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 }}
Ian Explains: Why authoritarian rulers love the Olympics
The International Olympic Committee says global politics have no place at the Olympics and insists the Olympics promote democratic values through sports, so why does the IOC keep awarding the Games to authoritarian countries like Russia and China?
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down the complicated relationship between global politics and the Olympic Games. The IOC has an uncomfortable history of cozying up to authoritarian rulers, like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who use the Games as propaganda, who use the Games to project the image of their country they want the world to see. Calls are growing for more transparency in the IOC, which has faced accusations of corruption, bribery, and bid-rigging in recent years. The 2024 Olympics will be a test of the IOC’s ability to remain politically neutral while balancing the ideals of democracy with the geopolitical realities of a world that’s more fragmented than ever. Can they stick the landing?
Watch more on the full episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, in which Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins discusses security concerns and logistical challenges at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, the complicated relationship between global politics and the events, and sportswashing.
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on 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 (🔔).
Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich has been sentenced to 16 years on espionage charges. He is seen here in court on July 19.
Russia sentences US reporter Evan Gershkovich to 16 years
A Russian court on Friday sentenced Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich to 16 years in prison on espionage charges that the US government and his newspaper maintain are fabricated. The US State Department says Gershkovich was “wrongfully detained.”
The 32-year-old journalist was arrested last year while on assignment in the Russian city of Ekaterinburg shortly after he published a story focused on Russia's economic downturn amid the war. His trial was conducted behind closed doors, and no evidence to support the Russian government’s allegations has been made public.
Fast trial leads to hope for a swap deal. The trial was conducted with considerable speed, lasting just three weeks from first hearing to sentencing. That has raised hopes that Gershkovich could soon figure into a high-profile prisoner swap deal between the Kremlin and the West. A swap deal requires a pardon from President Vladimir Putin, which can not happen until after a guilty verdict and sentencing.
Talks to that effect have reportedly been ongoing between Moscow and Washington. But the main prize Russia seems to be seeking is Vadim Krasikov, a Russian spy serving a life sentence in Germany for the murder of a Kremlin opponent in Berlin in 2019.
So far, Germany has been reluctant to release him, but with Gershkovich’s sentencing complete, US pressure to reach a deal could now rise as the Biden administration seeks a high-profile diplomatic success as part of its reelection campaign.
Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM
Do NATO allies have the strength, patience, and unity to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to win the war and defeat Russia? According to Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, the answer is a resounding yes. On GZERO World, Sikorski sat down with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of NATO’s 75th-anniversary summit in Washington, DC, to talk about NATO’s strength, Putin’s missteps, and why continuing to send crucial military and economic assistance to Kyiv is a top priority for western allies and the future of NATO.
“Ukraine is heroically defending us before this evil man at a cost to us of less than 1% of our GDP,” Sikorski explains, “We can afford this."
Sikorski says that despite rogue alliance members like Hungary’s Victor Orbán, NATO remains united and is “back to basics” in its original mission of repelling an aggressive Russia. Bremmer and Sikorski also discuss Ukraine’s ongoing challenges, such as ensuring Kyiv can keep sending weapons and new troops to the front lines. Sikorski remains optimistic that Ukraine will prevail and win the war, with the help of Western allies and NATO, particularly Poland, which has taken in almost a million Ukrainian refugees and is helping train troops to NATO standards.
Bremmer pushed Sikorski on his conviction that Ukraine would win, pointing out that a potential second Donald Trump administration could severely limit further military assistance for Kyiv and the sheer amount of force required to get all of Ukraine’s territory back just isn’t available, but Sikorski held firm in his conviction.
“There is never a shortage of pocket Chamberlains willing to give up other people’s land or freedom for their own peace of mind,” Sikorski said, “I think we can win this one.”
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on 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 (🔔).
At NATO Summit, Polish FM Radek Sikorski weighs in on Ukraine war
Listen: Does Ukraine have the strength, stamina, and support to win the war against Russia? On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sat down with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski on the sidelines of NATO’s 75th-anniversary summit in Washington, DC, for his perspective on the war, European unity, and whether NATO allies can remain united long enough to see Ukraine through to victory. Despite uncertainty about the 2024 US election, Ukraine’s struggle to recruit new troops, and rogue alliance member Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán meeting with Putin, Sikorski is confident Ukraine will ultimately prevail.
Poland is an important part of that defense strategy. The country, which has a 300-mile border with Ukraine, contributes a larger percentage of its GDP to defense spending than any other NATO member, including the US, and has taken in almost a million Ukrainian refugees. Sikorski says that NATO is “back to basics” in its original mission of repelling and defending against an aggressive Russia and that Putin severely misjudged the strength of European and NATO unity in the lead-up to the invasion. Two and a half years into a bloody, brutal war with no end in sight, making sure that unity remains rock solid for as long as Ukraine needs is an urgent priority.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Incumbents in trouble, Putin’s bet, Conservative Canada, and more: Your questions, answered
Another heat wave, another mailbag.
