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.
Quick Take
In this episode of Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take, Ian breaks down escalating US actions toward Venezuela.
Ian explains why Venezuela isn’t making headlines, but should be. The Trump administration recently designated Venezuela’s powerful Tren de Aragua cartel a terrorist organization, directly tied Nicolás Maduro to another drug cartel, Cartel de los Soles, doubled the bounty on Maduro’s head to $50 million, and authorized the Pentagon to target cartels in Venezuela and Mexico.
Most strikingly, the US has deployed three guided missile destroyers and other ships to Venezuela’s coast, a clear show of force that suggests options beyond drug interdiction.
Military strikes are not inevitable, but Ian notes the dots are being connected. Any action would likely resemble past US strikes on Iran: a sudden, limited but heavy show of power, not a long war.
Still, labeling Maduro a narco-terrorist opens the door to broader moves against his regime, a possibility to watch closely in the coming weeks.
Ian explains why “free market capitalism” looks very different today than in decades past. Recent news that the US government is taking a 10% equity stake in Intel is just one example of Washington moving toward a more state-driven economic model.
While government subsidies for strategic industries like semiconductors may make sense, Ian warns that other industrial policies, like trying to re-shore large-scale manufacturing, risk being backward looking. Ian also argues that much of what passes for capitalism in the US is really oligarchy: corporations using lobbying to secure entrenched advantages and offloading the costs of their business models onto the public.
Meanwhile, China has thrived with state capitalism for 50 years, and the US is increasingly trying to compete by playing the same game. But Ian raises concerns that America’s short political cycles and policy whiplash make it poorly suited for long-term state-led planning, and that the benefits often flow disproportionately to the wealthy.
The bottom line: Ian believes the US needs more capitalism, not less, but it has to be, “capitalism that runs in a competitive environment, where no one gets to capture the political process, and where losses are seen as responsibilities of corporations, just as profits are.”
In this episode of Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take, Ian breaks down Zelensky’s latest trip to Washington, this time joined by a united front of European leaders.
Ian explains why this visit is such a sharp contrast from February, when Zelensky came to the White House alone and left with little to show for it. Today, he arrives alongside key allies from the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Italy, EU and NATO leadership, a powerful symbol that Europe is stepping up.
Europe’s role in supporting Ukraine has shifted dramatically. As Ian notes, European military and financial aid to Kyiv now outpaces that of the United States, giving Europe greater leverage in shaping the war’s future. That includes discussions of “near Article 5” guarantees for Ukraine, signaling long-term security commitments even without NATO membership.
The meeting also highlights the growing importance of maintaining a unified transatlantic stance. While Putin continues to resist any ceasefire, the presence of Europe’s top leaders in Washington underscores that NATO is stronger and more coordinated than it was just months ago.
The key question now: Will Trump remain aligned with Europe’s position — or leave Putin more room to maneuver?
In this episode of Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take, Ian discusses the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska.
Ian notes that Trump and the White House are going into the meeting with “low exceptions” but emphasizes that Trump is “happy to be seen doing everything possible in the service of getting to a negotiated settlement.”
Putin's main objective? Ian explains that Putin “needs Trump to at least blame partially the continuing of the war on Zelensky.”
Regardless of the meeting’s outcome, Europe is now more united behind Ukraine than ever. Ian notes European military support for Kyiv is creating than that of the US, giving Ukraine the ability to continue fighting.
In this Quick Take, Ian Bremmer reacts to the US government's decision to rescind former CISA Director Jen Easterly’s appointment to West Point, raising serious concerns about the state of American democracy and national values.
Ian argues that the United States is falling short of the ideals it claims to uphold. “I believe that it is still patriotic to criticize your country when it makes a mistake,” he says. “What we now see are increasingly values that the US has said historically that it stands for not living up to that.”
Ian also points to the role of far-right political activist Laura Loomer in influencing the decision, calling it a troubling sign of democratic backsliding. “Those cadets will no longer have that opportunity,” he states, “because it has been taken away by someone who has no idea what Jen stands for.”
In this episode of Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take, Ian discusses the breakthrough US-EU trade deal, calling it a "big win" for the US and President Donald Trump.
Trump's recent foreign policy successes, including trade deals with Japan and South Korea and NATO support for Ukraine reflect short-term achievements.
However, Ian cautions that the long-term cost may be America's credibility. He warns, “Everyone I talk to around the world sees the United States as not just unpredictable, but unreliable."
In this Quick Take, Ian Bremmer analyzes a significant shift in US–China relations: Donald Trump’s decision to ease key technology restrictions on Beijing in an effort to secure access to critical minerals.
This move has stunned America’s national security community. Ian explains that members of the military-industrial complex are “horrified that the Chinese now no longer have a constraint on being able to compete with and potentially dominate the Americans in this most important space.”
“This is giving away the store,” Ian adds, emphasizing that the decision ultimately hands China a significant strategic advantage.