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 }}
Putin "wins" Russia election, but at what cost?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
A Quick Take to kick off your week. Want to talk about things Russian. We, of course, just had an “election” that Putin “won.”
There is no opposition to speak of in Russia. If you're running against him and allowed to run, that means that you are considered acceptable to the regime and you're basically there to play against the Harlem Globetrotters. What was it, the senators, the generals? I can't remember what it was called, but that was the group that was there to make the winning team look good. Of course, you know, Putin is not as much fun to watch as the Globetrotters, but he certainly is politically talented and of course, it's important for him to show that he has an historic win with historic turnout better than anyone before in Russia, not quite Turkmen in Turkmenbashi in Central Asia, not quite Aliyev levels in Azerbaijan, but strong enough for Russia.
It's not just about his ego. It is important as a messaging function to the Russian people that he is seen as a legitimate leader. And, you know, there are others around the world that are prepared to play that game. Already so warm congratulations from Narendra Modi in India, who's strong enough domestically and geopolitically that he can say pretty much what he wants to and get away with it. Still a little sad that he felt it was worth doing that. Even sadder to see that from Pope Francis, who has been putting his thumb on the scale in favor of Russia vis a vis Ukraine in the war in the past weeks, the Vatican tried to walk that back, but he was one of the first, apparently, according to Russian state media, to congratulate Putin. Normally, you wouldn't believe Russian state media, but in this case, Pope Francis could very easily say that isn't true. So one assumes that it is.
But nothing good here in terms of the war vis a vis Ukraine. Putin feels domestically quite stable. That's true politically. It's also true economically. The Russian economy is not performing well. The growth we're seeing in the Russian economy is because of the war economy, which is a massive piece of what the economy represents today. But they're losing lots of human capital. If you look at places like Armenia, Georgia, you see that those economies are booming right now because all of the talented young Russians are leaving and they're going there to work. Great for those tiny countries, not so good for the Russian Federation, but none of this is a threat to Putin, is a threat to the Kremlin, nor is the war in Ukraine two plus years on, in part because of the consequences if you dare oppose it publicly, in part because Putin, while throwing hundreds of thousands of troops into the front, many, many of whom hundreds of thousands, are casualties now, an estimated minimum 300,000 Russian casualties in this war, but most of them are not coming from the major cities. A lot of them aren't even Russian ethnically.
They're coming from the middle Volga and Siberia and they're poor and disenfranchised. And, you know, it's an easier way for Putin to keep this going. Also, large numbers of prisoners that were furloughed and given some money to be sent to the front lines, treated very badly by the Russian army and also many that have come from other countries, including Kazakhstan, for example, Cuba, Nepal, other countries that have sent some of their citizens that to make some money too quick money, and some of whom have been engaged in human trafficking. So that's what's going on inside Russia.
In Ukraine, the war continues not to go well. The Ukrainians are losing some territory. They only have one real line of defense behind the front lines. The Russians have had three. They're much better dug in. And also the Ukrainians are having a serious manpower challenge, a serious ammunition challenge, and don't have the military equipment at the high level that they really need to continue to fight. That is starting to change for the near term. There's been more ammunition sent by the Europeans in the past couple of weeks. And there's also, I think, increasingly very likely that the Americans will give an additional package. I'm now hearing $60 billion for 2014 that should allow the Ukrainians to mostly maintain the land that they presently occupy. That's where we are for 2024.
Or what about after that? It's only getting more challenging not only because of the US election, but also because the Ukrainians are a much smaller country and it's harder for them to raise the personnel. It's also a democracy, even though they've pushed off their elections and it's much harder for Zelensky to get away with doing the kinds of things that Putin is doing on the ground to his own country.
All of which means ultimately, it is hard to imagine the Ukrainians winning. It's also hard to talk about the Ukrainians winning. I understand that that's something that we want to do from a morale perspective. But, you know, when we talk about people that have gone through rape, we don't talk about winners. Even if the rapist was captured and imprisoned. We talk about survivors, talk about people that go through cancer and guess you can beat cancer, but you're really a cancer survivor. And what's happened to the Ukrainians with the war crimes and the torture that they have been through, is survival. And even if they were to get all their land back, you couldn't say they won the war in reality. Say if they survived the war and Russia is still there and they have to maintain their defenses and they have to continue to have the capacity to do so. And this is not a matter of one or two or three years. It's a matter of a generation, certainly as long as the Russian regime continues to exist in its present form, I do think that it's possible for Ukraine as an entity to truly survive this war.
