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 }}
Why Trump-Putin calls are cause for concern
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
As another hurricane hits Florida, how is information complicating disaster relief efforts?
Well, the heads of FEMA are saying this is by far the worst misinformation environment they've ever seen around a natural disaster, and it makes life a lot more difficult. First of all, it means a lot of people that need help aren't getting help, a lot of people that need to evacuate aren't evacuating, and it undermines the morale of the people that are working to try to help respond to the hurricane. So, for all of these reasons, when you have people saying that the money isn't actually being sent or it's being displaced, or that there are blockades, all of these things, if there's ever a time that you need scientists and authorities to be believed and listened to, it's in a national emergency. We saw these problems with the pandemic working with a lot of uncertainty, and you now see this working with a hurricane, working with a lot of certainty. So, even in an environment that should be depoliticized should be very straightforward that everyone comes together, it doesn't matter if you're red or blue. If you're getting hit by a hurricane, you need the same information. You need the same services that's being undermined by a disinformation environment. My God, am I worried about that in the aftermath of the US election in November. People should not sleep on how challenging it's going to be to get through that.
What do Southeast Asian leaders hope to accomplish at the ASEAN regional summit?
Well, the big thing they hope to accomplish, and this is not an organization like the EU or NATO; it's a pretty disparate group of countries that have very different political and economic systems and values and preferences; not a lot of common authority, but certainly, they all want to see an end to the civil war that has been expanding in Myanmar. And so the top issue is can they collectively push for diplomatic engagement between the two sides that have not been willing to talk to each other? Certainly, that is Secretary of State Tony Blinken's hope and effort in his attendance right now. We'll see if it goes anywhere, but it's increasingly disruptive for economics, for infrastructure, supply chain across the region, and right now, it is getting worse.
What do you make of reports that Trump stayed in touch with Putin after leaving office?
We heard from Bob Woodward, this new book coming out, some seven direct conversations, phone calls that Trump had with Putin since leaving the presidency, which does surprise me a little, honestly. We know that Zelensky really wanted to have one conversation with Trump a few weeks ago during the United Nations meetings on the sidelines, and it looked like that wasn't going to happen, and then finally it did. Certainly, for those that are concerned that Trump and Putin are continuing engagement and that means that Zelensky might be thrown under the bus, there's more reason to be concerned about that given those ongoing conversations. Certainly, you'd want to know what they're about. Trump does want an end to the war. Frankly, most of the world is aligned with him and wanting an end to the war, and I think it's useful to be able to talk with Putin directly. Frankly, I think that people like Biden and Ursula von der Leyen and the NATO secretary general should be talking to Putin even though there is a war going on that they're on opposite sides of, because it would help potentially long-term reduce tensions and lead to a greater potential of a negotiated settlement. But that's very different from a bunch of conversations that had not been discussed and that aren't necessarily trusted.
Europe's biggest concerns about Middle East, one year after Oct. 7
What's the situation of Europe one year after the October 7th attack against Israel? What's the main takeaway from the visit of the new NATO Secretary General to Kyiv? Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Lisbon, Portugal.
What's the situation of Europe one year after the October 7th attack against Israel?
Well, I think deep apprehension is the best way of summing it up. Fears that we will see a further escalation of the conflict. Could be further problems in Gaza, could be further problems in West Bank. But perhaps particular now the situation of Lebanon, where there's the risk that we will see a further meltdown by the way of Lebanon. And we already have a million people on the move inside Lebanon. We have perhaps 100,000 people who are trying to flee from Lebanon into Syria. Mind you, there was a million and a half fleeing from Syria into Lebanon a couple of years ago. And the fear that we will see any refugee flow coming out of that area into Europe with all of the problems that would entail. So, deep apprehension on that situation.
What's the main takeaway from the visit of the new NATO Secretary General to Kyiv?
I think it was important for Mark Rutte to go to Kiev as the first thing he did really as the new Secretary General of NATO in order to make very clear his personal commitment to Ukraine, and the fact that he would put that at the top of his list of priorities, much in the same way as outgoing Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has done during the last few years. So, that was an important signal in itself.
Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia
In a GZERO Global Stage discussion at the 79th UN General Assembly, Czechia President Peter Pavel highlighted the evolving dynamics within NATO nearly two years after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He acknowledged that initial unity, which surged in response to the shock of the invasion, has waned as war fatigue sets in.
