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 }}
Putin's Home Shopping Nyetwork
As Ukraine continues to get aid from the US and EU, Russia's president Vladimir Putin is adopting some Trumpian tactics to bring in more cash of his own. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
Ian Explains: Who does China and Russia want to win the US election, Biden or Trump?
What do America’s biggest adversaries have to gain–and lose–from the US presidential election in November? The 2024 Donald Trump vs Joe Biden rematch will be the first time in US history that candidates from both major parties have sat in the Oval Office. So Russia and China have a pretty good idea of what a second term from either candidate might look like, as well as a vested interest in manipulating the outcome in their favor, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
From Russia’s perspective, the Kremlin has a long and documented history of influencing US elections for Trump. Intelligence agencies have confirmed Russia’s attempts to manipulate the 2016 and 2020 elections in his favor using social media bots, misinformation, bogus news sites, and hacking the Democratic National Committee’s emails. But now, intelligence experts and government officials warn China is copying Russia’s playbook, spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation online to amplify support for President Trump and sow distrust among American voters.
Yet Trump regularly attacks China on the campaign trail. He’s accused Beijing of unfair trade practices and currency manipulation. During the pandemic he publicly called Covid-19 the “China flu” and his administration imposed billions of dollars in tariffs on Chinese imports.
Why would Beijing support a candidate so openly hostile to its interests? Watch Ian Explains to find out why both China and Russia are eager for a Trump win in 2024.
Watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer online and at US public television (check local listings). Subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn notifications on to get alerts when new episodes are published.
- NATO has a Trump problem ›
- For China, Russia, and Israel, patience is a virtue in 2024 ›
- US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's ›
- Trump: I would encourage Russia to attack 'delinquent' NATO allies ›
- Can Trump, aka Teflon Don, still get elected with a guilty verdict? - GZERO Media ›
- At the 2024 Paris Olympics, security fears and logistical challenges abound - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine's capture of POWs undermines Russia's narrative - GZERO Media ›
- How Trump's tariffs could help (or hurt) the US economy - GZERO Media ›
Prigozhin presumed dead
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Yevgeny Prigozhin, former head of Wagner Group and would-be putschist against Vladimir Putin's Kremlin and Russia, is no more. It was an unprecedented story, that coup attempt against Putin's regime. This was the man who, of course, had been built up and so loyal to Vladimir Putin with the most powerful paramilitary organization in the world, fighting a battle on the ground in Ukraine and fighting against the Minister of Defense and others, losing that battle and deciding to turn his forces against the Russian regime. First, in Rostov and capturing the seat of the Southern command, and then marching him probably on to Moscow, where at the final moment he backs down and agrees to a quote unquote deal with Putin. Putin, who went on national media and referred to Prigozhin as a traitor.
Let's be clear, the important information from all of this was not that there was a deal that was cut. The important information that NATO is paying very close attention to is that Putin didn't take Prigozhin out immediately. He contained the threat. He took his time and acted in a much more calculated way for Putin's own survival.
And given that we've never seen Putin tested like this, and given that for a dictator, it's important to have some air of unpredictability, that you might just launch those weapons, you might have your finger on the button, and that creates some deterrence. The fact is that when Putin was faced with a truly regime-ending threat, that what he did was very careful, very calculated, and ensured the best possible ability for Putin to keep on keeping on.
Now, as I said, back in June, Prigozhin was a dead man walking. Putin had good reason not to want to take him out at the point of his maximum leverage, not least because it would be very ugly in and around Moscow. It would lead to a lot of people getting killed that you wouldn't be able to contain or not show the Russian public. It quite probably would've showed that Putin himself had fled to St. Petersburg from Moscow, a message that certainly he didn't want to see go out.
And of course, Russia was also fighting what was at that point expected to be a very difficult and dangerous Ukrainian counteroffensive. And opening up a fight on two fronts and taking troops away from Ukraine also would've made that much harder for him. So now, Wagner has been contained. Their media company has been shut, many of their bank accounts were frozen, their contracts are being transferred, and the Ukrainian counteroffensive has mostly been shut down by the Russians.
