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 }}
Supporters of the Christian Lebanese Forces party react as votes are being counted in Lebanon's parliamentary election.
What We're Watching: Lebanon's future, Russian dissent, Latin Americans ditch US summit
What Hezbollah’s loss means for Lebanon
Days after Lebanese voters went to the polls for the first time since the economy imploded three years ago, Hezbollah – Iran-backed militants dubbed a terrorist group by the US – has lost its parliamentary majority. Its coalition, which includes Amal, another Shia party, and the Free Patriotic Movement, a Christian bloc, won 61 seats, down from 71. Reformist parties that emerged amid mass protests over economic inequality and corruption in recent years reaped about 10% of seats. The Saudi-allied Lebanese Forces also gained new seats, suggesting that many Lebanese voters support warmer ties with Riyadh in hopes it can help ease their economic woes. Still, only 41% of eligible voters turned up, reflecting widespread apathy and disdain for the political elite, who have enriched themselves for decades while large swaths of the population descended into poverty. The election was notably plagued by allegations of voter fraud. Things will get thorny this fall when President Michael Aoun, a Hezbollah ally, finishes his term. The presidency is a powerful post in Lebanon, charged with appointing the PM and leading the military. Hezbollah will push hard for a replacement who will safeguard their – and Iran’s – regional interests, likely impeding progress on political and economic reforms needed to unlock foreign loans.
Dangerous dissent rises in Russia
Those who oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have watched for signs of anger or dissatisfaction from inside Russia. There have been a few. (Remember the gutsy journalist who interrupted a live TV news broadcast with an antiwar placard?) There hasn’t been much more of that, and a strong response from law enforcement has kept protests contained. In recent days, we have seen signs of discontent challenging the official Kremlin line that Russia’s “special military operation” is advancing according to plan. But the message is not that the war is immoral and self-destructive; it’s that it must be waged more successfully. Pro-Russian military bloggers are questioning the competence of Russian strategists and officers. One military analyst made international news by warning during a live broadcast on state-controlled TV that Russian strategists have badly underestimated Ukraine’s capabilities and that Russia is increasingly isolated (he backtracked soon after). The Institute for the Study of War reports a surge of “outrage and confusion on pro-Russian social media” following reports that captured Ukrainian fighters from Mariupol, denounced as Nazis by President Vladimir Putin himself, might be traded for captured Russian soldiers rather than hanged as war criminals. The implication: Putin faces more pressure from those who want him to hit Ukraine harder than from those who want peace. And now that a Russian soldier has pleaded guilty to a war crime in a Kyiv courtroom, Putin has new incentive to put captured Ukrainians before Russian cameras and judges.
Latin American leaders plan to skip Americas Summit
The US is hosting the 9th Americas Summit on June 6-10, but who will actually show up in Los Angeles remains unclear. Washington reportedly has no plans to invite Cuba — which remains under US sanctions — nor the fellow authoritarian regimes of Nicaragua and Venezuela. But the leaders of several other countries — including heavyweights like Mexico’s leftist President AMLO — are threatening to skip the get-together unless all Latin American countries get an RSVP. Interestingly, the brouhaha is happening just as the Biden administration has quietly lifted some Trump-era US sanctions against Havana. Washington is also looking to do the same with Caracas because President Joe Biden is eager to get more Venezuelan oil on the market in order to drive down prices at the pump ahead of November midterms. Is the US setting the stage to roll out the red carpet for three autocrats — Cuba’s Miguel Díaz-Canel, Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega — to avoid a diplomatic embarrassment and a smaller-than-expected group photo?
War in Europe: Russia invades Ukraine
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, back in the office in New York. A Quick Take for you on where we are in this war against Ukraine.
Massive military intervention. We've all seen almost 200,000 Russian troops that had been arrayed all along Ukraine's borders, direct land, air, and cyber. This is bombs that are falling across all of Ukraine, including even the far west. Hard to imagine this war will last long, at least the early stages. The Ukrainian government will surely fall, likely flee, and end up in exile someplace outside of Ukraine's borders. President Putin has said that this will not be an occupation. Of course, President Putin has also said over the past weeks that there was no intention to invade. He lied then; he's lying now. There is no purpose of diplomacy, at least at this point between the United States, the Europeans, and Russia. Meanwhile, it's all about what can be done to help the Ukrainians defend themselves as best they can. And this is clearly going to be at best at the margins, because the Russians have overwhelming military capabilities.
