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 "wins" Russia election, but at what cost?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
A Quick Take to kick off your week. Want to talk about things Russian. We, of course, just had an “election” that Putin “won.”
There is no opposition to speak of in Russia. If you're running against him and allowed to run, that means that you are considered acceptable to the regime and you're basically there to play against the Harlem Globetrotters. What was it, the senators, the generals? I can't remember what it was called, but that was the group that was there to make the winning team look good. Of course, you know, Putin is not as much fun to watch as the Globetrotters, but he certainly is politically talented and of course, it's important for him to show that he has an historic win with historic turnout better than anyone before in Russia, not quite Turkmen in Turkmenbashi in Central Asia, not quite Aliyev levels in Azerbaijan, but strong enough for Russia.
It's not just about his ego. It is important as a messaging function to the Russian people that he is seen as a legitimate leader. And, you know, there are others around the world that are prepared to play that game. Already so warm congratulations from Narendra Modi in India, who's strong enough domestically and geopolitically that he can say pretty much what he wants to and get away with it. Still a little sad that he felt it was worth doing that. Even sadder to see that from Pope Francis, who has been putting his thumb on the scale in favor of Russia vis a vis Ukraine in the war in the past weeks, the Vatican tried to walk that back, but he was one of the first, apparently, according to Russian state media, to congratulate Putin. Normally, you wouldn't believe Russian state media, but in this case, Pope Francis could very easily say that isn't true. So one assumes that it is.
But nothing good here in terms of the war vis a vis Ukraine. Putin feels domestically quite stable. That's true politically. It's also true economically. The Russian economy is not performing well. The growth we're seeing in the Russian economy is because of the war economy, which is a massive piece of what the economy represents today. But they're losing lots of human capital. If you look at places like Armenia, Georgia, you see that those economies are booming right now because all of the talented young Russians are leaving and they're going there to work. Great for those tiny countries, not so good for the Russian Federation, but none of this is a threat to Putin, is a threat to the Kremlin, nor is the war in Ukraine two plus years on, in part because of the consequences if you dare oppose it publicly, in part because Putin, while throwing hundreds of thousands of troops into the front, many, many of whom hundreds of thousands, are casualties now, an estimated minimum 300,000 Russian casualties in this war, but most of them are not coming from the major cities. A lot of them aren't even Russian ethnically.
They're coming from the middle Volga and Siberia and they're poor and disenfranchised. And, you know, it's an easier way for Putin to keep this going. Also, large numbers of prisoners that were furloughed and given some money to be sent to the front lines, treated very badly by the Russian army and also many that have come from other countries, including Kazakhstan, for example, Cuba, Nepal, other countries that have sent some of their citizens that to make some money too quick money, and some of whom have been engaged in human trafficking. So that's what's going on inside Russia.
In Ukraine, the war continues not to go well. The Ukrainians are losing some territory. They only have one real line of defense behind the front lines. The Russians have had three. They're much better dug in. And also the Ukrainians are having a serious manpower challenge, a serious ammunition challenge, and don't have the military equipment at the high level that they really need to continue to fight. That is starting to change for the near term. There's been more ammunition sent by the Europeans in the past couple of weeks. And there's also, I think, increasingly very likely that the Americans will give an additional package. I'm now hearing $60 billion for 2014 that should allow the Ukrainians to mostly maintain the land that they presently occupy. That's where we are for 2024.
Or what about after that? It's only getting more challenging not only because of the US election, but also because the Ukrainians are a much smaller country and it's harder for them to raise the personnel. It's also a democracy, even though they've pushed off their elections and it's much harder for Zelensky to get away with doing the kinds of things that Putin is doing on the ground to his own country.