NATO allies continue to say that they have a role in NATO, that they are being welcomed, but they haven't given them a timeline. They really should, and they need to provide hard security guarantees until that timeline of the remaining territory that Ukraine presently occupies. The French President Macron has been talking about that, if the Russians are able to make more gains, the Americans, the Germans have not, the Poles, the balls certainly have.
There needs to be more alignment on that in the run up to the NATO summit meeting in July, I believe it is in Washington, DC. There's also needs to be capacity for the Ukrainians to continue to pay for their own economic rebuilding. And that is a significant effort that right now the Europeans are providing more than the United States is all in economically.
And that includes the cost of military support, something we don't hear as much about as we should in the United States. But that doesn't mean that's going to continue. And the pressure and stress over time is only going to grow. But I do think that there is still such a window and it is good to see that a strong majority of Republicans and Democrats in the United States are continuing to focus on this issue, even as the Middle East gets more time and more attention. And that, I think, is ultimately I mean, Trump has said very clearly he doesn't want any money or support for the border because he wants that to continue to be a disaster for Biden, something that people to vote for him for in the run up to November. But when we talk about the Ukraine war, Putin has not tried so hard to say no more money under Biden. He's instead said, if I win, not another penny. So the pressure is there. We'll see where it goes. Clearly, we are talking about a de facto partition of Ukraine, but the ability to help the Ukrainians survive this and the impact that will have on NATO more broadly and on American allies around the world, like Japan, South Korea, you name it, Taiwan.
These are all long term very, very important precedents that are going to be set on the back of whether the Americans can indeed continue to stand up for themselves and for their allies and helping the Ukrainians defend themselves.
That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Putin, Ukraine, and the Rat Story ›
- Yes, Vladimir Putin is winning. ›
- Russia’s last independent pollster tells me how Putin does it ›
- Despite Putin’s current swagger, Russia remains vulnerable ›
- 25 years on, is Putin unstoppable? ›
- Putin using Moscow attack as excuse to intensify war on Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- The endless ends of Vladimir Putin - GZERO Media ›
Ian Bremmer on Putin and Tucker
What happened when Tucker Carlson met Vladimir Putin? Was it news, propaganda, theatre, or all three? Ian Bremmer breaks down what you need to know now in his latest Quick Take.
Ian weighs in on Tucker Carlson's highly-anticipated interview with Putin and why it revealed what he and all other megalomaniacs have in common. The two-hour sit-down dropped to much fanfare from all sides of the political spectrum. Will there be any fallout from Putin’s first interview with an American since the start of the “special military operation” in Ukraine?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And a Quick Take, but towards the end of your week. Why? Because a lot of us watched this interview between Vladimir Putin and Tucker Carlson. And isn't there a lot to talk about? And the answer is a little less than all of the hype but still worth discussing.
First, I mean, you know, I will admit to having posted a fair bit about the importance of this interview. Of course, in part, it's because I have a history talking about, studying, covering Russia. But also, because this is now entering almost the third year of war when the Russians have invaded Ukraine, it is increasingly not going very well for the Ukrainians and therefore not very well for the United States and its allies. And that means that the timing of this interview is important, especially in the context of a very heated, very divisive US election, when increasingly support for Ukraine is becoming a matter of political difference. And it wasn't six months ago, but it certainly is becoming so very rapidly now.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of interviewing dictators. I think it's important for people to understand what makes everyone tick - friends, adversaries, everyone around the world. The problem is, of course, that dictators usually don't respect free press. And in Russia in particular, the media is, an independent media shut down, and they're imprisoned. They're sometimes assassinated. And certainly, Putin is not someone that has a history of valuing people that ask him independent minded, tough questions.
And of course, that is not why Tucker Carlson was invited to interview Putin. He was invited because he is someone that historically has said that if he's on a side, he's not on the side of Ukraine, he's on the side of Russia, and he's given very favorable interviews with people that are ideologically aligned with Putin, like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the one European leader of a country that has consistently taken Putin's side more closely than he has the Americans and the Europeans. But having said all of that, even if the interview is not likely to be particularly fair or elucidating, it is important. And it's important because it's 2 hours with one of the most powerful people on the planet so in that regard, we do need to know what's being said.
