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.
{{ subpage.title }}
All eyes on Russia ahead of Putin-Xi meeting
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Happy week. We are still in the thick of it when it comes to all things Russia. So let me jump right in.
Latest on the Russia front. Well, really, over the last six weeks, if you weren't paying attention to what people were saying and just what activities were going on on the ground, what you'd be seeing was steady escalation, more and more Russian troops with offensive capabilities to the front, both at the direct border with Ukraine, as well as now into Belarus as well, ostensibly for exercises, but we don't tend to see coincidences in this line of work.
And if the Russians wanted to engage in a full-scale invasion, they're not quite there yet, but they certainly will be by the time the Olympics are over. That's relevant, by the way, because there is this Olympics moratorium on fighting, which is at the United Nations, but which the Chinese actually not only co-sponsored, but actually drafted along with the United Nations leadership. And to the extent that President Putin cares at all about his relationship with China, and Beijing hosting the Olympics and Putin, traveling right over there, it is very, very, very hard to imagine that the Russians would engage in any direct military activities in Ukraine before the Olympics are over. And certainly not while Putin is over there in Beijing for the opening ceremony.
I feel fairly confident about that, which means there's still a few weeks for diplomacy to play out. There are still a few weeks for climb down, but to be clear, from the Russian side, everything points to escalation so far. From the Western side, there certainly lots of willingness to engage in diplomacy, but there also has been a strengthening of the expected deterrence if there is any form of an attack. That's come from the United States, come from the US allies. And most recently it's come also from the United Kingdom, the foreign secretary saying that there would be full sanctions readiness taken against not just people directly involved in making the calls, the orders on what would transpire in Ukraine, but anyone directly linked to the Kremlin. That means lots of oligarchs who park all sorts of cash and massive amounts of real estate holdings in the United Kingdom. Something that I'm very skeptical that the Brits would actually do.
It's interesting. I mean, Navalny, the opposition leader at Russia presently in jail, and others have been calling after the UK government to go after oligarch money forever. It's never happened. I think that the UK is concerned about strengthening, what it would mean, they want to strengthen anti money laundering rules, but that seizing oligarch assets would send very strong messages to all sorts of strong men and crooks and cronies across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. And London makes an enormous amount of money off of that. I mean, first you do Brexit, and then you go after all of your oligarchs from sort of everywhere internationally? There are sort of all sorts of willingness to punch yourself in the face if you're UK leadership in recent years, but this I think is a step too far.
I do think the UK though wants to signal that they are a hundred percent aligned with the United States, especially in a post Brexit environment. That they are more reliable. And so I think a harder line UK posture fits in with that. That's not as much as the headlines are telling you, but generally speaking, yeah, I think there's been a lot more NATO alignment, more US-Europe alignment on policies vis-à-vis the Russians in the last couple of weeks.
That's interesting in so far as it should make it a little bit less likely that Putin engages even in relatively limited military incursions into Ukraine, but it also means the implications of such strikes if they were to occur, and there's still a really good chance they happen, would be much more dangerous. Escalation from the West, and then further cycles, further spiral that gets us into major power conflict, not World War III, but nonetheless, real knock-on implications for countries all over the world, which is why we're spending so much time on this.
The other thing I would pay attention to is the President Putin, President Xi summit coming at the end of this week. It's probably the most important geopolitical summit we've had in years in terms of the implications of what happens if it goes really well, or if it doesn't go so well. It's pretty clear that this relationship is moving from tactical to strategic. It's moving towards a real alliance. And I say that in part, because both sides feel for different reasons like they're being backed into a corner. President Xi is looking for more friends. He's of course lost the Indian government in a dramatic way through his own escalation over the last couple of years. There's been more isolation, more domestic focus in China with COVID. And there's more of a feeling that the United States is playing a more hard-line policy that is unfixable to a degree. And so, if that's the case, a closer relationship with Russia makes more sense.
Putin, of course, it's more obvious. He sees NATO as more strongly arrayed against them. He's deeply unhappy with the geopolitical status quo in Europe. He sees no way of opening up, unless there's a surprising diplomatic breakthrough. He sees that democratic force is increasingly arrayed against him and a threat towards him. He's seen it in Belarus. He saw it even in Kazakhstan. He's seen it in Moldova. He's seen in Armenia. He's seen in Georgia. And now potentially he has to be worried about that in Russia longer term too. So, who you're going to work with? You're going to work with the Chinese.
In that regard, I think it's a very, very important meeting. I would say that while the relationship feels more strategic, it's not that the Chinese are going to offer that much, at least in the near term to the Russians economically. I mean, for example, they don't have the gas pipeline infrastructure. So if the Russians are cutting off a gas to Europe, it's not like the Chinese can make that up. Furthermore, they haven't invested all that much in Russia economically over the past years. They don't have an awful lot of exposure to help sink or float the Russian economy. But diplomatically, I think it's very important.