All of which means ultimately, it is hard to imagine the Ukrainians winning. It's also hard to talk about the Ukrainians winning. I understand that that's something that we want to do from a morale perspective. But, you know, when we talk about people that have gone through rape, we don't talk about winners. Even if the rapist was captured and imprisoned. We talk about survivors, talk about people that go through cancer and guess you can beat cancer, but you're really a cancer survivor. And what's happened to the Ukrainians with the war crimes and the torture that they have been through, is survival. And even if they were to get all their land back, you couldn't say they won the war in reality. Say if they survived the war and Russia is still there and they have to maintain their defenses and they have to continue to have the capacity to do so. And this is not a matter of one or two or three years. It's a matter of a generation, certainly as long as the Russian regime continues to exist in its present form, I do think that it's possible for Ukraine as an entity to truly survive this war.
NATO allies continue to say that they have a role in NATO, that they are being welcomed, but they haven't given them a timeline. They really should, and they need to provide hard security guarantees until that timeline of the remaining territory that Ukraine presently occupies. The French President Macron has been talking about that, if the Russians are able to make more gains, the Americans, the Germans have not, the Poles, the balls certainly have.
There needs to be more alignment on that in the run up to the NATO summit meeting in July, I believe it is in Washington, DC. There's also needs to be capacity for the Ukrainians to continue to pay for their own economic rebuilding. And that is a significant effort that right now the Europeans are providing more than the United States is all in economically.
And that includes the cost of military support, something we don't hear as much about as we should in the United States. But that doesn't mean that's going to continue. And the pressure and stress over time is only going to grow. But I do think that there is still such a window and it is good to see that a strong majority of Republicans and Democrats in the United States are continuing to focus on this issue, even as the Middle East gets more time and more attention. And that, I think, is ultimately I mean, Trump has said very clearly he doesn't want any money or support for the border because he wants that to continue to be a disaster for Biden, something that people to vote for him for in the run up to November. But when we talk about the Ukraine war, Putin has not tried so hard to say no more money under Biden. He's instead said, if I win, not another penny. So the pressure is there. We'll see where it goes. Clearly, we are talking about a de facto partition of Ukraine, but the ability to help the Ukrainians survive this and the impact that will have on NATO more broadly and on American allies around the world, like Japan, South Korea, you name it, Taiwan.
These are all long term very, very important precedents that are going to be set on the back of whether the Americans can indeed continue to stand up for themselves and for their allies and helping the Ukrainians defend themselves.
That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Despite Putin’s current swagger, Russia remains vulnerable
After last year’s failed Ukrainian counteroffensive, Russia’s Vladimir Putin has signaled confidence that, thanks to lagging support from the West and Ukraine’s shortage of troops and weapons, Russia can win a war of attrition. But a series of stories today remind us the Kremlin still has plenty of security concerns.
Tuesday’s raids by Ukraine-aligned paramilitaries into Russian border provinces won’t change the war, but they raise the threat level for this weekend’s Russian elections.
Tuesday’s drone attacks on energy sites in multiple regions of central Russia, including one that reportedly inflicted major damage on one of the country’s biggest oil refineries, demonstrate again Ukraine’s ability to hit long-range targets. Ukraine has already disabled about one-third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
NATO's newest members are also creating new security headaches for Moscow. Sweden’s prime minister is reportedly weighing a plan to refortify the Swedish island of Gotland, a strategically crucial piece of real estate in the Baltic Sea.
And for the first time, Sweden and Finland have joined in Operation Steadfast Defender, exercises involving 90,000 troops from all 32 NATO countries. This year’s event is the largest NATO military exercise since the end of the Cold War.
The EU, meanwhile, is expected to approve €5 billion in funding for new military supplies for Ukraine on Wednesday.Why Sweden and Finland joined NATO
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Hanoi, Vietnam.
Was the Swedish and Finnish decision to move into NATO, was that driven by fear of Russia attacking them?
Not really. I don't think either of our countries feel any immediate threat by Russian aggression. But what happened when Russia, Mr. Putin, to be precisely, attacked Ukraine was a fundamental upsetting of the entire European security order. And although Mr. Putin's priority at the moment, he’s very clear on that, is to get rid of Ukraine by invading and occupying all of it, you never know where he's going to stop. And this led Finland and Sweden to do the fundamental reassessment of their security policies. Giving up, in Swedish case, we've been outside of military alliances for the last 200 years or something like that.
