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.
by ian bremmer
Trump between Sudan civil war leaders.
The last couple of years have seen no shortage of bloodshed. But while most of the world’s attention has been focused on the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, the most devastating conflict of our time has been unfolding in Sudan. There, a power struggle between two rival military leaders has turned into a catastrophic civil war. It is fast becoming one of the worst humanitarian crises of the modern era and threatens to destabilize an entire region.
Efforts to end the fighting have failed. But in one of fate’s stranger twists, Donald Trump may turn out to be Sudan’s best hope for peace. Let me explain why.
Sudan’s current turmoil traces back to the 2019 revolution that ousted long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir, which led to a fragile power-sharing government between civilians and the military. The uneasy bargain collapsed in 2021 when a military coup commanded by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces, dissolved the transitional government. The coup was supported by the Rapid Support Forces, a powerful Arab paramilitary led by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (aka Hemedti). The RSF descended from the Janjaweed, the ethnic militias that – along with Sudan’s military – were responsible for the horrific Darfur genocide two decades ago.
Despite starting as allies, Burhan and Hemedti clashed over the RSF’s integration into the army and control of the country’s gold-rich territory. The SAF and the RSF have been at open war since April 2023, with both sides credibly accused of committing atrocities – each sponsored by outside actors looking to advance their own geopolitical and economic interests.
The SAF has been primarily armed by Egypt and Iran, while the RSF gets most of its financial and military support from the United Arab Emirates. Russia initially backed the RSF via the Wagner Group but now arms the SAF. Turkey and Qatar have reportedly been abetting the SAF as well. The conflict is not only a fight between Sudanese for control of the country but also a proxy battleground for regional influence, natural resources like gold and farmland, and strategic Red Sea access, with foreign meddling undermining efforts to achieve a ceasefire, prolonging the civil war, and exacerbating its humanitarian consequences.
The fighting has already killed an estimated 150,000 people, forced over 11 million Sudanese – roughly a quarter of the country's population – to flee their homes (three million of whom have been pushed into neighboring countries), and put 25 million at risk of acute hunger, threatening to create the worst famine since China’s Great Leap Forward.
But Sudan’s civil war isn’t just a humanitarian disaster – it’s a geopolitical powder keg. Sudan’s descent into failed-state status would destabilize the Horn of Africa, create a haven for terrorist groups and rogue states, flood Europe with refugees, and disrupt Red Sea shipping at a time when it’s already under attack by the Houthis in Yemen.
Yet despite the humanitarian and geopolitical stakes, the global response has been pretty much crickets. We are, after all, in a growing G-Zero vacuum of leadership. The United Nations system has little power in a divided world. Europe tends to ignore problems until they reach its shores. Saudi Arabia has positioned itself as a neutral mediator but has had little success.
And where has the world’s policeman, the United States, been? Consumed with the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Setting up a generational battle with China. Fighting inflation and each other, of course. As for Sudan … well, when’s the last time you heard of a campus protest over the carnage taking place in Western Darfur?
Competing priorities, lack of political pressure, and excess caution help explain why the Biden administration was reluctant to take sides in a conflict with no clear “good guys” and limited leverage to effect change, especially given Washington’s reliance on both Emirati and Egyptian support on Gaza. The US did try to broker ceasefire talks, but the effort collapsed last August after the SAF decided not to show.
It was only two weeks before the end of its term that the Biden administration took the more decisive step of formally accusing the RSF of committing genocide against non-Arab ethnic minorities in western Darfur. The genocide designation was accompanied by sanctions on Hemedti and seven UAE-based companies funding his militia. A few days later, the departing administration also sanctioned SAF chief Burhan, accusing his forces of war crimes including indiscriminate bombing of civilians and using chemical weapons against the RSF. But it was too little, too late to alter the conflict’s trajectory.
Nearly two years in, the fighting is only intensifying. The SAF has recently gained momentum and retaken parts of the capital Khartoum and surrounding areas, while the RSF is making a final push to take the besieged city of El Fasher, the army’s last urban stronghold in Darfur. With both sides convinced they can win militarily and foreign patrons flooding the country with arms, there appears to be no end in sight to the conflict.
Enter Donald Trump. In contrast to Joe Biden, the 47th president of the United States has unique relationships with and leverage over the key regional players fueling Sudan’s conflict, and a transactional style that works particularly well in that part of the world.
Remember the Abraham Accords, the most durable and significant foreign policy accomplishment of Trump’s first term? In his final months in office, Trump got Sudan to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for removing the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It was hallmark Trumpian statecraft: Sudan got sanctions relief, diplomatic recognition, and access to international financing; Trump got another Arab state to recognize the Jewish state.
More importantly, Trump has exceptionally close relationships with the Arab strongmen fueling Sudan’s war. He made the first foreign trip of his first term to Saudi Arabia and will likely do so again this time, and he maintains particularly warm ties with the Saudi and Emirati autocrats. Trump also called Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi his "favorite dictator" and has shielded Cairo from an across-the-board halt to US military aid. His rapport with the key players, coupled with his transactional, non-ideological diplomatic style, positions Trump to succeed where former president Biden failed.
That’s not to say that brokering peace in Sudan would be easy. Trump would need to be willing to use carrots – such as investment incentives or sanctions relief – and sticks – the threat of tariffs, sanctions, and curtailed arms sales and aid flows – to convince Abu Dhabi to halt its support for the RSF, persuade Cairo, Doha, and Ankara to stop backing the SAF, and get two warlords who view compromise as existential surrender to negotiate a power-sharing agreement. Not a cakewalk.
But if anyone could pull it off, it’s Donald Trump. His willingness to wield US power unapologetically — and his indifference to democratic norms — resonate in a region accustomed to strongman politics. The key lies in giving each player something they value more than continued fighting – or threatening something they fear more than walking away from the fight. By offering Sudan’s generals and their patrons credible incentives to de-escalate, Trump could lay the groundwork for a lasting peace.
