. That's how you get Mao's Great Leap Forward because no one could criticize him, no one could challenge it, no one could even report what was happening. So there's actually more at stake than just scientific research here. It's also independent thought. Again, from across the political spectrum.
Ian Bremmer:
Does it feel like a resist moment on Harvard campus right now? Is that the kind of emotion that comes with it?
Stephen Walt:
This isn't a sort of let's go to the mattresses moment. The university did not want to have this fight. I think they were negotiating in good faith to see if they could come to an accommodation that would satisfy some of the concerns, including some legitimate concerns about whether or not a wide enough range of viewpoints was being expressed on campus. So I think they were negotiating in good faith.
The one advantage in the government's letter was it was so extreme that we had really no choice at this point. And I think the university now is going to go about its business. It's going to continue to teach. It's going to continue to do the research we want to do. It's going to have to do it with fewer resources. And I think we're all aware of the fact that there's going to have to be some costs paid by the faculty, unfortunately by our students and staff as well. And I think we're willing to do that.
Ian Bremmer:
And Harvard is well-known, has been ever since I was a kid, as the leading higher education facility in the United States and in the world. Also has gotten itself part of the political tribal fighting going on and we saw the former president basically ousted under that pressure in part. What do you think Harvard needs to do to be seen not just as the place that you want to go to university, but also as a place that is above the political fray?
Stephen Walt:
Well, because universities are islands of thought they're never going to be completely separate from the political fray. But I strongly believe in institutional neutrality, that the university should not be taking public positions on political issues that do not directly affect the university. So yes, we do have a public position on say, student visas. That's important for us. But we don't necessarily have a public position and shouldn't have a public position on the war in Ukraine or what to do about the Middle East or whether affirmative action was a good thing or not. Gay marriage maybe would be one that you'd say. It's not something where the university takes position. Individual faculty can say what they want and should, and they can disagree and they will, and they do. But the president of the university, the board of trustees, et cetera, they don't take a particular institutional position. I very much agree with that.
That doesn't mean the university won't be political and it won't be politicized as well. I think first of all, we need to reaffirm that, that our business is doing independent research and doing teaching, that we are open to a wide range of opinions, that we care about rigor and honesty and research. We can disagree. You can even be wrong. Scholars are wrong all the time. But they can't be dishonest. So we have very high standards and we're not advancing a particular agenda other than the pursuit of truth for the benefit of society as a whole.
Ian Bremmer:
So broader point before we close this down. State of democracy in the United States right now. What worries you most and where do you see the most structural strength and resilience?
Stephen Walt:
What worries me the most is the inability of a set of institutions that I would've thought 20 years ago were pretty rock solid to impede what looks to me like an authoritarian grab for power.
Ian Bremmer:
Are you talking about the judiciary?
Stephen Walt:
I'm talking about in part the judiciary.
Ian Bremmer:
Or Congress?
Stephen Walt:
And Congress and the fact that they've been willing to essentially suspend most of their checks and balances roles in recent years.
I am encouraged, unfortunately, by the degree to which opinion seems to be shifting as to whether or not the direction of the Trump administration is the right course for the country.
Ian Bremmer:
Specifically on trade at this point?
Stephen Walt:
Trade, one, economic effects.
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah.
Stephen Walt:
I think people are starting to be uncomfortable with the idea that we're gutting the engine of scientific progress that has driven American technological and scientific leadership for decades. That that's going to have consequences sooner rather than later. And I think people are nervous, not everybody, but people are nervous about turning what have been some of our closest friends in the world into adversaries or enemies. I mean, when you pick a fight with Canada, the greatest bit of geopolitical good fortune the United States ever had, having Canada as a neighbor. When you turn them into an adversary, that's not going to end well.
Ian Bremmer:
Steve Walt, always good to see you, my friend.
Stephen Walt:
Nice to see you. Take care.
Trump’s inaction on wrongful deportation may spark constitutional crisis
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
If the US won't work to return a wrongly deported man to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court ruling, are we headed towards a constitutional crisis?
It certainly appears that way, and I think this is the constitutional crisis that the Trump administration would love to have. Because wrongfully deporting someone without evidence who is in the country illegally and therefore guilty of a misdemeanor, but sending them to a max security prison, which the Supreme Court says you shouldn't do, but now is in another country. Very few Americans are sympathetic to the case of this person. And indeed, Trump won on the basis in part of being sick and tired of allowing illegal immigrants to spend enormous amounts of time in the United States without recourse.
So he's breaking the law here. He's flouting independent judiciary and their decision-making, but he's doing it on an issue that most Americans have no sympathy on the other side. So the Democrats would have to be very wary of making this a hill they want to die on, and Trump knows exactly what he's doing. It is pretty impressive playbook for undermining rule of law and checks and balances on an increasingly authoritarian leaning executive. That's where we are.
Trump claims China-Vietnam talks are intended to "screw" the US. Does this run the risk of pushing Vietnam to China?