So, let's talk a little bit about the interview itself. First point, no news was made. Substantively, we learned really nothing new. Putin going on a very long history lesson with tangents, going back to Genghis Khan and the Roman Empire. And maybe we should talk about the fact that the Roman Empire is on Putin's mind, too, just like so many people on Twitter. But that if anything was going to lose a large percentage of your audience, that was almost guaranteed to do so. I remember so many trips to Beijing and you'd meet with Chinese leaders, and the first 20 minutes were about Chinese leadership and rightful place in the world back in the 15th century. That's something you do when you're insecure. As the Chinese were doing better and as they were becoming a larger economy and feeling more comfortable in the rest of the world, and that more countries had to listen to them, they did less of that.
Putin, of course, doing worse. His economy now is smaller than Canada's, despite having the largest geographic landmass of any country in the world. All these important resources, more nuclear weapons even than the United States. But he's clearly not feeling very confident about that. Hence the need to give a huge history lesson to everyone that is willing to listen. And of course, you know, not much Tucker could do there. It's not like he's going to suddenly start interrupting the Russian leader. Really unclear how much of this would appeal to your typical Tucker Carlson audience. I mean, Putin's talk of a multipolar world is something I find fairly interesting. I do think that the global economic order is increasingly multipolar. The security order is not. It's still dominated by the United States. But that doesn't mean the US wants to be the world's policeman. And especially given the divisions inside the United States, it's very difficult for it to do so. And it's failed on many occasions. But I don't think that that's something that's really going to engage a lot of people that are talking about or listening to this interview.
It was interesting that Putin said that he hasn't talked to Biden since before the war. He said, “I can't remember the last time I talked to him.” I think the last time that they certainly last time they met in person was about six months before the war. I think it was in Geneva, it was 3 hours when Biden met with Putin and I mean, Biden, you know, he talks a lot about how he's spent a lot of time with Xi Jinping when they were both vice presidents, when they're both presidents, something he's proud of, this great man theory of politics that when you know someone and you engage with them, you can usually figure things out. He doesn't actually know Putin well. He's never really liked him. He doesn't respect him. It's obviously mutual. And clearly Putin finds the fact that Biden has not reached out to him personally as opposed to, say, Emmanuel Macron or other, let's say a Recep Erdogan from Turkey. That's something that the peaks that irritates him. He sees himself as leader of a great power.
And of course, the Americans at the highest level should be engaging. You know, I can see how a lot of what Putin had to say is interesting because it is the Russian perspective as engaged by a leader that we don't hear a lot from. But the biggest problem and it is a real problem in Putin's worldview is not on this stuff. That's all wrong. I mean, it is true. There are things he said that absolutely I am sympathetic to. NATO expansion is a challenge for Russia. How could it not be? But it's that he, like many great power types, like Kissinger, for example, consistently forgets about, intentionally forgets, about not even part of his worldview, one critical thing, and that is the agency of the countries involved: the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Czechs, the Latvians, none of them, none of these little countries have any agency at all in Putin's story.
These are countries that all wanted to join NATO. Why? Why did they want to join NATO? It's because they were worried about a Russia that behaves exactly as it has for the past 15 years in Georgia and in Ukraine and in so many other countries around the world. It's the idea that a great power gets to do whatever it wants and that human rights and war crimes, and those are for the little people. And, you know, the Americans have a hard time with a lot of this because the US is also not a signatory of the International Court of Justice. The Americans, you know, frequently ignore human rights when it's not of interest to them. And there's a lot of charges of hypocrisy in the way the Americans support the Ukrainians, but don't care so much about the Palestinians. And those are fair points. But you cannot compare the United States to what Russia has been doing precisely because even given the power, the unchecked power of the United States and the hypocrisy and the human rights violations and all the challenges, the Russians have been consistent in their complete abrogation of any interest of human rights, of basic legal rights of their people, of all of their neighbors, and of the ability of other countries to make up their own mind.
And ultimately, the reason why Ukraine wanted to join NATO is not because the Americans entice them, but because the Ukrainians wanted out of Russian orbit. And fundamentally, even though the United States have given up on and have lost a lot of the values that made America great, you know, the end of World War II for example, still the United States, Americans at base think that people of the world have the right to decide their future. They have the right to self-determination. Even the Chinese, who are much closer friends of the Russians than they are the Americans or the Ukrainians, have consistently said that the Ukrainians have the right to self-determination. Yes, that even includes Crimea, according to the Chinese. Why would they say that? And because they do think that ultimately, they are a part of an international order that needs to be stable and needs to engage with other countries around the world, not only by dint of power.