I know what you're thinking – Sudan’s humanitarian crisis doesn’t rank high on the US president’s “America First” priority list. Why would Trump bother getting involved?
There’s an argument to be made. Sudan’s collapse would directly threaten his Middle East priorities: Regional destabilization could empower Iran, undermine US-allied Gulf states, and create security and terrorism risks Trump campaigned to avoid. Addressing the crisis therefore arguably aligns with his “America First” agenda. Sudan’s implosion would also undermine his landmark Abraham Accords, which his administration is set on expanding further.
But more importantly, success would burnish Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker and advance his broader Middle East agenda. Who knows – perhaps it’d even be enough to earn him that coveted Nobel Peace Prize.
Whether Trump will prioritize Sudan remains uncertain. But in a world starved of leadership, he may be the country’s last hope.
Trump on a rubix cube on top of a dollar.
If you listen to Wall Street and corporate America, Donald Trump’s second term will usher in a new golden age for the US economy. After all, what’s not to love about the return of a business-friendly president advised by a cabinet of self-made billionaires all promising deregulation and tax cuts?
Markets and CEOs have reasons to cheer. Trump inherits a strong US economy from former President Joe Biden. Output is running above pre-pandemic trends, far outperforming other major economies. Unemployment is hovering around 4%, inflation is slowly heading back to the Fed’s 2% target, and interest rates are coming down from their peak. It’s no wonder stocks are partying like it's 1995. But two of Trump’s core campaign promises are set to spoil the party.
First, there’s his plan to jack up tariffs (aka “the greatest thing ever invented”) to correct “unfair practices,” reduce America’s trade deficit, and extract concessions from other countries. While the president didn’t slap any new tariffs on “day one,” as some feared, he did launch investigations that will provide legal cover for significant tariff hikes sooner rather than later.
China will be the primary target as Trump imposes 50-60% levies on some goods and roughly doubles the average tariff rate on all Chinese imports by year’s end, aiming to force a deal from Beijing. But though China’s economy is in shambles and President Xi Jinping would much prefer to avoid a trade war with the US, he’s unlikely to offer concessions generous enough to satisfy Trump and the hawks in his cabinet. Combined with other US moves the Chinese will see as hostile, tariffs will cause Beijing to retaliate and the US-China relationship to break down, hurting American consumers and businesses through higher prices for imported goods and inputs.
Of course, China’s not the only trading partner in “tariff man’s” crosshairs. Trump’s offhand threats on Monday to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada by Feb. 1 may be bluster, but they confirm his determination to target any country he believes is taking America for a ride. That could include having a large bilateral trade surplus with the US, enabling Chinese circumvention of US tariffs, “free riding” off US protection, “over-taxing” US companies, and anything else Trump sees as adversarial to US interests.
Some countries will cave to Trump’s demands. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, for instance, will likely offer up enough concessions to avoid 25% tariffs. But others will lack the policy and political space to placate Trump. Some, like Canada, will feel compelled to hit back with their own measures, raising the risk of an escalatory cycle and a broader trade war that could tip the US – and the world – into recession.
Even if we avoid that worst-case scenario (as is likely), Trump’s initial tariffs will still disrupt supply chains, distort trade flows, and raise costs for US businesses and consumers – with lower-income Americans taking the biggest hit. And here’s the kicker: Not only will tariffs fail to “enrich our citizens” – Trump’s purported goal – they also won’t meaningfully reduce America’s overall trade deficit or bring back manufacturing jobs.
Then there’s immigration, the second key plank of the president’s agenda. Trump wasted no time showing he means business, on Monday declaring a “national emergency” at the southern border, announcing immediate deportation raids, reinstating his "Remain in Mexico" policy, and designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. His unexpected (and probably illegal) order to deny birthright citizenship to the children of noncitizens signals just how far he’s willing to go to deliver on this campaign promise. While we won’t see the 15 million deportations Trump threatened on the campaign trail (there may not even be that many undocumented immigrants in the US), with committed immigration hawks like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan running the show, the administration could remove up to 1 million people this year and perhaps 5 million over his term.
That’s a problem for the economy because the labor market is operating at full employment. Removing millions of existing workers (who are also consumers and taxpayers) while curtailing immigration will shrink the US workforce, driving up wages, business costs, and consumer prices, reducing the economy’s productive capacity, and widening the deficit.
The combined effect of Trump’s trade and immigration policies will be slower growth and higher inflation. And the two pro-growth policies that investors and business leaders are banking on – deregulation and tax cuts – won’t deliver enough juice to offset the damage.
Yes, the financial sector, Silicon Valley, the crypto industry, and fossil-fuel producers will benefit from lighter regulation. But the macro impact will be limited: The US economy is already among the most loosely regulated in the developed world, and Trump already picked much of the low-hanging fruit in his first term. Domestic energy production reached record highs during the Biden administration, and low oil prices will discourage much additional output and investment this year.
As for tax cuts, Republicans will make permanent Trump’s 2017 cuts for corporations and the wealthy at a cost of over $4.5 trillion over 10 years. But with the fiscal deficit already at 6.5% of GDP and only a razor-thin House majority, Trump won’t be able to slash taxes much (or any) further without offsetting spending cuts. Even if Elon Musk’s now-official Department of Government Efficiency (whose constitutionality is already being challenged in court) manages to find some cost savings and efficiencies in the federal budget, meaningful spending cuts will be hard to come by – especially as entitlements remain untouchable and Trump boosts defense spending.
The result? Trump’s promises to lower the corporate income tax rate to 15% and eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security, and overtime pay are likely to go unmet. Yet deficits and debt-to-GDP will grow faster over the next four years, putting upward pressure on America’s long-term borrowing costs.