Certainly, most Vietnamese now are more well-disposed towards China than the US. First time we've seen that since the war. It's not true across Southeast Asia. Philippines, about 80% still pro-US, not pro-China. But it is a problem, and Xi Jinping understands that. And that's why he went in and was received directly by the president as opposed to the prime minister last time who met him at the airport. 45 big deals that they're signing on trying to improve economic coordination. Clearly a bit of a surprise to Trump, just as the direct retaliation from the Chinese, even though the Americans warned them, "Negotiate, don't retaliate." But that's exactly what China did, and Trump frankly should have expected that was coming. Now he looks a little bit weaker in the way he's backing down and creating exemptions for a lot of people in this space.
Saudi Arabia plans to pay off Syria's World Bank debt. Could this be a major turning point for Syria's future and its ties with regional allies?
It certainly helps. We've also seen the Qataris already say they're going to offer gas through Jordan into Syria. I think that this is all promising. The Saudis were never going to do that, provide any support as long as Assad was in place. Now they are. The Americans are pulling troops out, and Turkey is going to be the most important country on the ground. But economically, it's going to be the Gulf States, and that gives this new Syrian regime a better chance to succeed. Something we all clearly are rooting for in terms of one of the places that we'd like to see a little more stability from. Anyway, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Zelensky snubs China’s peace push, Trump vows to end war “very quickly” ›
- China’s vows to pump up its economy — with one eye on Trump’s tariffs ›
- El Salvador's president wins big. What does this mean for the country and its neighbors? ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
How Ukraine feels about negotiating with Russia
What would Ukraine be willing to offer Russia to bring an end to the war? It’s a question that’s been asked over and over, but now seems closer to reality than any point since the fighting began. As the White House negotiates with the Kremlin for a ceasefire deal, would Kyiv be willing to cede territory to get Moscow to the negotiating table? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sat down with former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba for a sober assessment of the war—and what it will take to end it. According to Kuleba, who resigned last September amid a cabinet shuffle, Ukraine is ready to compromise, but not if it means giving away the rights to what millions of Ukrainians see as historically, legally theirs. A nation that abandons its dream, he warns, is “determined to lose.” It will also take more than concessions from Ukraine to achieve a meaningful ceasefire. According to the foreign minister, the Trump administration needs to start getting tough on Putin to make it clear to him Russia can’t win this war on its own.
“The goal of President Trump to end the war is commendable,” Kuleba explains, “The problem is that his strategy is to leverage Ukraine with sticks while leveraging Russia with carrots.”
Watch the full GZERO World episode: Will Russia agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Will Russia agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine?
President Trump has made it clear: He wants a ceasefire in Ukraine. The White House has been engaging with Russia diplomatically, while making it clear to Kyiv that ongoing US military support isn’t a guarantee. The problem? Moscow has so far shown no interest in meaningful compromise. Instead, the Kremlin is slow walking negotiations and increasing demands for concessions, all the while advancing on the battlefield and targeting Ukraine’s population centers with drone strikes. The delay tactics are testing the patience of the friendliest White House it’s faced in years. But will the Trump administration actually start piling the pressure on Russia? And even if Putin makes a deal, can Kyiv trust him to honor it? On GZERO World, Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba joins Ian Brmmer to discuss President Trump’s negotiation strategy, Russia’s goals, and Ukraine’s uncertain future.
“Did Putin come to Ukraine to take part of it or all of it?,” Kuleba explains, “If you believe Putin came after the whole of Ukraine because it is so important to him to get it under his control, then there is no ground to negotiate.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Pushing Putin for a ceasefire: Dmytro Kuleba on Ukraine's future and Russia's goals
Listen: What will it take to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? President Trump is pushing hard for a ceasefire deal, but is Vladimir Putin actually interested in negotiation? On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer is joined by former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba for a sober assessment of the war with Russia—and what it will take to end it. Kuleba resigned last year amid a cabinet shuffle, but spent years at the heart of Ukraine’s diplomatic fight for survival. As long as Russia believes it can win the war, he says, Putin will never compromise on a meaningful ceasefire deal. That won’t change until the Kremlin faces serious pressure from the White House, which so far has seemed to only offer incentives to Moscow, while punishing Kyiv, according to Kuleba. So is Trump ready to get tough on Putin? And what is Ukraine prepared to offer Russia in return to bring the fighting to an end? Bremmer and Kuleba discuss Putin’s goals in the war, the Trump administration's negotiation strategy, and what it will take to finally bring peace to Ukraine.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Will Trump pressure Putin for a Ukraine ceasefire?
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said ending the war in Ukraine would be easy. Again and again, he promised to end the fighting within “24 hours” of taking office. But as president, and as Russia drags its feet in ceasefire negotiations, Trump has walked that confidence back. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer looks at President Trump’s push for a ceasefire deal in Ukraine and what it will take to bring both sides to the negotiating table. The Trump administration has been engaging diplomatically with Moscow and making it clear to Kyiv that ongoing US support isn’t a guarantee.
The problem is that so far, the Kremlin seems uninterested in meaningful compromise. Instead, it’s been slow-walking negotiations and increasing its demands for concessions, all while advancing on the battlefield and targeting Ukraine’s population centers with drone strikes. Turns out, diplomacy is a lot more complicated than a Manhattan real estate deal: complex, slow, and full of people who don’t care about self-imposed deadlines. But there are signs that the president’s patience with Moscow is wearing thin. As Russia keeps stalling, will Trump start piling the pressure on Putin to make a ceasefire happen?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.