So it was not a minor step. And that step has now been taken. Finland completed its ratification, has been a member for a couple of months. Sweden has now formally become a member after some hiccups with the ratification process. It's a major change for our two countries need to say. It is a significant strengthening of NATO. It is a significant strengthening of the security in northern Europe and I think also will facilitate a better coordination between the military alliance of NATO and the security alliance of the EU to the obvious advantage of security of Europe and the security of the West.
It's a good day.
Sweden finally joins the NATO party
It’s official! Sweden has formally become NATO’s 32nd member. With the addition of Sweden and Finland, Vladimir Putin now finds himself surrounded by an enlarged and powerful NATO two years after he invaded Ukraine.
Sweden has gained NATO’s protection, but it brings a lot to the table as well. One of the most advanced arms industries in the world, for one. For another, it rounds out NATO’s coverage of the Baltic Sea – or NATO’s pond, as it can now be called.
Check out our explainer here to read what NATO has gained from its newest additions.
Trump's censure of defense spending “delinquents” triggers public backlash
Donald Trump can make his own claims to transforming the world beyond America’s borders – though whether it is by design, only he knows.
The frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination made news last month when he said he would not necessarily protect NATO countries that did not hit spending targets.
He said he was asked by the leader of a “delinquent” nation whether he would protect them from Russian invasion, even if they did not meet NATO’s spending target of 2% of GDP. He said he replied: “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (the Russians) to do whatever the hell they want.”
The comments sent a chill through “delinquent” nations like Canada, which spends just 1.3% of GDP on defense and which, while it has said it aims to reach the 2% target someday, has taken no concrete steps to do so.
Now, the public is taking note. A new poll by the Angus Reid Institute found that slightly more than half of Canadians believe Canada should increase defense spending to 2% of GDP or more – a number that has remained constant since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
However, a follow-up question mentioned Trump’s comments and asked again if spending should reach 2%. In that instance, support rose to 65% from 53%. There was a two-fold increase among younger women, who tend to recoil from all things Trump in most Canadian polls.
The survey said more than half of Canadians think Canada is falling behind with respect to its military power and diplomatic influence.
Increased pressure for more defense spending will put the Trudeau Liberal government on the horns of a dilemma. It has increased spending since coming to power in 2015 to fund new F35 fighter jets and 15 new frigates. But enthusiasm for the military has been lukewarm and in a recent “refocusing” of government spending, it announced it would cut expenditure on defense by more than $2 billion over the next three years. Hitting the 2% target could cost an extra $13 billion - money the Liberals do not have to spare.
Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media, told Canada’s National Post earlier this month that the lack of concern about defense issues by politicians in Canada illustrates “short-termism and selfishness.”
“Canada has been allowed a free ride by dint of its geo-strategic position but also because there’s no consequences. It’s not as if the US has told Canada, ‘you’re going to be suspended from NATO if you don’t spend’, or ‘you’re not going to have access to US intelligence’ … None of that has happened (but), you know, maybe it should.”
Trump would likely concur.
NATO unity will hold no matter the US election, says Norwegian PM
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre sits with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference for a candid conversation about NATO’s uncertain future and its enduring importance. The challenges and necessities facing NATO and the broader transatlantic alliance amidst ongoing global security concerns have only become more heightened given the conflict in Ukraine.
"We have to continue to support Ukraine defending itself,” Støre tells Bremmer, especially given the uncertainty of the US presidential election. "We experienced four years under President Trump. The elections have not been held, it's not a given. It'll be exciting months ahead."