All this – higher inflationary pressures from tariffs and deportations, bigger deficits – will force the Fed to keep interest rates higher for longer to fight inflation, raising your mortgage payments, strengthening the dollar, and further dampening growth. Cue angry tweets from Trump demanding rate cuts, which will spook markets and lead Jerome Powell to double down on demonstrating the Fed’s independence.
Many business leaders and investors are shrugging off these risks, remembering how well the economy performed in Trump’s first term and believing the president will back down or be constrained from following through on his most disruptive campaign promises.
But the starting conditions are very different than in 2017. Corporate valuations are much higher. Government debt has exploded since the pandemic, and deficits are structurally higher. Inflation is still above target, and interest rates remain elevated. The downside risks are significantly greater. More importantly, Trump 2.0 is not Trump 1.0. Not only does the president have unified government and an iron grip on his party, but he’s also consolidating executive power and assembling a more personally loyal team ready to implement rather than block his agenda.
To be sure, many of his tariff threats will prove to be bluster. Logistical and political roadblocks will limit the scale of deportations. Lobbying from CEOs and advisers like Musk might temper his most disruptive impulses. And a large enough market selloff or $15 eggs before the midterms could convince him to soften a long-held position.
But make no mistake: Trump will follow through on his agenda to a greater extent and with a steeper cost than most seem to realize. And the constant guessing game about what the president might do next will itself weigh on trade, investment, and growth.
Over time, this structural uncertainty and policy volatility – combined with the cronyism and pay-for-play that will flourish during Trump’s transactional presidency – risks eroding the foundations that have made America the world’s premier economy.
When his daughter was born, Johnny was able to use Walmart’s paid parental leave to spend six weeks bonding with her: “I’m a living example of the benefits Walmart provides.” Walmart’s comprehensive benefits — including paid parental leave, healthcare, tuition coverage, and more — help associates live better at work and at home. With a $1 billion investment in career-driven training and development, Walmart is creating pathways to higher-paying, higher-skilled jobs, so associates like Johnny can build better lives for themselves and their families. Learn why it pays to work at Walmart.
Trump in front of a map on fire.
In a G-Zero world, where no one country or group of countries is willing and able to provide global leadership, the law of the jungle prevails. And the law of the jungle says the apex predator gets to do whatever he can get away with, while others either get on board or become lunchmeat.
President-elect Donald Trump, just days away from taking over the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, spent the past week showing exactly what that will mean in practice. His threats to use economic and military coercion to take control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal are outlandish, but they send a clear message to the world: In Trump’s second term, it's his way or the highway.
Trump's worldview represents a decisive rejection of America’s postwar commitment to global collective security, free trade, and democracy promotion in favor of transactionalism. The United States is increasingly adopting a rather Chinese approach to international relations: bilateral deal-making with little regard for common values, the rule of law, multilateralism, or the global public good. With the idea being that the world’s most powerful country will play that game more effectively than Beijing. It’s called “America First” for a reason.
Does this mean Trump actually intends to buy Greenland, make Canada the 51st state, and seize the Panama Canal? No (… probably). Trump didn’t believe Mexico would pay for his border wall in his first term, but the threat helped pressure the Mexican government to devote more resources to curbing migration flows, which Trump then claimed as a win. The playbook this time will be no different (because Trump himself hasn’t changed): make outrageous, unrealistic demands of weaker foreign leaders to extract concessions – both from the targeted countries in question and from others looking to avoid coming into Trump’s crosshairs in the first place.
What makes this time different is Trump’s far stronger hand at home and abroad. Not only does he have a mandate, control of Congress and the Republican Party, and a 6-3 Supreme Court, but he will also have a more ideologically aligned and loyal administration. His personalistic leadership style and consolidation of power – what we call Rule of Don in our 2025 Top Risks report – mean US domestic and foreign policy will increasingly depend on the decisions of one man and his inner circle, precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent through constitutional checks and balances.
Meanwhile, the United States is comparatively more powerful today relative to 2017 vis-à-vis its adversaries – with China experiencing its worst economic crisis in decades, Russia in serious decline, and Iran having lost its proxy empire – as well as its allies, most of which have weak and unpopular leadership.
The combination of Trump’s consolidated power at home, America’s greater might abroad, and the president-elect’s willingness to wield that power unilaterally for transactional gain means the incoming administration will rack up significant early wins. With the world more dangerous than ever, few governments or corporations want to risk becoming the apex predator’s next prey.
We’re already seeing these dynamics play out domestically, where major companies are falling in line to avoid running afoul of the incoming administration. Mark Zuckerberg’s dramatic shift on Meta’s content moderation reflects a broader recognition that resistance is futile – better to align with Trump and his advisor-in-chief Elon Musk than to fight them. And if you think Meta, Apple, and the like are humiliating themselves at Mar-a-Lago, that’s nothing compared to the lengths that foreign governments will go to stay off Trump's radar or avoid his wrath.
Mexico’s new president, Claudia Sheinbaum, will do everything possible to fix a bilateral relationship that Trump believes is broken. It will take more and longer than she wants, but I think she’ll get there. The European Union, despite likely trade tensions and possibly tit-for-tat tariffs, will probably reach a deal that satisfies Trump and ultimately bolsters Europe’s “strategic autonomy.” NATO members won’t increase defense spending to a whopping 5% of GDP as Trump recently demanded (the US itself spends around 3.4% of GDP), but most will continue to boost their military expenditures.
Even seemingly absurd threats, such as a military takeover of the Panama Canal, will likely force real concessions like limits on Chinese investments, reduced transit fees, or enhanced cooperation on migration across the Darien Gap. And while Trump will neither purchase nor invade Greenland, his shenanigans have brought the issue of the territory’s independence from NATO ally Denmark to the fore, putting Copenhagen in a bind and raising the prospect of increased US access to the resource-rich and strategically vital Arctic island.
