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 }}
Poland boosts defenses, Lithuania secures leadership win
The Eastern front isn’t taking any chances. Faced with cyberattacks, arson attempts, and a migrant crisis manufactured by Minsk, Poland said Monday that it will spend US$2.5 billion on the Shield-East system to beef up its 700-kilometer eastern border with Russia and Belarus. Construction is to be completed by 2028. Shield-East will include anti-drone towers, anti-tank barriers, bunkers, and space for potential minefields, designed to deter possible aggression by Russia.
Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamyszdescribed it as “… the largest operation to strengthen Poland’s eastern border, NATO’s eastern flank, since 1945.” Shield-East will be part of a regional defense infrastructure built jointly with neighboring NATO nations Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
With over 4% of its GDP already allocated to defense, Poland is also seeking financial support from the European Union to strengthen the 27-member bloc’s eastern border. The Shield-East announcement comes just two weeks before elections to the European Parliament, in which Poland’s Foreign MinisterRadoslaw Sikorski accused Russia of interfering to “destabilize Europe” – and his country’s security.
Also watching those elections will be newly reelected Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who defeated Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė with 74.5% in Sunday’s vote. A moderate conservative, Nausėda is a strong supporter of Ukraine and has provided safe haven to refugees fleeing Belarusian and Russian repression. In his victory speech, Nausėda highlighted the country's alignment with allies including the US, Germany, and Poland, with whom his country also shares a 104-kilometre border, the scene of joint military drills in April of this year.Lithuanians decide on dual citizenship
On Sunday, Lithuania held both a presidential election and a referendum on dual citizenship, an issue that has divided the Baltic nation of 2.8 million people since its independence from the Soviet Union 34 years ago.
President Gitanas Nauseda took the most votes against seven other contenders, but did not win an outright majority and will face Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte in a runoff election scheduled for May 26. While the candidates broadly agree on defense, they diverge on other issues, including Lithuania’s relations with China and same-sex unions. The referendum on dual citizenship, however, failed to pass.
The presidential race – and the referendum – took on heightened significance since over half of Lithuanians fear a Russian attack if Moscow wins its war against Ukraine. Lithuania banned most forms of dual citizenship after the country declared independence from the former Soviet Union in 1990. While the Russian-speaking population in Lithuania is relatively small, few Lithuanians support granting Russian citizens dual nationality.
However, without changes to the law, brain drain is likely to keep sapping away at Lithuania's population, which has fallen from 3.5 million to 2.8 million since independence. Roughly 1,000 Lithuanians currently renounce their nationality each year, and substantial diasporas have formed in Canada, Brazil, Russia, and the United States, which alone is home to 600,000 former Lithuanian citizens.
"Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas
Everyone knows that war is bad and peace is good, but what about the difference between peace and "peace"? Estonia's Prime Minister Kaja Kallas sat down with Ian Bremmer at the Munich Security Conference to discuss the war in Ukraine and how her perspective has changed since the Russian invasion began one year ago. Europe is a small region, says Kallas, and maintaining unity in the face of Russian aggression could come down to acknowledging European countries' lived experiences and not-so-distant history.
Kallas makes the important distinction between the post-World War II eras in Eastern vs. Western Europe. While countries like France and Germany were rebuilding their economies and national institutions, Soviet-occupied countries in the Eastern bloc experienced violence, persecution, and economic stagnation. "For 50 years we were occupied, and we were not really missed," says Kallas, "But we missed you."
Catch Ian Bremmer's full interview with Kallas in this week's episode of "GZERO World with Ian Bremmer," airing on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
Can the US keep Europe together?
Just days out from the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, US President Joe Biden is making a splash in Europe. After a surprise stop in Kyiv on Monday, Biden is now in Poland, where he is expected to give a formal address at the Royal Castle gardens in Warsaw on the global state of democracy. He's also set to meet a group of nine eastern European leaders.
Biden’s trip comes amid growing fears in the region of both an imminent military escalation in Ukraine and concern for how long European cohesion on supporting Kyiv will last. This view was reinforced when Poland's Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki recently said: “We must admit that it will be a big challenge to keep the EU member countries enthusiastic.”
Over the past year, there’s been much attention on how a united Europe has served as a crucial punitive force against Russia. But as the war lingers, anxiety is growing about whether deviating interests within Europe could, over time, splinter its war response.
First, what are the differing views within the European camp? Post-Soviet states, like the three Baltic nations, as well as fearful neighbors – like the Scandinavian and Balkan countries – have adopted a hawkish Russia stance. They know what it’s like to live under the fist of an oppressive Soviet state or to be bullied by an expansionist Russia. Crucially, Poland, which has emerged as an anchor for Eastern European unity, recalls all too well how the country was carved up in 1939 between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Fearful of Russia's imperialist aspirations, Warsaw has been channeling its fears by upping its defense budget.
But the view is very different from much of Central and Western Europe — particularly Germany, which, in the post-Cold War years intertwined its economy with Russia’s. The same is true for other EU countries, including Italy and Austria. This economic interdependence has at times slowed some states from adopting the same full-throttled anti-Russia stance as those who feel more directly threatened by Moscow.
“There are many cleavages between Eastern European countries, the Baltic states, and Western European countries,” says Engjellushe Morina, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Eastern Europeans and Baltics have different expectations of European unity because they live right next door to Russia.”
As the war in Ukraine metastasizes, there’s increasing fear among Eastern European states that the rest of Europe, reeling from inflation and other domestic crises (the French right now … ils sont malheureux!), will lose patience with the West’s maximum pressure campaign.
But this would appear to counter a dominant view that Eastern Europe’s clout has grown since the war broke out: “Our voice is now louder and more heard,” Romania’s foreign minister said recently. What’s more, some analysts have credited the bloc’s powerful advocacy with having pushed the Biden administration – followed by European heavyweights – to give Ukraine heavier military equipment.