They've got plenty of hypocrisy, too, but the Russians have given up on all of that. They've become chaos actors, and they want the destruction of the international order. I don't think that Tucker Carlson has done a great disservice with the interview that's been put forward. I don't think it matters very much. And I don’t think Elon Musk has done a great disservice in putting a couple of hours out. I don't think it matters all that much, but I do think it's important for people that watch this interview to recognize that the key thing that Putin does not care about is any rights of any other countries that aren't powerful. Other than the Russians to get things done. And that's something he should care about because, you know, part of the reason the Russians are so screwed right now compared to the United States and their allies is precisely because they're not all that powerful.
And you would think that if that's the philosophy that Putin takes to the bank, that he would understand the way it applies to his country, too. Of course, dictators, narcissists, megalomaniacs, they never think that the rules that should apply to them actually do when things don't go their way. They're all sort of great at what should work for them and not when things are more challenging. Not a surprise that that is the way a dictator responds. This interview was on his territory. It was his time, and he got his message out the way he wanted to. And ultimately, none of us are going to care all that much.
That is where we are, and I hope that that was interesting and useful. Be well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Al Gore's take on American democracy, climate action, and "artificial insanity"
Listen: In this episode of GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with former US Vice President Al Gore on the sidelines of Davos in Switzerland. Gore, an individual well-versed in navigating contested elections, shared his perspectives on the current landscape of American politics and, naturally, his renowned contributions to climate action.
While the mainstage discussions at the World Economic Forum throughout the week delved into topics such as artificial intelligence, conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and climate change, behind the scenes, much of the discourse was centered on profound concerns about the upcoming 2024 US election and the state of American democracy. The US presidential election presents substantial risks, particularly with Donald Trump on the path to securing the GOP nomination.
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.
- Podcast: Can the US get its act together? Susan Glasser & Peter Baker on "the world’s greatest geopolitical crisis" ›
- America vs itself: Political scientist Francis Fukuyama on the state of democracy ›
- Divided we fall: Democracy at risk in the US ›
- Francis Fukuyama: Americans should be very worried about failing democracy ›
- Al Gore: "Artificial insanity" threatens democracy ›
- Ian Bremmer: How AI may destroy democracy ›
- Trump's immunity claim: US democracy in crisis ›
Al Gore: "Artificial insanity" threatens democracy
It is not a partisan statement to acknowledge that the future of American democracy is very much an open question. In 2020, we witnessed the first non-peaceful transition of power from one US presidential administration to another for the first time in modern history. And if past is prelude, 2024 could be a good deal worse. So what accounts for the imperiled state of democracy? Misinformation, coupled with technology, is a big part, says former vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore in an upcoming episode of GZERO World.
Ian Bremmer caught up with Gore on the sidelines of the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to talk about the upcoming US election and, as you might expect, the existential threats posed by climate change. In this clip, Gore talks about today's witches' brew of new technologies, social media, and a lack of shared trust amongst Americans.
"These algorithms that suck people down proverbial rabbit holes, they're more like the pitcher plants with slippery sides and at the bottom of the rabbit hole, that's where the echo chamber is. And people who dwell long enough in the echo chamber become vulnerable to a new kind of AI. Not artificial intelligence, but artificial insanity."
Catch Al Gore's full conversation with Ian Bremmer in next week's episode of GZERO World at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Oil, gas, gold for (pseudo-) democracy? ›
- What does democracy look like in Modi's India? ›
- Ian Bremmer: How AI may destroy democracy ›
- Divided we fall: Democracy at risk in the US ›
- Al Gore on US elections & climate change - GZERO Media ›
- When AI makes mistakes, who can be held responsible? - GZERO Media ›
- 2024 is the ‘Voldemort’ of election years, says Ian Bremmer - GZERO Media ›
- Al Gore's take on American democracy, climate action, and "artificial insanity" - GZERO Media ›
El Salvador's Bukele: The posterboy for popular authoritarianism
Here's one country where democracy is on the backslide, and the increasingly authoritarian leader could not be more popular. El Salvador's Nayib Bukele won the presidency at 37, as Latin America's youngest elected head of state, as an outspoken candidate on social media with an affinity for cryptocurrency.