But Trump’s transactional approach won’t work everywhere, and in some cases, it will backfire. China isn’t prepared to offer meaningful enough concessions to achieve a grand bargain, especially amid an absence of communication and management channels. Early tariff hikes and mounting US provocations (at least as perceived by Beijing) in the coming months are likely to cause a breakdown in US-China relations this year.
Indeed, while many countries will seek to accommodate Trump to avoid confrontation, others will see no choice but to dig in. This includes one of America’s oldest allies and its largest trading partner, Canada. Trump’s annexation rhetoric and threats of 25% tariffs have touched a nerve north of the border, pushing politicians across the Canadian political spectrum to prepare aggressive responses ahead of the Liberal Party’s internal leadership race and the country’s general elections. Neither the ruling Liberals nor the opposition Conservatives can afford to appear weak in the face of US bullying. Trump’s tactics are fueling Canadian nationalism, reducing room for compromise, and making harder-line retaliation that hurts America’s interests more likely – the opposite of his presumed objectives.
The United Kingdom’s current predicament offers a telling example of the dilemmas facing many US allies. British officials are holding crisis meetings to determine how to respond to the incessant direct attacks from Elon Musk, who is now actively intervening in the domestic politics of US allies (including not just the UK but also Germany and the EU itself) with what we can assume is at least the tacit consent of President-elect Trump. They worry that pushing back against the world’s wealthiest individual could trigger retaliation from Trump himself, with whom Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants a good working relationship. But doing nothing is not an option when Musk’s invectives are believed to have jeopardized the personal safety of British cabinet members. There’s also a concern that passivity would embolden both Musk and Trump to push even harder for advantage.
This gets at a broader challenge: Even as it yields short-term wins, the president-elect’s coercive diplomacy will reflect and reinforce the broader breakdown of international order I described last week. The US remains the world’s most powerful nation by far. But rather than providing global public goods like collective security and free trade, it's using that power to extract concessions for itself through bilateral pressure. Trump’s defenders say that his unpredictability is a feature, not a bug, and that keeping friends and foes guessing is how he gets things done. But the uncertainty it creates poses enormous risks for governments and businesses trying to survive in the jungle.
This is the essence of the G-Zero world: Not just an absence of global leadership, but the deliberate dismantling of the systems and norms that have guided international relations for decades by its erstwhile lynchpin. Trump isn’t the cause – he’s its leading symptom and beneficiary. But his return to power will accelerate the trend toward a more dangerous, crisis-prone international system. The apex predator may rack up some impressive kills, but the jungle will grow deadlier and more savage for everyone – including, eventually, for the United States, too.
If we encountered our planet as an alien species today, what would we see?
An expanding population of eight billion people experiencing unprecedented growth after tens of thousands of years of stagnation. Staggering opportunities afforded by new technologies, especially the human capital and industrial breakthroughs that AI is about to unlock for millions (and soon billions) that otherwise would have no such access.
Even looking at the geopolitical headlines, we can work up some optimism about the year ahead. Three years after Russia invaded Ukraine and attempted to overthrow its leadership, negotiations (and even a possible ceasefire) appear close. So, too, in the Middle East, after more than a year of fighting in Gaza and beyond, there’s less stomach or purpose for expanding the violence. And in the United States, a hotly contested presidential election led to an undisputed winner with a clear mandate, and almost nobody claimed it was unfree, unfair, or stolen.
But take a closer look, and we've got big problems.
The United States and China, the two most powerful countries in the world by a wide margin, assertively reject responsibility for the rest of the planet. They cast an eye at enemies first and foremost within their own borders and worry increasingly about threats to their stability. Both are informed by political and economic value systems focused on the short term, despite the increasingly obvious reality that they’re not working for most of their people – especially the increasingly disillusioned youth.
A “community of nations” is today the stuff of fairy tales, with governance that isn’t meeting the needs of citizens. Our challenges – from climate change to technological disruption to security threats – are increasingly global. They demand far stronger international cooperation than is thought desirable or would be feasible with the institutions that exist today. And the political actors most essential to strengthening global institutions are moving in the other direction.
We are heading back to the law of the jungle – where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. This is the G-Zero world I’ve been warning about for over a decade now – an era when no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order.
This leadership deficit will reach critical mass and grow critically dangerous in 2025, creating a recipe for endemic geopolitical instability. The risk of a generational world crisis, even a new global war, is higher than at any point in our lifetimes. That’s why the G-Zero winning tops Eurasia Group’s 2025 Top Risks report.
The central problem facing the global order is that core international institutions – the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and so on – no longer reflect the underlying balance of global power. This is a geopolitical recession, a “bust cycle” in international relations that can be traced back to three fundamental causes.
First, the West failed to integrate Russia into the US-led global order after the Soviet Union's collapse, breeding deep resentment and antagonism. We can argue about who’s to blame, but the consequences are undeniable: Now a former great power in severe decline, Russia has transformed from a potential partner into the world’s most dangerous rogue state, bent on destabilizing the US-led order and forging military-strategic partnerships with other chaos actors like North Korea and Iran.
Second, China was brought into the international order – crucially as a member of the World Trade Organization – on the presumption that global economic integration would encourage its leaders to liberalize their political system and become responsible global stakeholders as defined by the West. Instead, China grew far more powerful but no more democratic or supportive of the rule of law. Deepening tensions, and even confrontation, between China and the West, are the result.
Third, and perhaps most consequentially, tens of millions of citizens in advanced democracies concluded that the globalist values their leaders and elites had been promoting no longer worked in their favor. Rising inequality, demographic shifts, and technological disruption have eroded trust in democratic institutions and reduced these nations’ capacity for global leadership. President-elect Donald Trump has both fed and profited from this anti-globalist, anti-establishment surge.
