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 }}
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Could Alexei Navalny be traded for a killer?
According to the Wall Street Journal, Russian dissident Alexei Navalny’s name has come up in possible prisoner-swap scenarios between Russia, Germany, and the US.
At the moment, two US citizens are jailed in Russia on what the US says are bogus charges: US marine veteran Paul Whelan, and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich.
Meanwhile, Russia has long sought the extradition of a Russian government hitman, Vadim Krasikov, who was jailed for life in Germany after murdering an alleged Chechen rebel in broad daylight in Berlin in 2019.
Germany has been reluctant to surrender Krasikov, but Russia’s insistence could reportedly open the way for a broader deal that could involve Whelan, Gershkovich, or even Navalny.
If so, it would raise some interesting questions. Navalny, Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic, has been in solitary confinement for nearly two years. He was jailed after returning to Russia following a brief stay in Germany, where he was sent to recover from what was almost certainly an attempt by Russian agents to poison him to death.
Would Navalny even want to be released if it meant going into exile? Not that he’d be asked his opinion on the matter, but Navalny — who is well known in the West but supported only by a small sliver of well-educated Russians at home — staked a lot on the brave act of returning to a Russia that he knew would jail him on arrival.
In a country where being seen as a political pet of the West is often the kiss of death, extraditing Navalny to Europe in a deal for Krasikov could end up being a win-win for Putin.
For more on this, seeour interview with the director of the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.
Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council
Why does Russia have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council?
On August 1, the United States will take over the Security Council presidency and it has a lot of major issues on the agenda, including food security, human rights, and addressing ongoing humanitarian crises in Haiti and Sudan.
But with Russia a permanent, veto-wielding member of the Council, the chances of any major resolutions the United States proposes actually passing are pretty slim, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
To understand why Russia has a permanent seat, you have to go back to the creation of the UN in 1945. The winners of World War II–the Americans and the allies–built the UN, including the Security Council. The five permanent members? They’re the WWII winners: the US, UK, France, China, and the Soviet Union.
By 1948, allies had quickly turned to adversaries as the Iron Curtain went up. But it was too late–the Security Council was created, enshrined, and fundamentally broken, all within three years.
Eighty years after its creation, it’s clear the Council no longer reflects the current reality. Veto power in the hands of geopolitical rivals keeps it from passing meaningful resolutions, and there are no countries from Latin America, Africa, or the Caribbean with permanent seats.
“A Security Council that retains the power of the veto in the hands of a few will still lead us to war,” said Barbados Prime Minister during the 2022 UN General Assembly.
There’s no question that we need a more effective and inclusive body to protect international peace in the modern era. But can the UN’s 193 member states put aside their differences to create it?
Watch Ian Explains for the full breakdown, and for more on the US, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
- Explaining: the history of the UN headquarters ›
- The UN turns 75 — is it still relevant? ›
- As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help ›
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency - GZERO Media ›
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy - GZERO Media ›
- Russia undermines everything the UN stands for, says Linda Thomas-Greenfield - GZERO Media ›
French President Emmanuel Macron.
What We’re Watching: A big day for Macron, Taiwan’s friend list, Russia droning on
A tense France waits
It’s a big day for French President Emmanuel Macron. After months of protests, strikes, and piling up trash, the National Assembly is set to decide on whether – and how – to vote on the president’s very unpopular pension reform plan, which would raise the national retirement age by two years to 64. (For a reminder of what’s at stake with this reform, why Macron says it is necessary, and why two-thirds of French despise it, see our explainer here.)
With only a slim majority in the lower house, Macron’s bloc needs support from at least some center-right lawmakers from Les Republicains to see this through, but it is still unclear if he’ll have the numbers, particularly since some of his own coalition members say they won't back the bill.
Macron now faces a very tough choice: call for a vote and risk losing the fight over his biggest domestic priority, which would see him turned into a lame duck president for the remainder of his five-year term. Or trigger a constitutional loophole that would rush the bill through without a vote but risk setting the streets on fire. If he chooses the latter, unions warn, his government will pay a hefty price...
Honduras unfriends Taiwan
(The People's Republic of) China swiped one of Taiwan's few remaining diplomatic chips this week when Honduras announced it'll change official recognition of China's government from Taipei to Beijing.