And that of course makes it far, far safer and easier for Putin to go after the former Wagner chief. And so now Yevgeny Prigozhin and the military command structure of Wagner, that leadership dead in a plane crash. I'm fairly comfortable, even though there is no direct evidence at this point, we probably will never have any, saying that Putin gave that order personally. And hey, he actually had some time on his hands since he can't exactly travel to the BRICS Summit in South Africa.
And I'm also comfortable saying that there's no strong near-term threat to Putin. Let's remember that even when the Wagner forces were on their way to Moscow, that there were no defections from Russia's official military structure, no defections from oligarchs. And of course there was not major instability among the Russian people on the streets.
Yes, of course the Russian economy is doing a lot worse now than it was six months ago, a year ago. But Putin still runs that place, and as everyone in Russia can now clearly see, there remain very serious consequences for taking him on.
That's it for me, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.
The Georgian flag flies next to a destroyed building at a military base in Gori, Georgia, on Sept. 16, 2008.
Russia invaded Georgia too, and it never left
Georgia marks the 15th anniversary of the outbreak of the Russo-Georgian war this month. In 2008, a conflict between Russian-backed separatist forces in Georgia’s breakaway South Ossetia and Georgian troops sparked a Russian invasion of the South Caucasus country. To this day, 20% of Georgia remains occupied by pro-Russian forces.
The war was just one piece of the struggle in a long, complicated chain of events leading to the first full-scale, conventional war in Europe since the end of the Cold War.
GZERO Daily spoke with Tinatin Japaridze, a Eurasian political risk analyst at Eurasia Group and a native Georgian, to see what the world has learned 15 years on. She discussed whether the war in Ukraine could have been prevented if the West had responded more effectively in 2008 to Russia’s unprovoked aggression against its southern neighbor.
When the war broke out in 2008, Japaridze ran the UN Bureau for Eastern Europe in New York City and hosted her own show on UN Radio. Though covering conflicts wasn’t her usual role, this one was a particularly thorny issue for a Georgian-born journalist who had spent her formative years in the Russian capital.
“The sheer fact of my once-adopted country, where I had created a home for myself as a child in Moscow, invading my Motherland and threatening to roll tanks into my hometown, Tbilisi, was unbearable,” she says.
GZERO: Has the discourse surrounding the controversial question of “who started it” been largely resolved?
Tinatin Japaridze: Quite the contrary. The discourse still dominates every August War discussion in Georgia today. Ultimately, the answer to this complex question depends on how far back in history we decide to go. The war did not begin on August 1, 7, or even the 8th, as the Kremlin and Russian state-run media have long claimed in an effort to shift the blame to Georgia for firing the first shot. Nor was the so-called “five-day war” over on Aug. 12, 15, or 22.
One thing is certain: Referring to Aug. 7 or Aug. 8 as the start of the war, as if these were mere dates that don’t convey drastically different narratives, is extremely problematic. Marking the war’s anniversary on Aug. 7 places the blame officially on Moscow for starting its full-scale military aggression against Georgia. Recognizing Aug. 8 as the start date, on the other hand, plays into the Russian political narrative, which insists that its forces only attacked Georgia in response to the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali in South Ossetia.
Endless spats over these dates and “who shot first” leave no room for an actual discussion about what happened and, more importantly, how to resolve the frozen conflict and reclaim the breakaway territories that remain occupied by Russia.
We also have to remember that the August War has deep roots that predate Russian tanks rolling into Georgia in 2008. Deterioration of relations between Moscow and Tbilisi can be traced back to the 2003 Rose Revolution that served as a major irritant for the Kremlin, propelling pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili to power the following year. Russia interpreted Georgia’s clear pivot to the West as a red flag that threatened to eventually position Tbilisi as an eastern anchor in a chain of NATO allies stretching from Warsaw to Ankara.
GZERO: When Russia launched its full-scale invasion against another neighbor 14 years later, Western media headlines were quick to draw parallels between 2008 and 2022. Do you agree with such comparisons?
