The great Belarus deal
September 22, 2020
Trump is willing to give up Wisconsin for Belarus' democracy? When multilateralism hits the Zoom calls, we can't really tell what's real and what's not. #PUPPETREGIME
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. This website uses cookies. 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 (if different), and our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing could upend the presidential election
September 19, 2020
Jon Lieber, Managing Director of the United States for the Eurasia Group, shares his insights on the biggest development in US politics this week:
So, the scriptwriters for 2020 have thrown as a real curveball, introducing the most explosive element in US politics, just six weeks before the election. The tragic death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will be remembered as a trailblazing jurist, but also a reliably liberal vote on a court that was divided along ideological lines with a five-four conservative majority. This has the potential to upend the presidential election. And likely will motivate turnout on both sides. But also, importantly for president, Trump could remind some Romney voting ex-Republicans who were leaning towards Biden why they were Republicans in the first place. Which means that it has the potential to push some persuadable voters back towards the president.
<p>Ginsburg's seat is very unlikely to be filled before the election. That is a nightmare scenario for vulnerable Senate Republicans like Susan Collins from Maine, who's already in a lot of trouble in her home state for her vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's last Supreme Court nominee. But after the election, anything goes. The president's very likely to put forward a nominee who will be a reliable conservative, sometime in the next couple of days. And should he lose this election and push forward with this nominee anyway, which I would expect to happen, you're likely to see high levels of civil unrest that will make the summer's protests look like a Sunday afternoon tea party. </p><p>So, this is a truly explosive issue that has the potential to upend both a presidential election, but also US politics and the balance of power in the Supreme Court for a long time. </p><p>Thanks for watching. This has been US Politics In a little over 60 Seconds. </p>
Read Now
Show less
GZEROMEDIA
Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal
Coronavirus relief bill at a standoff; climate won't sway election
September 18, 2020
Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares his perspective on US politics.
What's the status on the coronavirus relief bill in Congress?
Well, we're here in front of the US Capitol where there's not a whole lot going on to resolve the standoff over for further fiscal stimulus. There was a brief burst of activity earlier this week when the Problem Solvers Caucus came together with a bipartisan proposal that would probably pass both chambers of Congress. But House leadership quickly shot that down. They don't seem too interested in giving Donald Trump a big fiscal stimulus just six weeks before the election. President Trump, for his part, has been encouraging Republicans to go big. But Republicans seem like they mostly want to go home so they can get out of here, fund the government and go campaign for November. So, we end this week where we ended last week. Not a lot of progress being made. Probably nothing is going to happen here.
<p><strong>With wildfires raging in America's west and hurricanes pummeling its southern coastline, will climate be deciding issue in the November election? </strong></p><p>Almost certainly not. The two candidates could not be more different on issues of climate. Climate is a very important motivating factor for Democrats, particularly younger voters who tend to vote more liberal. And Donald Trump is acting like climate change isn't really a thing and is much more focused on protecting jobs in the oil and gas industry. The reality is that if you haven't made up your mind on this issue already, it's probably not going to motivate you in the election. And if you are somebody that really cares about climate, the overwhelming odds are you're already voting Democratic. So this isn't really an issue for swing voters. Probably won't be decisive factor in this election.</p><p><strong>Trump got Big Ten football to start again? Wait, really? </strong></p><p>Well, not really. At the beginning of the week, three of the five major football conferences had already agreed that they were going to start play, despite the coronavirus. And the Big Ten, which is where there are a number of colleges in critical swing states, including in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. President Trump made a well-timed phone call and the Big Ten announced later in the week that they did something they probably were going to do anyway, which was start the season. You know, was Trump important and get making this happen? Probably not. But you won't know that if you're going to be watching the president's Facebook ads between now and the end of the election. And for millions of undecided voters who are also football fans, Trump's intervention here is going to look pretty good. <br/></p>
Read Now
Show less
Putin backs Lukashenko; Taliban peace talks; UNGA75 goes virtual
September 16, 2020
Ian Bremmer shares his perspective on global politics on this week's World In (More Than) 60 Seconds:
Number one, your questions. Can Putin rescue Belarus' President from his own people?
