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 }}
Indian paramilitary soldiers patrol along a road in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 29, 2025.
India and Pakistan inch toward a major clash
Nerves are fraught throughout Pakistan after authorities said Wednesday they have “credible intelligence” that India plans to launch military strikes on its soil by Friday, fueling fears of an outright clash between the two nuclear-armed archrivals. Troops from both sides have been exchanging fire in the disputed territory of Kashmir since a terrorist attack in the Indian-controlled section killed 26 civilians last Tuesday. Both China and the US are calling for restraint.
Tensions are spiraling rapidly. India closed its airspace to Pakistan on Wednesday and ordered nearly all Pakistani citizens to leave the country last week. Pakistan – while denying any involvement in the attacks – also canceled visas last week for most Indian citizens in retaliation. The scenes of rapid flight evoked painful memories of the 1947 Partition when Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India fled bloody ethnic massacres in the newly formed nations.
How bad could it get? The two countries have had two major wars, in 1965 and 1971, both of which India won, in the latter case quite decisively. In the ensuing decades, however, India has utterly outstripped Pakistan economically, militarily, and diplomatically, which means that Islamabad’s chances of prevailing in a conventional confrontation are very slim.
The balance of power shifted nonetheless when Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in 1972 to match those that India built in 1967. This has prevented a full-scale attack ever since. When the two sides went to war in 1999, hostilities lasted just over two months and were geographically limited to the Himalayas. If New Delhi should be foolish enough to existentially threaten its neighbor, it raises the grim – albeit unlikely – prospect of a nuclear exchange.
We’re watching for a limited engagement, but we’re far from sanguine about the risks.
Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet (not pictured) at the Peace Palace in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, April 17, 2025.
China warns world against harmful US trade deals
Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a tour of Southeast Asia this month, visiting key trade partners and calling for an “open and cooperative international environment” that rejects “tariff abuse.” But given the reliance of countries like Vietnam and Cambodia on US markets, Beijing may need more than words.
What comes next: Major players are kicking off talks with the US, with Japan starting last week and South Korea meant to commence within days, and Vice President JD Vancemeeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Monday.
Keep your eye on smaller players: Kenyan President William Ruto arrives in Beijing Tuesday, as his burgeoning economy faces strain from US aid clawbacks. For economies in the developing world like his, taking Beijing’s side might be the best hedge available.Afghan Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, pictured here at the anniversary event of the departure of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, in Kabul, Afghanistan, on April 28, 2022.
US-Taliban relations thaw amid race for Afghanistan’s mineral riches
The Trump administration has dropped multimillion-dollar bounties on senior Afghan officials from the Haqqani network, a militant faction that carried out some of the deadliest attacks on American troops but has now positioned itself as a moderate wing within the Taliban government.
The “largely symbolic” move this week came days after the US sent its first major diplomatic mission to Kabul since the Taliban took power in 2021, securing the release of an American citizen detained for the past two years.
While the bounties have been lifted, the men, including Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, remain on the US list of “specially designated global terrorists.”
Thawing relations: While few countries formally recognize the Taliban’s government, a handful – including India, Turkey, and Tajikistan – have established limited ties with Kabul.
China was the first country to formally welcome a Taliban diplomat as the official Afghanistan ambassador last year. In the highest-profile state visit yet, Uzbekistan last summer sent its prime minister to Kabul. Last month, Japan received a delegation from the Taliban for the first time.
Mineral riches: Washington estimates that Afghanistan sits atop at least $1 trillion in mineral wealth, including copper, cobalt, and lithium, in addition to gems such as emeralds, rubies, and sapphires. Last year, Beijing stepped up efforts to help the Taliban tap what could be the world’s second biggest deposit of copper. Washington may now want to keep China from seizing a monopoly like the one it has over minerals in places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Why neither the US nor China is the world’s strongest country
What is the strongest country in the world? Parag Khanna, bestselling author and CEO of the data analytics company AlphaGeo, argues that the answer isn’t as obvious as the United States or China.
Many indices rank nations based on GDP, military strength, population, or freedom. Khanna and his team have created a new one that includes all those factors and more. The goal is to provide investors, academics, and even digital nomads a clearer sense of how safe, resilient, and stable a nation is.
