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 }}
Leaders of Poland, Nordic & Baltic countries affirm strong support for Ukraine
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Northern Italy.
What was the purpose of the big leaders meeting in Sweden today?
Well, it was not entirely unique, but highly important meetings of the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries, and Poland. It's eight countries in total that came together on the leaders level in order to, first, of course, to say that we do support Ukraine and we are ready to do more, to say that we are ready to do more for defense. And these are countries, you should know, that they're all well above the 2% target of defense spending. Poland is above 4%, even. These are also the countries in the world that are the highest in terms of their proportion of GDP in terms of supporting Ukraine.
So the fact that they came together today to say this, "We are ready to do more to support Ukraine, we are ready to do more to reinforce our defense and security," was, of course, a strong signal of reassurance to Ukraine, a signal of some sort of political deterrence to Russia, but of course was also a signal of sorts to the United States and the incoming Trump administration that, "Here we are. We ready to do our part. We've already done it and we're ready to do more."
What is the nature of the political transition ongoing in the European Union?
Well, it's going amazingly well, against expectations, I have to say. All of the proposed members of the European Commission have been approved by the European Parliament. The entire commission has now been approved in a vote. So the commission comes into force, the sort of second Ursula von der Leyen Commission on the 1st of December. That's also the date when the new president of the European Council, António Costa, takes over. So by December 1st, the entire European Union transition is there, and the European Union is institutionally ready for the next five years. It will be demanding, yes.
- Ukraine is fighting for all of us, says Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid ›
- "Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas ›
- As Russia gains ground in Ukraine, Baltic states worry the war will spread west ›
- Sweden joins NATO: what has the alliance gained? ›
- Why Sweden and Finland joined NATO ›
- Will Trump reverse Biden’s move on long-range missiles for Ukraine? ›
- Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM ›
Putin's strategy in Ukraine ahead of Trump's return
Putin has been warning them not to do that. They decided they were going to, the Russian response has been to formally change their nuclear doctrine so that they would be considered to be in a state of war legally against any country that allowed Ukraine to use their missiles against Russia. In other words, essentially, Russia is claiming that they're now at war with France, with the UK, with the United States. And also, the Russians used a medium range missile hypersonic nuclear capable directly against the Ukrainian target in Dnipro.
In other words, what we're seeing from Putin is, "I'm showing you what you're doing is moving towards World War III, and that's how I'm responding." Does that mean that Putin is actually escalating towards direct war with NATO allies? The answer to that is no. He wasn't doing that when he was losing the battle in Ukraine in the early months. He's certainly not doing it now that he's winning.
And he is winning. He has more troops on the front lines, including those from North Korea, those from Yemen, those that he's getting from other countries. Also, he's taking more territory on the ground in Ukraine at a faster pace now, more significant amounts of territory in Southeast Ukraine than at any point since the opening months of the war. Plus Trump is President-elect. Trump has said, "I want to end this war." And he is coming in just in a couple of months.
So what Putin is doing is not threatening World War III. He's instead showing off just how bad this Biden policy is, this existing NATO policy is. He's making it easier for Trump to pivot away and say, "I'm the peacemaker. We were heading towards World War III, this horrible escalation. I'm the guy that got the great deal done and look how brilliant I am." Putin is facilitating that.
Now, of course, to make that happen Trump still has to give Putin something that he wants. He has to give an outcome that is acceptable to Putin. And Putin's made clear, at least thus far, that he's not going to give up any territory that he has. That he's not prepared to accept that Ukraine would be able to join NATO. He's also said that Ukraine can't continue to have a functional armed forces which is something that would be completely unacceptable to Ukraine.
The devil's going to be in the details here. There clearly is an opportunity for Trump to end the war. He's promised he's going to end the war, and I think he can. I think he can create a ceasefire. The Ukrainian leadership has already made clear that they are supportive of ending the war, but they're not just going to listen. There has to be a back and forth conversation with the Americans. Seeing what it is that Trump is prepared to put forward, and whether or not the Russians are capable of accepting it, are willing to accept it. Even though it will look like a win for Russia compared to where they would've been under Biden, under Harris, or at any other point in the last couple of years.
Still, if you are Putin, there is an open question. You're taking land right now. The Ukrainians don't have the people to continue to put up a strong defense. Why wouldn't you delay this out for another three, another six months? Take more land. Try to get all the territory that you have formally annexed over the course of the war. Why not settle the war on your terms? A lot easier to do if you're winning than losing. And the question there will be to what extent Trump is willing to cause material punishment to Putin if he doesn't say yes.
And that's an open question. Trump historically has been willing to take easy wins that don't necessarily play well over the long term. Look at Afghanistan. He wanted to get the Americans out. He cut a deal with the Taliban. It was a deal that was clearly very advantageous from a military and from a governance perspective for the Taliban than it was for the United States. He cut that despite the fact that the allies were not supportive or coordinating. That undermined the US deeply. Biden then continued with that plan. And it was one of the biggest losses that the US has experienced over the last four years.