In this regard, I do think that the announcement that the United States is bringing this issue to the United Nation Security Council, on balance I think is a mistake. The Biden administration has done a really solid job in engaging in an enormous amount of proactive diplomacy with all of the NATO allies and have gotten them to a more unified position on Russia and Ukraine, both in terms of military support for the Ukrainians, as well as direct consequences, which they would all put towards the Russians if there was either a broad invasion or a more limited incursion.
That's all in favor of American national security interest and policy, but the Chinese have stayed out of this, mostly, so far. The Russians want to bring them in. We'll see how far that goes but having a big conversation at the security council that tries to focus in international spotlight on Russia-Ukraine, makes it more likely that the Chinese will veto. That the Chinese publicly will be more aligned with the Russians. And as the Americans, why would you want to make the Chinese take that kind of a decision? I would say you don't. You don't want to use your capital on getting them to abstain, which is something that frankly isn't all that important or useful to the United States. And you certainly don't want to risk the likelihood that they are publicly on board with the Russians. The same Chinese that have opposed intervention into sovereign countries policies. And of course, they said very little after the Russians did very differently with Crimea and the Donbas. Why would you push them in that direction?
So I see that as a mistake. We'll see where that goes today, tomorrow, but that's it for me. Hope everyone's well, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.
- Russia cares more about Ukraine than the US does - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Ukraine crisis: the signals pointing to Russian invasion ›
- Russia & China vs “the West” - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: Putin-Xi heart each other, Boris survives Tory ... ›
- US & NATO will draw a hard line on Russian aggression in Ukraine – Ian Bremmer - GZERO Media ›
- China’s place in the war in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- China is wary of supporting Russia: Finland’s former PM Alexander Stubb - GZERO Media ›
- Xi invites Putin to China to strengthen "no limits" partnership - GZERO Media ›
Security flaws in China’s My2022 Olympics app could allow surveillance
Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, Eurasia Group senior advisor and former MEP, discusses trends in big tech, privacy protection and cyberspace:
Does the Beijing 2022 Olympics app have security flaws?
Well, the researchers at the Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto do believe so. And if their revelations, this time, will set off a similar storm as they did with the forensics on NSO Group's spyware company, then there will be trouble ahead for China. The researchers found that the official My2022 app for the sports event, which attendees are actually required to download and to use for documenting their health status, has flaws in the security settings. Loopholes they found could be used for intrusion and surveillance.
Now, of course, China is not exactly known as a bastion of privacy protections. But beyond the flaws, the app also has a censorship keyword list, which has relation to terms like Tiananmen protests, the Dalai Lama, or the Uyghur Muslim minority. And in response, Dutch supporters will be provided with a burner phone. And sure, that might be a short-term solution, but I'm not sure whether other officials visiting China, now for the Olympics, or for business or politics, are always as careful. I remember attending a World Economic Forum events in China, as a member of European Parliament, and being one of the only ones to proactively take precautions.
Now, unfortunately, one of the researchers of the Citizen Lab confirmed that, "Our findings expose how My2022 security measures are wholly insufficient to prevent sensitive data from being disclosed to unauthorized third parties." But the Beijing organizing committee has stood by its app, and said it passed the examination of international mobile app markets, such as Google, Apple, and Samsung. So unfortunately, no clear solution in sight to make sure that systematically, human rights and privacy are better protected in China.
Would China really invade Taiwan?
The cover story of The Economist declares that Taiwan is "The most dangerous place on Earth," because China might finally be ready to plan an invasion of the island. But are the consequences of such a move worth the many risks to China and its President Xi Jinping? Ian Bremmer breaks out the Red Pen to to explain why a US-China war over Taiwan is unlikely.
We are taking our red pen to a recent article from The Economist. The Economist, you ask, how could I? I love The Economist, I know, I know. But you'd lose respect if I give this piece a pass. In fact, it was the magazine's cover story this week, so I had no choice. The image and headline say it all. Here it is, Taiwan is now "the most dangerous place on earth" as US/China relations continue to sour in the opening months of President Biden's administration.
And it is true, of course, that the relationship between the two most powerful countries in the world, the US and China, is very rocky indeed. Back in March, a meeting between the US Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and their counterparts from China got off to an icy start, in Anchorage, Alaska no less. The Biden administration has declared that China's treatment of Muslim minorities constitutes "genocide" and also continues to push back on the unilateral erosion from Beijing of Hong Kong's autonomy. So, this is not a good relationship.
Of all the issues, the most volatile and explosive could well be Taiwan. The Economist argues that China may finally look to capture the small island democracy.
