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 }}
People walk as Tower Bridge is reflected in a tribute to Britain's Queen Elizabeth.
What We’re Watching: Bidding farewell to a queen, mass graves in Kharkiv, Pelosi in Armenia
UK bids farewell to Elizabeth II amid trying times
Some 2,000 people attended the funeral for Queen Elizabeth II on Monday, including several hundred current and former world leaders, royals, and other dignitaries. US President Joe Biden, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron, and leaders from much of the Commonwealth, attended the ceremony at Westminster Abbey, where Elizabeth II was married and crowned. (Invitations to attend the state funeral, the first since Winston Churchill died in 1965, were sent to heads of state or government of nearly every country except Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Russia, Belarus, and Myanmar.)
Hundreds of thousands visited the British capital for the queen's lying-in-state to pay their respects and thank her for her 70 years on the British throne. Once the ceremony is over, all eyes will turn to her son and successor, King Charles III, who takes over at a moment of deep uncertainty in the UK. While the monarch’s role is not political, a worsening cost-of-living crisis and energy crunch – combined with the revolving door of prime ministers since 2016’s Brexit vote – have left many Britons feeling disillusioned with the country’s leadership. What’s more, the 73-year-old Charles is hardly as popular as his beloved mother, and his ascent to the throne has already ignited a debate about the future of the British monarchy, both at home and in Commonwealth nations where he is now the nominal head of state.
Symbolically, Elizabeth II’s funeral takes place a day after the eighth anniversary of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, when 55% of Scots voted to remain part of the UK. But that was before Brexit … and with the more popular Queen Elizabeth in Buckingham Palace. Will her passing drive more support for Scotland to ditch the UK? We’ll be watching pro-independence Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who announced earlier this year that she wants to hold a second plebiscite on Scottish independence as soon as next year.
EU calls for international tribunal to investigate Russian crimes
The European Union presidency has called for an international tribunal to investigate Russian atrocities after mass graves were found on territory in the northern Kharkiv region recently reclaimed by Ukrainian forces. The Czech Republic, which currently holds the EU rotating presidency, made the call. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 440 bodies were found in mass graves in the city of Izium, though investigators say they expect that number to rise. What’s more, at least 10 torture chambers were discovered in the same city recently recaptured amid the Ukrainian northeastern counteroffensive that’s seen Kyiv recapture 6,000 square kilometers of land. The United Nations said it was dispatching a team to assist in the investigation in Kharkiv, while Ukrainian investigators pledged to build a war crimes case against Russia. Meanwhile, in a "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday, President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin of “consequential” American action if the Kremlin uses nuclear weapons in the next stage of the war. Biden’s warning comes amid fears that Putin, increasingly isolated diplomatically, under fire at home, and frustrated by the lack of progress in the war, could up the ante by using unconventional weapons.
In Armenia, Pelosi blames Azeris for recent hostilities
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to Armenia over the weekend, making her the highest-ranking US official to visit the former Soviet republic since it gained independence in 1991. The visit comes amid a violent flareup between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops near the long-disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave inside Azerbaijan with an ethnic Armenian majority that has long claimed independence. At a press conference with the speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, Pelosi expressed support for Yerevan and condemned Baku for the latest round of aggression – though both sides blame the other for recent fighting that’s killed more than 200 people. In 2020, a weeks-long war between the two sides led to 6,500 deaths and large swaths of territory being handed over to Baku as part of a Russian-backed truce. (Moscow is technically treaty-bound to defend Armenia.) Pelosi’s visit comes just weeks after her controversial trip to Taiwan, which prompted a stern response from Beijing and irked the White House. Some analysts say that oil-producing Baku, feeling emboldened by increased global demand for oil and gas as well as Moscow’s preoccupation with Ukraine, took advantage of the geopolitical situation to relaunch hostilities. A ceasefire took hold in Nagorno-Karabakh in recent days, though some are skeptical that it’ll hold.
Ukrainian soldiers pose with their national flag outside a Kharkiv village recently liberated from Russia.
What We’re Watching: Ukraine retakes Kharkiv, Sweden turns right
Ukraine makes big gains, Putin gets rare pushback
As the war reached its 200-day mark Sunday, the Ukrainian military made its most significant gains against Russia since the invasion began. President Volodymyr Zelensky said more than 1,000 km of territory had been liberated and promised that the ultimate goal is “de-occupation.” The loss of Izyum and dozens of other Kharkiv towns and villages that had been under Russian occupation was met by Moscow with a flurry of air strikes to knock out power and water in the region. Russia notably admitted on Sunday that it had lost much of the northern Kharkiv region. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin came under fire from pro-war conservatives and allies like Chechnyan leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who publicly admitted that the “special military operation” was not going to plan. Also, local officials in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg petitioned the Duma (parliament) to oust the president for committing alleged treason (they’ve been dealt with swiftly). Finally, there has been some relief at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine: after losing all power and the ability to cool its last functioning reactor, the facility was finally reconnected to a backup power line on Sunday.
