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 }}
What if Japan & South Korea sided with China on US tariffs?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
If China, Japan, and South Korea formed a united front, what kind of leverage would they have in negotiating against US tariffs?
Oh, if that were to happen, they'd have incredible leverage because China's the second-largest economy in the world, Japan's the third. This would be a really, really big deal. Except for the fact that it's not going to happen. Their trade ministers did just meet, and they've had some interesting coordinated statements. They do a lot of trade together, and they want to continue that. But the fact that the security of South Korea and Japan is overwhelmingly oriented towards the US, and they would not want to undermine that, means that they will certainly not see China as a confederate to coordinate with against the United States, not least on trade. The American response would be belligerent. So no, that's not going to happen.
Will Syria's newly formed transitional government be enough for Arab and Western leaders to lift sanctions and restore diplomatic ties?
I think they are heading in that trajectory. The question is, will it be enough to keep Syria stable and away from descending into civil war? And there, there's a huge question because this is a completely untested government, completely inexperienced, no governance background, very little background in terms of military stability, especially with all of the new members, militias that have been integrated from across a very diverse country. And a lot of internal opponents that are sitting back and waiting to fight. So I'm more worried about that than I am about international support. I think largely the international support they need is going to be there.
Why does Trump want to take Greenland?
I have no idea. Maybe somebody showed him a globe from the top and he saw how big it was, and he's like, "Oh, that'd be kind of cool to have." It's not like there's anything he needs that he can't get directly from negotiating with Denmark. Plenty of willingness to allow the US to have expanded bases, troops on the ground. Plenty of willingness from other countries in the region to do more in terms of patrolling, build more icebreakers to deal with. The Finnish President, Alex Stubb, who just went to see him golfing with him, spent seven hours over the weekend moving in that direction. But you saw from Vice President Vance, he's like, "Well, the President wants it. So of course I got to respond to that." Yeah, but they don't have any reason. And I do think that it is sufficiently blowing up in their faces on the ground in Denmark and in Greenland, that the Danes understand not to make a big deal out of this and it will eventually blow over. It is annoying to them symbolically, but it doesn't matter all that much. In that regard, we can spend a little bit less time on it. Okay, that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Is Europe in trouble as the US pulls away?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: I want to talk about the transatlantic relationship. The US relationship with Europe. Because of all of the geopolitics in the world, this is the one that I think has been impacted in a permanent and structural way in the first two months of the Trump administration. I wouldn't say that, for example, look at the Middle East and US relations with Israel, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the rest of the Gulf States, frankly, all very comfortable with Trump. If there's a significant change, I would say it's incrementally more engaged, and in terms of worldview than under the Biden administration. Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, you look at Asia relations and certainly Trump and the US on trade worrying them, making them sort of react in a more defensive posture. Seeing how much, how more quickly, they can get something to the US that will lead to trying to diffuse potential conflict there. But not radically different from the way they thought about the United States in 2017 in the first Trump term.
Mexico, Canada, Panama, here you've got countries that are facing very significant challenges from the United States, but also ultimately understand that they have no other options. Now, in Canada, that's a bigger fight because there are elections coming up at the end of April. But after those elections are over, I certainly expect that they will move quickly to try to ensure that ongoing relations are functional and stable. That's already true for the Mexican government with a president who has 85% approval, can do pretty much everything necessary to ensure that US-Mexico relations aren't dramatically impacted by everything Trump is demanding. So that's everywhere else.
But in Europe, that's just not the case. Three different reasons why the Europeans are facing a much more permanent impact. The first is on the trade side, like everybody else, and trade is well within the European Union's competency. They understand that they have leverage. If the Americans are going to hit them with significant tariffs, they're going to hit back with the same numbers. But that doesn't mean it's going to be relatively difficult and take a long time to resolve it, as opposed to places that are much weaker where they just fold quickly to the United States. Okay, fair enough. But still, that's not all that dramatically different from first term. Second point is there's a war going on in Ukraine, and the United States has made it very clear that they want to engage, to re-engage with Putin, who is Europe's principal enemy. And they're going to do that irrespective of how much the Europeans oppose it, and they're not going to take any European input in those conversations.
