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.
News
Test of a Russian ICBM, launched on October 26, 2024. Since invading Ukraine, Russia has placed its nuclear forces on ready and has increased testing and development of its ICBMs.
Anyone who watches soccer — “football”, whatever — knows that the wildest part of the game is always the last five minutes.
That’s when both teams, knowing that the end is near, take bigger risks. They open up on the field. They make longer passes, attempt crazier shots. And they usually score more goals.
There’s actually data to support this. One guy ran the numbers on more than forty thousand goals scored in international matches since the 19th century and found that yes, there is more scoring in the final moments of a game. After all, with the whistle about to blow, what’s a team got to lose?
That’s what’s happening in Ukraine right now.
Just over a thousand days since Vladimir Putin launched his unprovoked, full-scale assault on the country, the whistle on this phase of the conflict will sound soon — and by soon, we mean on January 20, 2025. That’s when Donald Trump will be back in the White House.
Trump, of course, has questioned Washington’s massive support for Ukraine and promised to end the war in “24 hours.”
Nobody knows what that really means, but everybody understands that whatever the battlefield looks like in mid-January will be the baseline for whatever Trump tries to do.
That’s why the past week or so in the Ukraine war has felt so much like the 85th minute of a deadlocked World Cup match. All sides are pulling out the stops to maximize the territory they control and the deterrent fear that they instill in their opponents.
The US and UK have now — after months of cautious restraint — finally given permission to Ukraine to use Western made long-range missiles to knock out military installations deeper inside of Russia. Washington also began shipping anti-personnel landmines to Kyiv, so that Ukraine could mine the frontlines that Russian troops are gradually pushing back every day now.
The Ukrainians wasted no time trying out their new Western weapons, firing at least two barrages of the long range missiles at Russian military installations.
Not to be outdone, Russia fired an “experimental” new intermediate range missile of its own into Ukraine. There was some dispute about whether it might count as an “intercontinental” ballistic missile or not, but experts noted that whatever you call it, the weapon was far better suited to nuclear payloads than to the conventional ones that it carried into Dnipro.
The unspoken signal was clear: we didn’t split the atom on you this time, but we are readying the tools to do so in the future.
Later in the day, Putin also declared that Russia has “the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of countries that allow the use of their weapons against our facilities.”
Translation: we have the right to strike military facilities in NATO countries.
Since the earliest moments of the war, many in the West have wondered — with frequent reminders from the Kremlin — if a cornered or slighted Putin might in fact use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine. And if so, wouldn’t that invite a response from NATO that could escalate to a more direct confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers?
A terrifying thought. And one that Putin revived this week by signing a new, looser nuclear weapons doctrine. Russia is now prepared to use its atomic arsenal in response even to certain conventional attacks.
The good news is: it’s hard to see anyone deliberately choosing the very worst and most radioactive outcomes right now. Putin is, after all, doing relatively well at the moment. Russia’s forces are advancing slowly but daily. A friendlier US president is about to take power. And breaking the nuclear taboo would risk a huge backlash, not only from Russia’s adversaries in the West, but from its friends in the Global South and China too. It just wouldn’t make sense.
The bad news is this: sense sometimes goes out the window in the final rush of a game. Miscalculations or miscommunications become more likely. When that’s on the soccer pitch, it means a turnover, a counterattack, a heartbreaking/exhilarating last minute goal.
But when it happens during a major war in Eastern Europe involving the world’s two largest nuclear powers, it can lead to a dangerous escalation that quickly takes on a life of its own.
The next two months are going to be the longest, and most dangerous, five minutes in the world.
ICC warrants for Bibi, Gallant will test respect for international law
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant attend a ceremony for the 70th cohort of military combat officers, at an army base near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel, October 31, 2024.
The International Criminal Court on Thursday issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of “crimes against humanity and war crimes” in Gaza — including using “starvation as a method of warfare” and “intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”
The court also issued a warrant for Mohammed Deif, the head of Hamas’ armed wing who Israel says was killed in an airstrike. The ICC said it’s not in a position to determine if Deif is dead.
The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant are emblematic of the growing schism between Israel and the international community amid the Gaza war, and perhaps the sharpest rebuke yet of the Jewish state’s prosecution of the conflict. The move came as the death toll in Gaza surpassed 44,000, according to Palestinian officials.
Will Netanyahu be arrested? Not in Israel or the US, neither of which belongs to the ICC or recognizes its authority. Both countries swiftly condemned the court over the warrants.
The ICC also doesn’t have a police force and relies on member states to make arrests — and the court doesn’t try defendants in absentia. But Netanyahu and Gallant could potentially be arrested and tried if they travel to any of the 124 countries that are ICC member states, including the entire EU.