Thank you to all who’ve sent questions. The response to last week’s edition was overwhelmingly positive, so please keep ‘em coming. If you want a chance to have your questions answered, shoot me an email here or follow me on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Threads, and look out for future AMAs. The only questions that are off-limits are boring ones.
Looking at the elections in France, the UK, and the US, would you agree that 2024 might be shaping up to be the year of anti-incumbents?
Funny you should ask – my latest Quick Take tackles that exact question. Long story short: Yes, this is a deeply challenging time to be an incumbent, and the massively underrated reason why is that people all over the world are still reeling from the aftereffects of the pandemic.
There are, of course, plenty of local and idiosyncratic reasons why the French, the Brits, the Indians, the South Africans, and so many others were unhappy with their leadership. But the one thing incumbents everywhere had in common is voters blamed them for all the unprecedented disruption they’ve experienced since COVID-19, from lockdowns and vaccine mandates to supply chain disruptions, inflation, migration, and crime. In this environment, if the Republican candidate in the United States was anyone other than the historically unpopular Donald Trump, we’d be looking at a GOP landslide – and that’s against anyone that the Democrats put up, let alone a debate/age-diminished Joe Biden.
What US election result is Putin hoping for?
Putin clearly prefers Trump – a more transactional president who admires strongmen, shuns traditional US allies, and believes “common values” are irrelevant to international relations. Trump dislikes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and has expressed a desire to engage with Putin directly and unilaterally to end the war on terms more favorable to Russia. Putin also benefits from more chaos in the US political system and stands to benefit from a contested US election outcome that turns Americans more inward, against each other, and away from international leadership in diplomatic, economic, and – especially – security matters.
If Trump is elected and turns his back on Ukraine, how likely is it that Western Europe will crank up its own war machine and get the job done?
They’ll certainly try to do more. That’s especially true of NATO’s frontline states: Poland, the Baltics, and the Nordics. But France, one of Europe’s leading proponents of common defense capabilities and support for Ukraine under President Emmanuel Macron, may not be in a position to do more given the result of its recent parliamentary election. Germany, the continent’s largest economy, may be reluctant to lean in given the fiscal troubles facing the government’s weak and fractious coalition. And some other countries like Viktor Orban’s Hungary and Robert Fico’s Slovakia will align themselves more with Trump, dividing what has hitherto been a strongly unified Europe on the issue.
Where do you see breaking points for the Russian and Ukrainian people in this war?
It’s much closer for Ukraine. Kyiv is running low on valuable young men who can be mobilized, trained, and sent to the front to fight. Ukrainian support for the war has eroded accordingly. That matters more than it would if the same were happening in Russia because Ukraine remains a democracy, however imperfect.
A little over a year after Yevgeny Prigozhin’s aborted coup, I don’t see any near-term breaking points for the Russian people. Though large-scale casualties are certainly making the war less popular among the population at large, the Kremlin is able to sustain its “meat grinder” campaign by drawing from a pool of disenfranchised convicts, ethnic minorities, and mercenaries. Not that “ordinary” Russians are substantially more enfranchised …
What will it take for the Chinese to give up on Putin? What can America do to hasten the process?
There’s no reason for them to do so. After all, India – a key strategic partner of the United States and the West more broadly – has also significantly increased its trade with Russia, with no adverse consequences for Delhi. If the US were to start imposing significant secondary sanctions on Chinese companies or banks over expanded dual-use exports to Russia, that’d probably get Beijing to reduce its exposure to the Kremlin’s war machine at the margins. But there’s nothing the US is likely to do in the near future (under Biden or Trump) that could completely break the China-Russia relationship.
How would a Trump presidency strengthen China?
Trump and Biden have similar China policies. The biggest difference is the extent of tariffs Trump is prepared to impose, which would have a more significant negative impact on both the Chinese and the US economy (unless Beijing was prepared to cut a significant and unexpected deal). China’s biggest strategic opportunity in that environment would be to divide and conquer: Exploit concerns from US allies that find themselves constrained or undermined by a more unilateralist Trump administration to improve its relations with them and potentially drive a wedge between them and the Americans.
What’s the biggest geopolitical risk in the world today?
The biggest risk is still “the United States vs. itself”: A presidential election in the world’s most divided and dysfunctional advanced industrial democracy that will do untold damage to America’s social fabric, political institutions, and international standing no matter who wins. Have a look at the full list of Top 10 Risks we put out in January. I really wish they weren’t standing up as well as they are …
How do the leaders of other countries feel about a potential Conservative government coming to power in Canada?
