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 }}
Drone wall plan tests Europe’s cohesion
First there was the Russian drone in Poland. Then Romania. Then Russian jets flew into Estonian airspace, while some unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) shut down Denmark’s airports.
In recent weeks, Russian aircraft have been illegally violating European airspace with greater frequency and boldness.
What are the Europeans going to do about it? One possible answer emerged last week, when the European Commission announced it would explore building a so-called “drone wall,” an air defense system involving radars, sensors, and missiles that aims to detect and destroy drones that pass through Europe’s eastern borders.
One former NATO leader suggested the wall could be operational within a year.
The idea for a drone wall, though, will test Europe’s – and, more broadly, NATO’s – ability to agree on the system’s costs, deployment, and even its purpose. The subject will be one of the hottest items on the agenda as European Union leaders meet in Copenhagen this week to discuss the continent’s collective defense.
Eurasia Group’s Europe Director Jan Techau said there are a few different paths that Europe could take. It could build a drone wall along NATO’s eastern flank that would involve shooting down UAVs, create a system that merely jams Russian drones to make them inoperable, or simply boost drone defenses as part of a broader effort to update Europe’s air defenses across the continent.
“The big, decisive question is,” said Techau, “when the EC’s defense chief Andrius Kubilius brings the defense ministers together in Brussels for an EU defense ministers meeting, how much support will [the drone wall] get?”
Some, such as German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, are already pouring cold water on the idea, arguing this week that it would take at least three or four years to build such a defense mechanism.
“Drone defense, of course,” he said, “but not by a drone wall.”
There are also questions over the rules of engagement for any new anti-drone defenses. If a Russian UAV enters NATO airspace, it’s “fair game” for a NATO country to shoot it down, per Techau – Poland did just that last month. But some say the system should aim beyond that.
At Eurasia Group’s Europe Summit last month, former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder suggested shooting down Russian drones before they enter NATO territory, creating dicey dilemmas.
“What if Europeans shot down Russian drones in Ukrainian airspace? Would that make them a party in the war?” Techau questioned. “So far, most Europeans fear that the answer is yes. So they won’t do it. Which is why Daalder’s suggestion sounds unrealistic to me.”
Still, the spate of recent drone incursions in Eastern Europe – as well as the increasing role of UAVs in modern warfare – has created urgency around the need for more effective defenses against unmanned aircraft.
“Something will happen. There will be more drone defense. There’s a greater sense of urgency,” said Techau. “Now the big question is whether it can be a pan-European effort, or whether it will be individual national efforts.”
Warplanes strike Russian drones inside Poland
In this episode of GZERO Europe, Carl Bildt discusses Russia’s drone incursions into Poland.
Nineteen drones crossed into Polish airspace with some intercepted and shot down by warplanes. Bildt says the move by Russia was intentional and warns that “this is a clear act of aggression."
If tolerated, Bildt cautions it risks setting “a pattern where Russia step by step is going to up and increase this sort of direct, indirect attacks … not only against Ukraine… but also against NATO countries.”
Zelensky, Trump, and NATO: A united front on Ukraine?
In this episode of Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take, Ian breaks down Zelensky’s latest trip to Washington, this time joined by a united front of European leaders.
Ian explains why this visit is such a sharp contrast from February, when Zelensky came to the White House alone and left with little to show for it. Today, he arrives alongside key allies from the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Italy, EU and NATO leadership, a powerful symbol that Europe is stepping up.
Europe’s role in supporting Ukraine has shifted dramatically. As Ian notes, European military and financial aid to Kyiv now outpaces that of the United States, giving Europe greater leverage in shaping the war’s future. That includes discussions of “near Article 5” guarantees for Ukraine, signaling long-term security commitments even without NATO membership.
The meeting also highlights the growing importance of maintaining a unified transatlantic stance. While Putin continues to resist any ceasefire, the presence of Europe’s top leaders in Washington underscores that NATO is stronger and more coordinated than it was just months ago.