Conservatives win Swedish election amid far-right surge
The ruling center-left Social Democrats won Sweden's parliamentary election on Sunday with over 30% of the vote, but they will likely be booted out of power — a very big deal for a party that’s dominated Swedish politics since the 1930s. With almost all ballots counted, the conservative bloc is projected to secure a razor-thin majority of 176 out of 349 seats in parliament. (The final result is out Wednesday.) The far-right, anti-immigration Sweden Democrats came in second with their best-ever result with more than 20% of the vote, thanks in no small part to a campaign focused on recent gang violence linked to migrants. Still, forming a new government will be anything but easy. Moderate Party leader Ulf Kristersson, a centrist who claims he can unite the right, wants to replace the popular PM Magdalena Andersson with the Sweden Democrats’ votes but without the party in his cabinet. Whatever happens, the far-right will wield significant influence over policy — and its first demand will surely be to change the law to bar almost all asylum-seekers.
Putin keeps his war cards close
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey, everybody, Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to start off your week. It is, of course, May 9th, and that means Victory Day. It's when the Soviets were celebrating their defeat of the Nazis in World War II. The Russians of course, continued that after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
And today even more important in the context of Russia's invasion into Ukraine, not in any way victorious and Putin, wasn't trying to claim it was, rather, it was all about justifying what he referred to as a preemptive rebuff to NATO aggression. He talked about the Ukrainians as a Nazi regime, that they were trying to get nuclear weapons, that NATO and Ukraine were going to take Crimea back from Russia. All of which was made up from a whole cloth, but nonetheless was the basis of Putin's speech.
Some things he didn't say. First on the negative side, he didn't say that Russia has won, that they've emerged victorious, that the second military operation has been as successful as the first phase of the military operation. And that Ukraine has now been denazified, and the Russians in Donbas who had acts of genocide committed against them have been protected. Again, all would've been fake news, but Putin has control of all state media in the country. And there isn't any other kind at this point. That could have been the basis for a frozen conflict, even negotiations on a ceasefire. That's not where we are at all. That's the negative side.
The positive side, the UK and their general intelligence had come out a week ago and said that there was a plan for an announcement of a general mobilization of Russian troops. Putin did not do that, nor did he announce an escalation of broad war footing against NATO. The propaganda value against NATO continues to be high. The sense that this is a fight that is absolutely necessary for the Russians and that they have to emerge victorious, that is the case. But it's still the actual war goals for the Russians continue to be vague, giving Putin significant flexibility in how he reacts to what happens on the ground, both in Ukraine and more broadly over the course of the coming weeks and months.
So what would I say? I think that it makes me not more positive in any way about the Russia-Ukraine fight, but rather it does give us at least for the next few weeks, a little more clarity on what the parameters of the conflict are likely to be. Right now, Russia's taking about one to two kilometers of land on the ground in Luhansk and Donetsk, around the Donbas. Every day they're losing some territory around Kharkiv, which is just outside, to the northwest of the Donbas.
To the Ukrainians the fact that there is no general mobilization means that Ukraine with better arms and much higher morale, should be able to start counter attacking in the Donbas probably at some point in June. So maybe the Russians can take all of it, but then the Ukrainians are going to bring the fight to them, as they already have surrounding Kyiv and in Kharkiv.
What that means to me, at a minimum, we're talking about fighting primarily in the Donbas over the course of the coming weeks and months with not a lot of understanding of what's going to happen between Russia and NATO as Finland and Sweden join, and as we continue to see escalation in sanctions against the Russians from the G7, from the Europeans, from the United States, and as we see escalation in the military support that's being provided from NATO and aligned countries into Ukraine.
I think one important point that was raised was that Putin described in the Donbas, the Russians as fighting for their own territory. And that makes clear from Putin something that I've certainly been presuming over the course of the past two, three months, which is that the intention is to either fully recognize the expanded Donbas as independent, or to formally annex. All of which baseline are unacceptable for the Ukrainians. So making very clear that a very significant piece of Ukrainian territory is going to be permanently occupied from the perspective of the Russians. That is what Putin's goal continues to be, irrespective of how badly his troops are fighting on the ground.