Trump would like a rapprochement with Russia to include a Ukrainian ceasefire. But if that doesn't happen, he is oriented towards blaming the Ukrainians for it, towards taking Kremlin talking points on Ukraine not really being a country, and then on moving to ensure that US-Russia relations are functional again. All of that is deeply concerning, is existentially concerning, particularly for a bunch of European countries that are on the front lines spending a lot more in defense, not because the Americans are telling them to, but because they're worried about Russia themselves, feel like they have to be more independent. Then finally, because Europe is the supranational political experiment that relies most on common values and rule of law, and the United States under Trump is undoing that component of the US-led order specifically.
I wouldn't necessarily say that about collective security or existing alliances and willingness to provide some sort of defense umbrella, but I would certainly say that in terms of rule of law and territorial integrity. And here, the fact that the United States no longer really cares about territorial integrity, is prepared to tell Denmark, "Hey, you're not a good ally. You're not defending Greenland. We're interested in moving forward ourselves, and we don't care how you've treated us historically. We're going to send our leaders and we're going to cut our own deal inside your territory." That's exactly the way the Germans felt when JD Vance said that he wanted to engage directly with the Alternatives für Deutschland, who the Germans consider to be a neo-Nazi party.
Everything that's core to the Europeans in their statehood and in the EU, the United States under Trump is on the other side of that, and it's increasingly conflictual. It's directly adversarial. And so I would say number one, the Europeans are aware of these problems. Number two, they're taking them late, but nonetheless finally very seriously. And so they understand that the Europeans are going to have to create an independent strategy for their own self-defense, for their national security, for their political stability, for their democracies, and they have to do that outside of the United States. In fact, they have to do that and defend themselves against the United States.
Now that reality doesn't mean they're going to be successful. And indeed, the more summits I see on Ukraine, frankly the less I have been convinced that the Europeans will be able to do enough, quick enough to really help Ukraine dramatically cut a better deal with the Russian Federation that is very uninterested in doing anything that is sustainable for the Ukrainians long term. It makes me worry that the EU longer term is not fit for purpose in an environment where the principle, the most powerful actors don't care about rule of law. The United States, China, and for Europe, Russia right on their borders. So for all of those reasons, I mean, the European markets have gone up recently. European growth expectations have gone up because the Germans and others are planning on spending a lot more, that's short-term. Long-term here. I worry that the Europeans are in an awful lot of trouble. So something we'll be focusing on very closely going forward over the coming weeks and months. I hope you all are well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Trump, Musk sow election interference controversy in India - and Europe ›
- Putin trolls Europe about "the master" Trump ›
- Will Europe step up as America turns its back on Ukraine? - GZERO ... ›
- What Trump's return means for Europe, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb ›
- Trump's dealmaking with Putin leaves Ukraine and Europe with nowhere to turn ›
What is President Trump's stance on China?
What exactly is President Trump’s view on China? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has radically reshaped US foreign policy and international relationships. Often, he’s appeared tougher on America’s allies, like the EU, than adversaries, like China and Russia. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down Trump’s complicated views on the People’s Republic, which can be, at times, hard to pin down. Trump had a friendly pre-inauguration call with Chinese President Xi Jinping and often calls him a “brilliant guy.” Yet, in the same breath, he also complains that China “takes advantage” of the US, and his administration says it's pulling back from Europe to focus on security in the Pacific. So where does the US-China relationship go from here? Will Trump cut a deal with Beijing, or will China hawks in Trump’s cabinet, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, convince the president to be more aggressive?
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
If Trump's foreign policy pushes allies away, can the US go it alone?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Marco Rubio heading to Saudi Arabia to talk with the Ukrainians. That's clearly the most important of a lot of moving parts geopolitically in the world right now. I say that because so much of what the Americans decide to do and not do with the Ukrainians is going to have massive impact on the transatlantic relationship, on NATO, on US-Europe relations, and on the nature of what has been the most important collective security arrangement in the world and is now experiencing crisis. It's very clear that the Ukrainians, as Trump says, lack the cards. And so the outcome is going to be determined largely by countries outside of Ukraine, not just the willingness and the capacity of the Ukrainians themselves to continue to fight. The United States, on the one hand, is pushing the Europeans to do a lot more. A lot more in terms of providing economic support, providing military support, and having a security backstop for a post-ceasefire environment that the Americans are not prepared to participate in.
