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 }}
Is the Europe-US rift leaving us all vulnerable?
As the tense and politically charged 2025 Munich Security Conference draws to a close, GZERO’s Global Stage series presents a conversation about strained relationships between the US and Europe, Ukraine's path ahead, and rising threats in cyberspace.
This provocative panel discussion was moderated by David Sanger, a White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times. It features GZERO and Eurasia Group Founder and President Ian Bremmer, Microsoft’s Vice Chair and President Brad Smith, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, and former US Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies Anne Neuberger.
The group gathered atop the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, home to the Munich Security Conference for six decades, at a critical time for Europe and the world. Following a stunning and controversial speech from US Vice President J.D. Vance and concern about the next steps on the road to a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, our Global Stage program broke down key takeaways from the 61st MSC. It illuminated the threat landscape online as cyber-attacks escalate globally.
This livestream discussion is part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
Palestinian UN Ambassador on Trump's radical Gaza plan and the Israel-Hamas ceasefire
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour to discuss the future of Gaza, Trump’s radical proposal, and what Palestinians want. As a fragile ceasefire holds, Trump has suggested that the US take over Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” while relocating displaced Gazans elsewhere. The idea has been widely rejected by America’s Middle Eastern allies, but does it signal a new phase in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
For Mansour, the issue is about more than just geopolitics—it’s about identity, history, and the right to return. He rejects the idea of mass displacement, pointing to the thousands of Palestinians who have already marched back to their destroyed neighborhoods. “We have very, very strong attachment to the land, whether it is you have a palace on it or whether it is destroyed,” he says. He also warns that Trump’s plan reflects a long-standing effort to erase Palestinian identity, arguing, “The Zionist movement has been working all along to push the idea that Palestine is a land without a people.
Mansour asks whether Gaza's future will be shaped by the people who live there or by the world's most powerful people.
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.
What is Trump's Gaza playbook?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Want to talk about Gaza, which has not been as much in the headlines over the past month because so much other news has been emanating from Washington post Trump's inauguration. But he made some news on Gaza and it's relevant to the ongoing war and ceasefire, which is this idea that the United States is going to take over Gaza, develop it and make it into the Riviera, a new Riviera on the Mediterranean. Certainly they have the beachfront property, they don't have the infrastructure, especially not after the war over the last year plus. Trump saying that no US troops would be involved, but it's an enormous opportunity. The Palestinians would have to be resettled. It's not a new plan. He's been talking about this for the last year together with advisors. The idea that there's an enormous amount of money, particularly from the Gulf, that could be interested in investing on the ground. That security could be provided by the Egyptians. That the Palestinians could be temporarily resettled in Egypt, maybe in Jordan.
They would, at least in principle, have the right to return. But I mean, how much money? Probably $20 billion minimum. What's temporary mean? Probably talking about a generation. Are the Palestinians likely to believe that given what's happened on the ground in the West Bank? Hard to imagine. What does governance for the Palestinians look like? Well, Trump no longer supports a two-state solution, which he did support back in the days of the Abraham Accords. Others in the region certainly do, and they, at least in principle though, they're not willing to do an awful lot to bring that about. Of course, the two-state solution, if you are Arab in the region, doesn't necessarily mean democratic governance after all, with the exception of Israel. It's not like you have democratically elected governments across these states. So you're probably talking about something more technocratic and appointed. But still, what's happened is as Trump has been discussing this, the Jordanians and the Egyptians are unhappy and saying, "No way will they take any Palestinians."
The Gulf states are unhappy. The UAE, which has discussed some of this plan with Israel directly, slow rolling how much they'd be willing to do. The Saudis saying they don't support it. And so Trump with all of that and with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to Washington DC said, "Fine, I'll make an announcement by myself. I'll just do it if you refuse to be a part of it." And then the US diplomats were spending day and night back channeling with Gulf allies saying, "He didn't really mean he was going to take over all of it. He's not planning on taking over the land. Don't worry about it." What I would say is this is an opening strategy to try to get all of the states in the region together with Israel and negotiate what the development of Gaza would possibly look like. To get some commitments for investment. To get some commitments for security.