It's unclear why Honduran President Xiomara Castro — who promised to switch sides before she was elected in 2021 but then walked it back once in power — changed her mind again. Regardless, Honduras’ U-turn will surely overshadow Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s visit next week to Central America. Taiwan still has friends there in Belize and Guatemala, but Xi Jinping is spending big in the region to counter Taipei's diplomatic clout.
China, for its part, is paying more attention to the second leg of Tsai's trip. She also plans to travel to California to meet US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who finally decided against irking Beijing by emulating his predecessor with his own Taiwan visit.
Where’s the drone?
After the encounter between a Russian fighter jet and an American-made drone above the Black Sea, some have warned of a risk of an escalation in the Ukraine war that pits Russia directly against the US. That’s extremely unlikely.
The Biden administration, which on Thursday gave the US military the green light to release footage of the crash, has been clear and consistent that its support for Ukraine won’t include actions that bring US and NATO soldiers into direct conflict with Russian forces. And though Vladimir Putin has tried to persuade Russians and the world that Russia’s at war with the West, he has avoided any action that might push his military into a broader war it would quickly lose. (If Putin wanted a wider war, it would be very easy to start one.)
Nor is this incident particularly unusual. As the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War noted on Tuesday, “Russian forces have used coercive signaling against US and allied flights and naval vessels for decades in multiple theaters without triggering conflict.” The US will continue to use drones in the Black Sea to provide Ukraine with intel on Russian actions. But there is one aspect of this story we’re still watching: Can Russia recover the wreckage of the drone? If so, and it’s in decent condition, it might give Russian engineers access to advanced drone technologies they don’t already have.A motorist rides past a hoarding decorated with flowers to welcome G20 foreign ministers in New Delhi, India, March 1, 2023.
What We’re Watching: Tense G-20 talks in India, Finland’s fence-building, China’s economic activity, Chicago’s mayoral runoff
An awkward G-20 summit in Delhi
When G-20 foreign ministers met in New Delhi on Thursday, it was, as expected, an awkward affair. While India, the current G-20 chair, had hoped that the bloc would focus on issues of importance to the Global South, like climate change and the global food crisis, the agenda was disrupted by US-Russia bickering over the war in Ukraine, which US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called "unprovoked and unjustified war", while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blamed the West for not doing enough to extend a deal to allow Ukrainian grain exports that will soon expire. Of course, focusing on anything else was going to be a tall order when the top diplomats of the US, China, and Russia were all in the same room. (President Biden and Xi Jinping last met at the G-20 summit in Bali in November, though there was no bilateral meeting between the US and Russia.) In a sign of how fractured Washington's relationship remains with these two states, Blinken on Wednesday again urged Beijing not to send lethal weapons to Russia and canned China’s peace plan for Ukraine. As for US-Russia relations … need we say more? India, which has gone to painstaking lengths to maintain its neutral status over the past year, says it thinks the group can get stuff done. But at a meeting last month of G-20 financial heads, the group couldn’t even agree on a joint statement.
Finland builds a border fence against Russia
Rakentaa se aita! That's Finnish for "Build that fence!" — which is what Finland plans to do to protect its borders from Russian draft dodgers. Construction of a 10-foot tall wall, ahem, fence began this week along Finland's 800-mile border with Russia, with the first section expected to be finished by June. The Finns want to stop Russians from entering after fleeing the draft to fight in Ukraine, a number that could rise if Vladimir Putin orders another mobilization in the coming months. Meanwhile, Finland's parliament on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the government's plan to speed up the process to join NATO — ideally along with Sweden, a fellow Nordic, if Turkey ever backs off. Going back to the fence, parts of it will have all the bells and whistles — night-vision cameras, lights, and loudspeakers — that former US President Donald Trump could only dream of for his partially built "Big, beautiful wall." And like Mexico, you can bet that Russia won't pay for it.
Chinese economic activity rebounds
China's official manufacturing sector purchasing managers’ index — a closely watched indicator of economic activity — reached 52.6% in February, expanding at its fastest monthly pace in over a decade. What's more, home sales rose for the first time in two years amid a persistent property-sector slump. The good: The two figures beat expectations and are a clear sign that the world's second-largest economy is recovering quicker than expected after abruptly ditching zero-COVID. The bad: The starting point was very low, as China's GDP grew last year by only 3%, barely half of what the ruling Communist Party had targeted. The ugly: While this is excellent news for Xi Jinping and a global economy that's eager for both more Chinese demand for stuff and more Chinese capacity to make stuff, economic activity has yet to reach pre-pandemic levels. Also, China's economy is still facing strong pressure from the fallout of the US-China rivalry, with American companies feeling increasingly bearish about the future as ties between Beijing and Washington get icier.
