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 }}
China's stockpiling nukes. Should we be worried?
China is growing its stockpile of nuclear weapons faster than any country in the world and very soon, its total number of warheads will match that of the US and Russia. How will that change the global balance of power? On GZERO World, Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, joins Ian Bremmer for a sober assessment of the current nuclear threat, and warns that China’s nuclear ambitions are his top concern.
The Chinese have dramatically ramped up their strategic nuclear weapons program, with a stated goal of 1,500 deployable nuclear warheads, likely within the next five years. The US will soon be facing a second nuclear superpower for the first time, but Stavridis says the US still has time to modernize, shore up alliances, and avoid losing the nuclear race.
“China is going from a pretty modest inventory of around 300 to a stated goal of 1,500 deployable nuclear warheads,” Stavridis says, “There is a whole new structure we have never encountered. We’ve never had a three-handed triangle of major nuclear powers.”
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 (🔔).
The dangerous new nuclear arms race
Is the world entering a new, dangerous nuclear era? China is expanding its stockpile of nuclear warheads at an alarming rate. Russia continues to rattle its nuclear saber in Ukraine. Even US allies are publicly and privately questioning whether they need their own nuclear deterrent.
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer and Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, discuss the growing nuclear threat and what we can do to stop it. With new existential threats like AI and bioweapons, the question now isn’t just who gets the bomb. It’s whether systems designed to prevent catastrophe still work in a world where the weapons (and the rules) are changing. The good news is we aren’t yet at crisis point. Stravridis says the best way to counter the growing nuclear risk is to reopen arms limitation talks, modernize military tech and to reinvest in strong alliances, to prevent Russia and China from drawing even closer together.
“People are less trusting of the US as a nuclear umbrella,” Stavridis says, “If nations like Iran and North Korea can obtain nuclear weapons, which one has and the other has been very close, other countries start to think maybe it looks pretty good to get one.”
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 (🔔).
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.”
Do nuclear weapons make a country safer?
Does acquiring nuclear weapons make your country safer? It’s a difficult question. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer looks back to the 1990s and a tale of two radically different nuclear—Ukraine and North Korea.
Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal after the Soviet collapse. They gave them up in 1994 in exchange for security assurances from the US, UK and Russia. But assurances aren't guarantees, and a decade later, Russia illegally annexed Crimea before launching its full-scale invasion in 2022. Meanwhile, North Korea abandoned diplomacy, pursued nuclear weapons, and lied to the world all along. Now it’s a global pariah, but the uncomfortable truth is nobody’s thinking of invading North Korea. So did Kyiv get played? Did Pyongyang make a smarter move? The contrast between Ukraine’s vulnerability and North Korea’s impunity seems stark. But the story is more complicated. Building nuclear weapons is a gamble, not a strategy. Watch Ian Explains to understand why and what it means for the growing nuclear threat in 2025.
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 (🔔).
Israel, Iran, and the US went to war. Now what happens?
Iran, the clear loser of the 12-Day War, entered as the weakest player and came out weaker still. With Hamas degraded, Hezbollah decimated, Syria toppled, and Russia distracted, Tehran stood mostly alone. Yet its regime can claim survival, some damage inflicted on Israel, and at least partial preservation of its nuclear program—though the extent is unclear.
Netanyahu was never interested in a ceasefire. But he emerged in a far stronger position—crippling Iran’s capabilities, securing US strikes on targets Israel couldn’t reach, and reversing his political fortunes at home.
As for Trump, this is the biggest foreign policy win to date of his second term. He helped dismantle Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, avoided war, and saw no US blowback. Iran was already weakened—but Trump called the bluff, and so far, it’s worked. Emphasis on “so far.”
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 (🔔).
Israel strikes Iran: Could the US and Gulf States be pulled in?
Tensions in the Middle East escalate as Israel launches a surprise military strike against Iran, prompting international concern and speculation about broader conflict.
In his latest Quick Take, Ian Bremmer calls Israel’s strike on Iran “a huge success for the Israelis” and a significant blow to Iran’s regional influence. “A fair amount of Iran’s top military leadership has been decapitated by Israel,” he notes. While the US did not take part directly, Ian says President Donald Trump “gave at very least, a blinking yellow light, if not a direct green.” He warns of three high-risk responses Iran may pursue: a push for nuclear weapons, disruption of oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, or a harsh domestic crackdown. All are high-risk and carry the potential to draw the US and Gulf states into deeper conflict.
US-Canada trade war helps Mark Carney's election prospects
With recent tensions between Zelensky and Washington, how likely are the Saudi-hosted peace talks to yield real progress?
