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.
Europe
Syrian Kurds gather with flags as Turkey's jailed militant leader Abdullah Ocalan calls on his Kurdistan Workers Party to lay down its arms last week in Hasakah, Syria.
So why stop fighting? Perhaps, freedom. Last October, staunch Turkish nationalist Devlet Bahceliinvited Ocalan to come to parliament and “declare that he has laid down his arms” – and intimated that his life sentence could be lifted. This weekend, Bahceli, whose party is the largest partner in Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s coalition,welcomed Ocalan’s call for disbanding the PKK, calling it a “valuable and important” statement.
The move also comes as Erdogan seeks support for constitutional changes that would allow him to run for a third term in 2028, and the backing of the pro-Kurdish DEM party could be key. In the past two months, DEM Party representativeshave paid three visits to Ocalan, the first since members of the party’s predecessor, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, met with him in April 2015. Ocalan’s nephew, Omer Ocalan, a member of the Turkish Parliament, also visited and shared a message from his uncle on social media.
Will the ceasefire hold? It’s not clear, and a similar agreement in 2013 failed to endure. The deal must also first be accepted by Turkey and is complicated by the fact that the PKK is still classified as a terrorist organization by that country, the US, and the EU. We’re watching for Erdogan’s next move – and whether Ocalan’s liberation follows.
As Russia’s war in Ukraine grinds on, the Baltic states—Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania—are watching their eastern neighbor with growing concern. With cyberattacks, undersea sabotage, and military buildup along its border, Latvia is at the forefront of Europe’s efforts to counter Russian aggression. On GZERO World, Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže joins Ian Bremmer in New York to discuss Ukraine's fate, the region’s security challenges, the role of NATO, and how Trump’s evolving stance on Russia could leave European in the lurch.
Also on the show, Bremmer speaks with former Russian colonel Dmitri Trenin, who offers a starkly different perspective from Moscow, arguing that negotiations over Ukraine should be decided primarily by the US and Russia—not Ukraine or Europe.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
President Trump has said that he is not on the Ukrainian side. He's neutral, he's on the side of peace. He's a peacemaker. He just wants to end the war, and that does not mean supporting Ukraine going forward. In fact, because he felt offended by Zelensky, who was not adequately deferential to the American president or the vice president, he said, basically, I'm cutting off support. I am allowing you, by continuing to support you, I'm allowing you to believe you have leverage you don't have. You should accept peace on my terms, and so I'll cut you off and then we'll see how well you can fight.
This is obviously a disaster for Zelensky who was intemperate in my view, in his remarks, absolutely. If you are coming to the United States, and yes, he has expressed thanks to the Americans many, many times on many, many occasions, but he was not well prepared to handle President Trump's ego, which is enormous, which is fragile, and he expects that everyone has to know who's number two and has to stand down when he stands up. And Zelensky did not do that. They ended up talking over each other and Trump got angry, took it personally, and basically threw him out of the White House, canceled the press conference and said, "I'm not supporting you anymore."
I think this relationship is now inexorably broken. I think it's inconceivable that Zelensky will be able to sit down with Trump in the near-term and fix the relationship. Lindsey Graham, who is perhaps Trump's closest confidant among serious senators, said that Zelensky has to either resign or he has to have someone else running point with the United States. I think that's a good read of the situation. Not that I think that Zelensky should resign, but that if you want to engage with the Americans, he's not going to be able to do it himself. Of course, that also happens to be a core demand of Putin, that Zelensky is not the one that engages directly in conversations. Putin won't talk to him, considers him illegitimate. So that's now becoming a talking point that Trump can directly align with, and I suspect he will in the near-term, after already calling for elections in a second phase after a ceasefire. Again, a core Russia demand.
What's going to happen here? Well, first of all, the big question is what are the Europeans going to do? And I use that word intentionally. What are they going to do, not what are they going to say? We all know what they're going to say. They're going to say that they're incredibly supportive of Ukraine, and I saw that from the Poles, and the Germans, and I saw it from the Belgians, and the Dutch, and I saw it from the French, and the Spaniards, I even saw it from Luxembourg, and those expressions of support mean just about as much from Luxembourg as they do from the Germans, unless they stand up and provide far more willingness to give the Ukrainians more financial support for their military, and also provide boots on the ground that are not contingent on a direct American backstop. They have been unwilling to do that for three years, and I suspect they will still be unwilling to do that. And absent that European support and ability to get the Americans back to the table, I think is extremely low. If the Europeans were to take a leadership role and show that they could do it without the Americans or with nominal American participation, then I think it's much more plausible that Trump, irrespective of what just happened with Zelensky, says, "I'm the only one that can get you to the table. I was the only one that made the Europeans lead, and so now, yeah, I'm back, I'm back now because this is the right conditions for peace for the American taxpayers." But of course, what Trump wants to do is end the war, and he now has been given a bigger opportunity to end the war by being able to throw Zelensky under the bus.