And there's a lot of space between all of the Palestinians are resettled because certainly they're not all interested in leaving. But some of them certainly are. And you can hardly blame them even though it's their homeland because there is nothing left and it's really hard to get humanitarian aid in, and it's not likely to get meaningfully better, even with the ceasefire, which may not hold up anytime soon. And given the fact that 80% of Israelis polled in the Jerusalem Post, which is a pretty middle of the road survey group and media institution in Israel, say they want all of the Palestinians in Gaza resettled. Given that and given the fact that if you were to engage in reconstruction that security would be necessary, there's going to be an effort to at least create buffer zones, which means more resettlements internally and a desire to allow Palestinians that want to leave the ability to leave.
And Trump would love to create some facts on the ground there. The way he's creating facts on the ground by bringing some illegal migrants in the United States to Guantanamo. There aren't facilities for them, so they set up some tents. But even if it's only one or two planes, suddenly it becomes a policy. And that's precisely what the Trump administration wants to see with the Palestinians and Gaza is that if you are getting out a few busloads or a few shiploads or a few plane loads, then suddenly it's not a question of can they be resettled, but how many and over what time? It's a very different policy discussion, and that's exactly where they and the Israeli government are looking to get to. Now, who's going to take these Palestinians? Right now nobody. Trump was asked if he was going to be willing to, if the United States what his response was, "Well, it's really too far," which doesn't seem to be his perspective for the white Afrikaners in South Africa who are even farther away.
So maybe it's not really about distance. It might be something else. But nonetheless, I do expect that when Trump says that the Egyptians and Jordanians will take some, that if they are paid to take some and what some means and what kind of population and how they're going to be vetted is all to be discussed. But some would not surprise me at all, might be a matter of hundreds or a few thousand. I don't think it's a matter of hundreds of thousands. But again, it starts that conversation. It changes the policy. And especially if we end up reopening the fighting in Gaza, which I think is quite likely over the coming weeks and months, then there becomes more urgency to engage for some of the Palestinians there in more resettlement, more willingness to. So that's what I think this is all about right now.
We are not close to a Palestinian state. We are not close to a broad agreement that would allow the Gulfies to engage fully in what Trump is demanding or to expand the Abraham Accords, to include Saudi Arabia opening diplomatic ties with Israel. But all of this is on the table and is the backdrop for what Trump is putting forward right now. So that's what we're talking about and something we'll be watching really closely. Hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Demonstrators attend a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, in front of the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, February 6, 2025.
Who’s really playing the long game for Gaza?
President Donald Trump is doubling down on his proposal to remove Palestinians from Gaza for resettlement. He insisted early Thursday that Israel will give the territory to the US, with no military intervention required (The UN and other international bodies would argue that Gaza is an occupied territory and isn’t Israel’s to hand over).
Trump then signed an order on Thursday imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court, accusing it of “illegitimate and baseless actions” for having issued an arrest warrant last year against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. The court’s president, Judge Tomoko Akane, has said such sanctions undermine the ICC’s work and put “the very existence of the court at stake.”
The move came just days after Trump discussed turning Gaza into a seaside resort — a “Riviera of the Middle East” — during his press conference with Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday.
After 15 months of bombardment, nearly 70% of the territory’s buildings have been destroyed, with an estimated $18.5 billion in damage. Gaza’s decimated healthcare system is no match for mass starvation and the communicable diseases affecting the remaining population. Though the current cessation in hostilities ostensibly allows more aid to flow into Gaza, that’s more challenging now that the Trump administration has paused USAID funding and Israel has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Netanyahu and some 80% percent of Jewish Israelis support Trump’s suggestion to move Gazans to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt. But much of the rest of the world has dismissed it as inhumane and dangerous. Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who meets with Trump on Feb. 11, said that ethnically cleansing Gaza and displacing Palestinians in Egypt and Jordan would incite a new generation of Palestinian resistance and cause further regional upheaval. Jordan and Egypt have flatly rejected the notion of taking in Gazans en masse; Jordan notably absorbed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees following the 1948 and 1967 wars.
