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 }}
Nobelist Oleksandra Matviichuk on Russia-Ukraine war reshaping world order
Matviichuk highlighted that Ukraine is confronting not just Russia but an entire authoritarian bloc, including Iran, China, North Korea, and Syria. "Ukraine is not a goal. Ukraine is a tool how to break international order," she stated, underscoring that the conflict represents a broader challenge to global democratic values.
When asked about the future of US support, particularly in light of Donald Trump's re-election, she expressed uncertainty but affirmed Ukraine's resolve: "We don't know what will be the policy of the next president's administration, but what we know for sure is that Ukrainians will continue our fight for freedom. We have no other choice."
This conversation was presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft at the 7th annual Paris Peace Forum. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical debates on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
Follow GZERO coverage of the Paris Peace Forum here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage
- Many knew Putin wasn't bluffing, but not how far he'd go, says International Crisis Group’s Comfort Ero ›
- Is Ukraine running out of time? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder sizes up the Russia-Ukraine war ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia ›
- How Russian cyberwarfare could impact Ukraine & NATO response ›
Why Ukraine invaded Russia
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. I wanted to talk a little bit about Russia/Ukraine before news in the United States and the Middle East take it off the headlines again.
The surprise, of course, is that the Ukrainians have invaded Russia. This was a substantial, you'd say more than an incursion, a significant amount of territory presently being held. The Russians have had to, as a consequence, announce a "counter-terrorism operation regime" in Kursk, in Bryansk, and Belgorod, not martial law, but still, that has reduced some of the forces that they can deploy in fighting the front lines in Southeast Ukraine. And it's also certainly embarrassed Putin, embarrassed his senior military leadership. This is supposed to be all about defeating the Ukrainians, and now the Russians have lots of citizens that are facing a war on Russian territory. Now, to be clear, the Ukrainians have no territorial claim on any part of Russia, but there is a feeling of turnabout is fair play.
What's going on here? I think there are a few things. First of all, the fact that the Ukrainians can put the Russians under some pressure domestically in a run-up to what everyone expects will eventually be negotiations helps to improve Ukraine's position. And no matter who you talk to, the Europeans, the Democrats in the US, the Republicans in the US, the feeling increasingly is that it is going to be harder for the Ukrainians to continue to fight and defend their territory the way they have for the last two and a half years. And so that means you need to have negotiations in the coming year. Part of that is because the Ukrainians aren't going to have the troops. Part of it is because it's getting harder to raise the money. And that's not just the United States, though there was a fight about that, and certainly it'll get harder next year, especially if Trump/Vance win, but also if Harris/Walz do, but also the Germans just cut back 50% of their expected support for the Ukrainian military in 2025, because they're under fiscal constraints, this is the largest European economy. So either way, there is a clear understanding from all sides that you want to move towards freezing the conflict at a minimum and negotiations and maybe a ceasefire and a longer-term settlement, more ambitiously. Much better from the Ukrainian perspective to do that if they have leverage over Russia too, and they have shown leverage. They can blow up the Black Sea fleet, which was important to Russia's national security, and they can put some areas of Russia, both in terms of missiles and alts and drones, but also in terms of Ukrainian troops at risk.
Now, can the Ukrainians hold Kursk from the Russians? Hard to imagine that. I expect that within the coming weeks they'll be forced out of that territory by the Russians. But clearly, they had the element of surprise. The Russians weren't ready to immediately defend or immediately counterattack against that incursion. So I suspect this is more about the broader negotiations between Russian Ukraine than the idea that there's going to be a territory swap. I don't think you'll get there. I also think there is a little bit of desperation. If you're the Ukrainians, remember, you're running out of troops. So sending more troops into Kursk makes you more vulnerable and weaker on the home front, especially when it's been harder and harder to mobilize those troops. And there's been political opposition to doing that. And I think that's because the Ukrainians understand that they need to make Russia feel insecure sooner rather than later, because it's going to be hard to keep this fighting up for another one, two years or more, irrespective of how the American election goes, but certainly, if it goes against the Ukrainians, that's going to be a problem for them. So this isn't all about that.