There are three ways out of a geopolitical recession: reform existing institutions, build new ones better aligned with current power realities, or destroy the old system and impose new rules through force. While all three are happening to some extent, in 2025 the focus will be overwhelmingly on the third.
The United States is the only nation powerful enough to lead – in fact, it’s in many ways more powerful than ever, at least compared to its allies and adversaries. But it is no longer willing to serve as world sheriff, architect of free trade, and promoter of common values. Trump’s return to power with a politically consolidated, solidly unilateralist administration will definitively accelerate America’s retreat from global leadership. But though Trump is the principal symptom and political beneficiary of the geopolitical recession, he’s not the cause. That’s why we didn’t make Trump our number one risk this year.
Just as the US embraces a transactional, “America First” unilateralism, its traditional allies face unprecedented political weakness. Canada’s government has just collapsed. So has Germany’s, where populist parties are likely to make gains in the upcoming federal elections. France is in the throes of a protracted political crisis. The UK is led by an unpopular new government still finding its feet. Japan’s ruling party has lost its majority, with new Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba unlikely to last long. South Korea’s political system is in disarray. Rather than stepping into the leadership void, these nations are focused on playing geopolitical defense – keeping their heads down and hoping to avoid becoming targets of disruption.
Meanwhile, the Global South, despite growing economic heft, lacks both the cohesion and capability to lead. India, the strongest and most plausible global leader among developing nations, remains a lower-income country, focused on building bridges mainly in support of its national interests. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite their growing ambitions, lack the standing to drive global reforms.
For its part, China – the second most powerful country on Earth and only viable US challenger – couldn’t lead even if it wanted to. Not only does it lack the legitimacy and “soft power” needed to attract a stable following, but its ongoing economic woes, combined with President Xi Jinping’s prioritization of national security and political control, leave Beijing too preoccupied with domestic challenges.
In short, with no one willing and able to lead, what’s left is ever greater geopolitical instability, disruption, and conflict. Power vacuums will expand, global governance will languish, and rogue actors will proliferate. The world will grow more divided and more combustible. The most vulnerable will pay the biggest price.
We’re entering a uniquely dangerous period of world history on par with the 1930s and the early Cold War. This doesn’t mean we’re headed toward World War III or even a US-China cold war, though both scenarios become more likely in a G-Zero world. The more immediate danger is the unraveling of the world’s security and economic architecture leaving many spaces – both countries and crucial domains like cyberspace, outer space, and the deep seas – ungoverned and under-governed, wide open for rogue actors to increasingly operate with impunity.
The G-Zero winning isn't just Eurasia Group’s top risk this year – it's the force multiplier that makes every other global challenge more dangerous and harder to solve. The tail risk of something truly catastrophic will grow fatter every day.
China’s Population Collapse, Mysterious Drone Sightings, Post-war Ukraine, and more: Your questions, answered
How serious is China's demographic problem?
China’s demographic problem is massive (And yes, Elon Musk is right to be worried about it). The United Nations estimates China’s population will be roughly cut in half by 2100. Even though Beijing ended the one-child policy years ago, birth rates remain low. The country’s population is aging rapidly, which puts more pressure on the (smaller) working-age population to support them. As a result, economic growth will continue to slow, increasing the probability of domestic social instability. There are still near-term adjustments that can help, like: extending the retirement age, making agriculture more efficient/less labor intensive, and increasing urbanization.
Are you worried about the recent highly publicized drone sightings over the northeast United States?
No, not particularly. What I am concerned about is the broader decentralization of dangerous technologies and the rapid-fire dissemination of conspiracy theories that only confuse and further polarize the American public. Not only are UAVs getting easier and cheaper to produce, but so are a whole host of cyber weapons and other rapidly advancing technologies that will have broad impacts on society. And while some theories about the uptick in drone sightings may be fun to explore, it’s becoming obvious that people are having a harder time than ever deciding if what they see online is true or not. Senators are mistaking Star Wars props as downed aircraft and theories about missing nuclear weapons or looming alien invasions are racking up millions of views online. That’s troubling. My advice: consume a diverse media diet, have a healthy dose of skepticism, and touch some grass to help prevent a bad trip down the rabbit hole.
Can the United States win a tariff trade war and maintain the status of the US dollar as a world currency?
Yes, the United States would make it out of a full-on trade war with US dollar dominance still intact, but not without damage to the US economy. The US dollar is king partly because of the enduring stability and strength of the US economy and trust in its financial institutions, partly because everyone else uses the dollar already, and partly because there is no (better) alternative. A full-fledged and prolonged trade war would hurt the US economy and undermine global confidence in US policymakers, which would ultimately weaken the dollar’s position. But it would hurt other countries’ economies more than it would hurt America’s, meaning that the dollar would likely still come out on top in relative terms. Still, I expect Trump won’t go full Smoot-Hawley. The market backlash will limit how far he actually goes as opposed to what he’s currently threatening. Plus, countries that are significantly weaker than the United States will be less likely to retaliate and more willing to negotiate. Also, Trump’s incoming economic team will act as at least a marginal constraint.
Does Europe have the ability to help Ukraine defeat Russia without US help?
To put it simply: no. The United States is (by far) the most important supporter of Ukraine, and Europe doesn’t have the funds or political will to make up the gap by itself. Heck, Europe’s own defense is seriously constrained by its dependence on America’s' weapons systems and intelligence. A ten-year window for Europe to build up its defense readiness is plausible, but Russia is knocking on its proverbial doorstep today. If the United States were to give up all support for Ukraine, many European states would probably join the Americans diplomatically.
What's your view on what comes after a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia? Do you think Ukraine has a chance of joining NATO anytime soon?