And it's also what can be done to ensure that NATO allies feel like they will be strongly defended if there ever are going to be further attacks that reach them. And that's required. It's one of the reasons why the United States and Europe are going to be applying significant, maximum sanctions that can be applied, will be applied against the Russians today. In my view, that means technological sanctions, excluding their capabilities of working with Western tech companies, getting imports, export controls, there will be financial transactions sanctions that will mean that all of the major Russian banks are going to be hit, no longer be able to engage in financial transactions with the West. There will be major energy disruptions as well. Nord Stream 2 already killed well beyond that, and the Russians themselves would likely suspend some export to Europe as a consequence of all of this.
That does not include SWIFT in my view. In part, because it's not seen as useful. This is something that's been discussed internally at long, long measure by the Americans, by the Europeans. It would force the Russians and the Chinese to, in short order, develop their own competitive financial transaction system. It will include direct personal sanctions against a swath of major oligarchs and Putin's family. Of course, this is in some ways seen as helpful to Putin because he's bringing back all of that oligarch money from outside of Russia to Russia, even though the oligarchs themselves won't be happy. That's significant. These are the most important sanctions that have been ever placed on a major power since the Soviet Union has collapsed, but it's also very clear that the Russian government has priced all of that in. They have significant reserves that they have built up. They are running a surplus presently, energy prices are high, the Chinese are willing to buy a lot from them.
Putin certainly feels like he's capable of withstanding that. The sanctions we're talking about all in are roughly commensurate, a little bit less severe than those that the United States and the West have imposed on Iran. So absolutely meaningful, will push Russia into a major recession. I've seen Gazprom shares off 50% already. This does matter, but it's a level of economic hardship that clearly the Russians are willing to take. There's another point though, and that is that this unprovoked war, which Russian disinformation is doing its damnedest to convince the Russian people that it's all about Ukraine and the Ukrainians are Nazis and the West is provoking it, the reality is this is unilateral aggression that are crimes against humanity by Putin directly and his government. But I have seen a spate of Russian celebrities, footballers, ballet dancers, opera singers, rock stars that have come out in these initial hours and said that they oppose the war.
They don't oppose Putin, but they oppose the war. That is the kind of thing that historically in Russia would throw away your career. And I do wonder how much of that there is on the ground in Russia today. This is not like China, where the Chinese government has massive surveillance capabilities, they have a social credit system they're rolling out, and they also have provided so well for the economic needs of the Chinese people that a willingness to be loyal to China politically is not considered to be such a hardship. Russia is a country that has a much, much stronger degree of fundamental skepticism, even opposition, not just to Russian power, to all power, to all governments. And that does indeed create some risk to Putin, not tomorrow, but as he changes the global order, as he subverts Europeans security capabilities, he also creates risk for himself on the ground.
The Ukrainians are not suddenly going to like Putin after he's killed thousands, tens of thousands of them with this brutal war after he forces the government into exile or worse if he captures them. And the Russian people aren't going to be happy when they see some of their own citizens in serving in the Russian army, the Russian Air Force coming back in caskets, and that will happen. And that will not just be something we see for the next few days, but something we'll see with partisan fighting going on for a very long time.
So, this genie is not going back into the bottle and we are seeing the beginnings of a second Cold War. I'll talk a lot more about that going forward. Those are my views for right now. Talk to you soon.