Japaridze: There are undeniably some similarities in terms of the Kremlin’s “signature” plastered all over its incursions into sovereign lands that Moscow still considers to be in its own backyard, so to speak. But overstating parallels between Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today leads to a deeper misunderstanding of both conflicts.
Most notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not view Ukraine as a truly sovereign country that can and should exist independently of Russia. We all recall his revisionist history lecture on the night of the full-scale invasion when the Russian leader reminded his compatriots that Ukraine as a country was “created by Russia,” and he hailed another Vladimir — Lenin — as its chief architect.
It became apparent within hours of Feb. 24, 2022, that unlike in 2008, where seizing Georgian nationhood was not necessarily Moscow’s objective, Ukraine was a different matter altogether for Putin. There are also economic, international, and domestic factors, which were not as pronounced in the Georgian case.
GZERO: The West has come together to support Ukraine in a remarkable way. Do you feel that there wasn’t enough done for Georgia back in 2008?
Japaridze: Few Western pundits, analysts, or even politicians would disagree that the international reaction was remarkably muted, with Russian authorities suffering few negative consequences in the aftermath of the 2008 war. Europe led calls for an immediate ceasefire that, in hindsight, favored Russian interests over those of a small and strategically less significant Georgia.
As for the White House, just a year later, it attempted to “reset” its relations with the same leadership in the Kremlin that had invaded a US ally. Is there a degree of deep-seated disappointment in Georgia to this day, given the limited Western response? Absolutely.
GZERO: What was the most challenging aspect of covering the war from the UN headquarters in the hot summer of 2008?
Japaridze: In the early hours, when information was scarcely available and the media coverage was still dominated by Russian disinformation, choosing sides was personally challenging, even though politically, my allegiance undeniably rested with Georgia. The intricacies of the Georgian conflict intertwined with my professional responsibilities – what was purely political on paper became deeply personal.
I met several times with UN permanent representatives to Georgia and Russia — Irakli Alasania and the late Vitaly Churkin, respectively — whom I interviewed and also conversed with off the record. But the most difficult and emotionally charged experience was attending UN Security Council meetings and hearing first-hand about atrocities committed by my adopted country in my native Georgia.
GZERO: What message would you, first and foremost, as a Georgian, like to share with readers?
Japaridze: Fifteen years ago, Moscow invaded the small South Caucasus country of Georgia, and it never left. To this day, 20% of the country remains under Russian occupation. In other words, the invasion persists. So while we all continue to do everything we possibly can — and then some — for Ukraine to ensure that Russia is stopped before it’s too late, my hope is that the world won’t entirely turn a blind eye on Moscow’s creeping occupation in Georgia.
It may no longer dominate the headlines, and Georgia has understandably been pulled out of the daily political agenda, but let us remember that history has shown us repeatedly that the worst atrocities occur when no one’s watching.
- Europe welcomes US Ukraine package, but pushes to add even more aid - GZERO Media ›
- Tbilisi clashes: Georgia government pushes "Russian" bill risking EU candidacy - GZERO Media ›
- Xi invites Putin to China to strengthen "no limits" partnership - GZERO Media ›
- Why was Slovakia's Prime Minister attacked? - GZERO Media ›
A Soyuz-2.1b rocket booster with a Fregat upper stage and the lunar landing spacecraft Luna-25 blasts off from a launchpad at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in the far eastern Amur region, Russia, on Aug. 11, 2023.
Fly me to the moon – or maybe not
Russia’s first lunar mission in 47 years made contact of the wrong kind this weekend when its Luna-25 spaceship crash-landed on the surface of the moon. According to the Russian space program Roscosmos, the craft, also called the Luna-Glob-Lander, “switched to an off-design orbit” before it met its demise.
Luna-25’s failure presents a serious setback for the Russian space program. The robotic craft was supposed to journey to the moon’s underexplored south pole and study the atmosphere for one year. It was also supposed to pave the way for future lunar exploration, including a possible joint mission with China, and restore Roscosmos' tattered reputation: It last landed a craft on the moon at the height of the Cold War.