"I had an impression that some representatives of the countries are a little bit tired by always hearing that we need to support Ukraine, and we need to condemn Russian aggression," he said.
President Pavel emphasized that the conflict transcends regional borders, threatening global principles by challenging the UN Security Council's core values. He stressed the need for continued opposition to Russia's aggression, warning that a victory for Russia could embolden similar regimes to pursue military solutions to achieve their aims.
Pavel spoke during GZERO’s Global Stage livestream, “Live from the United Nations: Securing our Digital Future,” an event produced in partnership between the Complex Risk Analytics Fund, or CRAF’d, and GZERO Media’s Global Stage series, sponsored by Microsoft. The Global Stage series convenes heads of state, business leaders, and technology experts from around the world for a critical debate about the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world. Click here to watch the full conversation.
- NATO backs long-range missiles for Ukraine, US hesitates ›
- NATO goes all-in on Ukraine, Canada gets a slap on the wrist ›
- Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM ›
- At NATO Summit, Polish FM Radek Sikorski weighs in on Ukraine war ›
- Ukraine war sees escalation of weapons and words ›
- Is Ukraine running out of time? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder sizes up the Russia-Ukraine war ›
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 (🔔).
- Ukraine will define the future of NATO ›
- Does NATO need to be “Trump-proofed”? ›
- NATO’s pivot to the Indo-Pacific ›
- Ian Explains: Why Biden is the focus of the NATO Summit ›
- NATO Summit: Biden's uncertain future worries US allies ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia - GZERO Media ›
Russia-Ukraine reality check
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I think it's a good time to talk about Russia. Vladimir Putin, just back from a trip to the Hermit Kingdom. Not many people go there. And those that do frequently don't come back. North Korea. Kim Jong un.
Lots of pomp and showing of very close friendship, engagement, alignment. Kim Jong un said that they're now allies. Putin notedly did not use that terminology, and I'm sure advisedly. So, first time that Putin has been there in decades. And lots of ways to think about it. I mean, on the one hand, you can say that Putin's reduced to traveling to meet the world's worst dictator because there are very few countries in the world that are willing to provide wholehearted support for Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine. The Iranians will. The North Koreans will. The Syrians and Belarus. And that's kind of about it. And so that doesn't speak very well for Putin being able to get weapons, for example, to continue to fight his war. Even the Chinese won't do that because they're worried about US and other knock on secondary sanctions. So, you know, that's the positive spin that you can put on this from the United States and the NATO position.
But there's a negative spin too, and that is that Russia is increasingly allied with a very dangerous nuclear country with cyber capabilities, history of human trafficking, illegal drug transit and export, and a country that is already maximally sanctioned that benefits from chaos, and that previously their top friend was China who wanted more stability in the global order.
And the Russians certainly don't. So this provides cover for North Koreans to cause more trouble vis-à-vis South Korea and Japan and the rest of the world, and also gives lots of weaponry to the Russians and lots of technology to North Korea, none of which is good, not good for the world at all. And while it's true that Russia is isolated in terms of its war and its war goals, that doesn't mean that it's isolated.
And what I mean by that is the willingness of the United States and Europe to put really tough sanctions on Russia. I mean, the kind of sanctions that would reduce Russia and its ability to fight the war. They're not there. They're not there. They talk tough. But the reality is Russia is the largest country in the world geographically and within that territory. They have an awful lot of very important natural resources. They've got oil, they've got gas, they've got platinum, they've got diamonds, they've got uranium, they've got food, they've got fertilizer. And the United States and Europe, if they were so concerned about the war in Ukraine that they were truly willing to cut that off, they could. But it would cost them.
It would cost them because the world would be in a global recession out of not getting that oil and gas. It would cost them because a lot of the nuclear plants in the West wouldn't have uranium, and the prices would go way up. And they don't want to spend that money. And it would cost them because a lot of people in the Global South would starve, because they wouldn't have access to the food and fertilizer, except at a higher cost that they can't afford to pay. And the West isn't willing to pay that cost to take that risk and to squeeze the Russians that hard. They're willing to make the Russians less profitable in terms of the oil and gas they sell. They're willing to freeze and even increasingly seize hundreds of billions in Russian assets and use that to fund the Ukrainians, because it's better than having to pay for the Ukrainians yourself.