Also, we're learning more about Russian response. Let's keep in mind that we've heard from Russian leaders, including former President Medvedev and occasionally even Putin himself, that nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are on the table, and don't you dare, sort of, allow the Ukrainians to use weapons that could strike into Russia. Don't you dare hit Crimea. Don't you dare hit Russian territory. And every time those ostensible red lines have been broken, the Russian response has been dramatically more restrained than one might have expected from listening to Putin and the Kremlin at face value. That's useful because they've also said similar things about Ukraine in NATO and the West defending Ukraine. And if you're going to get to a negotiated settlement that is acceptable for the Ukrainians, which means that they're going to lose territory, they will be partitioned. They need to have the ability to defend their territory for the long-term in a credible way. And the best way to ensure that is get them into NATO. The best way to ensure that is to get them troops on the ground in territory that the Russians don't occupy.
Now, you can have an alliance, have security guarantees that don't include the entire territory. Japan, for example, has an alliance with the United States. It doesn't include the Northern territories, contested and presently occupied, some of them by Russia. So there's plenty of precedent here. But the point is that few in NATO believe today that Ukraine in NATO, especially the piece of Ukraine that isn't occupied by Russia in NATO, is an existential risk for World War III the way that many of them would've believed that when Russian retaliation and escalation was less known, was less experienced a year ago, certainly two years ago. So, that's interesting.
Final point I want to raise here is that whether Harris or Trump win the election in November, I think we are moving towards a similar outcome. In other words, both of these leaders would like to see an end to the fighting. Both of them would like to see a ceasefire. Both of them would like to see the west move on because they recognize the reality of the fighting on the ground, and in the case of Trump in particular, because he wants to say, "New wars started under Biden/Harris, I end them." The big difference between the two is that Trump is much more likely to make those decisions unilaterally. In other words, tell the Ukrainians and the Russians, "This is the deal, accept it or else," and not necessarily coordinate with NATO allies in advance. Where a Harris administration would be working closely in multilateral fashion with the Europeans and with the Ukrainians to try to get to a similar outcome. In other words, more risk acceptant towards that outcome on the Trump side, more risk averse and more coordinated with allies, harder to get done in some ways, under a Harris administration, but lower likelihood that it really blows up in your face. So how lucky do you feel is the open question, but not as dramatically different as the media would have led you to expect over the course of the past months talking about a potential Trump administration.
So that's a little bit from me on where we are, a very different position in some ways, in the Russia/Ukraine war today, and maybe even, I don't want to call it optimistic, but maybe seeing more of a pathway towards how this fighting can be frozen, if not ended. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Ian Explains: Putin's Ukraine gamble ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Russia-Ukraine reality check ›
- Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here ›
- Is Russia winning the war in Ukraine? ›
- Ukraine's Kursk invasion complicates Putin's war efforts - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine's military technology could benefit all of Europe — Deputy Minister Anna Gvozdiar - GZERO Media ›
- A Baltic warning: What Ukraine war means for Europe—and the Russian perspective - GZERO Media ›
Starmer's plan to boost UK economy will take some time
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from the Adriatic Sea.
How is Europe’s policy on Ukraine going to change if Trump arrives in the White House?
Well first, it is not going to change its fundamentals. You should know that the very first thing done by the newly elected European Parliament was to take a very strong and very broadly supportive resolution with very strong support for Ukraine. So what's going to happen is that, yes, Europe will continue that particular line, that it might be necessary. I think it will be necessary to further increase the financial support, the support that Europeans is already substantially higher than the Americans. But if the Americans diminish, reduce, stop, whatever Trump is going to do, then Europe clearly would have to step up even more.
How does Prime Minister Starmer's “renewal plan” make it possible to sort of make Britain great again?