Khanna calls it the Periodic Table of States, and ranks nearly 200 countries on key factors like “strength,” which is a measure of might, wealth, and resources, alongside “stateness,” a geopolitical term referring to authority and governance.
Which country came out on top? Switzerland. Germany was a close second. And the US and China didn’t make the top 5.
GZERO’s Tony Maciulis spoke to Khanna about the table, why democracy doesn’t necessarily mean stability, and where the US is heading politically in the era of President Trump 2.0.
Graphic Truth: The North American gun divide
Gun ownership rates have been rising in both the US and Canada, despite the two countries having drastically different firearms regulations. In the US, there are some federal protections, such as mandatory background checks for firearm purchases from licensed dealers, and restrictions on machine gun and suppressor ownership, as well as rules barring convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. But the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, coupled with lax gun laws in some states, and a cultural emphasis on personal protection, has enabled gun ownership to become widespread.
In Canada, however, guns are primarily viewed as tools for hunting or for sport, and ownership is subject to strict regulations, including certified coursework and background checks. Moreover, nearly 200 types of assault-style firearms are banned. As a result, the US far surpasses Canada in personal firearm ownership. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US – yes, more than one per person – compared to 35 per 100 people in Canada.
But guns in the two countries are also deeply connected. Relaxed restrictions on buying firearms in many states along the US-Canada border have fueled a surge in illegal gun smuggling into Canada. From 2022-24, Canadian border security saw a 44% increase in firearms illegally entering from the US. The issue is under renewed scrutiny as the Trump administration imposes tariffs on Canada, pressuring it to curb fentanyl trafficking. Many Canadians argue that the illegal flow of US firearms poses an equally serious threat to public safety.
Can Europe broker a Ukraine ceasefire?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. The big news, everything around Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and Europe. The Europeans now with the ball in their court, a big summit, a coalition of the willing in London this week. And Zelensky very warmly embraced, quite literally, by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and by everyone in attendance. It was very different visuals, very different takeaways than the meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance in the Oval Office, which couldn't have gone much worse if everyone tried.
Where we are right now, certainly this coalition of the willing had everyone that mattered in Europe. I mean, not the countries, not the leaders that have been skeptical, that have been more aligned with the Russians, or more, say, in a minimal position, like the Hungarians, like the Slovaks, but everybody else was there. So, you've got the Brits, you've got the French, you've got the Italians, and the Germans. You also have EU leadership, Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and also you have all of the frontline leaders that have the most at stake from a national security perspective: the Nordics, the Balts, the Poles. You even have Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who doesn't spend very much on defense, but nonetheless going there to show he's aligned with the Ukrainians, whether or not the Americans, who the Canadians rely on completely economically, are not.
Does it matter? Does it matter? If you're asking does it matter in the sense that can the Europeans go it alone without the Americans? I'm still skeptical, though they're putting a lot more on the table now than they were a week ago, and they should have been doing that years ago. And that's going to remain a very big question, and I'm probably going to remain pretty skeptical. But very interesting that the Europeans do now have a level of ownership. Remember that Trump, both when he was running for president and once he became president, said that the United States was going to end this war, that he, Trump, would be responsible for the ceasefire, that he's going to do it himself with the Ukrainians, with the Russians, he could do it in 24 hours. That's obviously an exaggeration, but nonetheless, even as he realized it was going to take longer, he was the dominant actor. That's now changed. Keir Starmer has now told Trump that the Europeans, this coalition of the willing, is coming up with a ceasefire plan, and they are going to present it to the United States, and Trump is expecting it.
So for now, the Europeans don't just have a seat at the table, but they actually are in the driver's seat, in terms of the ceasefire on the back of the Ukrainian-US relationship having functionally blown up, and the Americans saying they're not going to do anything particularly more for the Ukrainians. They're not even prepared to sign the critical minerals deal that Zelensky now says he is prepared to sign. But if the Europeans are the ones that are going to be coughing up the money and providing the troops, then certainly they're the ones that are responsible for the terms of the ceasefire.
Now, that's interesting. And we're hearing certainly that there's going to be a lot more engagement, that potentially Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky will all three come together to the White House to meet Trump maybe later this week, maybe next week. Certainly Zelensky should not be attending meetings like that by himself anymore, I think he understands that, the Europeans understand that as well.