Chicago election result portends impending showdown over policing
Voters in Chicago denied Lori Lightfoot, who made history as the city’s first openly gay and Black female mayor, a second term amid concerns over rising crime, which increased by 41% between 2021 and 2022. Lightfoot, who cruised to office in 2019 on an anti-corruption platform, had been widely criticized for the high crime rate in America’s third-largest city. No candidate in the Democratic stronghold clinched over 50% of the vote needed to win outright this week, so the two remaining candidates – both Dems – will go to an April 4th runoff, with the controversial issue of policing underscoring the stark divide between them. On one side is Paul Vallas, who has drawn criticism for past comments and for associating with the Windy City’s controversial police union leader. He promises to add hundreds of officers back to the police force if elected. His challenger, Brian Johnson, favors investment in services like housing, education, and mental health over more policing. Amid rising post-pandemic crime in major US cities, political differences over investment in public safety measures will play an increasingly central role in US mayoral elections. We’ll be watching as Philadelphia and Houston head to the polls later this year.The Graphic Truth: The US-Russia nuclear race
President Vladimir Putin made yet more headlines this week when he announced that Russia would suspend its participation in the New START nuclear arms control treaty, which binds Russia and the United States to limit their strategic nuclear stockpiles. While US-Russia relations have been at rock bottom for some time, this was another indication of how bad things have gotten between the two nuclear heavyweights. We take a look at the US and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles since 1945.
Episode 6: Economic weapons & fallout of the new Cold War
Listen: In 1985, after four decades of standoff between the world's biggest superpowers, US President Ronald Reagan had a private conversation with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan asked him, "What would you do if the United States were suddenly attacked by someone from outer space? Would you help us?"
"No doubt about it," Gorbachev responded.
That moment didn't magically end one of the greatest political power struggles in history, but it did begin to melt the ice.
Today, the US/Russia relationship is at a new low as war rages in Ukraine, and a new Cold War is growing. But the old Iron Curtain existed to divide Europe. This one is uniting it, and further isolating Putin’s Russia.
On the latest episode of Living Beyond Borders we’ll discuss what that means for America, the global economy, and your bottom line. This conversation is moderated by Shari Friedman, Eurasia Group’s Managing Director of Climate and Sustainability, and features Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media, and Steven Wieting, Chief Investment Strategist and Chief Economist at Citi Global Wealth Investments.
Shari Friedman
Eurasia Group’s Managing Director of Climate and Sustainability
Steven Wieting
Chief Investment Strategist and Chief Economist at Citi Global Wealth Investments
Ian Bremmer
President of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media
Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and happy Monday to you all. Plenty going on. Of course, still very much focused first and foremost, on the war in Ukraine, the Russians continuing to fight, shifting the battle ground primarily to the southeast around Donbas but of course, engaging in bombing and artillery all over the country and negotiations frankly nowhere close to resolution.
But I wanted to talk a little bit about how we got here, why this happened. And it goes without saying, but still needs to be said that of course, the direct responsibility for this invasion is on President Putin 100%. There was no justification, you could not remotely claim that Ukraine's government needed to be denazified. There was no act of genocide being committed against Russians on the ground in the occupied territories. This was all fake and Putin is responsible for the atrocities on the ground for the damage to the Ukrainian economy, for the incredible loss of life we see happening across the country, including to his own forces. He's responsible for all of that.
But how did we get here? Why did it happen? And if you want to have that conversation, you can't just talk about Russia, you have to talk about the West. And I think it's worth spending a little time on that.
First of all, and perhaps the biggest point is that historically the Russians were ignored after the Soviet Union collapsed. Keep in mind that there was a European Union for all of these former East European Warsaw bloc aligned states. And indeed, the EU expanded dramatically, and that meant full integration into those institutions, an incredible wealth that they would be able to develop. And it's been a great success story for most of them. Look at where the Polish economy is today compared to where it was in 1989. It tells you almost everything you need to go. There have been some political successes, there have been others that have been somewhat less so. Look at Hungary and look at Viktor Orbán being able to solidify his win in an only somewhat free and not particularly fair election. But overall, that's been extraordinary. NATO too expanded and allowed all of these countries right up to the Russian border to have national security, to be engaged in a collective security process where their militaries would be trained properly, where they would be defended by the entire alliance if they were unjustly attacked.