But that's very different from saying we're going to force the Russians to pay a price that they would be unwilling to pay. The price that the Russians are presently paying is at the margins. It isn’t an existential for Putin, and it's certainly a much lower cost than he's willing to exact for continued war on the ground in Ukraine, territorial conquest, and perhaps the ability to remove Zelenskyy in the future and have someone that is more aligned with his sensibilities. That's where we are. And the reality there is that Russia can keep on keeping on as a consequence.
Now, you know, we saw, this peace conference, as it's called, supporting Zelensky with representatives of over 90 countries and over 40 heads of state and heads of government. And it was an impressive display in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago. But it's also true that behind the scenes, Zelensky really, really, really wanted to have that meeting. And the Americans and many NATO allies were saying, maybe not so fast, because of course, every time you have one of these big global shows of support, you lose a little bit of the urgency and the support you show that there are fewer countries that are willing to support you as much as they were six months before, 12 months before. The Chinese didn't show up, the Indians showed up at a relatively low level. They didn't sign on to the ultimate memorandum. Neither did the Saudis. I mean, you know, this is an issue, right? The fact is that NATO is very strongly supportive of Ukraine and of continuing to allow them to have the types of support to defend themselves and rebuild their country. The Global South is increasingly “let's have a cease fire right now.” And China is “let's have a cease fire right now and we're kind of more in the Russian camp than we are in the West camp or in Ukraine's camp.” And Putin sees that and he sees that over time, if he waits these countries out, the likelihood that he'll end up in a better position than the Ukrainians goes up.
And this is why when you talk to members of NATO and you say, well, what's your position on negotiations? And their public statements are, look, it's it's completely up to the Ukrainians to decide. The reality is that you'll need to pressure the Ukrainians, both with carrots and sticks, to get to a place where you can negotiate, even if the Russians aren't yet ready to do that. And they aren't in reality though Putin says, “sure, I'll negotiate if you move out of the territories that I've illegally annexed, including those that you're presently occupying.” That's a nonstarter. But you have to get the Ukrainian there. You have to prepare them to be there.
And there are a couple of ways you do that, right? One is you give the Ukrainians the support to rebuild their country. You fast track them into the European Union, so they have a shot at better rule of law, improving their democracy, reducing their corruption that gives them a future. And you also give them some harder security guarantees for the parts of their territory that Russia hasn't occupied and hasn't illegally annexed. And if you do all of those things, you're in a better position to get the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.
You provide more cover to Zelensky or the future leaders of Ukraine and the future leaders of Ukraine. And you also make it more compelling multilaterally before you're in a position where Ukraine gets thrown under the bus as they might, for example, if Trump wins, come November, as they might, for example, if Le Pen gets a majority, in the European, in the French Parliament, and then the French are suddenly vetoing European additional gives to Ukraine.
I mean, this is the problem is that a lot of the uncertainty about Ukraine isn't only about what Russia does, isn’t only about Ukrainian capacity, but it's also keeping that multilateral effort, which has been strong and united together. And there have been a couple of almost misses, especially the US, the six months getting them $61 billion, but also coming up with the electoral cycles. And the longer you push that out, the more dangerous it is for Ukraine and ultimately for the NATO alliance. So that's a little bit of the sort of real talk about what's happening in Russia and Ukraine on the back of the news of the past week. As always, what you want to happen is not the same as analysis.
And if it is, it means that your analysis is crap. That is not what we do here. And I hope all of you have a great week. Talk to you soon.
U.S. army instructor from the Joint Multinational Training Group trains Ukrainian service members to operate with M141 Bunker Defeat Munition (SMAW-D) grenade launcher, supplied by the United States.