Trump wants Gulf states to help fund Gaza’s recovery, but countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE have declined, insisting on a future Palestinian state.
Was this just an opening gambit? The US president may just be pushing the boat out to try and provoke other ideas, says Jon Alterman, Middle East director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “[Other actors] will come up with other ideas, and Trump will begin wheeling and dealing and saying, ‘Look what I could evoke,’” he said.
But regional leaders are unlikely to take steps outside their best interests. The key to leverage in the Middle East is longevity, and Gulf leaders have a much longer time horizon than any US president. It’s important to remember, Alterman says, that US presidents “don’t have the necessity of living with long-term consequences of short-term decisions” the way leaders in the Middle East do.
Gulf leaders “have all seen presidents come and go. The pressures are different, and they're willing to accommodate American presidents and flatter American presidents and ignore American presidents, but it’s all playing a long game.”
Is Trump's new approach to Putin effective?
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb offers a cautiously optimistic outlook on US policy toward Ukraine under Trump’s leadership. Joining Bremmer on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Stubb highlights his conversations with the Trump administration, emphasizing that the president’s messaging to Putin is firm and strategic. He believes Trump is focused on securing a deal and expresses confidence that any agreement will ultimately benefit Ukraine.
On the issue of territorial concessions, Stubb draws from Finland’s own history, recalling how his country lost 10% of its land to the Soviet Union but retained its independence. While acknowledging the importance of territory, he argues that Ukraine’s priority must be securing its sovereignty and long-term stability. He sees Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive as a strategically valuable, albeit risky, move that strengthens its negotiating position. Ultimately, he insists this is a long game, and ensuring Ukraine’s security beyond the immediate conflict is the primary goal.
Watch full episode: Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US 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 (🔔).
Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, European leaders are reassessing their reliance on the United States for security and economic stability. In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. They discuss the evolving role of Europe in an era of shifting alliances, economic uncertainty, and rising geopolitical risks. In other words, Europe's role in a Trump 2.0 era. Stubb expresses cautious optimism about Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine but underscores the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense and technological leadership.
Stubb also acknowledges that Europe is facing a moment of reckoning. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Stubb agrees that Europe must strengthen its strategic position but remains wary of the region’s economic competitiveness, particularly in technology, where the US holds a clear advantage.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US 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 (🔔).
- Envisioning Europe's path forward with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair ›
- Meloni joins Trump at Mar-a-Lago — with Europe’s economy on the line ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
Why is Trump starting a trade war with Canada?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the US-Canada relationship, which, right now, is on ice. And I don't mean the hockey kind. Trump, the tariff-man, cometh. Some 25% across the board on Canada, on Mexico too, except on Canadian oil, that's only 10%. Why? Why 10% on oil? Because that's actually what makes up Canada's surplus with the United States. So, wouldn't you actually hit that sector harder if you were trying to balance the budget? And the answer is, of course, no. That's like saying Canada's a friend and China's an enemy, and so wouldn't you hit the Chinese harder than the Canadians instead of the Chinese only 10%, the Canadians 25%, Mexico 25%, but that's also not the case. Why? Because China can cause a lot more damage to the United States. And so therefore, President Trump has to be more careful. Canada, Mexico, a lot smaller, much easier to punch down against the Canadians, even if it's technically punching up, given where they sit geographically. And except for oil, where the United States gets 4 million barrels a day, which is much more than the US gets from the rest of the world combined. And that quality of crude, only replaceable in terms of the kind of crude it is from Venezuela with massive sanctions and run by a dictator, and they've destroyed much of their own oil sector, so that's not a capability, which means that the Canadians can't send it anywhere else, the Americans can't buy it anywhere else, but the US is more powerful, so Trump thinks he can get away with it.