Then over the course of the last few days, the fact that you've had intensified bombings and artillery and missiles against Odesa, as well as other cities across Ukraine, that is punishment of the Ukrainians for having the temerity to continue to fight against Russia, and potentially it shows that there are broader territorial goals that the Russians will have in the medium to long term. Odesa someplace I'm particularly focused on. Transnistria, which is this Moldovan breakaway province, mostly populated by ethnic Russians, which itself has declared independence from Moldova. If they were to formally break away with Russian troops and support, you would then have an encirclement of Odesa, which is Ukraine's largest port. And I absolutely think that is a significant strategic aim for Putin at this phase in the conflict, as he's thinking longer term. But again, what's so interesting about this speech is he continues to not show any cards that he doesn't feel are necessary. He wants to give himself maximum flexibility to act in an environment where things have not gone the way he has planned so far.
Beyond that, I would say that another very important point is that we continue to see all sorts of civilians getting killed. Over this weekend, a school in the Donbas that was bombed and with a lot of civilians that were using it as a place of refuge, looks like some 60 civilians have been killed as a consequence of that bombing. Obviously, not a target of any strategic value, military value to the Russians. And again, all of that is going to lead to more calls of war crimes, and a hardening of positions on the part of not just the Ukrainians, but NATO allies. The more information that comes across like this with extraordinary saturation coverage from the West, the more you're going to continue to see these countries leaning into their fight against Russia.
Final thing I would mention is that Russia is of course, fighting Ukraine and NATO here, but it's not that they're fighting NATO in a coordinated fashion. Increasingly, you have a whole bunch of NATO countries that have different goals in terms of what they're trying to accomplish in the war. All the NATO countries agree that what Russia has done in Ukraine is beyond the pale, and they should be punished, and that Ukraine should be supported. Those are table stakes. But beyond that, are you trying to destroy Russian military capability? Do you want to remove Russian troops from all of Ukraine? Does that include Crimea? Do you want undermine Putin personally? Do you want to take out Russia's generals? It really depends on who you listen to. And frankly, there are a number of governments that are coming across in some ways as more intransigent and hardliner, even what you're now hearing from the Ukrainian government itself. And that is precisely because the domestic politics in many of these countries is moving towards piling on against Russia.
When that happens, you have a lot of individual political leaders that are acting in a political entrepreneurial way, and they're paying attention to their domestic politics. They aren't necessarily coordinated in every policy. That's a problem. It makes accidents easier, and it also makes it harder to have an effective strategic policy as one NATO. I don't think it makes it easier for Russia to divide and conquer because there is so much anger and animosity from NATO, and because the Russians have already been cut off so much diplomatically, culturally, economically, and that's not going to change from NATO. But I do think that it means that the conflict is harder to resolve, and it means the potential for escalation, unintended escalation continues to grow.
So a meaningful speech by Putin. It doesn't radically change the way we think about the conflict, but does certainly create a little more specificity in latest understanding of where Putin is and unfortunately, latest understanding of where this war is going.
That's it for me. Hope everyone's doing well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.comUkrainian soldiers take positions at the military airbase Vasylkiv in the Kyiv region.
What We’re Watching: Day six in Ukraine
Russian and Ukrainian representatives met for “talks” in Belarus on Monday, but they left little hope for a swift resolution to the crisis. They also made only vague plans to continue negotiations soon.
Simultaneously, Russia ramped up its assault, shelling residential areas in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, where at least 11 civilians were killed, and intensifying the air and ground attack on Kyiv. While Russian troops have faced tough pushback from Ukrainians, a nearly 40-mile-long convoy of Russian arms is reportedly en route to the capital, which the Pentagon now says Moscow is close to encircling. British intelligence warned that Russia is upping its use of artillery in several cities, which could increase civilian casualties.
In Russia, meanwhile, people are already feeling the burn of international pariah status. The ruble crashed 30% against the dollar on Monday, and Russia’s stock market remained closed as the West imposed sanctions against the Russian Central Bank and other big lenders. Several cities in Russia saw mass bank runs as people feared losing access to their savings.
The dreaded refugee crisis is fast becoming a reality. Half a million Ukrainians have already fled, with most going to neighboring Poland, as well as Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Moldova. These countries have rolled out the red carpet for Ukrainians but have reportedly been stopping Africans also trying to flee.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his part, appears increasingly agitated by how things are going in Ukraine, and some analysts warn that he appears to be recalibrating his military strategy, meaning things could soon get worse.