Well, not really. In the sense that Belarus has shown that their special services and their military are still very much loyal to Lukashenko. And while there have been significant and very courageous demonstrations of the Belarusian people across the country, and particularly in Minsk, among all of the major enterprises, state industry, the demonstrations happened briefly and then they stopped, because people didn't want to lose their jobs and their livelihood. And the fact that this is now gone on for well over a month. I mean, President Putin has basically said that he was going to act as the backstop for Lukashenko. He'd provide military support if needed. He's now provided some additional cash, a loan of over a billion dollars, they're saying, and it was a deeply embarrassing trip by the Belarusian President to Sochi, to bend on knee, and prostrate himself in front of his boss and ruler, the Russian President.
<p>But it seems pretty clear that Russia is willing to take steps to ensure that Lukashenko stays in power. Unless he really oversteps by trying to clear out with a lot of violence, his own people. If he's willing to be patient, I suspect, and you don't have a unified opposition, the Belarusian people are nowhere near as organized as the Ukrainians were, and they don't have the international support that the Ukrainians did. I suspect that this looks more like Venezuela, where a lot of people are hoping, myself included, that Lukashenko is forced out, but he isn't forced out. In that regard, Lukashenko has very much been bolstered and supported by the Russian President, and probably doesn't have to pick up his dacha on the Russian coast of the Black Sea.</p><p><strong>What do you make of the Taliban peace talks in Doha? </strong></p><p>Well, it's good that peace talks are going on. The United States very clearly wants to get out of Afghanistan, the longest standing military conflict in American history. We're well into two decades at this point. It's a lot of people dead. A lot of American soldier's dead and injured. Trillions of dollars spent and vastly more Afghan civilians, as well as military killed. The fact that the Americans are sitting down with the Taliban directly as part of these talks in Doha, in Qatar, show that the world has changed. That the Americans are prepared to say, "If you could sit down with Kim Jong-un, you can certainly sit down with the Taliban." I'm even a little surprised that the US hasn't tried harder to sit down with the Iranian leadership, just because Trump generally thinks that you get anyone in the room and there's a shot, so why not? Harder for Iran, because the country itself is more divided. Interestingly, the Taliban, this is not just with the Afghan government. It's also with the opposition, because they say they don't recognize the government. </p><p>My concern here is that the Taliban right now are playing nice. They are willing to support a more consistent cease fire. They're willing to say the right things in terms of shared governance and Islamic state. But that's because there are still US troops in Afghanistan, and they are drawing down. My view is that the Taliban understands that time is on their side, and once the Americans leave, and the interest of the Americans at that point in continuing to pay huge amounts of money into the Afghan coffers, and that is most of the Afghan state budget is American aid at this point, goes down. Then the Taliban are in a vastly better position to refuse continued talks, step up military attacks and the Afghan government collapses. I'm not in any way clear that this is a positive for Afghanistan, because I'm just not convinced the Americans have a lot of staying power, once the troops are out. I'm completely sympathetic to pulling the troops out. I wish that the Americans were more willing, absent US troops to be heavily involved in continued humanitarian aid, and diplomacy in a multilateral format. This administration certainly is not. I'm not sure a Biden Administration would do a lot more on that front either.</p><p><strong>Why is Mexico's President raffling off his own plane? </strong></p><p>Well, he's really anti-corruption. This is a guy who's still at almost 60% approval ratings, despite having mishandled coronavirus pretty badly, and the economy in free fall. Largely that's because he is not only seen as being anti-corrupt, but he's truly anti-corrupt. In Brazil, Bolsonaro was really seen as being anti-corrupt, but a lot of the recent cases against members of his family are putting a question to that. Where Lopez Obrador truly, is not on the take. I think that makes him very widely supported. He's opened the Presidential Palace on days for the people to be able to come in and see it. That was a big populous move. Also offering to raffle off his presidential plane. He doesn't need a presidential plane. He can fly commercial he says. That also was such a move. Unfortunately, it's been a bit of a dog's breakfast in terms of the way it's come about. They've not been able to sell it. The raffle prizes will actually be cash, as opposed to the plane itself. The whole thing has been handled bureaucratically in a lousy way, and an economically inefficient way. That describes a lot of his administration so far, even if the intentions are pretty good. One thing I will say is when I talked to a lot of people on the other side, a lot of Mexican conservatives, especially former conservatives in government that know Lopez Obrador personally. They like him. They like him as a person. They say he's a good man. He's a decent man, but my God, they think he's horrible in government. I think that divide is getting bigger over time.