Well, it's early days. It's clearly going to be economic policy that is somewhat more sort of interventionist in different ways. I think the important thing is that he wants to have a new start relationship with Europe. I think that's going to take some time, but I think it's going to have some effect. But, I don't think we will see any dramatic steps in the next few months anyhow. So it's early days.
Is the US aid to Ukraine too little, too late?
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder says the last six months of Ukraine's war with Russia may have been a critical juncture. He underscores Ukraine's urgent need for additional capabilities, especially manpower and ammunition, which the US has been slow to supply.
"[The Russians] just have more people, they have more guns, and they, importantly, it looks like they have more and better morale, which makes them willing to do things that otherwise people aren't willing to do."
Daalder calls for a serious discussion about the West's role in aiding Ukraine and the potential consequences of inaction. To put it simply, Daalder says there's much more that the US could be doing. "We have military power, we have capabilities; we could send in larger quantities. We have troops."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Is Ukraine running out of time? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder sizes up the Russia-Ukraine war
Listen: Could the last six months be the most pivotal months of the entire Russia/Ukraine war? Over two years into the conflict, Russia is closer to victory in Ukraine than ever before, according to former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. He joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast from Tallinn, Estonia, mere miles from the Russian border.
How much is this battlefield mismatch due to a delay in US support? A big part of it, says Daalder. “Congress refusing to act on the requests that the president first made back in July…and nothing happening until mid-April” was a major blow to Ukraine’s defenses, Daalder says. “And now it just takes time to get stuff to the Front and get it across the border and to the units in the quantities to make it happen.”
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.
- Ian Explains: What the war in Ukraine looks like inside Russia ›
- Ukraine waits for help as Russia advances ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Ukraine will define the future of NATO ›
- Will Ukrainian airstrikes inside Russia shift the war? - GZERO Media ›
- At NATO Summit, Polish FM Radek Sikorski weighs in on Ukraine war - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Will Ukraine ever negotiate with Russia? - GZERO Media ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia - GZERO Media ›
Columbia & Yale protests: What campus protesters want
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Why hasn't the United Nations insisted on military observers in Gaza?
Well, the United Nations doesn't really insist on things. And when they do, it's usually symbolic. Like they insist that humanitarian aid needs to get into Gaza and it doesn't happen. Or they insist that, there needs to be protections for the Palestinian civilians or that the Hamas needs to let go, release all of the illegally held hostages, and it doesn't go anywhere. So you can insist all you want. Also, keep in mind the Security Council would be vetoing that sort of thing because the US has a veto and they continue to use it on most Israel-Palestine related resolutions.
What specific demands are being voiced by campus protesters at institutions such as Columbia and Yale?
Well, I mean, the demands that got these protests started, are all about divestment of the endowments of these universities away from any corporations that do business in make money with Israel. Because of the view that the Israeli war in Gaza is wrong, the student protesters called it a genocide and that they want to end that. We've seen that kind of demand in Europe across the board. Not as much in the United States, at least not to this degree. Having said that, now that you also have students that have been suspended and arrested, surely the campus protesters are also saying those things need to be unwound. We're also increasingly seeing demands for university administrators, including presidents, to resign. So, I mean, the longer this goes, the harder it is to actually, accede to these student demands. And of course, the more polarized the environment on the ground in these universities become.
How will US aid package approval shake the dynamic of the Russia-Ukraine war?
Well, it makes it more likely that the Ukrainians can defend their front lines, at least for now. They had been losing some territory. Not a lot, but including one city. And the Russians are planning, with an additional mobilization, a new major offensive, probably end of spring, early summer. Ukrainians have a much better capability to hit back and stop the Russians from making gains there. They had been down to about 20% of the ammunition and artillery being fired against Russia, that the Russians were firing against Ukraine. This brings that back to parity through that offensive. What does this mean for 2025? Still, massive uncertainty and eventually a need to engage in negotiations with a much bigger Russia fighting an illegal war, an invasion with all these war crimes. Is that fair? No. But is that reality? Yes, absolutely. And any NATO leader you talk to privately recognizes that's where this is eventually going.