What did Russia get? And the answer is not very much. They got shock therapy, they got a bunch of Western economic advisors that were willing to go in and say, "Here's the way you should restructure and reform your economy." Some of which was intelligent, some of which was theoretically correct, but had no recognition of the realities on the ground. Certainly, when I think about all of the auctions that occurred and just how corrupt and incapable the Russians were to actually privatize large areas of the society that instead got wholly ripped off by a bunch of oligarchs, there was no Marshall Plan for Russia. There was no strong effort to integrate Russia into global institutions and architecture even when Yeltsin was president, who was strongly aligned with the United States and had a cabinet around him that really wanted to be a part of that. Instead, you got the NATO-Russia joint council, which was never really anything other than meetings that the Russians could attend but with no intention or effort to try to integrate them. Then you got the G7 plus one. What's a plus one? It's not your spouse, plus one's a date. Next time you come, you'll bring a different plus one. It was very clear to the Russians that there wasn't a lot of interest.
Now, why not? Why didn't the Americans and the Europeans try after end of the Cold War, when the Americans won and the Democrats won, why didn't they do with the Russians what they did after World War II with the defeated Germans and the Japanese? And I think a big piece of it is because the Americans didn't fight a war, because the win basically fell into our lap. And the reality is that if you have this peace dividend, you have to be willing to spend a fair amount of it to keep it. And instead, it was basically treated as free money. It was treated as, this is a great success for globalization and the Russians will eventually find their way in. So, I think that was an enormous missed opportunity. And it was basically, if the Russians were going to fail well, it wasn't the American's responsibility or the allies' responsibility to do a lot about it.
Furthermore, when the Russians getting angrier then started to take steps to redress a global order that they felt increasingly left behind and humiliated from, the West didn't pay much attention and furthermore didn't uphold their own principles. So, the US opened NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine back in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit. They promised that both of those countries would be able to join, but they didn't really have any intention of how they'd bring that about.
And when Russia then invaded Georgia just a few months later, it was August if I remember correctly because a lot of these things happened in August, nothing. I mean very... There was a discussion internally in the Bush cabinet and Dick Cheney was angry and said, "We've got to defend these guys." But the reality was nothing was done. There was no intention to have crippling sanctions against the Russians that would destroy their economy or provide weapon systems to Georgians. Very much a democracy led by someone who was a bit of firebrand that wasn't trusted very much in the US, Mikheil Saakashvili, much in the way that Zelenskyy by the way was felt about, was responded to in the United States before the war in Ukraine. But of course, we didn't have social media back then, you didn't have the global perspective of what was happening on the ground and the United States basically did nothing.
Then in 2014 when the Russians invaded Ukraine, and not only annex Crimea, but also took and denied taking territory on the ground in the Donbas in southeast Ukraine, what did the Americans do? And the answer is not very much. Again, not providing weapons, not providing much support, limited sanctions. And in fact, in 2018, when the Russians held the World Cup, a lot of you remember this, and they're still invading, they're still occupying this Ukrainian territory, active fight is still going on across the line of conflict, a bunch of European leaders actually fly to Russia to meet with Putin and attend the World Cup.
I mean, so obviously not many consequences for all of this. And so as a consequence of all of that, the Russians, I think themselves had good reason to believe that they could get away with engaging in and redressing what they felt was an unjust humiliation and the West wouldn't do much about it. Now, more recently you have a people that did indeed feel increasingly humiliated. The Russian economy not doing very well, you'll remember when President Obama said that Russia wasn't a great power, a regional power and they're in decline. Now by the way, analytically, I agree with that. But if you're president of the United States, why do that? When you are winning, why do that? You never punch down.