</p><p><strong>Finally, what can we expect from the 75th UN General Assembly? </strong></p><p>Well, it's virtual, so you're going to have a lot of speeches, but the speeches will not be delivered in person. Of course, politics is very much a contact sport. You're not going to have all of these bilaterals on the sidelines, which is where the biggest news usually gets made. But, a big speech at the UN from the Chinese President in this environment, given what's happening for example, in Hong Kong and with the United States, and Australia, and Canada, pretty interesting. From the Indian Prime Minister, what he has to say about China, pretty interesting. From Mohammad Bin Salman, what he's going to say about the opening of relations with Israel, and about Iran. There are more pieces at play geopolitically in the 75th UN General Assembly, than at any time in my lifetime. Even though it's going to be virtual, the nature of the speeches themselves are probably going to be more content heavy, and more interesting for those of us observing on the sidelines, than you would otherwise normally expect. </p><p>We're doing an enormous amount of programming, GZERO, Eurasia Group, and Microsoft together to bring the virtual UN General Assembly to all of you. You can check it out through the social feeds here, as well as on gzeromedia.com. We're kicking it off with an hour interview between myself and my good friend, Antonio Guterres, Secretary General. It is convivial and pretty open. I think you'll get a kick out of that, and you'll be lots of surprises over the course of the week. </p>
Read Now
Show less
Quick Take: When "alternative facts" kill
September 15, 2020
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hey everybody, Ian Bremmer here and I have a quick take, what's going on in the world. I mean, here in the United States, it is nearing 200,000 deaths from coronavirus. Trump doesn't want to talk about the pandemic. And I understand that certainly to the extent that in the next 50 days, if we're talking mostly about the pandemic, that means Trump is losing. But so far that strategy is starting to pan out for him. I mean, not in the polls yet in the sense that he's still down, but if you poll Republicans, they say they're much more concerned about law and order than they are the pandemic, and Democrats are much more concerned about the pandemic than they are law and order. This plays out in a bunch of different ways, first, in terms of how you're going to vote, which is really important. What I've seen is astonishing statistics about overwhelming numbers of Democrats say they're going to vote by mail, overwhelming numbers of Republicans say they're going to vote on the day in person.
<p>First of all, that means it's a lot easier for both sides to say this election has been stolen, it's been mishandled, and they are intending to do that. It's also a lot easier for Trump on the day to say, I won because the votes cast on the day are going to be more in favor of Trump. And as you start counting those ballots, it swings to the Dems. We've seen that historically in other states, but this is going to be far greater given the pandemic. I'm going to be fascinating to see how Facebook responds to Trump's posts that say he won when he hasn't yet. Also fascinated to see what happens on the ground in a number of the states. I'm willing to make the call that this election will be seen as illegitimate by a large piece of the population, certainly something I've never said before in terms of a US presidential election. I say it all the time in terms of elections in other countries, particularly developing countries around the world. The US is not that.</p><p>Then there's also the question of how much is fake news starting to affect the overall narrative. I'm sure many of you have seen that QAnon is starting to get serious traffic on Facebook, for example, and among people saying that they believe in some of these conspiracy theories. Look, I understand why they're being promoted. I mean, if you have a question of whether you're going to vote for Trump or vote for cannibal pedophiles, I would vote for Trump over a cannibal pedophile, and I think most people probably would. Some people wouldn't. Don't tell me who you are. I don't really care. But the fact that there's that level conspiracy theory, the sort of thing that you would usually see in places where free media is completely underdeveloped, in the Middle East, for example, many states there. Less Lebanon, less Israel, but more others where the state really controls the whole media, or in Russia, for example, you'd expect to see a lot more conspiracy theory there.