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 }}
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.
Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM
Do NATO allies have the strength, patience, and unity to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to win the war and defeat Russia? According to Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, the answer is a resounding yes. On GZERO World, Sikorski sat down with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of NATO’s 75th-anniversary summit in Washington, DC, to talk about NATO’s strength, Putin’s missteps, and why continuing to send crucial military and economic assistance to Kyiv is a top priority for western allies and the future of NATO.
“Ukraine is heroically defending us before this evil man at a cost to us of less than 1% of our GDP,” Sikorski explains, “We can afford this."
Sikorski says that despite rogue alliance members like Hungary’s Victor Orbán, NATO remains united and is “back to basics” in its original mission of repelling an aggressive Russia. Bremmer and Sikorski also discuss Ukraine’s ongoing challenges, such as ensuring Kyiv can keep sending weapons and new troops to the front lines. Sikorski remains optimistic that Ukraine will prevail and win the war, with the help of Western allies and NATO, particularly Poland, which has taken in almost a million Ukrainian refugees and is helping train troops to NATO standards.
Bremmer pushed Sikorski on his conviction that Ukraine would win, pointing out that a potential second Donald Trump administration could severely limit further military assistance for Kyiv and the sheer amount of force required to get all of Ukraine’s territory back just isn’t available, but Sikorski held firm in his conviction.
“There is never a shortage of pocket Chamberlains willing to give up other people’s land or freedom for their own peace of mind,” Sikorski said, “I think we can win this one.”
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on 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 (🔔).
Russia-Ukraine reality check
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I think it's a good time to talk about Russia. Vladimir Putin, just back from a trip to the Hermit Kingdom. Not many people go there. And those that do frequently don't come back. North Korea. Kim Jong un.
Lots of pomp and showing of very close friendship, engagement, alignment. Kim Jong un said that they're now allies. Putin notedly did not use that terminology, and I'm sure advisedly. So, first time that Putin has been there in decades. And lots of ways to think about it. I mean, on the one hand, you can say that Putin's reduced to traveling to meet the world's worst dictator because there are very few countries in the world that are willing to provide wholehearted support for Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine. The Iranians will. The North Koreans will. The Syrians and Belarus. And that's kind of about it. And so that doesn't speak very well for Putin being able to get weapons, for example, to continue to fight his war. Even the Chinese won't do that because they're worried about US and other knock on secondary sanctions. So, you know, that's the positive spin that you can put on this from the United States and the NATO position.
But there's a negative spin too, and that is that Russia is increasingly allied with a very dangerous nuclear country with cyber capabilities, history of human trafficking, illegal drug transit and export, and a country that is already maximally sanctioned that benefits from chaos, and that previously their top friend was China who wanted more stability in the global order.
And the Russians certainly don't. So this provides cover for North Koreans to cause more trouble vis-à-vis South Korea and Japan and the rest of the world, and also gives lots of weaponry to the Russians and lots of technology to North Korea, none of which is good, not good for the world at all. And while it's true that Russia is isolated in terms of its war and its war goals, that doesn't mean that it's isolated.
And what I mean by that is the willingness of the United States and Europe to put really tough sanctions on Russia. I mean, the kind of sanctions that would reduce Russia and its ability to fight the war. They're not there. They're not there. They talk tough. But the reality is Russia is the largest country in the world geographically and within that territory. They have an awful lot of very important natural resources. They've got oil, they've got gas, they've got platinum, they've got diamonds, they've got uranium, they've got food, they've got fertilizer. And the United States and Europe, if they were so concerned about the war in Ukraine that they were truly willing to cut that off, they could. But it would cost them.
It would cost them because the world would be in a global recession out of not getting that oil and gas. It would cost them because a lot of the nuclear plants in the West wouldn't have uranium, and the prices would go way up. And they don't want to spend that money. And it would cost them because a lot of people in the Global South would starve, because they wouldn't have access to the food and fertilizer, except at a higher cost that they can't afford to pay. And the West isn't willing to pay that cost to take that risk and to squeeze the Russians that hard. They're willing to make the Russians less profitable in terms of the oil and gas they sell. They're willing to freeze and even increasingly seize hundreds of billions in Russian assets and use that to fund the Ukrainians, because it's better than having to pay for the Ukrainians yourself.
But that's very different from saying we're going to force the Russians to pay a price that they would be unwilling to pay. The price that the Russians are presently paying is at the margins. It isn’t an existential for Putin, and it's certainly a much lower cost than he's willing to exact for continued war on the ground in Ukraine, territorial conquest, and perhaps the ability to remove Zelenskyy in the future and have someone that is more aligned with his sensibilities. That's where we are. And the reality there is that Russia can keep on keeping on as a consequence.