What went wrong this time? Moon landings are notoriously tricky, but apparently, the Russians were also “having a lot of problems with quality control, corruption, with funding,” according to Victoria Samson, Washington director for Secure World Foundation, which advocates for the peaceful exploration of outer space.
To compound Russia’s chagrin, Roscosmos’ credibility will take a further hit if the Indian Space Research Organisation makes a successful landing of its Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft on Wednesday. India launched a moon-bound rocket and rover back in July with the hope of becoming only the fourth country to do so after the US, China, and Russia. If it successfully lands on the south pole, the 1.4-billion-strong country will go a long way toward establishing itself as a major player in today’s space race.
Russian President Vladimir Putin stands with Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu during the Naval Parade marking Navy Day.
War and peace on Putin’s mind
Three Ukrainian drone strikes lit up the night sky in Moscow this weekend, damaging office towers and causing a brief closure of the city’s Vnukovo International Airport. The Russian defense ministry labeled it an “attempted terrorist attack” and reported that one Ukrainian UAV was destroyed and that two more were “suppressed” by electronic warfare. No injuries were reported.
Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, suggested he might be open to peace talks … but (and it’s a big one) only if Ukraine halts its offensive. Volodymyr Zelensky promised the exact opposite, vowing instead to increasingly take the war to Russia, which he called "an inevitable, natural, and absolutely fair process.”
But after being accused for a year of siding with Russia – and against a backdrop of Russia and the West vying for support from developing countries over Ukraine – Saudi Arabia is set to hold peace talks next weekend in Jeddah. The Gulf kingdom has invited 30 countries, including Egypt, Mexico, Chile, Zambia, the UK, South Africa, and Poland. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan is reportedly set to attend the talks, which exclude Russia.
The goal? To begin forging a framework and international support for ending the war – perhaps leading to a peace summit later this year.
Putin, however, has shown no signs of letting up. In recent days, he has halted the Black Sea grain deal, launched missiles at grain storage facilities in Ukraine, maneuvered to enlarge his army, and announced the purchase of 30 new ships.
We’ll be watching to see who gathers in Jeddah on Aug. 5.
Putin's New Show: Everything is Going According to Plan!
Russia's president travels time to explain why various historic disasters weren't actually disasters at all. Explosion of the Hindenburg? Crucifixion of Jesus? Fyre Festival? Everything was going according to plan!
Watch more PUPPET REGIME!
Subscribe to GZERO Media's YouTube channel to get notifications when new videos are published.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu chairs a meeting with the leadership of the Armed Forces in Moscow, on July 3, 2023.
Russia: The “Scumbag” speaks!
Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Monday made his first public comments about the mutiny that mercenary warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin — who had repeatedly called him a “scumbag” — led against him 10 days ago.
In a terse statement that he read from a piece of paper during a broader meeting of military personnel, Shoigu said the mutiny had failed because rank-and-file soldiers had “courageously and selflessly carried out the tasks assigned to them.”
Shoigu’s appearance and statement seem to make clear that Putin isn’t planning on swapping out his Defense Ministry leadership anytime soon. But it’s worth noting — again, as Prigozhin himself did — that Putin's main issue isn’t so much disloyalty as it is incompetence: His war has been poorly planned and clumsily executed from the start, something that Prigozhin made a point of highlighting in ways that are still thorny for the Kremlin.
In other news, the Levada Center on Monday released a poll on Russians’ views of the mutiny. The big winners were the Armed Forces, whose image improved among 30% of Russians, and Putin, who looked better to nearly 20%. Shoigu, meanwhile, took a hit in the eyes of nearly 30% of respondents, second only to Prigozhin, who lost the affection of 36%.
Lastly, there is still no word on the whereabouts of Prigozhin-pal Sergei Surovikin, a top Russian military official known as “General Armageddon.” There were reports late last week that he had been detained, just hours after The New York Times cited US intel officials to the effect that Surovikin was believed to have had prior knowledge of Prigozhin’s mutiny attempt.