Although a ceasefire would mark a significant shift in the conflict, I wouldn’t expect it to end the conflict in its entirety. As nearly three years of war have taught us, Vladimir Putin will do everything in his power to gain the territory he seeks – regardless of the price paid by Russia’s population or economy. So, a pause in the fighting is only a temporary solution. A sustainable diplomatic agreement is going to be incredibly difficult as long as Putin remains in power. One way President Zelensky envisions securing what remains of his country: joining NATO, thus making allies like the United States treaty-bound to respond to another incursion on Ukraine’s sovereignty. But as it stands now, I think Ukraine is going to have to punt its hopes of joining NATO down the road for at least a decade. Putin won’t accept anything less. Trump won’t either. And other leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron are starting to come around as well.
How will President Trump's foreign policy affect the developing world?
What we know about Trump’s first term is that his foreign policy approach is transactional: if agreements don’t directly give a “win” to the United States, we can expect them to be reexamined. When looking at Trump’s proposed tariffs, new trade barriers may make exports from developing countries less competitive, which would certainly create bigger economic challenges for them. US foreign policy has already eroded American soft power/influence over many nations in the Global South, which is likely to continue under Trump given his record on human rights, climate change, and staunch Israel support. Some developing countries, on the other hand, are led by leaders with pro-Trump sensibilities. In those cases, personal relationships with (and praise for) Trump will lead to stronger relations with the United States.
Do you think the United States is in decline?
In terms of its political system, yes I do. When the Berlin Wall came down 35 years ago, people around the world really admired the United States’ political system—the “shining city upon a hill,” as Reagan said in his farewell address. Very few people outside the United States feel that way now. Political polarization is weakening the fabric of American society and getting in the way of addressing America’s domestic troubles, including income inequality, below-average healthcare access, and above-average gun violence. It’s been an incredibly notable—and pretty disheartening—decline. That’s only one perspective, though. The US is not at all in decline in most other ways: economically, technologically, militarily, in its human capital, in the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, in its natural resources, and in the stability of its geopolitical corner of the world, to name a few.
Can you name one positive thing you think will happen in 2025?
In 2025, I’m confident that the world will be as interconnected as ever, even if some linkages are in flux. Countries around the world will continue to engage economically with everyone they can. Plus, the supply of people who want to engage with digital content from around the world will continue to grow. The cat’s out of the bag with globalization, so to speak. I know that word can be politically charged, but globalization has been a net positive to humanity. Between 1981 and 2015, the number of people living on less than $1.90 a day dropped from 1.81 billion to around 700 million. That global economic growth wouldn’t have happened without increased trade brought on by globalization. Fragmented politics won’t change that economic reality.
How is it that you came to do what you do? It looks like you made up your own job and became successful at it.
Well, don’t forget it took over thirty years to get here. But yes, I feel very lucky to have landed where I did. I’ve always loved studying international politics. It’s a discipline you can devote your entire life to yet still learn new things every day. What I hadn’t appreciated in my studies was that the private sector wasn’t exactly hiring political scientists. Like any new grad, I had to hustle and keep forging ahead anyway. I did my best to network and got to know people at different companies who seemed to find my insights worthwhile. At the time, they didn’t have a job for what I did: explaining to people how world events shape global markets (and thus their companies). After a while, I finally asked, “What if I hang out a shingle…start my own business…would any of you become a client?” To my surprise, almost everyone was on board. So, in 1998 (which is before some of you were born, horrifyingly), the very modest beginning of the global risk consulting firm I have today was born—and more importantly, so was the whole political risk industry. The rest, as they say, is history.
Assad’s fall, Romania’s canceled election, Trump’s Taiwan approach, and more: Your questions, answered
How did Bashar Assad get driven out of Syria after more than 20 years in power? What are your thoughts on his replacements?
I was surprised that Assad fell. He’s been such an important client for both Iran and Russia for decades and received their immediate support when the rebels began their offensive. But this was a particularly opportune time for the rebels to strike. Assad’s powerful friends were both distracted in other arenas: Iran with Israel (in both Gaza and, more importantly for Iran, Lebanon) and Russia with Ukraine. Interestingly, there is one key throughline connecting the fall of Mosul (Iraq), Kabul (Afghanistan), and Damascus (Syria) — all three were held by conscript armies that were fed, equipped, and trained by corrupt regimes … and when attacked by fierce radical groups fled as quickly as they could.
On its face, the fall of one of the world’s most oppressive dictators should be good news. Assad’s war against his own people led to the deaths of over 500,000 Syrians and millions of refugees fleeing into Turkey and from there to Europe. But I’m not yet confident that what’s replacing his regime will be much better. The Turkish-backed militants in charge are Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, a former al-Qaida affiliate in Syria that formally cut ties with the terrorists but is still (as of now) labeled a terrorist organization by the United States and NATO. Turkey wasn’t all in on removing Assad (at first). If the regime change goes well (a big if), the real winner here will be Turkey, with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sending millions of Syrian refugees back home, becoming the main influence on strategically important Syria, and leading the fight against the Islamic State. This would land Erdoğan in Donald Trump’s good graces if it leads to a withdrawal of American troops.
HTS is clearly serious about establishing itself as the new, legitimate government — and a policy (for now) of relative moderation and tolerance toward other groups in the country is making that easier. But there are still so many unknowns and reasons that this can go terribly wrong.
Can Romania just cancel an election?
The constitutional court decided it’s “better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” After a massive far-right influence campaign by external (well … Russian) forces on TikTok and other social platforms was uncovered, Romania became the first democracy to ever cancel an election because of a disinformation campaign. This move will land the country in hot water regardless of the results of the rescheduled election. The court is viewed as highly politicized, so the decision will ultimately undermine it and whoever the future president may be – unless the far-right fringe candidate is allowed to run, and win, again.
How could President Trump’s plan to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine on “day one” impact China’s approach to Taiwan?