Now, if all of that happens, and of course that's a big if, but certainly the Europeans are moving in that direction, then the interesting point is the Americans aren't going to determine the outcome. In the sense that the ultimate ceasefire terms will be driven not by the United States, who's basically saying, "We're washing our hands of it." But instead by the Europeans and the Ukrainians, in concert with Russia. And first of all, that's analogous to what's been happening in the Middle East. Everybody remembers that Trump said, "We're going to own Gaza and all the Palestinians are going to leave," and of course, that's not where we're heading. And the eventual outcome will be determined overwhelmingly by the countries that are prepared to spend the actual money and provide the security and figure out the politics. And that means the Arab States, that means Egypt and Jordan, it means Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and it means the potential for blocking by Israel.
That's the environment that we are increasingly going to be seeing on the ground in Ukraine. That the Europeans are going to be doing the driving. The Ukrainians are going to have to align with that and the blocking potentially by Russia. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Ukraine, the United States is also very interested in doing a deal with Russia over the head of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. There's no equivalent in the Middle East at all. And here, the reason it's so important is because the ability of the Ukrainians to continue to engage in their willingness with the US and Europe together will determine in large part whether a deal between the US and Russia involves a ceasefire with Ukraine or doesn't. If Trump can say, "Hey, the reason we didn't get a deal and the reason they're still fighting is because Ukraine refuses to be a part of it," then a deal with Russia is actually much easier to get to by Trump. Because it involves just re-engagement diplomatically, investment by the US and Russia, joint projects, reopening of arms control conversations, and doesn't involve a Ukraine ceasefire.
Trump has said, "Not only does Ukraine not have cards, but Russia doesn't have cards." Of course, the reality is that if the Russians are willing to do the fighting for a longer period of time, and the Americans don't care and the Europeans can't stand up, then the Russians are the ones with the cards. That is where we are heading. And if the Americans are prepared to do a deal with the Russians irrespective of what happens on the ground in Ukraine, and that is being tested very much over the coming days, that's perhaps the most important outcome of what we see from the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia, then the transatlantic relationship is in a lot more trouble than it is right now.
So I think those are the pieces that we're talking about here. It is very clear that the Americans see alliances and see allies as expendable, that it's not that important for the Americans to treat allies with respect. If they're smaller, if they're less powerful, you can do whatever you want. And we saw that with Elon Musk beating up on Poland and the Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, someone I've been actually friends with for a very long time, and I think that's not a smart way to conduct business. Poland's been a steadfast ally, they're spending upwards of 4% of their GDP on defense, heading towards 5% going forward. They've housed millions of Ukrainian refugees. They've done far more on the ground in Ukraine per capita than the Americans have on pretty much every front. And also, by the way, there are a lot of Polish Americans that vote, and some of them vote Republican. Far more important than the Ukrainian vote, for example, and that seems to matter too, but maybe not to Elon.
I think that these sorts of insults are unnecessary, and they damage American allies. But I think the Trump administration's perspective is as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world, that America alone is stronger than America with friends, and it's probably the area of greatest geopolitical disagreement that I have with this administration. But we will see how it plays out. I certainly agree that there will be a lot of wins that we will continue to see, because less powerful countries do not want to get into a big fight with the United States. But long-term, I think this is going to play out badly. And I particularly think that's true in the transatlantic relationship where permanent damage is being done irrespective of what happens after Trump. Anyway, a lot to talk about, a lot of moving pieces. We'll talk real soon, and that's it from me.
Is the US-Europe alliance permanently damaged?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
Is the transatlantic relationship permanently damaged by what we have seen during the last 10 days or so?
Well, there is no question that the last 10 days or so have been the worst by far for the transatlantic relationship in, well, modern recorded history. You can go through all of the details if you want. It started with the shameful vote in the UN General Assembly on the same day that was three years after the war of aggression that Russia started, where the United States turned around, lined up with Russia, and with primarily a bunch of countries that you would not normally like to be seen in the company of, in order to try to defeat the Europeans, and defeat the Ukrainians, and defeat the Japanese, and defeat the Australians, defeat all of the friends who have criticized the Russians.
It was truly shameful. It was defeated, needless to say, but it left deep marks there. And then it was downhill from there, with that particular week ending with the ambush in the Oval Office, with all of the details associated with that, with sort of a childish dispute about dress codes, and respect for whatever, and total disregard for the important issues that are at stake at the moment. And to that was added, the vice president seriously insulting the allies, primarily the British and the French, and then cutting of aid to Ukraine, including intelligence cooperation, which is unheard of, unheard of when it comes to these particular issues.