Støre emphasizes Norway's NATO contributions, both in terms of military support to Ukraine and hosting a significant number of Ukrainian refugees. He also highlights Europe's substantial financial and military support for Ukraine, illustrating the collective effort to defend democratic values and territorial integrity in the face of aggression. His conversation with Ian Bremmer, which can be found in the latest episode of GZERO World, outlines the complexities of international defense politics, the indispensable role of NATO, and the ongoing commitment of European nations to support Ukraine, underscoring the critical importance of unity and collaboration in addressing global security challenges.
Watch full episode: Solving Europe's energy crisis with Norway's power
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
Solving Europe's energy crisis with Norway's power
Europe's energy security hinges on Norway and its transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources. That has big geopolitical implications for Ukraine and NATO.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer delves into Europe's urgent quest for energy independence and the broader geopolitical shifts that could redefine the continent's future. With the specter of reduced US support for Ukraine after November’s election, Europe's resilience, particularly in energy security and military capabilities, takes center stage. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre joins Ian to discuss Norway's critical role in this transition, emphasizing the need for a swift move from oil and gas to renewables, a monumental task that Europe and Norway are determined to undertake in a remarkably short timeframe. “Norway will transition out of oil and gas. When we pass 2030, there will be declining production, and then we want to see renewables transition upwards,” Prime Minister Jonas Støre tells Ian.
Their conversation delves into the ramifications of the US election outcome on NATO and Ukraine, underscoring Europe's precarious position should American support wane. The discussion reveals the continent's vulnerability to fuel crises and the imperative for a robust energy strategy that lessens dependency on external forces, notably by severing ties with Russian fossil fuels in response to the invasion of Ukraine. “Europe's ability to assist Kyiv on the battlefield will hinge not just on military capabilities but also Europe's own energy security,” Ian explains.
This is a moment of transformation for Europe as it navigates the complexities of energy transition and geopolitical uncertainties, highlighting the interconnectedness of sustainability, security, and solidarity in facing the challenges of the 21st century.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Northern exposure ›
- Will Norway pull the plug on itself? ›
- Can the world run on green energy yet? Author Bjorn Lomborg argues that's very far off ›
- The Graphic Truth: Natural gas prices make EU power costs soar ›
- Norway's school phone ban aims to reclaim "stolen focus", says PM Jonas Støre ›
- With electric bills soaring, should the EU cap natural gas prices? ›
- The Graphic Truth: EU natural gas prices plunge ›
Ian Explains: If the US steps back from Ukraine, can Europe go it alone?
Two years into Ukraine's all-out war with Russia, Europe has had to cut off nearly all energy imports from Moscow. Can Europe secure its energy future and defend itself without relying on Russia or, depending on the November election, the United States? Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
Europe is facing a critical juncture in its energy and security landscape. When Russia invaded Ukraine, European leaders rallied for a united front. But in the ensuing two years, some of these intra-European ties have shown signs of fracturing. More concerningly, Europe is no longer confident it can rely on steadfast support across the Atlantic.
Depending on the outcome, the November election in the United States could signal a death knell for American support for Ukraine. With Trump's wavering commitment to NATO and Europe facing a future without Russian fossil fuels, the region is reevaluating its energy security and defense strategies. Europe remains vulnerable despite recent price drops and increased renewable energy capacity. The continent's post-pandemic recovery, climate change-induced weather extremes, and Putin's aggression have highlighted the urgent need for energy independence.
To put it bluntly, Ukraine needs Europe now more than ever, and Europe needs to ensure it is strong enough to provide the support Kyiv relies on. No amount of weaponry shipped to Ukraine's battlefields will matter if Europe can't keep its own homes lit or its factories running
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The Graphic Truth: EU natural gas prices plunge ›
- The Graphic Truth: The European Union's energy mix ›
- Dambisa Moyo: Europe's energy transition needs more than a "band-aid solution" ›
- Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines? ›
- Europe’s Russian gas dilemma ›
- Norway's PM Jonas Støre says his country can power Europe - GZERO Media ›
- NATO unity will hold no matter the US election, says Norwegian PM - GZERO Media ›