What they should do now, the Europeans, is present a UN Security Council resolution with the plan once Trump has seen it and is prepared to move forward. A simple thing, deciding nothing, just saying that the Security Council supports the path to peace as outlined from the UK summit. This will force Russian amendments, which the UK and France will veto, and then Russia will be forced to veto the resolution. And that's useful in a couple of different ways. First of all, it costs the French and the UK nothing, and they win a fair amount. The news will be all about how their Russian veto was used for the first time since 1989, and it places the Americans on the same side as the Europeans on the ceasefire issue, which is what the Europeans, the Ukrainians desperately need, and frankly, the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress as well.
The UK and France can then show Trump that they indeed don't need to be invited to the table, because they're at the table, they have the ceasefire plan and they're the ones that are driving it. Now, having a ceasefire plan is different from being able to implement the ceasefire and support the Ukrainians, and that is where there's still an awful lot that still needs to be accomplished.
Specifically the one piece of good news, surprising news, is that the Germans are now talking about 800 billion Euro package, outside of their debt break, that would support defense spending and infrastructure spending. They weren't talking about anything remotely like this even a few days ago. It would have to be done well before the end of the month because when the new chancellor comes in, then you are going to have the far left and the far right with the ability to block any constitutional majority. They don't have that capacity now, which means the debt break can be overridden by a vote in the Bundestag. That's really important, and would lead to German leadership in helping to finance this war.
You also have the 300 billion Euros that are frozen, the Russian sovereign assets that are mostly in the hands of the Europeans, the Belgians, as it turns out, and some others as opposed to the Americans, the Japanese. So, that could also be used to support Ukraine to buy more weapons, also to build up Ukraine's military industrial complex. In other words, while this situation is difficult and urgent, I would not yet say that it has fallen apart for the Ukrainians or the Europeans. They are still, as it were, in the game.
Now, the big question overlooking all of this is the United States and Russia, because they still want to do a deal, and that deal is not mostly about Ukraine, that deal mostly is about rapprochement between the United States and Russia over the heads of their NATO allies. This is what Trump is interested in, this is what Putin is interested. And frankly, it's a little easier to do that deal if you don't have a ceasefire, because the Russians don't really want one, than it is to do that deal if a ceasefire is a part of it. That's what has to be watched very carefully because of course, Trump and Putin are talking about where they're going to meet in person, Saudi Arabia maybe in May, Trump would even be willing to go to Moscow. This could include things like the United States taking unilateral sanctions off of Russia while the Europeans would still have them on. Could lead to a lot of business, a much bigger critical minerals deal than the one that was going to be signed between the Americans and the Ukrainians, and now, at least, is off the table.
Also note that the US Defense Department has at least temporarily suspended offensive cyberattacks against the Russians, which is quite something, again, in the context of nothing having been agreed to between the Americans and the Russians, but clearly Trump much more willing to be on Putin's good side right now than he is with Zelensky. So ultimately, that is a very big challenge for the Europeans, but they will be in far better shape if they're able to move on the ceasefire in the near-term, which looks likely, and on support for Ukraine in the medium-term, which looks like more of a challenge.
So, that's it for now. I'll talk to you all real soon.
What Trump-Zelensky fallout means for Ukraine war
President Trump has said that he is not on the Ukrainian side. He's neutral, he's on the side of peace. He's a peacemaker. He just wants to end the war, and that does not mean supporting Ukraine going forward. In fact, because he felt offended by Zelensky, who was not adequately deferential to the American president or the vice president, he said, basically, I'm cutting off support. I am allowing you, by continuing to support you, I'm allowing you to believe you have leverage you don't have. You should accept peace on my terms, and so I'll cut you off and then we'll see how well you can fight.
This is obviously a disaster for Zelensky who was intemperate in my view, in his remarks, absolutely. If you are coming to the United States, and yes, he has expressed thanks to the Americans many, many times on many, many occasions, but he was not well prepared to handle President Trump's ego, which is enormous, which is fragile, and he expects that everyone has to know who's number two and has to stand down when he stands up. And Zelensky did not do that. They ended up talking over each other and Trump got angry, took it personally, and basically threw him out of the White House, canceled the press conference and said, "I'm not supporting you anymore."