- Petraeus: Taking Ukraine is one thing, holding onto it is another ... ›
- War in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Russian invasion of Ukraine begins - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Authoritarians won’t defeat American values, says John Kerry - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine war: Has Putin overplayed his hand? - GZERO Media ›
- The US is at war with Russia: 4 scenarios from here - GZERO Media ›
Ukraine is fighting for all of us, says Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid
Some analysts say that if Russia takes either part or all of Ukraine, its territorial ambitions are unlikely to stop there. It could pose a threat to other former Soviet Republics that have joined NATO. Kersti Kaljulaid, former president of Estonia (2016-2021), says that the risks to other Baltic states are significant if the collective response to Russia’s ongoing aggression is “weak.” Right now, Kyiv is “not fighting only for Ukraine, but for all of us,” she said. Kaljulaid believes the current crisis poses a threat to Europe’s entire security architecture. “If we are too focused on Ukraine and whether it'll be a slice or a bigger slice, I think we are missing the big picture.”
Kaljulaid spoke with moderator David Sanger in GZERO Media's Global Stage livestream discussion at the Munich Security Conference.
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Is Putin still Soviet? Wrong question - GZERO Media ›
- Should NATO embrace Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Putin's next move won't be a Baltic invasion that could unify NATO ... ›
- "Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas - GZERO Media ›
Petraeus: Taking Ukraine is one thing, holding onto it is another
At the first in-person Munich Security Conference in two years, world leaders gathered amidst the greatest threat to European peace since World War II. As over 150,000 Russian troops surrounded Ukraine's border, poised to invade, Ian Bremmer sat down with former CIA Director and retired four star general David Petraeus for an upcoming episode of GZERO World. He knows a thing or two about invasions, having played pivotal roles in both of America's military campaigns in Iraq over the past thirty years. And as he tells Ian Bremmer, invading a country is one thing. Holding onto it is quite another.
- Russia-Ukraine crisis: Major escalation this week - GZERO Media ›
- Is Putin going to invade Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Ukrainian diplomat: Invading would ruin Putin - GZERO Media ›
- What would a Russian invasion of Ukraine actually look like ... ›
- What does a US troop withdrawal mean for Iraq? - GZERO Media ›
- War in Europe: Russia invades Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine war: Has Putin overplayed his hand? - GZERO Media ›
- Petraeus: Putin has united his adversaries - GZERO Media ›
Russia-Ukraine crisis: Major escalation this week
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on the major escalation this week over the big issue everyone is worried about: Russia and Ukraine.
Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And I'm on the ground in Munich where the sun is popping through. I wish I could say that that had some symbolism. It does not appear this way. It is the first major security confab to come together post-pandemic or in pandemic. And there's still all sorts of vigorous rules and regulations on how few people can come and everyone wearing masks and social distancing. But the major leaders are all arriving, and they're arriving at a time of extreme geopolitical concern.
Fact is that there's been major escalation this week over the big issue everyone is worried about, Russia and Ukraine. Russia's claiming they're taking troops off of the Ukrainian border, actually adding an additional 7,000. Russian president telling German Chancellor Scholz who's coming here shortly that acts of genocide are being committed against Russian passport holders on the ground in the occupied territory and the Russian Duma flip-flopping on what looked like it was going to be opposition and recognizing the independence of the occupied territory now, suggesting that they should, passing that piece of legislation gets kicked to Putin. He decides what he's going to do.
And then just hours ago, a kindergarten with lots of kids in attendance shelled by Russian forces in between the occupied territory and the Ukrainian territory. And only a couple of injuries and no kids were harmed, but clearly this is the kind of act that if kids had gotten killed, Ukrainian forces would've been hard pressed not to retaliate. And that is exactly what the Russian government is looking for, a provocation that would then justify the Russians to rip up the Minsk Agreement, declare the independence of this breakaway republic, which would then request Russian military support and defense. And of course the Russians would provide it. And at that point you've got major sanctions. That's tripwire.
So we are very close to an extremely dangerous situation, really unprecedented since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And yet here we are with the trans-Atlantic relationship stronger, more purposeful, more motivated than at any point since that time. This was the same conference that two years ago had a theme of "Westlessness", the idea that the world was moving and the West was faced with a lack of identity on we, obsolescence. Not the case at all right now. NATO has a mission. It's very reinvigorated and it's because everyone is deeply concerned that at this time next week there could be military confrontation directly with Russia.