So, why? If it's not about oil and it's not really about the trade surplus, then why is it that Trump is doing this? What he says, is it's about fentanyl and illegal migrants, that the Canadians are not policing their border. Again, doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes more sense for Mexico, and again, there's a big question about whether the smartest thing to do is, you know, shoot first and ask questions later, or negotiate credibly first and not undermine the economies, the much weaker economies of your friends. But when it comes to Canada, the argument doesn't make sense at all. Fentanyl, we're talking about on average every year about 10 kilos of fentanyl that is interdicted at the border, which is, by the way, that's every year from Canada. That's less than what you see in Mexico every day. So, it's way under 1% of the total.
Illegal migrants, it's a larger problem from Canada. Here you're talking about roughly 5% of the interdiction on the northern border of illegals coming into the United States compared to 80% from Mexico, and the remainder mostly by sea and occasional air transit. And yes, I'm talking about what is being stopped, not what's getting through, which you can't measure as easily, but it's not like Homeland Security isn't tracking where illegal migrants are actually coming from. And this is not anywhere close to the issue from Canada than it is from Mexico. But that's not really the issue here either because national security issues are more likely to hold up as legal reasons for the US president to invoke IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And so, if you're worried that the court's going to strike down your tariffs because you don't actually have the law behind you, this is the way you couch it.
And also, Trump doesn't really care what arguments he's using. It's to show that he can't and to get his supporters to go with him to make better deals for the US no matter what. But the timing here is strategically horrible for Trump. Canada is at the beginning of an election, and this from Trump is remarkably unifying for the Canadians. Using fake news to justify a trade war and then leaning in to say that Canada can join as a 51st state if they want. Now, there are plenty of Canadians that over the last eight years have supported Trump. Remember the trucker strike, for example. I mean, I certainly see it and I hear it on my trips there, but these are not America First, Canadians. These are Canada First, Canadians, and they don't want the Canadians to fold to Trump. In fact, the only people that I hear saying quietly that they wish the Canadians would fold are the globalists.
They're the corporate and financial elites in Canada that just really want this to go away because it's hurting their profits. And they're trying to find a way to say, "Well, just give him a win. It'll be okay." But I mean, in terms of the average Canadian, no, no, no, no, no, they want their political leaders, whether it's the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, to stand up to Trump. And that's why you've seen in the last 24 hours, Liberal leaders, whether it's Trudeau, or it's Chrystia Freeland, or Mark Carney, who are the two that are contesting for the premiership, or it's Pierre Poilievre leading the conservative party, or Doug Ford, head of Ontario, who's also a major conservative leader in Canada, and they're all saying the same thing, which is they've got to stand up for Canada, to hit Trump back hard, that they can't take this laying down. And these are also the people that are booing the US National Anthem at hockey games across the country in Canada right now, which I have not seen happen in Canada, frankly, since the US war in Iraq.
I am not someone who opposes tariffs as a matter of course. I think that tariffs can be a useful tool of economic and national security influence. They can help to deal with national security concerns. They can help nudge rebalancing of economies for domestic reasons that matter politically. And we saw some of that during Trump's first term. We saw some of that during Biden's term. But for Trump's first term, he then had strong economic voices internally that were also moderating his behavior, that stopped fights from becoming long-term destructive. People like Robert Lighthizer, who was the US trade rep. Jared Kushner, who was a senior advisor, had a lot of access and influence of course to his father-in-law. Steve Mnuchin, the Secretary of Treasury. That's not remotely the case this time around. That's not what you're seeing from Treasury Secretary Bessent or from Commerce Secretary Lutnick. Much, much weaker, much more divided forces internally.