And that's what Vance is doing. That's what Elon is doing. That's what all of Trump's supporters on social media are doing. They're saying, "This guy, he's corrupt, he's a dictator, he's a bad guy, he shows no respect to the American president, and why should we support him? Well, the reason you should support him is because he's not a bad guy. It's because he was democratically elected and for three years, he has courageously led his people to defend their country. That's all. To defend their country against an invading force. When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait illegally, the Americans stood up, slapped down Saddam Hussein directly, not indirectly, directly involved in that fighting, to stand for the principle of territorial integrity. And that wasn't even a democracy. That was just a country that yeah, had some oil, but that the United States did not want the rest of the world to think that it would just stand back and stand by while their own country was eaten to shreds by a neighboring more powerful country. That is not where the Americans are today.
Today the Americans are supporting a UN resolution with the Russians, the North Koreans, Belarus, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Israel, and a few micro states against democracies of the world, saying that territorial integrity is not what's critical. What's critical is just ending the war no matter what. That principle is being thrown out. And the Europeans fundamentally disagree with this. The Europeans feel like there is a gun to their head from the east with the Russians as a direct national security threat, and now a gun to the head from the west, a country that does not support core values of collective security, of rule of law, and of territorial integrity. And that means that the Europeans have to now get their act together immediately or else.
Zelensky is someone who, when the Americans offered to get him out of the country, because he was going to be overrun by the invading Russians, he said, "No, I'm not leaving my country," in a way that the Afghan leadership fled immediately, "No, I'm staying and I'm going to defend my country with my fellow Ukrainians." And that was an extraordinary moment and he has been facing down a much more powerful force, at a threat to his life and his family's lives. He's been on the front lines many, many times. He's not getting much sleep. He's under incredible pressure. And does it all take away from the fact that he talked back to the American president? No, obviously, no. You have to be better capable of representing your country by knowing who you're dealing with when you're coming in to see the US president. But I want to be clear that Zelensky has absolutely nothing to apologize for because the fact is that he is an example of the kind of humanity we need to help ensure that we have peace and stability around the world, someone that will stand up to injustice. And that, from an American president who because he was born of wealth and privilege, faked an injury to avoid military service, I think speaks volumes about what has happened to the United States.
The values that the Americans stand for presently on the global stage are values of power. They are the most powerful, get to write their rules, get to determine the outcomes. And that is true for Putin, it's true for Israel, it's true for the United States, and it's not true for the Ukrainians. It's not true for the Palestinians. It's not true for the Danes, or the Panamanians, or the Mexicans, or the Canadians. And what the Europeans have to now figure out is, are they prepared to be courageous? Are they prepared to step up, even though they're not in the most powerful position? Are they willing to do after three years, after frankly, 11 years since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the first time they've stood back, they've stood by, they haven't stood up for their fellow Europeans. They've allowed the Americans to do the heavy lifting, and now they have a president that is not willing to do that and frankly doesn't agree with them anymore, doesn't agree with their values, doesn't care about shared values, only cares about power.
And so, this is not a question for the Ukrainians. We know where the Ukrainians stand. They stand up. This is not a question for the Americans. We know where the Americans stand. They stand for themselves. This is a question for the Europeans. Are the Europeans willing to stand up for themselves, for their principles, for their values, and for fellow Europeans? And I fear the answer is no. I fear the answer is no. Analytically everything we've seen for the last three years is that they're going to talk a really good game and they're not going to do very much. But we shall see and we shall see very soon because this is the future of the West, this is the future of democracy, and it sure as hell is the future of the Ukrainians.
So that's it for me. I hope you all well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- NATO and Ukraine prep for Trump ›
- Will Trump reverse Biden’s move on long-range missiles for Ukraine? ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- “Make a Deal or We're Out”: Inside the explosive Trump-Zelensky confrontation ›
- Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin ›
The conversation then shifts to Moscow, where Bremmer speaks with former Russian colonel and ex-Carnegie Moscow Center director Dmitri Trenin. Once considered a pro-Western voice, Trenin’s views now align closely with the Kremlin. He argues that the fate of Ukraine should be decided primarily by Russia and the United States—not Ukraine or Europe.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
How far will Russia go to reassert its influence? This question has haunted Europe for decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was supposed to mark a turning point, but for the Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—the shadow of Russian aggression has never truly lifted.
Fast forward to Christmas Day of 2024, when a rickety oil tanker flying the flag of the Cook Islands was caught dragging an 11-ton anchor along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland, severing a critical power cable between Estonia and Finland. Finnish authorities boarded the ship, confiscating 100,000 barrels of illicit Russian oil. EU officials believe the vessel was part of Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet”—aging tankers used to evade sanctions. Some of those same ships, they warn, may also be engaging in acts of sabotage.