I'm certainly going to be following it very closely. And you'll be hearing a lot from us here at the Munich Security Conference. Hope everyone's doing well. Let's wish for the best.
- Ukrainian diplomat: Invading would ruin Putin - GZERO Media ›
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Russia's moves toward Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Europeans suggest reviving Minsk Agreement to resolve Ukraine ... ›
- Petraeus: Taking Ukraine is one thing, holding onto it is another - GZERO Media ›
- Minsk agreement a path to resolving Ukraine crisis - GZERO Media ›
- European & US leaders resolute as threat of Ukraine war grows - GZERO Media ›
The Graphic Truth: How do Russia and Ukraine stack up?
President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that he would “pull back” some troops from the Ukrainian border, but military analysts say the Russian threat still looms large. Russia undoubtedly has the upper hand given its superior military capabilities and economic clout. In recent years, however, Ukraine has received a significant cache of weapons and cash from the West, particularly from the United States. We take a look at how the two countries stack up against one another.
What would a Russian invasion of Ukraine actually look like?
No one knows whether Russian President Vladimir Putin plans on invading Ukraine. But the president of the United States sure seems to think this is a real possibility, saying Wednesday that Putin will likely "move in" in the near term. Biden, prone to political gaffes, was then forced to awkwardly walk back comments that Russia would face milder consequences from the West in the event of a "minor incursion."
The timing of this blunder is... not great. It comes just as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken prepares to meet his Russian counterpart on Friday in hopes of lowering the temperature after recent diplomatic efforts in Geneva were deemed a failure by Moscow.
Indeed, with the Kremlin having amassed at least 100,000 troops surrounding Ukraine on three sides, the growing threat is impossible to ignore. So what would a Russian military offensive into Ukraine actually look like, and how might the West respond?
How far might Putin go?
Most analysts agree that it’s extremely unlikely that Putin will launch a wholesale invasion of Ukraine, which, given the immediate expense and likely Western response, would prove a very costly exercise that could push Russia into recession. Indeed, a full-scale occupation would also be a hard sell to the Russian public, because large numbers of Russians troops would return home in body bags. Putin knows that a Ukrainian insurgency in urban areas could drag on for a long time, leading to a mounting death toll.
If Russian forces do advance further into Ukraine, they could annex the Donbas region already held by Russian separatists and seize adjacent territory to create a buffer. But this would come with serious economic consequences for Russia, which would then have to provide basic services for millions of poor residents who live in its newly acquired territory.
And even a limited Russian offensive could lead to a significant refugee crisis, as was the case in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea, displacing about 1.4 million people. This time, many Ukrainians might try to cross into Russia or flee to nearby states like Poland and Belarus, creating a refugee crisis that reverberates through Eastern and Central Europe. Though this would mainly be a problem for the European Union, Putin can predict the potential diplomatic and geopolitical consequences for Russia.
What would Washington do about it?
The Biden administration has made clear that it will not send American troops to defend Ukraine, which is not a NATO ally, but would impose fresh — and harsher – economic sanctions to punish the Kremlin. Unlike in the past when Washington has mainly targeted Russian oligarchs, sanctioning Russian financial institutions and sovereign debt — which could include all international entities that lend Russia money – is also on the table.
But in order to really make Moscow hurt, Washington needs the Europeans to match the sweeping sanctions it has floated (about one-third of Russia’s current reserves are in euros). Indeed, Biden reiterated this Wednesday: "I’ve got to make sure everybody’s on the same page as we move along.” But currently, Europe, which imports 45 percent of its gas from Russia, does not seem to be in lockstep with Washington. Moscow could cut off crucial supplies during a frigid winter (it wouldn’t be the first time that Putin has used natural gas supplies to create geopolitical leverage).
The stakes are particularly high for Germany, which is seeking to certify the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would keep even more natural gas flowing from Russia. The new leader of Germany’s opposition, and Angela Merkel’s successor as head of the CDU party, has rejected Washington’s proposal, saying that American threats to cut Russia off from the international banking system would do “a lot of harm” to Western economies.