And yes, there is a lot to be concerned about, but The Economist doesn't have it quite right.
So, let's get out the Red Pen.
First, a central point in the magazine's argument is that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would have global economic repercussions, including disrupting the world's most important semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, that's Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. That company makes more than half of all of the chips outsourced by all foreign companies globally. A quote from the piece: "Were production at TSMC to stop, so would the global electronics industry, at incalculable cost."
And yes, war would be devastating for many reasons, including the interruption of TSMC's operations. But that's precisely why it's not going to happen. China relies on a functional TSMC as much as the United States does for advanced semiconductors. In fact, China right now is way behind the US in this particular aspect, though not all, of the technology battle. Taiwan is a critical player in the great decoupling battle and an attack would seriously set back China's own tech ambitions.
The article also states that "China would overnight become the dominant power in Asia" if China attacked Taiwan and the United States didn't intervene.
That's doubtful. Actually, the "Quad," the US, Australia, India, and Japan, would be turbocharged overnight. China could completely undermine its own bid for regional dominance if it were to suddenly assault Taiwan. Also, the argument fails to acknowledge that Taiwan itself could mount significant military resistance, exposing weaknesses in Beijing's military power. Not to mention any such attack by China would further damage its ties to the European Union.
Finally, The Economist speculates that China's President Xi Jinping may want to "crown his legacy" as they say, with the takeover of Taiwan.
That is a huge gamble. What happens if Xi attempts an invasion and fails? His legacy would be defined by a reckless move that would destroy China's long-term strategic prospects.
Which brings us back to that very splashy and provocative cover and headline. Is Taiwan really "the most dangerous place on earth?" No. Or at least, not right now.
We've laid out a few of the reasons, but here a couple more: The Winter Olympics in Beijing, already super controversial as human rights groups call for boycotts based on abuses of Uighurs, Tibetans, and actions in Hong Kong. Beijing wants to avoid boycotts as much as possible, they see themselves as quite vulnerable in the upcoming Winter Olympics and attacking Taiwan would make matters far worse.
Also, President Xi is looking to secure a third term next fall. Remember, he ended term limits. A military attack on Taiwan could weaken China's standing if it fails. Xi's not likely to go there.
Still, there are other ways for China to assert greater control. For example, the very fear of a looming threat would likely erode Taiwan's quest for independence over time without any shots fired. How do the United States, the Quad, and Europe respond to that? The answer to that question is going to tell us a lot about where the GZERO world is heading.
That's your Red Pen for this week. Stay safe and we'll see you again here real soon.
- Women in power — Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen - GZERO Media ›
- Putin's next move won't be a Baltic invasion that could unify NATO ... ›
- China makes a big move in the South China Sea - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: China targets Taiwan, Palestinian election ... ›
- What could spark a US-China war? ›
- China goes ballistic at Taiwan - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: How a US-China war could happen: Warning from ret. admiral James Stavridis - GZERO Media ›
Should the US boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games?
Florida Congressman Mike Waltz has called for a US boycott of the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing. Waltz, a conservative Republican and Trump supporter, makes his case not for military or economic reasons but for humanitarian grounds: "I don't see how, after unleashing Covid on the world, clearly covering it up, arresting journalists, arresting doctors, refusing to share data, and the ongoing genocide that two Secretaries of State from two different administrations have now agreed is happening, that we reward Beijing with this international platform to whitewash everything that they've done to the world."
In a conversation with Ian Bremmer, Waltz dismisses concerns that the US would be virtually alone in a boycott, citing China as an "insidious" threat because, "We're drunk on Chinese money and it's from sports, to Disney, to Wall Street, to our political class, to our universities, think tanks and political institutions." The interview on GZERO World airs on US public television starting Friday, April 23. Check local listings.
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode.
- So, are we in a new Cold War or not? - GZERO Media ›
- Will the US and other Western countries really boycott the Beijing ... ›
- What We're Watching: US Olympic boycott threat, Myanmar junta ... ›
- How political sports boycotts (really) work - GZERO Media ›
- Would athletes be exempt from a Beijing 2022 Olympics boycott? - GZERO Media ›
Will the US and other Western countries really boycott the Beijing Olympics?
The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics are nearly a year away, but discussion of a potential boycott is already stoking tensions on both sides of the US-China relationship. Officials in Washington and other Western capitals are coming under mounting pressure from activists to respond to human rights abuses in China. An increasingly assertive Beijing, meanwhile, vigorously rejects any foreign criticism of what it regards as internal issues.
The last time the US boycotted an Olympics was in 1980, when it withdrew from the Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Four years later, the Soviet Union repaid in kind by skipping the Games in Los Angeles. Would the US and its allies do something like that again? And how might China respond? Eurasia Group analysts Neil Thomas and Allison Sherlock explain the drivers of the boycott movement and its possible fallout.