So, is damage permanent? Well, one would hope that... well, hope springs eternal, that there would be a way back. But this will be remembered for a long time to come. And the reaction in Europe, well, you have to keep a straight face if you are a political leader. And they do, they hope for the best, but they're increasingly preparing for the worst. What we might be heading into is Mr. Trump, President Trump lining up with President Putin in a deal that is essentially on Russia's term over Ukraine, then trying to force Ukraine into that particular deal, a repetition of Munich 1938.
Will that work? I think it's unlikely to work because the Ukrainians are determined to stand up for their country. And they have the support of the Europeans. Czechoslovakia in 1938 didn't have much support. So, whether it will work or not is debatable, but that is the direction in which things are heading at the moment. Can this be stopped or can the trajectory of things be changed? Let's hope. There's a flurry of meetings in Europe. There will be a lot of contacts across the Atlantic. There is a strong support for Ukraine in Europe, but then deep apprehensions of where we are heading. Further four years with President Trump. After that, (possibly) four to eight years with JD Vance. Well, well, there's a lot of thinking that needs to be done on this side of the Atlantic.
Make America … Alone?
Is the free world lost without America, or is America lost without the free world? We are looking for your answers today.
It’s a question no one thought about when Donald Trump assumed office just 38 days ago.
Though he promised to be a transformative, “drain the swamp,” America First leader, Trump 2.0 is exponentially more radical and less restrained than his first term as the 45th president.
In less than five weeks, Trump has upended the postwar world order, forcing America’s longtime allies to redraw their maps, literally in the case of the Gulf of Mexico/America and strategically in every other way. It is a new world.
To Trump supporters, he is simply fulfilling his campaign promise of delivering deep change to the “deep state.” After all, with a clean sweep of the presidency, Congress, and the popular vote, he has a genuine mandate — one that is strengthened by a right-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Cue Elon Musk’s DOGE chain saw.
But let’s pause for a moment and ask what exactly was included in the promise to make America great again:
- Tax cuts? Those are coming as he just won a big victory in the House of Representatives on that.
- Cutting the size of government? Sure. Finding inefficiencies matters.
- Border security and cutting down on illegal immigration? That has already started, and he has support on that too from a wide array of voters.
- Ending the war in Ukraine? Yes. Who would be against that in principle?
But the details of these things matter. You can treat a broken foot by amputating the whole leg with a chain saw, but then you can’t walk. In less than 40 days of mass policy amputations, you might start getting the sense that the treatment is already worse than the disease.
For example, do Republican voters, who wanted a more isolationist foreign policy, really want the US to take over the Gaza Strip? What part of the MAGA agenda saw that one coming?
Do they want to take over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal too? Imperial land grabs were never part of Trump’s campaign promises.
What about threatening to destroy Canada’s economy in a trade war? Was that part of the promise? Because that’s a lot different from negotiating better trade deals with friends.
Trump is threatening to slap a 25% tariff on all EU goods because he argues, wrongly, that the EU was created in order to “screw the United States.” It was not. The EU was formed out of a desire for stability on a continent that had bled through two world wars. Do Trump supporters really think Russia is a better ally than the European Union?
What about the war in Afghanistan? Do MAGA supporters genuinely want US troops to go back to Afghanistan and take over the Bagram Air Base as the president promised on Wednesday? “We are going to keep Bagram,” he announced. “We are going to keep a small force on Bagram.” A small force? How small? Trump believes Bagram has strategic importance as a forward operating base near China and its nuclear weapons. He also wants to take back the over $7 billion worth of military equipment that the Biden administration left there in 2021. How will he do all this? With another invasion of Afghanistan?
Maybe Republican voters believed Trump would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, but did that include siding with Russia, blaming Ukraine for starting the conflict, and calling President Volodymyr Zelensky, not Vladimir Putin, a dictator?
This past week at the UN, the US sided with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea against a resolution to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. “This war is far more important to Europe than it is to us,” Trump said as he moved the US further away from its longtime allies. “We have a big, beautiful ocean as separation.”
Separation. That is the watchword of the moment. The Trump revolution that is meant to Make America Great Again is making America Alone and for the very first time.
The costs of reversing 80 years of US foreign and domestic policy are still being calculated, but here is one measure: A recent Leger poll found that more than a quarter of Canadians, 27%, now regard the US as the “enemy.” The enemy. Meanwhile, 56% of Americans view Canada as an ally, while only 30% of Canadians see the US as an ally.