Now, you know, we saw, this peace conference, as it's called, supporting Zelensky with representatives of over 90 countries and over 40 heads of state and heads of government. And it was an impressive display in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago. But it's also true that behind the scenes, Zelensky really, really, really wanted to have that meeting. And the Americans and many NATO allies were saying, maybe not so fast, because of course, every time you have one of these big global shows of support, you lose a little bit of the urgency and the support you show that there are fewer countries that are willing to support you as much as they were six months before, 12 months before. The Chinese didn't show up, the Indians showed up at a relatively low level. They didn't sign on to the ultimate memorandum. Neither did the Saudis. I mean, you know, this is an issue, right? The fact is that NATO is very strongly supportive of Ukraine and of continuing to allow them to have the types of support to defend themselves and rebuild their country. The Global South is increasingly “let's have a cease fire right now.” And China is “let's have a cease fire right now and we're kind of more in the Russian camp than we are in the West camp or in Ukraine's camp.” And Putin sees that and he sees that over time, if he waits these countries out, the likelihood that he'll end up in a better position than the Ukrainians goes up.
And this is why when you talk to members of NATO and you say, well, what's your position on negotiations? And their public statements are, look, it's it's completely up to the Ukrainians to decide. The reality is that you'll need to pressure the Ukrainians, both with carrots and sticks, to get to a place where you can negotiate, even if the Russians aren't yet ready to do that. And they aren't in reality though Putin says, “sure, I'll negotiate if you move out of the territories that I've illegally annexed, including those that you're presently occupying.” That's a nonstarter. But you have to get the Ukrainian there. You have to prepare them to be there.
And there are a couple of ways you do that, right? One is you give the Ukrainians the support to rebuild their country. You fast track them into the European Union, so they have a shot at better rule of law, improving their democracy, reducing their corruption that gives them a future. And you also give them some harder security guarantees for the parts of their territory that Russia hasn't occupied and hasn't illegally annexed. And if you do all of those things, you're in a better position to get the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.
You provide more cover to Zelensky or the future leaders of Ukraine and the future leaders of Ukraine. And you also make it more compelling multilaterally before you're in a position where Ukraine gets thrown under the bus as they might, for example, if Trump wins, come November, as they might, for example, if Le Pen gets a majority, in the European, in the French Parliament, and then the French are suddenly vetoing European additional gives to Ukraine.
I mean, this is the problem is that a lot of the uncertainty about Ukraine isn't only about what Russia does, isn’t only about Ukrainian capacity, but it's also keeping that multilateral effort, which has been strong and united together. And there have been a couple of almost misses, especially the US, the six months getting them $61 billion, but also coming up with the electoral cycles. And the longer you push that out, the more dangerous it is for Ukraine and ultimately for the NATO alliance. So that's a little bit of the sort of real talk about what's happening in Russia and Ukraine on the back of the news of the past week. As always, what you want to happen is not the same as analysis.
And if it is, it means that your analysis is crap. That is not what we do here. And I hope all of you have a great week. Talk to you soon.
Israel's global image wanes further after killing of aid workers
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Is Netanyahu losing the PR battle amid public outrage over the IDF strike killing seven aid workers?
I think Israel is losing the information war around the world, not just with the Global South, which was certainly true a few months ago, but increasingly even with Israel's closest allies. I'm hearing from the Germans, from the French, you know, from the Canadians, from the United States, that there is really a lot of upset with the unwillingness to take far greater care about civilian casualties while the Israelis are engaging in massive airstrikes still across Gaza. And of course, especially if we see strikes into Rafah, where well over a million Palestinians are trying to shelter. It's a big problem for the Israelis. It's a big problem for Netanyahu, but no end in sight, right now. And the potential for the war to escalate continues to be very, very real.
What's needed to garner bipartisan support for Speaker Mike Johnson's bill for increased Ukraine aid?
We have bipartisan support. There is overwhelming majority support among Democrats and Republicans to pass aid for Ukraine, likely 60 billion. Could be structured as a loan. Doesn't really matter. It’s not like anyone believes the Ukrainians will be in a position to pay it off any time soon. Makes it more palatable for Trump supporters who have heard the former president say, “not one more dime in direct foreign aid,” has to all be structured as loans in case we don't like them in the future, then they have to pay it back. What if they can't? Who knows? But anyway, that's the structure. The point is that the Ukrainians who have continued to be able to mostly hold their defensive lines, they've lost some territory recently, in part because they don't have enough troops on the ground. They are pushing through more mobilization, but also because they don't have enough artillery and ammunition, enough military equipment. And that is coming some from the Europeans, more soon from the Americans this month, I suspect the next couple of weeks that happens.
What's the significance of Turkey's recent local elections setback for President Erdogan's government?
It is the first time in a couple of decades since Erdogan took power that his party did not win. They didn't get a majority, and instead it was the opposition. And that's a big deal. Even those municipal elections. Look, it doesn't mean the end of Erdogan. He doesn't have to stand for presidential elections, no parliamentary elections until 2028. So it's quite a while. But it does show that elections matter in a country like Turkey as much as Erdogan would like them not to. And it is mostly about lack of comfort with his government's performance on the economy, a lot more pressure to perform adequately. And the mayor of Istanbul is an erstwhile serious challenger to the Turkish president. So, I mean, his ability to change the constitution and consolidate more power, his ability to ensure that his party is going to be in control after 2028 has just gone down quite a bit. And that means he has to be more careful, more cautious and more focused on performing on the economy for his own people.
