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 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 Russia winning the war in Ukraine?
What would Ukraine’s defeat look like? Over two years into this bloody conflict, Russia has never been as close to victory as it is today. “When the history of this war is written,” former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder tells Ian Bremmer, “I think we’ll look back on the last six months as really… the turning point." Daalder joins Bremmer on the latest episode of GZERO World from Tallinn, Estonia, just a couple hundred miles from the Russian border.
"We need to start having a conversation about how serious this is, and are we going to accept this?" In a sobering and wide-ranging interview, Daalder outlines Russia's advantage on the battlefield today. “They just have more people, they have more guns, and 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."
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.”
Is it too late for the West to help Ukraine ward off total defeat? And what would lasting peace, as remote as it might seem now, look like?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Ian Explains: Putin's Ukraine gamble
Is Ukraine losing the war? A year and a half ago, Russia was in bad shape. Moscow was struggling to resupply troops on the front lines, its naval fleet in the Black Sea was decimated, and troop casualty estimates were as high as half a million. However, a disappointing Ukrainian counteroffensive and a six-month delay in crucial US military aid gave Moscow an opportunity to rearm and regroup.
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer examines the state of the battlefield in Ukraine and unpacks how Russia has been able to take territory in recent weeks at a faster clip than at any point during the war. In a sign of just how badly the situation is deteriorating, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky abruptly canceled all international trips to focus on the Russian offensive, a huge problem for a leader who needs to lobby governments for military and economic aid individually.
All eyes will be on this year’s NATO Summit in Washington, DC, where Western leaders are trying to lock in as many security guarantees for Kyiv as possible ahead of the alliance’s 75th anniversary. The problem is that they don’t have much time to figure it out.
Watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television this weekend (check local listings) and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
What's next after MTG fails in bid to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we're watching in US Politics this week: More turmoil in the House.
Georgia member Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's made quite a name for herself as an outspoken opponent of Republican leadership and a prolific fundraiser online, this week triggered another motion to vacate the speaker. The second this year. Only this time it was against Mike Johnson, the speaker who replaced Kevin McCarthy after he was removed during a motion to vacate earlier in the year.
The big change this time was that Democrats rallied to Johnson's side, defending him against the Republicans that tried to take him out and resoundingly defeating the measure, which really takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of future rebellions against the Republican speaker at least for the rest of 2024. Democrats and moderate Republicans are both tired of this level of chaos and want to defang the Republicans, who want to make life harder for the leader of the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean they're all allies now however. Mike Johnson is going to spend the rest of the year pushing very partisan measures across the floor of the House of Representatives in order to draw a contrast between Republicans and Democrats that voters understand when they go to cast a ballot in November. There will be a very small number of must pass legislation coming up.
Right now, Congress is working on reauthorization of the FAA. Later in the year, they're going to have to once again pass a budget bill to keep the government funded. Those will probably be very bipartisan measures. And one of the big ironies of the extreme polarization that's happening in the House, including within the Republican faction, is that the House is now effectively functioning more like the bipartisan Senate, which requires a supermajority of 60 senators, and which is always a bipartisan coalition in order to get almost anything done.
That's now the situation that the House finds itself in. The House is typically the significantly more partisan body. But because of the Republican dissenters against Johnson, they've turned the House into a much more bipartisan place, which really won't get much done this year. So one lesson from Marjorie Taylor Greene this week is that if she comes to the king, she better not miss, she came for the king and she missed. And now she's going to find herself on the outs with the Republicans, probably for the rest of the year.
Thanks for watching. Tune in next week.
- Taylor Greene gets sidelined – for now ›
- Greene sees red over Johnson’s support for Ukraine ›
- Mike Johnson has a plan to avert the shutdown – will it work? ›
- Meet Mike Johnson, US House Speaker & DC's most Googled person ›
- Trump bigfoots House Speaker Johnson ›
- Chaos on Campus: Speaker Johnson's visit fans the flames at Columbia as protests go global ›
Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And a Quick Take to kick off your week. A big $90 billion package that has been approved by the US House of Representatives, going through the Senate shortly after months of debate and, all of the package, all three major pieces of it, have some significant, complicated features.
First of all, the biggest piece for Ukraine, $60 billion, massive military support.