In a wide-ranging interview on the state of global democracy in 2024, Stanford's Francis Fukuyama explains Bukele's crime-fighting appeal: "El Salvador legitimately elected Nayib Bukele as president, but he embarked on this massive effort to simply round up people that he thought were gang members and put them in prison, no trial, no, judicial process to find out whether they're actually guilty or not. And as a result, around 10% of the young men in the country are now sitting in prison. Uh, and it's been quite successful in reducing the level of gang violence in El Salvador by like 90%."
And Bukele's approval rating today stands at about 90%. It's just one example of a democratically elected leader pushing the boundaries of what his constitutional mandate allows.
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode: Divided we fall: Democracy at risk in the US
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Francis Fukuyama: Americans should be very worried about failing democracy
The prospect of another Trump presidency can be hard to imagine. Still, before we even get there, we must confront the possibility of political violence in the months leading up to November 5.
With the US presidential election on November 5, many Americans are pondering what another four years of a Trump presidency could mean for the country and the world. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The months leading up to November 5 (and the period after the election but before the January 20 inauguration) could be the most consequential in modern history. That's according to Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who warns that the capacity for violence amongst Trump supporters is unprecedented.
"In a way, Trump is preparing for this moment when there's massive protests, and he's got a lot of supporters, many of them are armed. And I think that on January 6th, he showed that he was, you know, completely comfortable with calling on his friends to use violence to, you know, support his ends."
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode: Divided we fall: Democracy at risk in the US
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Putin has a solution for US democracy ›
- American strife: Will US democracy survive? Fiona Hill explains post-Jan 6 stakes ›
- US democracy after US midterms: polarized voters & Trump's GOP ›
- Cliff Kupchan: We need a national dialogue to save US democracy ›
- Podcast: Not infallible: Russia, China, and US democracy with Tom Nichols & Anne-Marie Slaughter ›
- Al Gore's take on American democracy, climate action, and "artificial insanity" - GZERO Media ›
- In divided America, anything goes in the name of “protecting democracy" - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: America vs itself: Political scientist Francis Fukuyama on the state of democracy
Listen: In this edition of the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer speaks with Stanford’s Francis Fukuyama about the state of democracy worldwide and here in the US. 2024 will be a pivotal year for democracy, and nowhere more so than here at home. A quarter of Americans believe that the FBI was behind January 6. But as the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” But today, in America, we cannot agree on basic facts. On this note, Fukuyama joins Bremmer to discuss the global and domestic threats to democracy.
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.
- The US can advance democracy without being the world's sheriff ›
- Podcast: Not infallible: Russia, China, and US democracy with Tom Nichols & Anne-Marie Slaughter ›
- What does democracy look like in Modi's India? ›
- Ian Bremmer: How AI may destroy democracy ›
- Trump's immunity claim: US democracy in crisis ›
- Al Gore's take on American democracy, climate action, and "artificial insanity" - GZERO Media ›
- In divided America, anything goes in the name of “protecting democracy" - GZERO Media ›
A view shows graves of killed Ukrainian defenders, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, at a cemetery in Kharkiv, Ukraine January 31, 2023.
Hard Numbers … after a year of war in Ukraine
300,000: Human losses on both sides of the conflict are mounting (and disputed), but there have been a whopping 300,000 military and civilian deaths on both sides, according to high-end estimates.
2.1 & 0.3: Russia’s economy contracted by just 2.1% last year, far less than predicted, due to continued sales of its discounted crude oil and adaptability. The IMF predicts a 0.3% growth rate for Russia this year thanks to high export prices.
51,000 vs. 40,600: Having seized roughly 51,000 square miles of Ukrainian land by late March last year, Russia has since lost roughly one-fifth of that. The Kremlin now controls about 40,600 square miles (17% of Ukraine), entirely in the south and east.
18 & 60: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has decimated the country economically, with roughly 60% of Ukrainians now living below the poverty line, compared to 18% before the war.
35 & 139 billion: Ukraine’s GDP has diminished by 35%, and Russian targeted attacks are slamming the country’s infrastructure, having caused US$139 billion worth of damage (so far). Well over a third of the country is now dependent on humanitarian aid to live.
Up to 1 million: A reported 8,087,952 Ukrainian refugees are now spread across Europe, with close to 5 million seeking temporary asylum. Millions more are displaced within Ukraine. An estimated 500,000 to 1 million Russians have fled their homeland, driven by economic unrest, politics, and military mobilization.