Now, that of course, was a loss that ultimately fell on Biden. This would be a loss that would ultimately fall on Trump. And so does he want to risk that? That's a very interesting question. And of course, you also have to look at Trump's staff because he can make a phone call with Zelensky and with Putin, but ultimately, it is the secretary of state, the national security advisor and others that are going to have to work out the details of that agreement. And those people, at least thus far, are not people that are oriented towards giving away the store to Putin. They're people-oriented towards mistrust of Putin, towards a hard line against the Russians, towards support of Ukraine.
I am thinking here that number one, there's a reasonably high chance that Trump can get the win that he wants, but number two, this isn't likely to be a walk in the park for the Russian president. The Europeans need to play here as well. And what will be important, there's been a few formulated conversations thus far between President-elect Trump and some of the European leaders.
They haven't gone very far, but they've also not blown up the bilateral relationships. Their ability to work with Trump advisors on Trump, and on a greater coordination of what an ultimate solution or settlement of the Russian-Ukraine war would be, will make a dramatic difference as to what extent this is sustainable. To what extent this leads to not only Ukraine that can continue to defend itself and the territory that it is left with, but also can integrate into Europe, can be politically successful as a democracy over time. And that NATO will stay strong and stay together and stay aligned with the United States because they don't have another choice. There is no autonomous European military capacity. It's either NATO sticks together or it fragments.
Those are all things that we're going to watch very carefully over the course of the next couple months. But for now, an escalatory period. And it's all performative and it's all oriented towards what happens when Trump becomes president. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on the situation in Belgorod, Kursk, and Bryansk regions following an incursion of Ukrainian troops, in August 2024.
Putin loosens the muzzle on Russia's nuclear weapons
Just hours after Ukraine fired US-made long-range missiles at a Russian target for the first time, Vladimir Putinsigned a new Kremlin nuclear doctrine that lowers the threshold for Moscow’s use of nukes. They’re now fair game as a response to a conventional weapons attack.
The timing of the signing is clear. The Kremlin has long warned that Ukraine using US long-rangers could provoke a major response and has made not-so-veiled threats to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Will that happen? There are at least two ways to look at this, and both revolve around one consideration: In two months, Joe Biden will relinquish power to Donald Trump, who campaigned in part on a pledge to end the war in Ukraine.
One school of thought: Make chaos while the sun shines. Putin now has two months to escalate as much as he likes, knowing that the increased danger will only heighten pressure on Trump to push for a peace deal as soon as he takes office.
The other: If it ain’t broke, don’t nuke it. Putin is on a roll right now, advancing in eastern Ukraine while imported North Korean cannon fodder is handling Kyiv’s forces in Kursk, the Russian border region Ukraine has occupied since August. Why risk the international backlash over a nuclear strike now? Better to retaliate with “hybrid warfare” by arming anti-US proxies elsewhere, or messing with infrastructure in Europe (the mysterious “sabotage” of two Baltic Sea communications cables earlier this week shows the vulnerabilities). In other words, Putin has plenty of options for havoc that fall short of splitting the atom.
The wildcard: Ukraine’s aim. If Kyiv inflicts serious damage on Russia’s military capabilities, that could shape the Kremlin’s thinking. Either way, both sides likely see the next two months as a final act for this phase of the war. The race for leverage is on.
Nobelist Oleksandra Matviichuk on Russia-Ukraine war reshaping world order
Matviichuk highlighted that Ukraine is confronting not just Russia but an entire authoritarian bloc, including Iran, China, North Korea, and Syria. "Ukraine is not a goal. Ukraine is a tool how to break international order," she stated, underscoring that the conflict represents a broader challenge to global democratic values.
When asked about the future of US support, particularly in light of Donald Trump's re-election, she expressed uncertainty but affirmed Ukraine's resolve: "We don't know what will be the policy of the next president's administration, but what we know for sure is that Ukrainians will continue our fight for freedom. We have no other choice."
This conversation was presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical debates on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
Follow GZERO coverage of the Paris Peace Forum here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage
- Many knew Putin wasn't bluffing, but not how far he'd go, says International Crisis Group’s Comfort Ero ›
- Is Ukraine running out of time? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder sizes up the Russia-Ukraine war ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia ›
- How Russian cyberwarfare could impact Ukraine & NATO response ›
Rebuilding post-election trust in the age of AI
In a GZERO Global Stage discussion at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum, Teresa Hutson, Corporate Vice President at Microsoft, reflected on the anticipated impact of generative AI and deepfakes on global elections. Despite widespread concerns, she noted that deepfakes did not significantly alter electoral outcomes. Instead, Hutson highlighted a more subtle effect: the erosion of public trust in online information, a phenomenon she referred to as the "liar's dividend."