They had been in danger of losing significant more territory. This certainly shores them up. It helps the Ukrainians. It makes the Europeans panic less, but, you know, can they longer term hold on? What is the end game? The Ukrainians are, of course, running short not just of material to fight, but also air defense capabilities and, critically, people, soldiers. It's much harder for them to get people for the front lines than it is for the authoritarian, and much larger populated Russia. And so, the intention is that the Ukrainians don't fall apart, but of course, longer term, the idea that the US will continue to be able to provide 60 billion in support year after year. Certainly not true if Trump becomes president, probably not true if Biden wins a second term. What you really want to do is try to find a way to get them in a better position so that negotiations, inevitably, that need to occur with Russia, can be more productive and more constructive from the Ukrainian side, from the European side, from the NATO side. The US kick the can on this last year when the Americans, were in much better position supporting Ukraine. Now it's harder. Always is the case is that you think that things are going to get better. You don't feel like taking the political risk and as a consequence you extend and pretend. And now they're in a worse position. So I'm glad that the money came through. I'm glad the Ukrainians, are still fighting courageously and want to fight courageously. But of course, longer term, this war leads to some degree of partition where the Ukrainians are losing their land.
Israel, closest ally of the United States in the Middle East. Some 17 billion in military support for Israel, also some 9 billion in humanitarian aid in Gaza in this plan.
But, of course, increasingly, the United States does not support Israel continuing to fight against Hamas in Gaza. They want to see a lot more protection for Palestinian civilians, which the Israelis have been reluctant to put in place. They don't want to see a ground offensive into Rafah. Over a million Palestinians shelter in there. The Israelis are fully intent on continuing with that, proceeding with it. They did want to see a cease-fire that was linked directly to a hostage release. Now, increasingly, the US is talking about those two things as critical but delinked. And at the same time as the US is providing all this money, you have sanctions being placed by the United States on battalions of the Israeli Defense Forces engaged in human rights violations. This shows just how impossible this position is for President Biden to maneuver domestically, not to mention internationally. The US is overwhelmingly, the one country that is most supportive of Israel. Biden is overwhelmingly the political leader that is most supportive of Israel. But most of his constituents are not. And this is absolutely going to hurt him, even though it's a foreign policy issue and they don't usually play that heavily in recent decades in the election coming up in November. And you’ll see it, of course, across campuses all over the country, including my own at Columbia.
And then finally Taiwan. And this is in a sense the least controversial, because everyone on the Democratic and Republican side pretty much supports more support for Taiwan, is opposed to China. It's very easy to get lots of legislation that makes life more difficult for China. At the same time, though, the long term strategy of the United States is to make Taiwan less important, less important for the Americans in making sure that semiconductor production, moves from Taiwan to the United States, to other allies, not just a few miles off of the mainland Chinese coast, but also export controls that prevent the Chinese from getting advanced semiconductors from Taiwan as well. In other words, the big US strategy is not just arming the Taiwanese and helping them defend themselves, but also making Taiwan fundamentally less important to mainland China. and one of the main reasons that the Chinese would not be interested in attacking Taiwan long term or squeezing them hard economically long term, is because they're so indispensable to the Chinese economy. This is not going to be the case long term.
In all three of these areas, you've got the United States with friends, but they are less aligned with strategically than they are tactically. And that means that this money that we see going forward is all about kicking the can on short term gains that make sense politically for the US right now. But long term do not resolve the challenges that exist for the US with these countries.
That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Tiktok ban and foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan passes in the House ›
- Split the difference: Johnson to push separate bills for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan ›
- Europe welcomes US Ukraine package, but pushes to add even more aid ›
- How the US election will change the world ›
- Biden vs Trump foreign policy: Political scientist Stephen Walt weighs in ›
- Ian Explains: Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? ›
U.S. Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) attends a news conference in the United States Capitol about the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, in Washington, U.S., May 18, 2021.
Rep. Don Beyer goes back to school
Rep. Don Beyer, a 73-year-old car dealership owner-turned-politician, is not your typical grad student. A Democrat who served as Virginia’s lieutenant governor in the 1990s and an ambassador during the Obama administration before getting elected to Congress in 2015, Beyer decided to go back to school in 2022 to pursue a master’s degree in machine learning at George Mason University.
Since then, Beyer has served as vice chair of the Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus and introduced a bill to provide transparency into the development of so-called foundation models.