At the risk of sounding harsh, most world leaders aren’t thinking about Canada at all – and for good reason. The stakes of the country’s upcoming election may feel existential to my liberal friends up north who are about to lose power after nine years in office, but the reality is that Canada’s democracy isn’t in crisis like America’s is.
Despite his right-wing populist rhetoric, when it comes to policy substance, Conservative leader and likely next prime minister Pierre Poilievre is closer to Mitch McConnell’s brand of Koch-friendly conservatism than to the nativist, authoritarian, protectionist Trumpism that ruffles feathers in foreign capitals. Sure, a Conservative government will lead to closer alignment with the US in a Trump administration, but either way it would remain a very friendly and stable relationship. It will also lower taxes, lean more strongly into energy and related infrastructure development, and promote other pro-business policies. Critically, agree or disagree with his rather conventional platform, Poilievre has done nothing to suggest he’d undermine the legitimacy of Canada’s democracy. Must be nice, eh?
Do you think the AfD will win the next German election?
No. Despite the party’s meteoric decade-long rise, Germany’s coalition politics are designed to deliver centrist outcomes at the national level, and the Alternative for Germany is still seen as way too radical, Nazi-coded, and incompetent. But it’s certainly plausible that they’ll eventually be part of a government. After all, most of the structural elements that made the AfD a force are still in place: unchecked migration, a weak economy, deep discontent in Germany’s east, and plenty of space to the right of the decidedly moderate and pro-European Christian Democratic Union, aka CDU, for them to exploit.
Can RFK Jr. win?
Win … back his reputation? It’s hard to say. He’s better known now and seems to have a fair number of committed online fans (I say “seems to” because I can’t be sure how many are real vs. bots). I could see him selling merchandise, writing a book, and going on the public speaking circuit. If you’re earnestly asking about the 2024 election, I’d say he has a better chance of winning the lottery than he does of carrying a single state.
Does either of the major US parties have a realistic plan to bring down the deficit?
No. Both presidential candidates’ platforms and track records show little concern for fiscal deficits or pro-cyclical government spending (though Trump added more to the national debt in his first term than Biden has). This is not ideal at a time when interest rates are high and debt servicing costs are rising as a share of the federal budget.
I'm not saying that all deficit spending is bad or equally bad. When we look at companies, we always consider both sides of the balance sheet: liabilities and assets. The same should be true for sovereigns. That’s why I generally support deficit spending that can reasonably be expected to lead to asymmetric increases in the nation’s long-term asset base (e.g., any positive-return investment in education, health care, infrastructure, decarbonization, etc.). Trillions of dollars on failed wars … not so much.
The circumstances and timing matter greatly, too. Fiscal stimulus – even of the not-so-productive variety – is the right thing to do during recessions, when aggregate demand needs a kick in the ass, interest rates are low, and the spending pays for itself many times over with growth. Conversely, the right time for the government to tighten its belt is during the boom … now.
How big a business is Eurasia Group? Is it relatively large, medium, or small/boutique compared to its peers?
We’re almost 250 employees – pretty small for an organization that helps people understand the world. Our principal competitive challenge is employing enough senior leadership to take on all the new opportunities we’re lucky to have. We have a lot of talent, but it’s a big world out there, and it’s not getting any less challenging.
NATO Summit: Biden's uncertain future worries US allies
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What are you watching for at the NATO summit?
Well, first and foremost, it's how all of these allies are responding to a very real political crisis in the United States. US, of course, the country they rely on for leading NATO, by far the biggest military power in the world, their principal ally. And they now know that the likelihood that Biden is going to be able to win, is a lot lower than it was the last time they saw him. And they've been seeing him. They saw him at the G7. They saw him in Normandy. They saw him, you know, at the United Nations and some in bunch of bilats and and everyone I've spoken to, says that they're not all confident that he can win. They certainly don't think he can serve out four more years. And they're deeply worried, especially because what a Trump administration might mean for them, with the exception of Viktor Orbán, almost all the NATO allies are very worried. They know that NATO, the EU, the war in Ukraine, all of that much more uncertain if Trump were to come back as president. So that's what I'm watching for and see how that plays out.
How will the UK's new PM, Keir Starmer, lead Britain?
Economically, not all that different. He's focused unusually for labor, focused on a pro-growth policy. He's promised that he isn't going to raise the major taxes like income tax and VAT. And so, he will probably find some more money in things like inheritance tax, he’s going to try to get more private sector investment into the economy. Certainly, wants to have a consistent policy on Ukraine, consistent policy on the United States as the previous conservative governments. Big change will be tried to reestablish stronger relations with the European Union and particularly Ursula von der Leyen, expected to get the nod for another five years running the EU. Keir Starmer spent a lot of personal time working on that over the past months.