What We’re Watching: US troops in Eastern Europe, Peru government reshuffle, Denmark lifts COVID restrictions
US deploys troops to Eastern Europe. A day after Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the US of “ignoring” Kremlin demands to limit NATO further expansion to the East, the White House sent more than 3,000 troops to alliance members Germany, Poland, and Romania. This was in addition to an order for 8,500 US troops to be ready to deploy to Eastern Europe on short notice. With Russia continuing to mass more than 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border, Moscow and Washington have been at loggerheads in diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis, raising fears of war. Russia wants guarantees that NATO will not expand further East into what the Kremlin sees as its sphere of influence. But the West refuses to accept that demand, offering instead to commit only to limits on weapons deployments in Eastern Europe. It’s worth noting that none of the 3,000 US troops are being sent to Ukraine — neither NATO nor the US have an appetite for sending troops there. But Putin, it seems, just might …
Is it time to ease COVID restrictions? Denmark has become the first EU country to lift all pandemic-related restrictions, noting that COVID-19 can no longer be considered a “socially critical sickness.” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said masks and “green passes” will no longer be required in public places, but she noted that this could change if new variants emerge. This development comes as Denmark is recording one of the highest per capita COVID caseloads in the world, though hospitalizations and deaths remain low because most of the population – just over 80%, according to Our World in Data – is vaccinated. Other EU countries are making similar moves: France is lifting some restrictions, though indoor mask requirements and vaccine mandates remain, and the changes come despite still-high cases and deaths. Finland is on a similar trajectory. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has warned countries not to prematurely “declare victory” over the virus, saying that COVID “continues to evolve.”
Peruvian president reshuffles Cabinet … again. Pedro Castillo has switched up his cabinet for the third time in six months, replacing half of its 18 members, including the finance minister and prime minister. The move came after Peru’s interior minister resigned late last week, accusing the president of thwarting efforts to tackle corruption. The folksy Castillo — a former rural schoolteacher who campaigned on horseback with a gigantic pencil — rode to an election win last year on promises of tackling corruption. But he has struggled to form a working relationship with non-leftist parties, and his ministers keep getting caught up in scandals. A recent crime wave in the capital, Lima, and last month’s disastrous oil spill at the country’s largest refinery haven’t helped. The latest reshuffle raises questions about whether Castillo can see out his term. The Peruvian presidency is a famously fickle post — in 2019, a carousel of impeachments and resignations saw the country with three different presidents in a single month. Can Castillo stay in the saddle until the next election?What We’re Watching: Russian and NATO intentions, US strikes Syrian prison, UAE-Houthi escalation
Russian and NATO intentions.To prepare to meet a perceived military threat, planners try to understand both the intentions and the capabilities of the other side. Russia says it does not intend to invade Ukraine, but NATO planners can see it has built the capability for an attack by amassing 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border. In response, the alliance has decided to underline its own capacities. On Monday, NATO announced it had put troops on high alert and ordered the reinforcement of Eastern Europe with additional ships and fighter jets. It has beefed up defense of the Baltic states and is publicly mulling the idea of deploying more troops to southeastern Europe. NATO commanders hope this shift in the alliance’s own capabilities will send Moscow a clear message: Any aggressive military action taken by Russia will come at a steep cost for Moscow. The UK government claims to have exposed a Russian plot to install a pro-Kremlin leader in power in Kyiv in hopes of forcing Russia to abort any such plan. The perceived Russian threat has also reinvigorated debate within Sweden and Finland about possible membership in NATO for those countries. In sum, both sides have boosted their capabilities, and bystanders are considering doing the same. It’s Russian and NATO intentions that Ukraine, and the rest of us, will be watching.
ISIS tries a jailbreak. The Pentagon has launched a series of air raids on a prison in northeast Syria that was recently attacked by Islamic State fighters who hoped to free comrades imprisoned there. The raids marked a rare intervention by the US military, which has focused its operations in the area mainly on advising and training the Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Forces, which was largely responsible for the Islamic State’s territorial defeat in 2019. The US bombing came four days after ISIS fighters stormed the prison where about 12,000 of their comrades and family members have been held since the last ISIS stronghold fell. At least 120 people have been killed since clashes broke out on Thursday. Though ISIS no longer holds much territory in Iraq or Syria, Islamic State sleeper cells have launched attacks in recent years and remain active in some areas. The US, meanwhile, has 900 troops stationed in northeast Syria to support Kurdish-affiliated militant groups, though they rarely engage directly with ISIS fighters.