GZERO spoke with Beyer about his studies, his concerns and hopes for the technology, and whether the US will catch up to Europe in regulating AI.
GZERO: Was there a specific moment when you realized that you were unprepared for the challenge of artificial intelligence and wanted to learn more? Why did you feel you needed to take the step of actually enrolling in a master’s program to get the education you needed?
Beyer: I was interested in AI long before I knew what it was that I was interested in, and this goes back a long time, to the early 1980s. I had read and heard several compelling discussions of the topic and got interested in pattern recognition and using technology and deep learning to make sense of big data sets. Going back to school arose first from opportunity, having a good school nearby that offered the coursework to finally tackle something that had interested me for a long time. I wasn’t sure it would work, but I have no regrets at all. And then part way through my course of study, it suddenly became a much bigger topic for the country and the Congress.
How have your professors and classmates reacted to having a sitting congressman in class?
Many of my classmates are unaware, which is just fine with me. Those who know have been tolerant and kind. I am just another student.
What are you learning in your classes?
Mostly math and coding, so far.
Do you feel more prepared to legislate around AI because of this education?
Yes, much more so. Even though I’m not a fully trained computer scientist, I at least have more than a generalist’s understanding of neural networks, large databases, the predictive and generative uses of computer science, and so on.
What are you most concerned about with the rise of artificial intelligence? What are you most excited about?
The big concerns in the short run for me are deepfakes, misinformation, and economic disruptions from job displacement. But there are very exciting prospects in areas like health care, scientific research, management and workflow, productivity, and much more.
Europe just passed the AI Act. Are you optimistic that Congress can pass comprehensive AI regulations anytime soon?
Congress is more likely to take an incremental than a comprehensive approach, at least in the near term, to solve specific problems rather than attempting a large overarching regulation like what the EU did. But we are working on legislation right now with every intention to pass laws.
Anything else you want to leave us with?
Most people associate Congress with chaos, dysfunction, and partisanship, but those of us working on AI have a refreshingly cooperative and collaborative spirit. This is important to get right. Few things have greater potential to change all our lives and the lives of future generations.
Biden's vigorous SOTU speech aims to prove doubters wrong
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
What's going on with the Biden State of the Union?
So big week in US presidential politics. Super Tuesday basically effectively ended both primaries for the Republicans and the Democrats. We now have two all but official candidates. Joe Biden gave his fourth State of the Union address this week. Big question around Joe Biden, is he up to the task? 75% of Americans say that he is too old to run for a second term, but he is a attempting to prove them wrong like he did last night in Washington with a vigorous speech where he spoke for an hour, which officially kicked off his campaign.
Biden spoke about themes of income inequality, he spoke in favor of aid to Ukraine, and he rolled out a couple of tax increases that Republicans don't like. There's a lot of risk in every public appearance that Biden gives these days because of the fact that Democrats are very concerned that he's going to make a verbal flub or that he's going to look physically frail. That did not happen last night, and I think that's a good sign for Biden for now.
But every time he goes on stage for the rest of the year, there's going to be concern about how old he looks. So the campaign can now begin in earnest. Biden didn't mention Donald Trump by name in the speech, but he did indirectly attack him, talking about how Republicans are the party of the rich and how the threats to democracy represented by this election. At least that's how Joe Biden wants to frame it.
Why Mitch McConnell is stepping down
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
What are the implications of the retirement of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell from his leadership post?
This week Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell announced his intention to step down as leader of the Republicans after serving longer in that post than anybody else in American history. There are really two implications that I can see.
The first is that McConnell was basically acknowledging the inevitable. It was very unlikely that he would be able to stay on as leader after this Congress anyway. If Donald Trump wins the presidential election, then he almost certainly is going to push McConnell out of the job. And if he didn't win the election, there's a whole generation of Republicans in the Senate who are looking for an opportunity to step up. McConnell, at 82 years old, did not represent that new generation. So the time had come to pass on the torch, and McConnell chose this February to announce it.
The second takeaway is that McConnell is really giving the speech the Democrats are hoping Joe Biden would give. McConnell's only eight months older than President Joe Biden, who's running for a second term right now. And lots of questions have come up recently about Biden's fitness for office because of his advanced age. This is going to be an increasing problem for Biden as more and more Democrats start talking about it. But in the absence of any challenger, it looks like Biden's going to be the nominee and his age will just be a liability they all have to learn to live with.