So instead, you are taking on America's closest friend, most trusted ally, not to mention critically integrated economy with the United States, and you are hitting them in the teeth harder than you are hitting anyone else. And I would argue that this is a big mistake, long-term, for the United States and frankly for everyone but America's adversaries, who will take advantage of weakness of US allies that have been historically very strong, and that have been harder for adversaries to deal with.
So what is it that the United States stands for? And I go back, I think when I was a kid and when I was starting my studies, 1989, Wall comes down, and around the world, people saw that, and they weren't all pro-American, not by a long stretch, but they would still stay that the United States had values, that it was trying to stand for freedom and liberty and a free market economy. Not always consistently, but nonetheless, the general sense that that was something that the United States wanted to be seen as promoting. And today, you go to Canada, or you go to Denmark, or you go to Panama, or you go to Japan, or South Korea, the European Union, you name it, and you ask people what America stands for, and they say, "Power," and they say, "Money," and they specifically say, "Pay for play." And that is penny-wise and pound-foolish for the United States.
And I don't know how US Canada is going to ultimately resolve itself. I don't think it's going to be resolved quickly. I think there will be a lot of economic pain on both sides, a lot more for the Canadians than the Americans because they're in a weaker position, but sooner or later, I think economic interest on both sides will lead to a deal. And I think, I expect that this is not going to lead to a permanent trade war between the Americans and the Canadians, but you would have to go back to pre-war times to find a major country doing more than the US is doing right now, and President Trump is doing right now, to undermine America's closest alliances. That is what's happening here. And I think long-term, this is really not in the interest of the United States, in the interest the American people, and it's certainly not in the interest of having a sustainable and stable world.
So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon and be good.
DeepSeek puts US-China relations on edge
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How is China's AI app DeepSeek disrupting the AI industry?
It certainly seems to be making people concerned that the Chinese are a lot closer to the Americans and the Trump administration is not sleeping on this. They clearly feel that China is technologically very capable, very advanced. Frankly, different than Biden felt when he first became president, though he got up to speed on that pretty quickly. And I think that's going to lead to a much tougher competition between the United States and China. Those that think that a deal is coming, that Trump is going to engage with China because he wants to find a way to not have to put tariffs on, I don't think that's going to happen because you're going to have so much more efforts to contain the Chinese in all sorts of areas of advanced technology broadly speaking.
They are way ahead in data. The Americans are ahead in compute, and they're both going to lean into the opportunities that they have. And the Americans are going to use their firepower from a government perspective with other countries around the world as well. That's what I think.
Trump has issued a 90-day pause on nearly all US foreign aid. What's the likelihood it'll be extended beyond that?
I don't know how long it's going to be extended, but I do know that so many of the contractors that are involved, for example, USAID, which is like half of their capable workforce, are gone. And within 30 days they then lose their security clearances and they're not going to have capability to execute. So I think there will be permanent damage to the ability of the Americans to actually get a lot of development programs done around the world, and this is an important piece of US soft power.
And if the Americans aren't doing it, other countries around the world will, most particularly China,. This is an opportunity for the Chinese to have more influence, especially in the Global South than the United States. And this is pennywise and pound foolish for the Americans. And unlike the suspension of domestic support and funding and programs, which led to a whole bunch of outrage and then the order was rescinded, on foreign aid there's not a lot of domestic outrage. And companies don't want to stick their necks out because they think that they're going to get whacked hard by the Trump administration. So, I think it's more likely to have a longer-term impact.
What do I make of the Rwandan-backed rebels' advancements in Congo?
Definitely it is expanding the civil war. A lot of Congolese are really unhappy that this is happening with the support of external actors. You've seen a bunch of embassies in Congo ransacked, a lot of riots as a consequence, and not a lot of interest in trying to resolve the problem other than from folks like the United Nations who are pretty weak on the ground. So like we're seeing in Sudan, in Congo, an expanding civil war that is causing a lot of humanitarian hardship and havoc. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.