The key question now: Will Trump remain aligned with Europe’s position — or leave Putin more room to maneuver?
A school of fish swim above a staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) coral colony as it grows on the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Cairns, Australia October 25, 2019.
Hard Numbers: Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral damage, US cuts mRNA vaccine funding, South Korea opens visa-free tourism for Chinese visitors, & More
39: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – the biggest living ecosystem in the world – has suffered its largest annual coral decline since monitoring began 39 years ago. Tropical cyclones and coral-eating starfish are partly responsible, but experts say rising sea temperatures due to climate change are the main culprit.
5: Law and Justice-backed Karol Nawrocki began his five-year term as Polish president after his inauguration earlier today. Nawrocki will be a consistent thorn in the side of centrist Prime Minister Donald Tusk: unlike Tusk, the new president supports tax cuts and doesn’t see a place for Ukraine in NATO nor the European Union.
$500 million: US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly $500 million in funding for mRNA vaccine research. mRNA technology, which gives genetic instructions to the body on how to fight diseases, enabled the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine. Several large studies say mRNA is safe, but the technology has faced scrutiny from Kennedy Jr., vaccine skeptic groups, and other members of the Trump administration.
2: Just how big is the AI spending boom? Over the past two quarters, investment in artificial intelligence has contributed more to American GDP growth than consumer spending, according to Renaissance Macro, an economic research company.
30: South Korea announced it will temporarily allow Chinese nationals to visit with a tour group for 30 days without needing a visa. It’s the first time that Seoul has allowed Chinese tourists to enter without a visa like this. The pilot program, which runs from Sept. 29 to June 30 next year, is part of a cautious thaw in bilateral relations.
The return of the nuclear threat, with Admiral James Stavridis
Listen: The world is heading toward a new nuclear arms race—one that’s more chaotic and dangerous than the last. The Cold War built rules of deterrence for a world of dueling superpowers and static arsenals. But in a fragmented, GZERO world of fast-moving technology and unpredictable leadership, the safeguards are fraying. On the GZERO World Podcast, Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, sits down with Ian Bremmer to discuss the growing nuclear threat and what we can do to stop it.
The indicators are alarming: China is stockpiling nuclear warheads at record speed. Russia continues to rattle its nuclear saber in Ukraine. Even US allies are privately and publicly questioning whether they need a deterrent of their own. So how serious is the nuclear risk? How do we guarantee security in a world where the weapons (and the rules) are changing? Are we ready for a future where not just missiles, but lines of code, could end civilization? Stavridis and Bremmer assess the current arms race and what it will take to lower the nuclear temperature.
“We're already involved in a proxy war with a nuclear power,” Stavridis warns, “We'd be smart to try and continue to have strong alliances to balance China and Russia drawing closer and closer together.”
Why life sciences are critical to national security
Listen: What if the next virus isn’t natural, but deliberately engineered and used as a weapon? As geopolitical tensions rise and biological threats become more complex, health security and life sciences are emerging as critical pillars of national defense.
In the premiere episode of “The Ripple Effect: Investing in Life Sciences”, host Dan Riskin is joined by two leading voices at the intersection of biotechnology and defense, Dawn Meyerriecks, former CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology and current member of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, and Jason Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks. Together, they explore the dual-use nature of biotechnology and the urgent need for international oversight, genetic attribution standards, and robust viral surveillance. From pandemic preparedness and fragile supply chains to AI-driven lab automation and airport biosurveillance, their conversation highlights how life science innovation strengthens national resilience and strategic defense.
This timely conversation follows the June 25th, 2025 Hague Summit Declaration, where NATO allies pledged to invest 5% of GDP in defense by 2035—including up to 1.5% on resilience and innovation to safeguard critical infrastructure, civil preparedness, networks, and the defense industrial base. This limited series, produced by GZERO’s Blue Circle Studios in partnership with Novartis, examines how life science innovation plays a vital role in fulfilling that commitment.