US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's
Harvard Kennedy School’s Stephen Walt suggests that there’s not as much daylight between Biden and Trump as people might think when it comes to US policy towards Ukraine.
As with Trump, Walt argues, “Biden would also be trying to end this war sooner rather than later.” But where Biden would be looking to support Ukraine in securing the best possible deal in a peace arrangement, Trump might abandon Ukraine, forcing them to rely more on European support for security.
"Trump is fundamentally a nationalist and unilateralist” Walt tells Bremmer in a wide-ranging interview, “…whereas Biden is very much a globalist or internationalist."
Watch full episode here: How the US election will change the world
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Pressure builds on Ukraine ›
- NATO has a Trump problem ›
- NATO debates Russia and Trump ›
- Senate announces plan for Ukraine-Border deal – Trump calls it “meaningless” ›
- Biden and Trump both betting debates will make the other look bad - GZERO Media ›
- Would Trump give Ukraine to Putin? - GZERO Media ›
- Starmer's plan to boost UK economy will take some time - GZERO Media ›
How the US election will change the world
What role will foreign policy play in the upcoming US presidential election? “More than it usually does,” says Harvard Kennedy School’s Stephen Walt in an interview on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. “Partly because the economy doesn't seem to be helping Biden as much as it should be, partly because it's hard to look at Biden's foreign policy and tout a lot of big success stories."
In a wide-ranging interview comparing US foreign policy under a second Biden or Trump term, Walt suggests that they may not be as different as people expect. “On a bunch of big issues, the daylight between him and Biden just isn't that great.” It may come as little surprise that Bremmer disagrees.
But Walt says this is especially true in areas like China policy, where Biden's approach has been refined and continued. "The Biden people refined the Trump approach in a number of ways—focused it very much on high-tech—but have if anything, doubled down on the policies that Trump adopted starting in 2017."
And while Walt certainly acknowledges an array of crucial differences between Trump and Biden, he argues that both second administrations may have similar outcomes in areas like the Middle East and Ukraine. That said, he makes clear that while Trump's second term may not drastically change US foreign policy, it could lead to a less supportive stance towards Europe and NATO. "Trump is fundamentally a nationalist, fundamentally a unilateralist, whereas Biden is very much a globalist or internationalist, and that's a key difference.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- What kind of foreign policy do Americans want? ›
- Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? ›
- Biden's Israel policy hurts his 2024 reelection chances from all angles ›
- Biden's 2024 election vulnerabilities and strengths ›
- Chris Coons on the Biden Doctrine: What is Joe Biden’s foreign policy vision? ›
- Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - GZERO Media ›
Ian Explains: Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election?
How much does foreign policy matter in a US presidential election? This year, more than usual.
When pollsters started asking Americans in 1948 what they viewed as the “most important problem” facing the country, foreign policy and international security dominated.
Looking ahead to the 2024 presidential election, Biden has managed to turn a Covid-ravaged economy around, with growth pegged at about three percent per quarter. Wages are going up, unemployment is at an all-time low and the stock market is coming on strongly. By every economic indicator, Biden should be surging. And yet, by every political indicator, he’s floundering.
Biden’s fate in November may hinge on whether he can convince a skeptical electorate that the economy is doing as well as it is...actually doing. But Americans’ views on the Ukraine war have shifted, with a plurality now saying the US is doing too much to help Ukraine. And half of US adults polled in February said that Israel has gone too far on its war with Gaza. Could Biden’s handling of these key foreign policy issues cost him the election in November?
It’s already clear that foreign policy will play an outsize role in this year’s election. So will immigration, which topped Gallup’s “most important problem” list in February and which is both a foreign policy issue and an economic one.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Journalist Robin Wright explains why Biden’s foreign policy comes up short ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis ›
- Henry Kissinger: Towering (and polarizing) figure in US foreign policy dies at 100 ›
- Pioneering Black American leaders in US foreign policy ›
- Biden vs Trump foreign policy: Political scientist Stephen Walt weighs in - GZERO Media ›
- Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: How political chaos in the UK, France, & Canada impacts the US - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer’s 2024 elections halftime report - GZERO Media ›
Why the Israel-Hamas war is so dangerous long-term, according to Rahm Emanuel
US Ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, is keen to stay in his lane. In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview in Tokyo, Japan, on GZERO World, he tells Ian Bremmer this more than once. But that doesn't mean he can't weigh in, at least a bit, on two raging conflicts outside of Asia: the Israel-Hamas war and the conflict in Ukraine.
On Ukraine, Emanuel is more confident that the fighting won't spiral into a larger regional war. On Israel-Hamas? That's more complicated. But when Ian presses him on whether the Gaza war will expand regionally, Emanuel is not so sure. "Not regional," Emanuel explains, "but long-term in Israel's security, which is essential to our security interest as a country."