It reminded me of Obama when Trump was there at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. And by the way, Obama had plenty of reasons to be very angry with Trump? Keep in mind this was the guy that started the birther movement against Obama and said that he's born in Kenya, born in Indonesia, prove it, show your passport, show your birth certificate. And it became a really big deal. So if you're Obama, you absolutely have personal animus against Trump. But then you're president of the United States and you're up there giving a speech of the WHCD, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and there's Trump in the audience and the right thing to do as president is nothing. The right thing to do as president is be graceful. You've made it. Never punch down. And Obama couldn't help himself. Took a victory lap, stuck his thumb down. He made Trump look like an idiot. You could see the humiliation and the anger on Trump's face. And in retrospect, was this something that probably motivated him more to take on politics, motivated him more to go after Obama on every single occasion when he could and undo everything Obama had done when he became president? Yeah. Yeah. That's the kind of thing that I think someone like Trump would absolutely take personally.
And does Putin take it personally against the United States for decades of what he sees to be as not only not paying attention, but stick in your finger in and saying, "These guys are no good, these guys are worthless"? Absolutely. So I think that there is a bunch of that. And also from the Russian perspective, the United States itself is hypocritical, doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
When Russia annexed Crimea, a lot of the language that they used to justify the annexation was taken from the American decision to recognize the independence of Kosovo, which again, from a human rights perspective, the Americans had a lot of reason to do it. But in terms of international law, was actually a breach of international law. There's no justification for it so the Russians say, "Well, see, the Americans can do it, we can do it too." Let's keep in mind the Americans promised international law to defend Ukraine in 1994, signed an agreement together with the UK and the Russians. The Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons, we're going to ensure that we defend their territorial integrity. Wasn't worth the piece of paper it was printed on because when the Russians invaded 2014, the Americans don't even talk about this document. Well, why would they care in 2022? It's a big question.
Iraq, Afghanistan, these are wars of choice, massive human rights abuses by the United States. So is it just that the Americans call themselves, ourselves, I'm an American, the leader of the free world. If you're Russia, you say, "Look, this is all just moral relativism, everyone's equally bad, no one's telling the truth so I should be able to get away with whatever I can do from a power position"?
Again, I want to be clear. Putin is the one supporting and committing war crimes. And no, I refuse to compare what he is ordering against the democratic country that has done literally nothing but want to govern itself. And there aren't Nazis running the country, that's insane. No, this isn't the Taliban chopping off heads and hands, the most abusive country in the world towards women, harboring bin Laden. No, it's not Iraq with a massive human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein historically, after they invade Kuwait and the Americans come back and attack them.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose American history of intervention and unjust war. That is not the same thing as what the Russians are doing right now to the Ukrainian people. But we do need to be accountable for how we got here. And if we want to be honest with ourselves about that, well, then we have to broaden the conversation beyond just the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
So that's a little bit for me.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com- Will Putin eat the world's bread? - GZERO Media ›
- Putin, Ukraine, and the Rat Story - GZERO Media ›
- Putin past the point of no return - GZERO Media ›
- Is Putin still Soviet? Wrong question - GZERO Media ›
- Russia’s war heads for a deep freeze - GZERO Media ›
- Putin punishes Ukraine to avoid looking weak - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer: power of the "Goldilocks crisis" - GZERO Media ›
- 6 months of Russia's war in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- UN chief: We must avoid the mistakes that led to World War I - GZERO Media ›
- Russian Black Sea Fleet commander still alive despite Ukraine's claims - GZERO Media ›
- Two years of war in Ukraine: Power players at the Munich Security Conference weigh in - GZERO Media ›
- A Russian victory would end the global order, says Yuval Noah Harari - GZERO Media ›
Russian hackers' arrests timing likely just coincidence, says Ukraine analyst
Russia recently arrested 14 hackers from REvil, a ransomware gang involved in last year's cyberattack against the Colonial Pipeline in the US.
Some think it was a gesture by Vladimir Putin to deescalate tensions with the US over Ukraine. But analyst Alina Polyakova tells Ian Bremmer she doesn't buy it.
It's more likely, she says, that the hackers did something to irritate the Russians.
“When people see strategy in something that the Kremlin does, I usually see circumstantial reasons and coincidence, and maybe some incompetence here and there," Polyakova explains. "I think these were two separate events.”
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Will Putin invade Ukraine?
- Hard Numbers: Tongan volcano, Ukrainian cyberattack, Zemmour ... ›
- A (global) solution for cybercrime - GZERO Media ›
- Hackers shut down US pipeline - GZERO Media ›
- Hard Numbers: US bounty for Colonial Pipeline hackers, China's ... ›
- Would you pay a cyber ransom? - GZERO Media ›
- Constant Russian attacks on Ukraine in cyberspace - GZERO Media ›