Key takeaways from the 2025 NATO Summit
In this episode of Europe in :60, Carl Bildt discusses the outcomes of the NATO Summit and where Europe stands with the Israel-Iran conflict.
U.S. President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at a NATO leaders summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025.
Three takeaways from the NATO summit
But, as the world’s most powerful military alliance moves into a new and more robust phase, here are three things to ponder.
First, this was a win for Trump.
Donald Trump’s Reality TV approach to global politics is working. The US president has leveraged his country’s awesome military power, along with his own personal unpredictability and media savvy, to command the spotlight and advance his “America First” agenda. In this world, international meetings are merely backdrops for the Donald Trump show.
At the G7 summit in Alberta 10 days ago, he wrestled control of the world’s attention by leaving early to respond to the military conflict between Israel and Iran. After bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, he announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that he initially sought to manage in CAPITAL LETTERS on social media. Flying off to the NATO summit, he published an ostensibly private text message from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, in which the mild-mannered former Dutch prime minister flattered Trump for his “decisive” bombing of Iran and insisted the president was headed to another major triumph at the meeting in The Hague.
“Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,” Rutte wrote, accurately.
Rutte in fact set up the summit as an extended ceremony of capitulation. He even called Trump “daddy” in an exchange about wrangling peace between Iran and Israel. It looked undignified, and out of step with the attitudes of European voters who are largely hostile to Trump. But it worked. The alliance is paying more for defense, and Trump now seems to be a staunch supporter of NATO again.
Note: Trump is hardly the first US president to demand that NATO members shoulder more of the alliance’s defense burden. But he is the first to get them to actually do it so decisively. The most powerful unscripted drama in the world is playing out in Trump’s favor.
Second, the rearming of Europe has begun.
Europe’s voters, accustomed to social democracies that spend a lot of money on public services, might rather their governments spend money on butter, but they have come to see that they must buy guns. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has made it necessary. Last year, Putin spent $149 billion on the Russian military, 7.1% of the country’s GDP, creating a vast and menacing war machine on Europe’s doorstep. And it is not possible to be confident that Russia’s ambitions are limited to Ukraine, since Russians are engaged in sabotage and disruption actions in many countries.
Could Europe contain Russia on its own? Not anytime soon. A recent study found it would take 25 years and a trillion dollars to replace the US presence that has largely kept the peace on the continent since the end of the Second World War.
But the rearmament of the continent has already begun, most swiftly in the parts closest to Russia. Poland, which has the example of Ukraine to consider, increased defense spending by 31% in 2024, to $43 billion, straining its ability to pay. Germany spent $88.5 billion in 2024, removing a legislated debt limit to do so. It is now, for the first time since reunification in 1990, the biggest defense spender in Western Europe. France spent $64.7 billion in 2024, the UK $81.8 billion. On Wednesday, they all agreed to spend a lot more.
Third, higher defense spending is a promise but not yet a reality.
Trump is mollified, arms manufacturers are cheerful, and a clear signal has been sent to the Russians, but only time will tell if NATO members will do as they have said they will. Politicians setting targets is one thing, actually spending the money is another.
After all, there is only so much money to go around and, in democracies where voters can be fickle, it may be hard for leaders to ramp up defense spending consistently over the course of a decade.
Some of them can’t even do it now: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez showed up in the Hague with the right script, but without his checkbook, because he leads a minority government that would not be able to pass a budget if he aimed for the 5% target.
Canadian PM Mark Carney, for his part, promised Canada will hit the target, doubling its budget by 2035, but it is not clear whether voters there — or in Spain or other countries that don’t have Russian troops on their borders — will want to keep spending so much money. And by 2035, most of the current leaders will likely not be in power.
There is another wild card too: Russia. Global military spending increased at 9.4% last year, the steepest increase since the end of the Cold War, which ended when the Soviet Union ran out of money.
If history repeats itself, and Russia is unable to sustain its aggression, voters in NATO countries will no doubt find they have better things to spend on, and there will be no way to hold them to the commitments Trump won this week.