More missiles rain on the UAE. For the second time in a week, Iran-backed Houthi rebels have fired rockets from Yemen toward Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s capital. The missiles are part of a deadly recent escalation in Yemen’s eight-year civil war. In a rare move, the Houthis recently launched a drone attack on oil tankers at the Abu Dhabi port, killing at least three people. The UAE’s government, which supports a Saudi-led coalition against the rebels, responded to the first Houthi attack with a series of attacks on Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, that killed at least 70 people. The UAE has tried to reduce its involvement in this conflict in recent years, but it now finds itself ensnared in an intensifying confrontation with the rebels. Yemen’s war is partly a proxy battle between regional foes Iran and Saudi Arabia, and this latest expansion of hostilities comes just as the two rivals were exploring an unprecedented detente. We’re watching to see whether this ongoing escalation will derail their progress.Is Putin still Soviet? Wrong question
Thirty years ago this week, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, forced to choose between dissolving the USSR or trying to hold it together by force, decided to lower the flag and end 75 years of Communist rule. Boris Yeltsin became president of something called the Russian Federation, and the Cold War officially passed into history. Many on both sides of the old divide hoped for a clean break from a confrontational past and looked forward to a new, cooperative future.
Three decades later, how much has changed? There is no question that Russians enjoy a higher standard of living, opportunity, and freedom than during the Soviet period. They can travel. They can read the news from a world away at a moment’s notice. They can enjoy Michelin-starred farm-to-table restaurants and swanky art exhibitions in a smart new Moscow that bears little resemblance to the drab Soviet capital of the last century.
And yet, President Vladimir Putin is now railing at NATO and threatening military action against Ukraine to protect Russia’s sphere of influence. Putin’s most prominent opponent languishes in prison, a year after being poisoned, likely by state officials. And this week, the state shuttered a homegrown human rights group dedicated to cataloging the Soviet regime’s human-rights abuses.
So is Vladimir Putin – a former KGB agent who once called the Soviet collapse the “greatest geopolitical tragedy” of the century – trying to reconstitute a new vision of the old hammers and sickles?
That question misses a longer historical sweep that Putin is part of.
Russia has, since the 18th century, led an empire. It’s a sprawling land empire that is hard to keep together and hard to defend – the Russian winter has repeatedly stepped in to help where mountain ranges or waterways could not – but an empire nonetheless.
For two hundred years, being a great power through imperial clout has been central to Russian leaders’ understanding of what Russia is: from the czars to the Soviets and now to… what? The “phantom pain of a lost empire,” as the syndrome has been called, is a powerful thing.
The thing is, Russia today is smaller than it’s been in 200 years. It lacks the allies that the Soviets had – after all, it’s now Ukraine, not West Germany, that’s living in the shadow of Kremlin threats. It lacks the global ideological appeal that the USSR enjoyed. And, of course, it lacks Ukraine. That’s a problem for imperial Russia because – as Putin tells it, and many Russians agree – Ukraine is a critical and inseparable part of the broader Russian world. Without Ukraine, Russia is, as Putin sees it, just another country.
So when Putin squabbles with the West about where NATO’s borders should end – and the countries squashed dangerously between Russia and Germany can fairly ask why he should get to decide that for them – he is acting on that imperial impulse.
When he claims to be encircled by a NATO that is present across just a tiny fraction of Russia’s immensely long borders, he is expressing the same geopolitical insecurity that kept empresses and czars, commissars and general secretaries awake in the Kremlin for centuries.
The question is whether that vision is sustainable for a Russia that is arguably weaker, globally, than it’s ever been. A Russia of modern people but without a modern innovative economy. Is empire (re)building worth the cost for a Russia that might otherwise be a great country without being a great power? Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the answer to that question seems as distant as ever.
- After Kazakhstan, how will Russia escalate in Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Signs of Russian climbdown following Macron-Putin meeting - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine is fighting for all of us, says Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid - GZERO Media ›
- Global Stage ›
- Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Examining Putin: his logic, mistakes, and hope for Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Putin has "mummified" Russia: Ivan Krastev On the Putin Effect - GZERO Media ›
- Putin past the point of no return - GZERO Media ›
- Mikhail Gorbachev outlived his legacy - GZERO Media ›
- Putin cornered - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: David Petraeus on Putin's war games - GZERO Media ›
- "Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas - GZERO Media ›
- Russia vs. NATO: Heightened risk of war - GZERO Media ›
- Putin miscalculated on Ukraine, misled by post-Cold War worldview, says Ivan Krastev - GZERO Media ›