Whether China will push to undermine the cross-strait status quo during Trump’s second term is still up for debate. But Trump’s transactional approach to the war in Ukraine won’t affect China’s approach to Taiwan, at least in the near term. Beijing is still several years away from being able to credibly launch an invasion and take over the self-governing democracy. For now, China’s leaders are much more focused on regaining their own economic footing. That said, President-elect Trump’s interest in defending an island thousands of miles from the United States (and incredibly close to mainland China) is questionable at best. Many of his advisors care a great deal about Taiwanese sovereignty as a matter of US national security and longstanding American values, but Trump himself is much more interested in the country’s bilateral trade balance with the US.
What does Russia after Putin realistically look like?
If Vladimir Putin dies tomorrow, don’t expect a seismic shift at the Kremlin. Far more likely, his replacement would be another strongly anti-Western, nationalist leader who would fill the vacuum left by Putin’s departure. Such a successor would likely be more risk-averse, having to derive legitimacy and maintain power through the support of the country’s military, intelligence, and security leaders. It’s hard to imagine a dramatic shift in Russia’s geopolitical orientation when most of the country feels like the United States and “the West” have been out to squash their country’s power for decades.
Could a multi-party proportional representation system fix American politics?
America’s two-party system provides unique challenges for government representation by fostering an “us vs. them” tribalist sentiment, dividing the country into only two camps. It would be harder to immediately brand the opposing party as “the enemy of the state” if Americans had more choices. So, a shift to a multi-party system would allow a broader spectrum of ideologies into DC, and across the country, that would more closely reflect the diversity of the country’s population as a whole, which I think would be a constructive development. That said, it's hard to see how we could ever get from here to there given the stronghold on American politics (and the insane amount of funding) that the current duopoly has.
Why do you always defend the United Nations?
Some may find it controversial, but I’m proud of the United Nations. A truly global institution created by the United States out of the rubble of World War II, the UN charter reflects the very best of American values. As an institution, the UN no doubt has problems. The Security Council (and its veto powers) reflects a geopolitical order that no longer exists, lacks representation, and is accordingly broken. In the General Assembly, each country (no matter how small) has one vote but without enforcement power is generally weak and ineffective. Countries vote and veto in ways many of us wish they didn’t (but you should blame those countries, not the UN, for that).
What gets lost in the critiques of the bureaucracy of the United Nations is the amount of good that the organization does on a global scale, and with limited expenses (which, by the way, is where most of American funding for the United Nations is spent). The World Health Organization, World Food Organization, UNICEF, and other UN arms are systematically looking out for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable in ways most singular countries couldn’t be bothered to do alone.
Today, the world is heading to a post-carbon energy future, and that’s in no small part due to the architecture set up by the United Nations. Plus, new initiatives like the creation of a global framework for artificial intelligence (which I’ve been happy to be a part of) signal more positive developments are still to come on the only stage where every country in the world can have a voice.
What is on your radar over the next 24 months and not being discussed enough?
While there’s constant talk about artificial intelligence impacting our daily lives, the deployment of large-scale AI applications to an individual’s every dataset is not being discussed nearly enough. Personalized decisions or predictions based on human behavior patterns ascribed in large datasets are coming our way shortly. Before you know it, we will all have tools that will change humanity as we know it — in productive ways and post-human ways.
Where do you get your news, and what news sources do you trust?
As you might expect, the folks at Eurasia Group and GZERO Media act as my North Star when news breaks. With about 250 brilliant employees scattered across the globe working tirelessly to understand the inner workings of their areas of expertise, they bring priceless insight into what’s going on in the world on any given day. More broadly, it’s helpful for people to look outside their bubbles and read news coverage from outside their country of origin. For me, the Canadians (CBC), Germans (DW), Japanese (NHK), Arabs (Al Jazeera, etc.), and others cover the world in a much more effective way than the coverage we get from one hour of insular news coverage on cable television (or even from sitting down with the New York Times or Wall Street Journal).
What are your thoughts on pineapple on pizza?
Well, that depends. I’ll allow pineapple if there’s also ham and something spicy on top like jalapenos or chili flakes. Even then, I can probably think of 20 other things that I’d rather have as a pizza topping. Still, pineapple is preferable to cuttlefish – a Japanese fan favorite.
Are you hiring?
Eurasia Group is always looking for new talent – not just in our New York office but around the world. I am not personally involved in hiring, though, which is probably for the best. Thankfully we have a CEO and management team who make running the firm look easy. We’d be nowhere near as successful without them. Left to my own devices, I might run us into the ground. Ask anyone at Eurasia Group, they’ll totally agree with me.Political K-drama, Lebanon ceasefire, Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago, and more: Your questions, answered
Ian Bremmer surrounded by world leaders.
It’s beginning to look a lot like the holiday season here in New York — so in the Christmas spirit, I decided to answer your most pressing questions in a December edition of my mailbag series. Want to know what I think about Trump’s latest picks for his new administration? What’s next for the Middle East? Gladiator II vs. Wicked? Ask, and you shall receive.
Hoping to crack a few echo chambers at once, I put out a call for questions onX,Threads, andBluesky, and — as usual — you all delivered an avalanche of insightful and thought-provoking queries. I sorted through hundreds of questions, spanning everything from “Is America in decline?” to “What is Moose’s favorite toy?” to “What is the meaning of life?” I’ll leave the philosophizing to Plato but am excited to tackle the questions more political in nature — with a few personal ones thrown in for amusement.
So grab some hot cocoa as I dive into your first round of questions (some of which have been edited for clarity).
What the heck happened in South Korea?