Energy infrastructure isn’t the only target. Cyber warfare has long been part of Russia’s playbook. A 2007 cyberattack on Estonia, widely attributed to Moscow, was an early warning of how modern warfare would evolve. Today, those threats have only intensified. Google’s intelligence experts have recently identified Russia’s elite hacking unit, Sandworm, probing Baltic energy grids for weaknesses—the same strike team that has repeatedly shut down power across Ukraine.
It’s no wonder that Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania now spend more on defense, as a percentage of GDP, than most NATO members. Latvia, for example, has boosted its defense budget from under 1% of GDP in 2014 to a projected 5% by 2026. That’s a figure high enough to impress even US President Donald Trump. And as President Trump signals a more conciliatory stance toward Moscow—softening relations while berating Ukraine’s leadership—the question isn’t just how far Putin will go, but will the West be able to stop him?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
- Lithuanians decide on dual citizenship ›
- Sweden deploys troops to Latvia ›
- When Russia is your neighbor: Estonian PM Kaja Kallas' frontline POV ›
- Could this spread beyond Ukraine? ›
- Leaders of Poland, Nordic & Baltic countries affirm strong support for Ukraine ›
- As Russia gains ground in Ukraine, Baltic states worry the war will spread west ›
President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Feb. 28, 2025
When world leaders appear with the American president in front of the Oval Office’s hearth, the exchange is normally tempered, congenial, and largely a photo-op – with the diplomatic dung-slinging already done behind closed doors. But that precedent was thrown out the window today during a confrontation between Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which voices were raised, threats were thrown, and the already fractured relationship between the US and its war-time ally may have snapped ahead of ceasefire negotiations.
Zelensky’s hastily arranged Washington visit sought to salvage the US-Ukrainian relationship and address Trump’s demand that Ukraine surrender mineral rights worth billions as repayment for previous US military aid. The deal was not signed following the meeting, with Zelensky leaving promptly afterward.
Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian president in unprecedented fashion, demanding gratitude for US aid, lambasting Zelensky for “campaigning with the opposition” by meeting with Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, and threatening to abandon Ukraine entirely unless it accepts peace terms dictated by Washington. “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” Trump warned bluntly, adding that fighting alone against Russia "won’t be pretty.”
But Zelensky didn’t take their comments lying down. While he repeatedly expressed gratitude, he tried to contradict Vance’s claims regarding Ukraine’s military personnel shortages. He warned that Russia could eventually pose a threat to the US, warning “you have a nice ocean and don’t feel [threatened] now, but you will feel it in the future.”
The realignment from the US under the new administration couldn’t be clearer. Trump has effectively positioned the US alongside Russia, consistently praising Putin as “very smart” and “cunning” while falsely accusing Ukraine of starting the war, labeling Zelensky a “dictator,” and now accusing him of “gambling with World War III.”
However, the response from Congress – which controls Ukraine spending and where Zelensky received a far more cordial reception on both sides of the aisle – remains to be seen. As does how the exchange will be received domestically for both leaders. Trump’s aggressive approach is likely to play well with his base, but how will it play for the wider public? Will Zelensky be seen as brave or foolish back home? If you have a take, let us know here.
Meanwhile, Zelensky’s efforts to salvage his relationship with Trump have backfired, and Ukraine — though maintaining the support of Europe – is entering into potentially impending peace negotiations on shaky ground, although it remains to be seen how soon Ukraine and Russia will head to the negotiating table.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy arrives at Shannon airport ahead of a bilateral meeting with Ireland's Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Micheal Martin, in Shannon, Ireland, February 27, 2025.
For all the anxiety in Ukraine and across Europe about direct Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin ceasefire negotiations, other players in this drama are now having their say. French President Emmanuel Macronmet with Trump at the White House on Wednesday. On Thursday, it was UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s turn toglad-hand and bargain with the US president. And today, the diplomatic music will reach a crescendo with a visit to the White House by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The most important question that everyone is grappling with: What kind of security guarantee can and will Trump and/or European leaders offer Ukraine to limit the risk that a deal to end the fighting won’t stop Putin from launching a future invasion?
Trump insists Ukraine isn’t strong enough to evict Russian troops from the approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory they now hold. But if Zelensky is to consider territorial concessions as the eventual price of peace, he must show Ukraine’s people that their country will maintain strong-enough friends with strong-enough militaries and stiff-enough backbones to repel any future Russian attack.
One lesson we’ve learned from the past two months: It matters little what any of these leaders say publicly about what they consider acceptable or unacceptable. That’s part of the diplomatic haggling. All that matters is the written language of any agreement they might reach and the ability and willingness of outside players to enforce it. For that, we’ll have to keep watching.