I think this relationship is now inexorably broken. I think it's inconceivable that Zelensky will be able to sit down with Trump in the near-term and fix the relationship. Lindsey Graham, who is perhaps Trump's closest confidant among serious senators, said that Zelensky has to either resign or he has to have someone else running point with the United States. I think that's a good read of the situation. Not that I think that Zelensky should resign, but that if you want to engage with the Americans, he's not going to be able to do it himself. Of course, that also happens to be a core demand of Putin, that Zelensky is not the one that engages directly in conversations. Putin won't talk to him, considers him illegitimate. So that's now becoming a talking point that Trump can directly align with, and I suspect he will in the near-term, after already calling for elections in a second phase after a ceasefire. Again, a core Russia demand.
What's going to happen here? Well, first of all, the big question is what are the Europeans going to do? And I use that word intentionally. What are they going to do, not what are they going to say? We all know what they're going to say. They're going to say that they're incredibly supportive of Ukraine, and I saw that from the Poles, and the Germans, and I saw it from the Belgians, and the Dutch, and I saw it from the French, and the Spaniards, I even saw it from Luxembourg, and those expressions of support mean just about as much from Luxembourg as they do from the Germans, unless they stand up and provide far more willingness to give the Ukrainians more financial support for their military, and also provide boots on the ground that are not contingent on a direct American backstop. They have been unwilling to do that for three years, and I suspect they will still be unwilling to do that. And absent that European support and ability to get the Americans back to the table, I think is extremely low. If the Europeans were to take a leadership role and show that they could do it without the Americans or with nominal American participation, then I think it's much more plausible that Trump, irrespective of what just happened with Zelensky, says, "I'm the only one that can get you to the table. I was the only one that made the Europeans lead, and so now, yeah, I'm back, I'm back now because this is the right conditions for peace for the American taxpayers." But of course, what Trump wants to do is end the war, and he now has been given a bigger opportunity to end the war by being able to throw Zelensky under the bus.
And that's what Vance is doing. That's what Elon is doing. That's what all of Trump's supporters on social media are doing. They're saying, "This guy, he's corrupt, he's a dictator, he's a bad guy, he shows no respect to the American president, and why should we support him? Well, the reason you should support him is because he's not a bad guy. It's because he was democratically elected and for three years, he has courageously led his people to defend their country. That's all. To defend their country against an invading force. When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait illegally, the Americans stood up, slapped down Saddam Hussein directly, not indirectly, directly involved in that fighting, to stand for the principle of territorial integrity. And that wasn't even a democracy. That was just a country that yeah, had some oil, but that the United States did not want the rest of the world to think that it would just stand back and stand by while their own country was eaten to shreds by a neighboring more powerful country. That is not where the Americans are today.
Today the Americans are supporting a UN resolution with the Russians, the North Koreans, Belarus, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Israel, and a few micro states against democracies of the world, saying that territorial integrity is not what's critical. What's critical is just ending the war no matter what. That principle is being thrown out. And the Europeans fundamentally disagree with this. The Europeans feel like there is a gun to their head from the east with the Russians as a direct national security threat, and now a gun to the head from the west, a country that does not support core values of collective security, of rule of law, and of territorial integrity. And that means that the Europeans have to now get their act together immediately or else.
Zelensky is someone who, when the Americans offered to get him out of the country, because he was going to be overrun by the invading Russians, he said, "No, I'm not leaving my country," in a way that the Afghan leadership fled immediately, "No, I'm staying and I'm going to defend my country with my fellow Ukrainians." And that was an extraordinary moment and he has been facing down a much more powerful force, at a threat to his life and his family's lives. He's been on the front lines many, many times. He's not getting much sleep. He's under incredible pressure. And does it all take away from the fact that he talked back to the American president? No, obviously, no. You have to be better capable of representing your country by knowing who you're dealing with when you're coming in to see the US president. But I want to be clear that Zelensky has absolutely nothing to apologize for because the fact is that he is an example of the kind of humanity we need to help ensure that we have peace and stability around the world, someone that will stand up to injustice. And that, from an American president who because he was born of wealth and privilege, faked an injury to avoid military service, I think speaks volumes about what has happened to the United States.