"What has happened as a result of deepfakes is... people are less confident in what they're seeing online. They're not sure. The information ecosystem is a bit polluted," Hutson explained. She emphasized the need for technological solutions like content credentials and content provenance to help restore trust by verifying the authenticity of digital content.
Hutson also raised concerns about deepfakes targeting women in public life with non-consensual imagery, potentially deterring them from leadership roles. Looking ahead, she stressed the importance of mitigating harmful uses of AI, protecting vulnerable groups, and establishing appropriate regulations to advance technology in trustworthy ways.
This conversation was presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum. The Global Stage series convenes heads of state, business leaders, and technology experts from around the world for critical debates about the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
Follow GZERO coverage of the Paris Peace Forum here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage
The challenges of peacekeeping amid rising global conflicts
In a GZERO Global Stage discussion at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum, Dr. Comfort Ero, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, shed light on the increasing elusiveness of global peace amid rising conflicts worldwide. She pointed out a "crisis of peacemaking," noting that comprehensive peace processes and settlements have become rare, with the last significant one being in Colombia in 2016.
"We are in the era of big power rivalry and a multipolar world where there are more actors piling in... competing interests, competing visions," Dr. Ero explained. She emphasized that traditional tools for nudging conflicting parties to the negotiation table, such as sanctions, are no longer effective, and the United Nations Security Council is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.
Highlighting the complex situation in Sudan, Dr. Ero described it as a significant crisis that lacks the media attention given to conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza. "We're talking, by the way, 20 years on from Darfur when we said never again. And here we are, and Sudan is on the verge of collapse," she warned. The conflict has led to millions being displaced and a dire humanitarian situation, with neighboring countries like South Sudan and Chad bearing the brunt of refugee inflows.
On the topic of United Nations Security Council reform, Dr. Ero was skeptical about the permanent five members relinquishing their veto power or extending it to others. "The P5 will jealously guard the veto power and will make sure that that is not watered down," she observed, raising questions about the Council's influence in the future.
This conversation was presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum. The Global Stage series convenes heads of state, business leaders, and technology experts from around the world for critical debates about the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
Watch the full conversation at https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage, and watch out for more GZERO coverage of the Paris Peace Forum this week.
Ukrainian service members of the 43rd Hetman Taras Triasylo Separate Artillery Brigade fire towards Russian troops in a Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled howitzer, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, at a position in Donetsk region, Ukraine October 26, 2024.
Ukrainians and North Koreans clash in Russia. Could NATO get involved?
Ukrainian officials said Monday their troops had fired upon North Koreans in the Kursk region, which Ukraine has partially occupied, in the first known contact between the two sides. Thus far, the action has been confined to Russian territory, where North Korea can point to its mutual defense pact with Russia for some legal cover (not that Pyongyang has admitted it deployed a single soldier yet), but what happens if the Korean People’s Army pushes into Ukraine proper?
It’s a possibility the US is eager to head off, according to Eurasia Group and GZERO President Ian Bremmer. “The United States sees North Korean combat troops entering Ukraine (as opposed to Kursk, on Russian territory) as a major escalation in the war — and has warned Russia that such a decision would risk NATO troops being sent into Ukraine,” Bremmer said after discussions with senior Biden administration officials. The National Security Administration and NATO did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
There are reasons for skepticism: Ukraine is not a NATO member and has expressed great frustration with its allies over how fear of escalation in Western capitals has clipped its military’s wings and resulted in preventable civilian and military deaths. How seriously Russian President Vladimir Putin takes it all depends heavily on the results of the US election tomorrow, as a second Trump administration would be much friendlier to Russian interests.
But Eurasia Group analyst Jeremy Chan says Moscow ought to be well aware of the risks. “As soon as North Korean troops cross into sovereign Ukrainian territory, it would make resolving the conflict far more complicated,” he says. “It would also engender a dramatic response from the West, and you could even see the Chinese come off their preferred position right on top of the fence because this would not be in Beijing's interests and would be a pretty flagrant violation of China’s five principles of peaceful coexistence.”
Podcast: The State of the World in 2024 with Ian Bremmer
Listen: The world is grappling with intense political and humanitarian challenges—raging wars, surging nationalism, and a warming climate, to name a few. Yet, we also stand at the brinkof some of the most transformative opportunities in human history. So how do we make sense of the future and what’s next? Ian Bremmer breaks it all down in a special edition of the GZERO World Podcast: The 2024 State of the World.
Each year, Ian examines the biggest political moments (and movements) and shares an honest assessment of where we are… and where we’re going. Most worrying? Leadership, or rather, the glaring lack of it. Nowhere is this clearer than in ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, where everyone claims to want peace, but no one is both willing and able to make it happen. But it’s not all bleak.There are plenty of reasons for optimism. Ian Bremmer discusses the good, the bad, and where we all go from here in his 2024 State of the World, delivered live at the GZERO Summit in Tokyo, Japan.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.