These warrants will pose a test for Israel’s Western allies if Netanyahu ever plans to visit, and raises questions over how they should interact with the Israeli leader more generally.
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said the ICC arrest warrants are “binding” on all countries in the bloc given they’re party to the Rome Statute — the international treaty that established the court. Canada and several European countries have already signaled they’ll abide by the warrants.
We’ll be watching for signs of how these countries plan to handle relations with Netanyahu moving forward — and whether they’ll choose maintaining close ties with Israel over upholding international law.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., withdrew his bid to become attroney general on Nov. 21 over continuing allegations of sexual impropriety. President-elect Donald Trump appointed him on Nov. 13, 2024.
Matt Gaetz announced Thursday that after meeting with senators, he would not go through with the nomination process to become Donald Trump’s attorney general, claiming he did not wish to be a “distraction.” In other words, at least four GOP senators couldn’t approve a man in the midst of a federal sex-trafficking investigation and accused of sex with a minor to lead the Justice Department. Gaetz’s nomination lasted just 0.8 Scaramuccis.
Trump on Thursday swiftly announced a new pick for attorney general after Gaetz stepped aside, tapping former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to be the nation's top law enforcement official. Bondi is a Trump loyalist who was part of his defense team during his first impeachment trial.
What happens to Gaetz now? He resigned from his congressional seat last week, in part to prevent an ethics report on his alleged sex crimes from reaching the light of day. That doesn’t mean Washington has seen the last of him, however, as he merely indicated he did not intend to take his oath of office for the next session of Congress. He still may be within his rights to show up and take his seat if he wishes … though that ethics report could come back into play.
Gaetz isn’t the only Trump nominee with troubling sexual allegations. Fox News host Pete Hesgeth, tapped to lead the Defense Department, is under fire over a 2017 incident in Monterey, California, in which he allegedly physically blocked a woman from leaving his hotel room, took her phone away, and raped her. Hesgeth was not charged with a crime and claims the encounter was consensual, but he entered into a settlement agreement with his accuser that included an undisclosed monetary payment. We’re watching to see if it knocks his nomination off course.Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum speaks, on the day of the 114th anniversary of the Mexican Revolution, in Mexico City, Mexico November 20, 2024.
The lower house of Mexico’s Congress approved the text of a constitutional proposal to scrap oversight bodies on Wednesday, a first step in the ruling Morena party’s goal of eliminating autonomous institutions and consolidating power.
The change is just the latest in a series of reforms begun under former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and carried out by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. Plans include overhauling the energy sector and judicial system, and guaranteeing a minimum wage that stays above inflation.
The bill passed by the lower house moves agencies overseeing government transparency, telecommunications, antitrust, energy, education, social policy, and other regulators under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, removing their institutional autonomy. It passed 347–148 and only needs one vote to pass the Senate before the legislative period ends on Dec. 15.
Sheinbaum backs the proposal, arguing that regulators are inefficient and that eliminating them will save taxpayer dollars. But her party has put forward a compromise to appease critics: decentralized agencies to ensure that antitrust and communications regulators remain independent, even as they are absorbed under the executive’s umbrella. The compromise is also meant to ensure the constitutional changes don’t contradict the terms of the trade deal with the US and Canada — which requires Mexico to have independent oversight bodies — ahead of renegotiations in 2026.
Hard Numbers: Adani’s alleged big bribe, Ortega wants to promote his wife, Australians want teens off social media, Trump expands into knock-off guitars
Supporters of India's main opposition Congress party hold placards during a protest against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, after he was indicted in New York over his role in an alleged multibillion-dollar bribery and fraud scheme, in New Delhi, India, November 21, 2024.
250 million: The US Department of Justice charged Indian billionaire Gautam Adani for his alleged role in a yearslong bribery scheme, which included promising $250 million to Indian government officials for solar energy contracts. Adani is a key ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the opposition Indian National Congress is calling for a parliamentary investigation into the affair.
2: Nicaragua may soon have two presidents if Daniel Ortega’s proposal to elevate his wife to a “co-president” position passes the legislature, which is likely. The couple will also see their terms expanded to six years from five, deepening Ortega’s control over the small Central American state.
16: Teens under age 16 in Australia may soon find themselves kicked off social media if a bill in parliament banning children from sites like TikTok, Facebook, or Snapchat passes. The bill has wide support, and research showed 95% of Australian parents and caregivers said online safety was their toughest parenting challenge.