These are remarkable pieces of data, especially for countries that fought side by side in Afghanistan, Korea, and two world wars and worked together on countless peacekeeping missions.
To its closest allies, the US is giving away its reputation as the “indispensable nation” and risks becoming an indefensible nation.
Yesterday, Trump announced his new “gold card” idea targeted at “wealthy people” around the world. “We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship," he said. Would he welcome Russian oligarchs to the program? There was no hesitation. “Yeah, possibly,” he said with a smile. “Hey, I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”
If you can afford the $5 million gold card, you are nice enough for America these days, even if you are a Russian thug.
Russia and China are cheering on this new alignment because it comes at a cheap price. Both are poised to test the limits of a world without US guardrails, a world where there is no global cop on the beat to enforce the rule of law. Watch to see how China moves to expand its influence in the South China Sea, around Japan and the Philippines, and, of course, Taiwan. Russia is already clamoring to digest 20% of Ukraine, with Trump’s blessing. Does anyone think that’s enough to satisfy Putin’s imperialist appetite?
What will this mean for global trade, where US enforcement of secure shipping lanes has been the foundational insurance policy of globalization? It is why you can buy such cheap goods from around the world at places like Costco. That backstopping of sea-lane security is now as up for grabs as the Panama Canal. As Ian Bremmer says, this is now the law of the jungle.
All these are deeply polarizing questions, and coming at such a pace that people may take refuge in the certainty of partisanship to avoid the hard work of answering them.
So I want to ask you for your thoughts. Do you think the US is still a trusted ally to its longtime friends in democracies around the world? Do you consider the US an ally to its fellow NATO members, an enemy, or just neutral?
We would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please email us here.
Trump's Ukraine peace plan confuses Europe leaders
What is the European reaction to what President Trump is trying to achieve in terms of peace?
Well, confusion. A lot of people, and there are quite a number of European leaders here, today, don't really understand what President Trump is up to. He wants peace, that's fine. But peace can be, well, that could be the complete capitulation of Ukraine, that is the Putin definition of peace. Or it can be the victory of Ukraine, that's another definition of peace. So exactly how President Trump intends to pursue this? And without Europe, obviously, neither Putin nor Trump wants Europe around the table.
But how do you do it without Ukraine on the table? Because a lot of the things that are going to be necessary to agree with are things that have to be agreed with Ukraine, with President Zelensky. So a lot of question marks. The desire for peace is clearly here, no question about that. This war has to come to end. But the peace has to be just, it has to be stable. It has to be something that is not just a pause for Russia to recalibrate and restart the war.
So a lot of things to discuss between the European leaders and between the European leaders and President Zelensky, is happening in Kyiv here today. But also eventually, across the Atlantic, President Macron is in Washington today, Prime Minister Starmer is heading into Washington on Thursday.
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they meet in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018.
Trump embraces Russia, attacks Ukraine
The realignment was announced at a meeting in Saudi Arabia between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which was initially expected to focus on ending the war in Ukraine but ended up being about improving their diplomatic and economic ties. This would end the isolation that Vladimir Putin’s government has endured since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
The meeting – held without the presence of Ukraine or European countries – was a huge win for Putin. The Americans had already signaled that they accepted his terms for talks on ending the war: No NATO membership for Ukraine, no territorial concessions by the Russians, and no US military presence to enforce the peace.
Even as European leaders were scrambling to respond, Trump cranked up the pressure, denouncingVolodymyr Zelensky as a dictator and blaming him for the war. Zelensky replied that Trump is “living in a disinformation space.” Vance denounced him in turn.
Trump’s friends in the Kremlin say Putin and he may meet this month, at which point their plans may be clearer.
Two GOP senators have spoken against Putin, but Trump’s control over his party looks too strong to turn him, which leaves Ukraine in a desperate position, pleading for European help to either keep fighting or enforce a peace that the Americans force on him.
- Trump's Ukraine peace plan confuses Europe leaders - GZERO Media ›
- Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal changed - GZERO Media ›
- Is the US-Europe alliance permanently damaged? - GZERO Media ›
- A Baltic warning: What Ukraine war means for Europe—and the Russian perspective - GZERO Media ›
- If Trump's foreign policy pushes allies away, can the US go it alone? - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine ceasefire deal now awaits Putin's response - GZERO Media ›