On Tuesday, President Yoon Suk Yeol shocked the world by (briefly and unlawfully) declaring emergency martial law before reversing course some six hours later. Martial law means all activities by parliament and political parties become prohibited, the media gets placed under state control, and protests and demonstrations are banned. Yoon claimed the move was meant “to eradicate” a fifth column of North Korea-aligned opposition elements, despite there being no evidence of such a threat. The truth: Yoon had become deeply unpopular after being swept up in several corruption scandals (with one notably including his wife). When the opposition refused to pass his budget, he snapped. Today, Yoon awoke to a political hangover, realizing that his decision destroyed any remaining legacy he might have had. He'll be impeached in short order (with a motion already submitted), and new elections will likely favor the opposition. South Korea will remain a democracy thanks to its institutions holding strong against the immediate threat of illiberalism (unlike some other countries I know). I predict the country will be able to move past this blip swiftly, and I doubt the rest of the world will be talking much about it in the coming weeks.
Do you expect the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah to last?
Despite reports of some fire from both sides, which is to be expected, I think there’s a good chance that the truce will hold. About 60,000 Israelis evacuated the northern part of the country near the Lebanon border after Hamas attacked on Oct. 7, 2023. So a positive sign to look for would be if the displaced Israelis start heading back home. Israeli forces have pummeled Hezbollah, decimating their capacity to expand the war. Plus, Israel wants to give Donald Trump a win, and the two-month ceasefire will become "permanent" just as he is inaugurated. Coincidence? I think not.
How do you feel about Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flying down to Mar-a-Lago in response to Trump's tariff threats? A weak move? A smart play? Somewhere in-between?
The Canadians are stuck between a rock and a hard place. America’s northern neighbors rely heavily on economic and political cooperation with the United States, so this was Justin Trudeau’s only move. Provincial governors across the political spectrum are demanding cooperation with the Trump administration as a matter of utmost urgency. The primary issue for Trudeau: He won’t be in power for long and, accordingly, has very limited leverage.
Has the United States become a rogue nation?
I’d define a rogue state as one that actively wants to break the norms and rules of the international order — diplomatic, economic, and military. By that definition, while the United States has taken rogue actions (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, etc. etc.), on most issues, the US doesn’t belong in that bucket. However, the US is now far less committed to strengthening or even leading multilateral institutions. It has become more transactional, less oriented toward common values, and more interested in bilateral negotiations with a clearer power advantage than multilateralism. In that way, US foreign policy is becoming less “exceptionalist” and more akin to China’s — though with a stronger focus on national security leverage than China’s more principally commercial perspective.
When you visited Mexico a bit more than a year ago, you concluded that the country was doing better than expected and shared a fairly optimistic outlook for the country’s future. Do you still hold that view?
I feel less optimistic than a year ago, for sure. The Mexican economy should be doing far better, given its level of integration with the United States (the strongest economy in the world) and its favorable positioning vis-a-vis derisking/decoupling from China. However, some market-unfriendly decisions during Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidential transition, particularly but not limited to judicial reform, have hurt Mexico’s investment climate. Plus, concerns that the bilateral relationship with the US will come under pressure from the incoming Trump administration adds to the looming economic uncertainty. Still, Sheinbaum’s orientation is much more technocratic — and her Cabinet overall is more professional — than her predecessor, and that will help.
Can you please make sense of what's now happening in Syria/Aleppo? Will the Assad regime collapse?
Basically, a Turkey-backed militant Islamist group called HTS managed to snag Aleppo, Syria’s second-biggest city, in a matter of days, catching everyone off guard. It’s a huge deal, basically flipping the script on who controls what in Syria. But why now, after the Syrian civil war had been frozen for years? Two words: G-Zero, baby. Assad’s regime is extremely dependent on Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah for its survival. But Israel recently wiped out Hezbollah in Lebanon and weakened Iran’s proxy network, leaving Assad seriously vulnerable. Plus, Russia is racing to grab as much ground as possible before a potential Trump-forced ceasefire in Ukraine. With Assad’s main backers distracted and resource-strained, it was the perfect opportunity for the rebels to make a move. But here’s the kicker: Assad isn’t going down. Iran and Russia are too invested in keeping him in power, so they'll absolutely jump in to save his bacon. Even countries that are happy to see Assad and Iran weakened, like Israel and Turkey, don’t want to deal with the chaos that his overthrow would leave behind. So, while this is a massive shake-up, don’t bet on Assad getting the boot just yet – he’s survived crazier situations, and he’s got some powerful friends helping him hang on.
How are things looking for Russia given the ruble, Syria, and Iran?
In terms of those specific perspectives, things might not be looking too good for Russia. Low oil prices, new sanctions, and government spending on the war effort propelled the Russian ruble to its lowest levels in over two years. Rebel advancement in Aleppo makes both Russia and Iran look weak and distracted. Plus, there’s been anastronomical number of Russian casualties in Ukraine as Putin’s invasion has dragged on.
But that’s not to say that things are looking bad for Russia in the long term. Russian forces have been gaining more and more territory in the Donbas; President-elect Trump aims to end the war as soon as possible; Volodymyr Zelensky is under an immense amount of domestic pressure to stop the bleeding; and the Europeans are increasingly split on continuing economic and military support for Kyiv. With no direct internal threat to Putin’s position, the Russian president is still sitting comfortably in Moscow … with large bits of Ukraine essentially his.
What got you interested or started in politics to begin with?
My first trip outside the United States really kicked off my interest in politics. Picture it: Soviet Union in 1986, the Cold War in full swing. It was such a transformative experience for a kid from the projects. My perception of Moscow, Leningrad, and the former Soviet republics was so different than what the news was telling me, which was fascinating and made me want to explore other parts of the world. I wanted to go everywhere, study hard, and learn as much as possible to understand the world better. I thought of that kid when I made my trip to Antarctica last year, completing my journey to all seven continents.
Who is the most well-known person on your cellphone contact list?
Besides Beyoncé? Just kidding — I don't know many Hollywood types, but I suspect the few I do are the most broadly well-known, not all the political leaders. So I would probably say it’s Ashton Kutcher, who is extremely interested in international relations, especially in China. Bet you didn’t expect that answer.