10,000: Feel like overpaying for a guitar? Donald Trump has just the axe for you, complete with his signature, for just $10,000. You’ll get an imitation of a Gibson Les Paul, with some MAGA imagery and Trump’s scrawl, to add to your collection of Trump merch like the Bible, golden sneakers, marked-up watches and, of course, cryptocurrency.
World leaders assemble for a group photo at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on November 19, 2024. The gathering was overshadowed by Donald Trump's impending return to the White House.
At the G20 gathering this week in Brazil, a key question emerged: Has Donald Trump already cowed world leaders, two months before he even takes power? It certainly seems like it.
The G20 leaders arrived in Rio de Janeiro to deliver their best ideas for how, collectively, to solve urgent global problems like poverty, climate change, inequality, and war.
These summits are always a little about the old ultra-verbiage, sure, but they are also meant to burnish the legitimacy and importance of multilateral approaches to global challenges.
This time, the G20 got Trumped. Loudly. The president-elect’s America First 2.0 agenda hung over the proceedings like the fearsome black cloud in Don Dellilo’s novel White Noise.
How do we measure the Trump cloud’s impact? Just look at the summit’s final communiqué, the pre-negotiated summary these gabfests always release. They merit attention not only for what they say, but also for what they don’t. This time, what it didn’t say was a lot.
Take Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, for example. With Kyiv now using Western-made long-range missiles, and Putin responding by hinting at a nuclear response and flinging larger and larger missiles of his own, the communiqué’s authors played dentist, carefully extracting any teeth that might nip at the Russian leader, who of course did not attend.
“We highlight the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war with regard to global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, inflation and growth,” it said, clearly using the secret diplomatic formula for verbal vanilla. If that alone weren’t enough for the toothless, it continued by calling for “the promotion of peaceful, friendly, and good neighborly relations among nations.”
No mention of Russia by name.
No mention of the illegal invasion.
No reminder that Putin continues to slaughter civilians and wreck critical infrastructure.
Nothing about human rights abuses.
This alone was a triumph for Putin as he eagerly awaits the return of Trump, who ran in part on questioning support for Ukraine and pledging to end the war in “24 hours.”
No one saw this more clearly than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“G20 countries are sitting in Brazil. Did they say something?” he asked. “Nothing.”
The impotence of the G20s Ukraine statement was probably best summed up by a man who is himself hanging by a thread politically these days: German Chancellor Olaf Sholz, who muttered, “It is too little when the G20 cannot find the words to make it clear Russia is responsible.”
Too little.
That might be the epitaph of this pre-Trump G20.
Knowing that Donald Trump will not continue support for Ukraine, and highlighting the truth that the Global South has never supported the US and EU’s hardline views of the Russian invasion, the G20 slinked away from calling out Moscow, just as they did last year. This signals that a Trump-brokered ceasefire, which will likely give Russia much of what it wants in terms of Ukrainian territory and neutrality, looks much more likely.
But Ukraine was just the start of the smallness.
The language on the Israel-Gaza war was a boilerplate call for a two-state solution and more humanitarian aid, without a mention either of the Hamas-held hostages, the Oct. 7 attack, or the 40,000 dead in Gaza. The statement on a global billionaire tax — a decades-old idea that was particularly dear to summit host and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — was equally eye-glazing: “We will seek to engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.” OK … and then what?
Perhaps the only real positive was the launch of the Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, in order to deal with the stunning fact that over 733 million people face food shortages every year. That could mean microfinance, food programs, and investment in sustainable food production. It is a good thing to see countries sign on to this even if the failure to eradicate hunger and poverty is, sadly, perennial.
Watching the leaders try to spin the summit’s accomplishments was like watching Rafael Nadal retire from tennis: a once-powerful champion reduced to swatting at balls he can’t reach, limping off the court to applause not for what he just did, but for what he no longer can do.
Like Nadal, these leaders know they are ceding the world to a new champion for the next four years, and they still have no idea what to do about it, except duck, stall, evade, and suck up.
Was there any pushback from these multilateral champions against a world shifting toward strongman isolationism, tariffs, and an American president who will begin the great retreat from the global stage of cooperation?
Not much.
The next G20 will be very different from this one, where leaders gazed up to see Rio’s famous Christ the Redeemer statue overlooking their meeting.
At the next one, they might need to find the Patron Saint of Lost Causes.
Trump and Trudeau on opposite sides of a border wall.
Donald Trump’s radical plan to crack down on undocumented immigration has sparked widespread concerns across the US. Beyond the human rights implications, there are serious questions regarding the potential economic toll of Trump’s immigration proposals. Trump has promised mass deportations and this week confirmed plans to involve the military. He has vowed to begin deportations on his first day in office.