- Israel’s looming constitutional crisis: What’s the tech sector going to do about it? ›
- College campus watch: The chaos is spreading ›
- Campuses in crisis vs. Capitol Hill calm ›
- Crisis at Columbia: Protests and arrests bring chaos to campus ›
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election - GZERO Media ›
- Why Israel's Netanyahu continues to antagonize Biden on Gaza - GZERO Media ›
- Why Israel's Netanyahu continues to antagonize Biden on Gaza - GZERO Media ›
- Why campus protests worsen divisions, and how to mediate: Advice from Eboo Patel - GZERO Media ›
Europe welcomes US Ukraine package, but pushes to add even more aid
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm.
What's the European reaction to, finally, the decision by the US House of Representatives to give green light to military aid to Ukraine?
Well, obviously enormous satisfaction. We've been waiting for quite some long time. But it has to be said, however important this is, that it will take some time for it to reach the battle lines in the east of Europe. It's not enough. And, in the days before the US decision, that was a decision by the European head of state, the government, to increase European aid. There's already very substantial European aid packages there, of course, but more is needed primarily in the terms of our defense. Germany immediately decided to commit to further battery of Patriots. And, discussions are underway among European capitals to further Patriots and other deliveries that are necessary in order to, make certain to Mr. Putin that they will never win at some point in time, they simply have to cave back. And the last week was an important one.
What about the European aspirations of Georgia in view of the measures taken by its government?
Yeah, that's a big question. I mean, the Georgian government, a rather doubtful one, in my opinion, with this new foreign agents, Russian-inspired law against opposition is creating substantial doubts in European capitals, whether it was that wise to give the country candidate status. That has been done. But, let's see what happens now. It is certainly not going to be an issue of quick march for Georgia with the European Union in light of what we see happening in Tbilisi these days.
- Georgia’s parliament advances divisive foreign agents bill ›
- Russia invaded Georgia too, and it never left ›
- Tiktok ban and foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan passes in the House ›
- Ian Explains: If the US steps back from Ukraine, can Europe go it alone? ›
- Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - GZERO Media ›
Ukraine joining NATO "is the only option," says Alina Polyakova
GZERO’s Tony Maciulis catches up with Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Analysis, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to assess Ukraine’s precarious situation two years after Russia's invasion. Polyakova highlights the intensified military strategy employed by Russia, making the situation dire for Ukraine. She stresses the urgent need for more military support and equipment from Ukraine's allies, especially from the United States.
Polyakova also addresses the debate around Ukraine's potential NATO membership, arguing vehemently for its inclusion. “The only way to secure what have been very positive wins of Western support for Ukraine is to solidify that at the NATO summit by extending an invitation to Ukraine, to even a session talks," Polyakova tells Maciulis. She dismisses the notion that Ukraine's membership would escalate tensions with Russia, asserting that NATO serves as a deterrent to aggression. She emphasizes that Ukraine's integration into NATO is crucial for Europe's long-term security.
Polyakova also clarifies misconceptions about Article 5 of the NATO treaty, stating that it doesn't automatically lead to military intervention. She advocates for starting accession conversations with Ukraine, emphasizing its military capabilities and the benefits it could bring to NATO.
Maciulis and Polyakova also touch on the potential impact of the upcoming US presidential election on Ukraine and NATO. She suggests that while President Trump's rhetoric about NATO has been concerning, his actions have largely supported the alliance. However, she acknowledges uncertainty about the future and the importance of maintaining trust and unity within NATO.
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? ›
- Putin has a “noose” around Ukraine, says Russia analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Why Ukraine is the target of Russian aggression – analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Ukraine's NATO & EU ambitions ›
- Should NATO embrace Ukraine? ›
- How Russian cyberwarfare could impact Ukraine & NATO response ›
- Sending NATO troops to Ukraine unlikely despite Macron's remarks - GZERO Media ›