The NATO equation
If tensions continue growing in the coming weeks, NATO could reinforce its troops in parts of the Baltic and Black Seas, which could lead to an (unwanted) military confrontation with Russia. Moreover, it’s likely that NATO and Washington will transport large supplies of Western-made weapons to help Ukrainians fight back against Russian attacks. Still, because Ukraine is not a NATO member state, the alliance is under no obligation to defend it — and most of the major decision-making will likely fall to Washington and Brussels. (Biden also came under fire this week for suggesting that NATO unity was a concern in dealing with Russian aggression.)
What’s more, a Russian attack could cause states like Finland and Sweden to rush to join the alliance – precisely the kind of additional NATO pressure at Russia’s borders that Putin claims threatens Russia’s security.
An invasion is hard to imagine. But so is the prospect of Vladimir Putin backing off without at least the appearance of a major concession from NATO.
- Putin has a “noose” around Ukraine, says Russia analyst Alina Polyakova - GZERO Media ›
- The problem with China’s Zero COVID strategy | GZERO World Podcast - GZERO Media ›
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Europeans suggest reviving Minsk Agreement to resolve Ukraine Crisis - GZERO Media ›
- Petraeus: Taking Ukraine is one thing, holding onto it is another - GZERO Media ›
- Minsk agreement a path to resolving Ukraine crisis - GZERO Media ›
- War in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Russian invasion of Ukraine begins - GZERO Media ›
What We’re Watching: Global Gateways vs Belt and Road, US-Russia tit-for-tat, Germany’s COVID challenge
The EU rivals China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The European Commission has unveiled its Global Gateways plan, which aims to invest €300 billion globally in infrastructure projects by 2027. Indeed, Brussels is positioning its plan as a better alternative to China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. This announcement comes as Beijing has been steadily upping its investment in the Global South, including a pledge this week to supply Africa with an additional 1 billion COVID vaccine doses over the next three years, as well as doling out $10 billion of trade finance to support African exports. But European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen points to several advantages for the European plan. One, Global Gateway focuses both on physical infrastructure – like fiber-optic cables, transportation, healthcare and clean energy resources – as well as investment in research and education. And unlike Beijing’s plan, which saddles recipient countries with debt, the EU will provide cash “under fair and favorable terms.” Its plan will also include buy-in from Europe’s robust private sector. Beijing has not commented on the development, but the Chinese foreign minister’s visit to Ethiopia on Wednesday was likely intended to signal Beijing’s enduring commitment to the region.
US and Russia’s tit-for-tat expulsions. Just days after Washington ordered 27 Russian diplomats and their families to leave the US over security concerns, Moscow has hit back, expelling a host of US diplomats from Moscow. This move is a big deal considering that the US Embassy in Moscow has shrunk considerably in recent years and now has around 120 staff members, down from 1,200 in 2017. This tit-for-tat move comes as Russia’s relations with the West are approaching rock bottom: Ukraine urged Washington and NATO this week to hit Moscow with new sanctions in response to the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. Kyiv says the mobilization of 125,000 Russian troops in the Donbas region is proof that Russia plans to invade Ukraine – very soon. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will meet Thursday with Sergey Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, to discuss the escalating situation, but Moscow has warned that any deployment of missiles in Ukraine by NATO forces would be “crossing a red line.” Indeed, a NATO miscalculation could accidentally provoke the wider conflict everyone wants to avoid.
Scholz’s COVID challenge in Germany. Germany’s Chancellor-designate Olaf Scholz is set to take over the nation’s top job at a perilous time. The COVID situation is spiraling, with the country recording 446 deaths on Wednesday. That’s the highest daily death toll in Germany in 10 months. New cases are at record high levels, too, and doctors are warning of an influx of intensive care admissions that could dwarf numbers seen during last year’s winter peak – before vaccines were rolled out. As the public health situation deteriorates, Scholz says he’d support a vaccine mandate as soon as February, vowing to put the issue before parliament. But it’s not going to be easy for Scholz to sell the idea of a vaccine mandate in a country with a complicated history surrounding forced medical treatment and experimentation. Around 68 percent of Germany are fully vaccinated, and a robust booster campaign is now underway.