The values that the Americans stand for presently on the global stage are values of power. They are the most powerful, get to write their rules, get to determine the outcomes. And that is true for Putin, it's true for Israel, it's true for the United States, and it's not true for the Ukrainians. It's not true for the Palestinians. It's not true for the Danes, or the Panamanians, or the Mexicans, or the Canadians. And what the Europeans have to now figure out is, are they prepared to be courageous? Are they prepared to step up, even though they're not in the most powerful position? Are they willing to do after three years, after frankly, 11 years since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the first time they've stood back, they've stood by, they haven't stood up for their fellow Europeans. They've allowed the Americans to do the heavy lifting, and now they have a president that is not willing to do that and frankly doesn't agree with them anymore, doesn't agree with their values, doesn't care about shared values, only cares about power.
And so, this is not a question for the Ukrainians. We know where the Ukrainians stand. They stand up. This is not a question for the Americans. We know where the Americans stand. They stand for themselves. This is a question for the Europeans. Are the Europeans willing to stand up for themselves, for their principles, for their values, and for fellow Europeans? And I fear the answer is no. I fear the answer is no. Analytically everything we've seen for the last three years is that they're going to talk a really good game and they're not going to do very much. But we shall see and we shall see very soon because this is the future of the West, this is the future of democracy, and it sure as hell is the future of the Ukrainians.
So that's it for me. I hope you all well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- NATO and Ukraine prep for Trump ›
- Will Trump reverse Biden’s move on long-range missiles for Ukraine? ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- “Make a Deal or We're Out”: Inside the explosive Trump-Zelensky confrontation ›
- Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin ›
Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal changed
What is this going to matter? What changes here? Well, a couple of points. First of all is it's a win, and we shouldn't be surprised. Back at the beginning of January, in our top risks, one of the things that we suggested was that Trump was going to get a lot more wins than a lot of his opponents believed, because he is the most powerful leader in the world. He's in a very strong position and he's willing to use that power against both adversaries and nominal friends. And a lot of people are scared of him, and so they give him what he wants. And that is what we are seeing here, especially for the Ukrainians who are in as weak a position as pretty much anyone that Trump is pushing around right now. So, he gets to say, "Look at this deal. Biden was giving away all of this American aid, and now I'm going and getting money back."
Now, that's not a great look in the sense that other countries around the world look at the United States and say, "We can't trust you guys because you change your mind every administration." So, if one president says that this is going to happen, and the next can just rip it up, and that's every four years or less, then why should we engage in a deal with you? Whether it's the Paris Climate Accord, or the World Health Organization, or the Iranian nuclear deal, the JCPOA, or it is aid to Ukraine that suddenly is not aid to Ukraine anymore. Now, Trump was saying that the United States has given $500 billion in aid to Ukraine, which is vastly more than the Europeans, and all of the European money is loans. That is of course wildly exaggerated, meaning not true, but there is a kernel of truth in it. So it's worth unpacking.
The Americans have provided a little over $110 billion, mostly in aid, 90% of that has been directly aid to the Ukrainians so far. Though, that money doesn't go directly to Ukraine. It goes primarily to American corporations, contractors, who get the money, who do the job, who make profit on it, and who service Ukraine. So, it's not as if there's a lot of corruption in Ukraine on the back of American aid because the money isn't going directly to Ukraine. The Europeans have given more money, more like €135 billion as opposed to the $110 that the US has given. The EU has a larger population, so per capita, it's not all that different. A lot of that European money, about 60% is not aid, it's actually loans in some form, though loans on exceptionally favorable terms to the Ukrainians. So, the fact that there is more aid that is going to Ukraine from Europe that has to be repaid is actually true.
And when Macron pushed back against Trump on that, he pushed back in a favorable way to Macron, shocking, but didn't also tell the full story. Part of the reason why nobody believes anything that politicians say these days, and one of the reasons I don't want to be a politician. Okay, leave that aside. So, Zelensky comes to the US, he does a deal, is he doing a colonial deal? No, another exaggeration. Trump was saying that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have no leverage, they have no cards. That's why he doesn't need to talk to him anymore. Well, if that's the case, then why is it the United States significantly altered the terms of the deal from a week ago, when Zelensky said no, to yesterday when Zelensky said yes? Before the $500 billion was all supposed to pay for previous aid, that term is out of this general agreement.