State and municipal leaders are already taking steps to protect immigrants ahead of Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this week, Los Angeles passed a sanctuary city ordinance codifying the rights of migrants. Governors in California, Massachusetts, and Illinois are considering plans of their own to protect migrants at the state level, setting up a showdown between the federal government and state and local governments.
Rights groups have raised the alarm about the potential for violations and abuse if Trump’s plan moves forward, as economists warn that the president-elect’s immigration plan would lead to higher prices for food and other goods, alongside labor shortages. In 2022, undocumented workers made up nearly 14% of the construction industry, 13% of the agriculture industry, and 7% of the hospitality industry. On top of all that, it’s estimated that Trump’s plan could also take a decade and cost nearly a trillion dollars.
Trump’s push to deport millions comes amid shifting public sentiment toward immigration. Gallup’s tracking poll has seen a sharp increase in recent years in the share of Americans who want to see lower immigration levels — from 28% in 2020 to 55% in 2024. A similar trend is emerging to the north.
Canada watches closely — and faces its own migration problem
Canada is keeping a particularly close eye on what happens next in the US, especially with regard to Trump’s immigration plan. The two countries share the world’s longest undefended border and a trade relationship worth a trillion dollars a year.
Experts have warned that Trump’s push for mass deportations could lead undocumented immigrants in the US to flee to Canada and trigger a migrant crisis, destabilizing the country at a time when it’s already turning against newcomers domestically.
After decades of a strong pro-immigration consensus in the country, Canadians have recently begun to oppose higher levels of immigration. A fall poll found that roughly three-quarters of Canadians want to reduce immigration until housing gets cheaper. The shift in support has been building for some time as politicians point to a growing rate of immigrants — which federal and provincial governments control — as a source of pressure on housing affordability, healthcare resources, and jobs.
In recent months, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has introduced changes to immigration policy aimed at curbing numbers. In the fall, the government moved to limit the number of international students the country would admit. It also reformed the country’s temporary foreign worker program, scaling it back. More recently, the Liberals introduced a plan to cut immigration levels by roughly 20% next year and more in the following two years — after raising those targets as recently as last year. Economists warned the moves could slow the economy.
Managing a mercurial Trump
Trump’s mass deportation plan puts Canada in a precarious position. The Trudeau government will have to manage the logistics of regular and irregular crossings along with a potential spike in asylum claims. Meanwhile, Ottawa will face the more general challenge of maintaining strong relations with Washington under a president who often blindsided Canada on issues like trade during his first term in office.
Some of Trump’s appointees have already ripped into Canada over border security, painting the country as a laggard and a threat — particularly incoming border czar Tom Homan, who cites concerns about terrorists crossing between the countries. Homan says there is an “extreme national security vulnerability” along the US-Canada border and expects “tough conversations.”
For its part, the Canadian government says it’s prepared to “do the work” in response to US border concerns, particularly as irregular crossings at the northern border are up. But that work could become complicated if Trump proceeds with his plan for mass deportations — especially if Canadian police and border officials lack the resources to manage what may come.
An uncertain path ahead
The word “unprecedented” gets thrown around a lot lately, but what follows next on immigration, border policy, and the relationship between Canada and the US could indeed be unprecedented. A mass deportation program, combined with softening support for immigration on both sides of the border, politicians ready to scapegoat migrants, and the economic consequences of bringing in fewer newcomers — at a time when people are just beginning to see the early stages of relief from a years-long housing affordability crisis — will be, to say the least, a mess.
It’s an extraordinary, and dangerous, moment of realignment.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, notes that the US and Canada have “traditionally been highly welcoming of new immigrants, at least compared to other countries.” However, he points out, there’s been a dual shift lately driven by two different sources.
He argues that Canada doesn’t necessarily have to harmonize its immigration policy with the US under Trump, but it will face pressure to tighten border security and screening processes for newcomers.
Nonetheless, Canada doesn’t have to follow Washington’s lead, he says, since the two face different challenges.
“The immigration pressures in each country are very different. In Canada, the primary focus is on bringing down numbers of international students and temporary foreign workers, in large part due to cost-of-living pressures, whereas in the US, the emphasis is on undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally, which is not a significant problem north of the border.”
But the question remains: What will Canada do if and when Trump proceeds with his mass deportation plan and the northern border becomes a focal point for migrants, particularly as the country worries about Trump on trade and defense? And as the Liberal government, down 20 points in the polls, faces an election due by October 2025?
The Trudeau Cabinet says it’s focused on the matter and has a plan for the border, but details have been scant so far, leaving Canadians — and migrants — left to wonder what comes next.