</p><p>You do, but in the United States, you're starting to see really disturbing levels. I've experienced this in the last two weeks. I would say over the last six months, when I opine publicly about coronavirus and I use numbers from the CDC or from Johns Hopkins or any of the other scientific sites that all are within 1% of each other in terms of numbers of cases and hospitalizations and deaths, overall levels and per capita, people might disagree with my analysis, but they don't disagree with the basic numbers, right? That is now changing. I am now seeing consistently that if you say 200,000 people have died of coronavirus, a significant subset of followers are saying, that's not true. That's fake news. That's a hoax. That actually, it's only 6% of that group has died of coronavirus and the other 94% all had co-morbidities. So they're lying to you.</p><p>If you have morbid obesity and you get coronavirus and then you died, you died from coronavirus, not from your morbid obesity. And in fact, one of the easiest way to look at these numbers is to see the excess number of deaths that have occurred in the United States in the last six months compared to what you would normally get, given the size of population. You can do that in different countries around the world and you get a number that's a little bit larger than the total death numbers for coronavirus. I've seen 220,000, 240,000, something around there. Now, to be clear, in a coronavirus environment with lockdowns, people will die from other things like the lockdown. I mean, if you're scared to go into a hospital because everyone there has coronavirus and you've got a serious heart condition, you might have a heart attack and die. No coronavirus, but you were scared to go into the hospital. That kind of thing happens.</p><p>People with severe levels of depression who lose their job, sort of become addicted or worsen their addiction on a drug that's dangerous for them, those people will die in larger numbers too. So it's not only about that, but the point is it ain't 6%. When the doctors and scientists are saying 200,000 people have died from coronavirus in advanced industrial economy, you know what? 200,000 people have died of coronavirus. And I understand that Trump wants to change the narrative. I understand that there is a legitimate debate between how fast you reopen the economy and how much you lock down. </p><p>Of course, it is a debate that should be had about whether or not you should lock down versus live with the virus, and to what degree. I mean, the lockdowns always in the United States should have been about, we need to buy some time to learn more about the virus, to ensure that hospitals won't get overwhelmed, to improve treatment. And now that you've done those things and you also know a lot more, it makes sense that you should reassess your lockdown. You should reassess what conditions you might put for letting people go back to restaurants and schools and work in the office and all of those things, and I understand that. That is very different from trying to convince people the coronavirus doesn't exist, or is a hoax, or that only 6% of the 200,000 people have actually died from coronavirus.</p><p>That is a horrible thing. And when I see more Americans than in many countries saying they're not going to wear a mask for socially distance because it's no big deal, when I see the president of the United States going to Nevada and flouting the rules of the state of Nevada on how many people can congregate in a closed location, indoor location, that blows my mind because it's going to lead to more people getting sick and dying, and that's reprehensible. That's irresponsible. That's what we need not to do. A lot of more people in the United States are going to refuse to take vaccines if they believe the coronavirus is a hoax, because why would you vaccinate yourself or your kids from a hoax. So we need, we need, whether you believe we should stop the lockdowns and stop quarantining and get back to work, I mean, there are lots of real debate you should have about that.</p><p>Red state versus blue state, poor versus wealthy, knowledge economy versus service worker versus manufacturing worker, real conversations. But there is no dialogue to be had as to whether or not we need science to inform us on the disease itself. Yes, we do. We need to understand the contours of coronavirus from the doctors, from the epidemiologist, from the scientist, the political decisions we want to take on the back of that, completely different story. But the fact that we have this fake news and that social media, particularly Facebook, but others as well are propagating this and people are believing it is not a place we need to be in the United States, it's not a place we need to be in France right now, they're not a place we need to be as a society. It's going to endanger a lot more people and it's a little sad. </p><p>That is your Quick Take for this week. I'll talk to you all again soon. </p><p><br/></p>
Read Now
Show less
GZEROMEDIA
Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal
Most Popular Videos
Latest
The invisible threat to global peace
22 September
The mysterious death of a UN Secretary-General
22 September
US-China: Temperature rising
21 September
The Graphic Truth: What are vaccine hackers hacking?
22 September
How has the pandemic influenced climate action?
21 September