Why is momentum building for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics?
As Western countries' relations with Beijing grow more fraught, public opinion is increasingly focused on China's human rights abuses and authoritarian politics. Human rights and pro-democracy campaigners focus on the erosion of political freedoms in Hong Kong, threats to self-rule in Taiwan, and above all, Beijing's repression of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, which some Western governments have classified as genocide. Calls from activists to boycott what they label the "Genocide Games" will grow as the Opening Ceremony approaches next February, increasing the reputational risk for governments and companies that participate. This February, over 180 human rights groups published an open letter that urged all governments to refrain from sending political representatives to the Games — a so-called diplomatic boycott.
How has the situation changed since the last Chinese Olympics?
Back in 2008 there were calls to boycott the Beijing Summer Olympics because of religious persecution in Tibet and Beijing's support for a violent regime in Sudan. They mostly failed. A few politicians, notably German leader Angela Merkel, decided not to attend the Games, though more than 80 national leaders, including US president George W. Bush, still showed up.
But Western attitudes toward China have worsened considerably since 2008. Under Xi Jinping, who came to power in late 2012, China has become more authoritarian at home and more assertive abroad. Political crackdowns, human rights abuses, and aggressive "wolf warrior" diplomacy — with its politicized insults and economic threats directed at foreign countries and officials — are hardening attitudes toward China in Western governments, media, and publics.
What would a boycott look like, and how would China respond?
The experience of missing the 1980 Moscow Games — which hurt the careers of a generation of US athletes — soured the US National Olympic Committee on the idea of athletic boycotts. Most National Olympic Committees around the world agree. Given that these bodies must approve any athletic boycott, their stance makes a diplomatic response the more likely option. This path would see the US and other Western countries refuse to send high-level politicians or diplomats to the Opening Ceremony and other events. President Joe Biden, for one, will find it politically difficult to endorse the Games after supporting a genocide designation for Beijing's actions in Xinjiang.
Western activists and consumers are also pressuring corporations to withdraw from Olympic sponsorship deals. These firms are in a tough position. On the one hand, they risk reputational damage in the West by supporting a Games linked to Beijing's politics. On the other hand, any political statement against the Games by a corporation (or by a corporation's home country government) would trigger an even more vigorous (and likely state-approved) consumer backlash in China, jeopardizing commercial opportunities in the world's largest market.
What countries would be likely to participate in a boycott?
The most likely participants are the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and several other western European countries, all of which say the protection of human rights is a key foreign policy objective and whose relations with China have deteriorated in recent years. Consequently, their governments face political pressure to punish Beijing for its conduct in Xinjiang and elsewhere. If a boycott goes ahead, these countries will seek to move as a group to raise the costs of retaliation for Beijing. US partners in the Indo-Pacific — such as Japan, South Korea, and India — are less likely to participate in a boycott because of their deeper economic ties with China and trickier security dynamics as close neighbors of China. Tokyo and New Delhi both contest territory with Beijing, while Seoul wants Chinese cooperation in dealing with North Korea.
What are individual athletes likely to do?
Athletes will be a wildcard in boycott dynamics. Human rights advocates are urging them to protest through social media, t-shirt slogans, or media interviews. Canadian athletes are the most likely to rally behind these calls, so long as two of their countrymen — Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor — languish in Chinese prisons for what are widely viewed as political reasons.
Doesn't the Olympic Charter forbid political protests?
Yes, but governments or sponsors that penalize athletes for speaking out would face a severe consumer and political backlash in the West. The US National Olympic Committee, for its part, says it won't punish athletes who "advocate for racial and social justice." Beijing will likely go to great lengths to control public events to avoid any potential embarrassment but will struggle to stamp out activism, particularly on social media, which it can control only within its own borders.
Neil Thomas is Adviser, China and Allison Sherlock is Associate, China at Eurasia Group.
- What We're Watching: US Olympic boycott threat, Myanmar junta ... ›
- How political sports boycotts (really) work - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The IOC's Dick Pound on how sports and politics should mix - GZERO Media ›
- Peng Shuai, China's tennis star, appears safe but questions remain - GZERO Media ›
- Biden and Putin hold virtual meeting as US-Russia tensions increase - GZERO Media ›
- The Winter Olympics in a divided world - GZERO Media ›
- Paris 2024 Olympics chief: “We are ready” - GZERO Media ›
- Would athletes be exempt from a Beijing 2022 Olympics boycott? - GZERO Media ›
- Could the Olympics ever be free of politics? - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Why authoritarian rulers love the Olympics - GZERO Media ›