As a Russian missile struck a children's hospital in Kyiv is there still no end in sight for the war in Ukraine?
No, no, there's no end in sight. in fact, while that was happening, Narendra Modi, the Indian PM was being quite friendly in Moscow on his visit with Putin. This is a partner of the United States. Putin feels like right now, especially if Trump is elected that his bet on this invasion in Ukraine will work out well for him. And that is not what NATO allies want Putin to be thinking right now. There's been success in getting them a lot of support, the Ukrainians, over the course of the last six months, and certainly they're going to have more money over the next year. But longer term, there's a huge question about how that plays out. And Putin is showing impunity right at the beginning of the NATO summit by sending all those missiles at civilian targets, including sick kids in Ukraine. Not a surprise. but still pretty sickening.
- UK's new PM Starmer aims for closer EU ties ›
- Who is Keir Starmer? ›
- Ukraine will define the future of NATO ›
- How Erdogan won the NATO Summit ›
- Senator Mark Kelly on President Biden's future in the 2024 race and fitness for office - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Why Biden is the focus of the NATO Summit - GZERO Media ›
- At NATO Summit, Polish FM Radek Sikorski weighs in on Ukraine war - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM - GZERO Media ›
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi walk during their meeting at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence near Moscow, Russia July 8, 2024.
Indian PM Narendra Modi: a “bleeding heart” in Moscow
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared to take a swipe at Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Moscow on Tuesday, even if only a subtle one.
Just moments after the Russian president welcomed him to the Kremlin, Modi lamented that his “heart bleeds” whenever children are killed in war.
A timeless statement, yes – but the timing itself was a statement: The day before, the two leaders embraced just hours after an apparent Russian airstrike destroyed a children’s cancer hospital in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
Moscow has claimed, so far without evidence, that the hit came from a Ukrainian air defense system. The tragedy occurred as Moscow targeted cities across Ukraine with one of its biggest missile barrages in months.
The nonaligned line. Modi has, gently, criticized Putin’s invasion before, but the bigger picture remains the same: India has kept up good relations with Moscow throughout the war.
In part, that’s pragmatic. A rapidly growing Indian economy enjoys buying steeply discounted Russian oil. But it’s also ideological. Modi is keen to show that while he is glad to partner with the US over shared concerns about China, India – the most populous democracy and the fastest-growing major economy – has its own prerogatives.
How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does the Supreme Court's immunity decision mean for Trump and the future of presidential power?
Well, for Trump, the first thing it means is that you're not going to be hearing about on the case of his involvement in January 6th. All of that gets punted until after the election earliest, assuming Biden wins and more likely these days, Trump. The case is kind of a dead letter. More broadly for presidential power. We're talking about immunity for all official acts that are engaged in during the course of a person's presidency. Now, in dissent, Justice Sotomayor, who's pretty far left on the court, has said that this doesn't prevent a president from engaging in treasonous acts and makes the president a king. Most jurists don't accept that, but it certainly does lead to huge questions about what is and what is not an official act. And of course, presidents would be inclined to argue that very broadly to be able to avoid the potential at any cases against them. So this is a pretty significant, not necessary momentous, but certainly very significant decision by the court.
With the far-right surging in the French elections, what would a caretaker government in France mean for Europe?
Well, it is more likely that we see a caretaker government than we see a far-right majority. And the efforts by President Macron and the left to ensure that they are not running against each other in the second round, triangular three-person elections make it more likely that you have a hung parliament. Then you have the far right in a cohabitation of this very unusual situation where the prime minister is opposition to the president. But what's going to happen is that you have a very, very weak French government and that almost nothing can pass in the next 12 months until another election would occur. It certainly makes Le Pen stronger. It makes it more likely that the far right is eventually able to defeat a Macron successor from the center in 2027.
And it also makes it more likely that the French budget is out of whack with the EU. They're not able to pass anything that looks like a balanced budget, that more parliamentary approvals for things like, additional support for Ukraine or training troops on the ground, would have a hard time getting through the French parliament if it requires such a vote. So it's a real challenge for the EU. It's a challenge for France.
Does the West have any concerns with Modi's upcoming visit to Russia?
Not really. The West relationship with Prime Minister Modi is very strong. Modi is increasingly decoupling the defense relationship between India and Russia. They buy a lot from Russia. No Indian technology goes to Russia the way that it does from China, for example. So you don't have that dual use problem. And India buys an awful lot of oil from Russia, at a discount. But that is in line with American and the West's policies, because they don't want a global recession. Modi and Putin, in principle, are supposed to visit each other every year. That hasn't happened. And so this is sort of getting that relationship in that regard on track. But I think there's not a lot strategically that the West is worried about near term here.