Also, the idea the Americans would've full control of the investment vehicle, that full control is no longer in these terms of the agreement. So, the terms have been substantially altered, and the reason for that is because Zelensky, of course, does have leverage. Most Republicans in Congress, House and Senate, support Zelensky a lot more than they support Putin, and they've not been happy about the idea that Trump has been flipping to a Russia relationship as opposed to support for Ukraine. Most Americans, including Republican voters, trust Zelensky more than they trust Putin, and they aren't, it's not the thing they're voting on, but they're not super happy about that. And of course, the Europeans themselves very upset about the idea that the Americans would suddenly break from that alliance. Does this matter to Trump? It doesn't matter immensely, but it isn't zero, because if it was zero, then he wouldn't have changed his deal one iota.
It's not because he's getting soft, it's because he recognizes that the other party has leverage. Now, what are the Europeans going to do? French president came to the United States yesterday, it was a reasonably productive conversation, but it didn't lead to any commitment of the US for security guarantees to Ukraine. Neither does the deal that the Ukrainians are signing ensure security guarantees. It does buy a little time. It does show that the US is going to continue to engage with Ukraine, and have some equities on the ground, and maybe continue to provide some weapons, some armaments going forward, some of the so-called strategic enablers, like help with targeting and intelligence, while the Americans are engaging with the Russians, directly and bilaterally, to try to structure a engagement, a re-engagement, of those two countries. I think that Trump is maintaining a lot of optionality for himself here.
If it turns out that the Europeans are going to spend a lot more on defense over the coming weeks and make those commitments, a lot more to the Ukrainians and make those commitments, and be willing to stand troops on the ground, a lot of them on the ground in Ukraine in a post-ceasefire environment, then Trump can pivot, say, "Look at all the things the Europeans are doing that Biden could never have gotten them to do, and now I'm willing to engage because the Europeans are actually picking up their fair share. Because the Ukrainians are going to give the Americans their fair share for doing all this work, it's not on the back of the American taxpayers.”
But if they don't, and frankly, I think it's more likely than not that the Europeans aren't able to get their act together in such a dramatic way in such a short period of time, then Trump hasn't really lost anything. He's engaging in this deal with the Russians, the Ukrainians have a deal with the US, the US doesn't have to put any money into if they don't feel like it, and this re-engagement with Russia precedes a pace that Trump wants. So, that is I think where we are heading right now. I'm not expecting much from the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer's visit to the US, he has a much more difficult and let's say distant and cool relationship with the US president than Macron does, and he doesn't have an awful lot to offer directly, though, they're going to step up their defense spending to maybe get to 2.5% over the coming years. Still nowhere close to what Trump wants or demands.
Final thing I would mention is that all of these conversations are happening in the context of the United States that has spent enormous amounts and wasted enormous amounts on national security and on wars over the past decades. I think it is worth asking, in an alternative history, if after Soviet collapsed, what would the world have looked like if the US had decided to disband NATO, didn't need it anymore because it was the end of history? What would've happened if the United States had gone down to 2%, or 2.5% of defense spend of GDP, and spent that money primarily on focus on Asia, together with American allies in Asia, like Japan, like Australia, like South Korea? What would've happened if the United States had not engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spent trillions of dollars as a consequence?
Would the world be better off without NATO? Would the world be better off without those wars? And I think the answer is at least worth considering, and while I am not at all comfortable with the United States continually going back on its commitments to allies, continuing ripping up its commitments, because I think that undermines US power, and I'm not comfortable with throwing the allies under the bus, who have fought with the United States side by side, shoulder by shoulder in Afghanistan, and then telling them you're basically on your own in Ukraine.
I'm not comfortable with any of that because I think the alliances matter, but I understand that a lot of Americans are very happy to rip up these arrangements because for the last three plus decades, the US has made huge mistakes by over-supporting and over-funding national security and defense. And as a consequence of that, I think this is a discussion that is way overdue, and a lot of things are going to be broken because we didn't have those conversations in a more rational, civilized, and engaged manner. So, it's worth talking about that too. Look, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's ›
- How Trump won – and what it means for the world ›
- Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin ›
- Trump embraces Russia, attacks Ukraine ›
- Trump's dealmaking with Putin leaves Ukraine and Europe with nowhere to turn ›