Well, we'll find out real soon. Zelensky has certainly made his efforts to make nice on the critical minerals deal, on apologizing to the Trump White House for a meeting that frankly he has very little to apologize for, and that certainly has helped with getting this engagement going. Also, he's not attending personally, rather, his key envoys and advisors meeting with Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Adviser Waltz. I suspect that the meetings will end up being just fine, but they are unlikely to lead to a ceasefire because what the Ukrainians are prepared to accept, the Russians are not close to accepting. So either Trump is going to have to be willing to take some time, bring it to the Russians and see that the Russians are not playing full ball, or he's going to have to throw the Ukrainians under the bus more and make greater demands that they're not prepared to accept. I don't think either of those things are likely to happen today, but that's I think, the direction of travel.
Are we on the cusp of a nuclear proliferation era as Poland and Germany talk of acquiring nuclear weapons?
Germany's talking more about sharing in the nuclear umbrella with France. Poland's talking about getting its own. These things are all harder. They will take longer than these countries have. It's not like France's nuclear umbrella is deep or easily extendable. In order to have anyone believe credibly that a French deterrent would apply to other countries, a lot of things have to happen in terms of coordination and infrastructure and building up those capabilities that will take frankly years. So, I think it's important that these conversations are happening. I think that many countries around the world are moving towards establishing their own nuclear capabilities in, around, the Middle East. I can certainly see over time as Iran gets closer, the Saudis thinking about it, the Turks thinking about it, in Asia, South Korea and Japan. In Europe, a number of countries needing to have collective security because they don't feel like the Americans can provide for them. But I don't think those things are happening overnight. The global order is changing. It is really past the tipping point, but these things are slow moving processes.
Does Justin Trudeau's replacement, Mark Carney, have a shot of winning Canada's general election?
Certainly does, and three months ago would've had no shot at all. There's been an extraordinary bounce back for the Liberal Party, in part because they're now represented by someone that is not an incumbent. Think about what would've happened in the US if it hadn't been Biden or Kamala Harris, but had been an outsider after general primary, better shot of winning. That's exactly what the Canadians have now done. Trudeau forced down, Chrystia Freeland, his deputy prime minister, getting 8% in the Liberal caucus vote, and Carney getting almost 86%. So he's a centrist. He's in much better position to give a serious run against Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives. The big question is how is Trump going to respond? Because on the one hand, it's very easy for Trump to now say, "Trudeau's gone because of me, and I'm now willing to work with somebody who is more reasonable," and the markets would certainly appreciate that. On the other hand, short of him doing that, and I think it's unlikely that he's going to reach out and extend a hand to the Canadians, then Trump beating on Canada more gives Carney a better shot of winning because he's the guy that can manage an economic crisis and also because the Canadians are so united in their anger with the United States, kind of like Mexico is right now, kind of like a number of European countries are right now. So Trump is definitely a uniter, just not inside the US, more inside other countries.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk attends a European Union leaders special summit to discuss Ukraine and European defense in Brussels, Belgium, on March 6, 2025.
Might Poland go nuclear?
As Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was in Saudi Arabia Monday ahead of US-Ukrainian talks, his military launched its largest drone attack on Moscow overnight, killing two people. And if you ask Elon Musk, he was also busy attacking X. On Monday, Musk claimed without evidence that his social media platform went dark yesterday because it was targeted by a “massive cyberattack” traced to “the Ukraine area.”
Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has made waves in recent days.
When Poland joined NATO in 1999, it appeared the country could count on the most successful military alliance in history to protect its borders against future threats. At the time, an American renunciation of NATO was hard to imagine.
On Friday, Tusk warned his country that a “profound change of American geopolitics” forces his government to prepare to double the size of its military and to “reach for opportunities related to nuclear weapons.” In the past, Poland’s leaders have suggested hosting the nuclear weapons of others, but the hint that Poland might develop its own arsenal in response to potential Russian aggression and a feared US retreat from Europe is something new.
Tusk’s jarring comments reflect a spiral in relations between Tusk’s government and the Donald Trump administration. A series of accusations and insults flew over the weekend between Poland’s foreign minister, Trump adviser Elon Musk, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the Musk-owned Starlink satellite system that supports Ukraine’s forces on the battlefield.
The PM’s suggestion that Poland might look to nuclear weapons in part reflects political worries. Poland will hold a first round of presidential elections in May, and Poles look likely to back a leader they believe can stand up to both Trump and Vladimir Putin.
But acquiring nuclear weapons would be time-consuming, politically fraught, and enormously expensive for Poland.