A divided East. But while Eastern European leaders may have played a more prominent role in leading the charge in recent months – compared, for instance, to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea – varying priorities impede the bloc from presenting a united front.
Consider that Poland, for its part, abhors the Kremlin and has taken in more Ukrainian refugees than any other country, while Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban, long cozy with Moscow, said this week that he would not break ties with Russia. Serbia is closely aligned with the Kremlin and has not joined NATO, choosing to maintain a neutral defense posture, while Albania, Montenegro, and North Macedonia are NATO members. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova are vulnerable to Russian interference.
Another limiting factor is that the Eastern Europeans don’t have the goods. Estonian PM Kaja Kallas acknowledged this recently when she said, “it’s very easy for me to say … ‘Of course, give fighter jets [to Ukraine] but — I don’t have them.” Likewise, while Poland has called for NATO members to send Kyiv fighter jets, it said that its stockpiles are limited and it needs Washington to lead the way. And even when they do have the goods, Europe's eastern flank often can’t send them to third parties without getting the go-ahead from the heavyweights that produced them. This dynamic was highlighted in recent months when Ukraine pushed for the US, the UK, and Germany to send advanced battle tanks, paving the way for other European allies to do the same.
America's job. As the war passes the one-year mark, the endurance of a united Europe on Ukraine will continue to depend on how well the US can keep the group in check. Why? Because no Europeans seem up to the task.
“There are no European leaders to maintain this unity,” Morina says, adding, “we don‘t see any powerful European countries like France or Germany taking the lead.”
Mikhail Gorbachev outlived his legacy
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Mikhail Gorbachev, the final general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has died at 91. He's an extraordinary and truly world changing leader, ultimately, and tragically a failed one as well. Arguably, Gorbachev was the leader that made the greatest impact on my professional life. My first trip outside the United States was to the former Soviet Union back in 1986. Gorbachev had just gotten into power the year before, and actually it wasn't at all clear when I went there that he was going to be this great reformer. In his early days, he was focused on anti-alcohol campaign, anti-corruption campaign, sort of trying to improve Soviet society, but also working to concentrate, more power in the hands of the politburo, where there was a serious power struggle going on. In fact, the early days you could argue that Gorbachev and Xi Jinping actually had a lot in common, but that's really where the comparisons end.
The Chernobyl disaster hit just a couple months before I showed up in the Soviet Union. And therefore at the beginning of Gorbachev's rule. I remember meeting a bunch of Cuban students that were traveling to Leningrad, had just been in Ukraine, and had literally no idea what had happened until they got into the Russian Republic. And they were pretty scared by what exposure they might, might not have had. But of course, this was an enormous tragedy inside the former Soviet Union, and also one that the leaders got bad information on, and kind of proved to Gorbachev that the political system was increasingly sclerotic and bankrupt, and the economic trajectory of the country was failing, and he really wanted to change it. And he attempted to do that through three unprecedented structural reforms, in what had been an authoritarian state, capitalist society.
First glasnost, political openness. In other words, free speech. Secondly, perestroika, economic opening. Capitalism, and third khozraschyot, self accounting, federalism. In other words, let people say what they want about the government. Let them make money as they can. And let local officials have more accountability for the decision making processes that are underneath them.
So opposite from what we see in Russia today, and under Putin today in pretty much every way. And Gorbachev also very much an anti-imperialist, recognized that Soviets were overspending massively on the military, and wanted to stop that too. And so he ended the disastrous Soviet war in Afghanistan. Americans did not of course learn great lessons from that. But in short order, the internal response in Soviet empire from all of this reform, was a large number of rested populations that wanted out, because Soviet empire was of course massively repressive. And when the tools of repression were no longer there, the attraction of the freedoms, the economic, the human liberties that existed in the West, were suddenly greatly appealing to those that had been behind the iron curtain. And so in short order, with these reforms, you saw a massive political uprising to end Soviet power, first in Eastern bloc countries and Gorbachev chose not to intervene militarily to try to prevent them from leaving. And that of course, led to the Wall coming down, and the independence of all of these Eastern European countries that are now, of course, in NATO, that are now in the European Union.
And then, when 15 Soviet republics themselves started demanding independence, first in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and then eventually in Central Asia, and again, across all of the former Soviet republics, finally leading to a failed military coup against Gorbachev in August of 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the end of Soviet empire peacefully on Christmas Day, four months later.
Perhaps the truest tragedy of a statesman is when you outlive your legacy, and perhaps nothing could be more true of Gorbachev. President, and now indeed dictator, of Russia, Vladimir Putin has said that he views Soviet collapse as the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century. And he has devoted his time in office, first and foremost, to reviving a Russian empire. And Russia today in 2022 is precisely the opposite of everything Gorbachev had hoped it would be. We're all the worst for that. And most of all, the Russians themselves.
Mikhail Gorbachev, rest in peace.
The battle over borscht
A lot of ink has been spilled trying to understand why Russia invaded Ukraine, but who’d have thought that soup had anything to do with it?
And yet earlier this month, Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Russian foreign ministry, had this to say about why the Kremlin is so furious with Ukraine: “They couldn’t share their borscht!”
“It had to belong to just one people, just one nationality,” she continued, slurring and swaying in a way that suggested she’d had something a little stronger than borscht for lunch herself.
“This is exactly what we are talking about, xenophobia, Nazism, extremism in all forms!”
It wasn’t lost on one prominent Russia watcher that, in an unwitting nod to Seinfeld, Zakharova had just called the Ukrainians actual “soup Nazis.”
Alex Kliment explores borscht for an episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Watch the video above.
This isn’t Russia and Ukraine’s first beef over borscht. In 2019, the Russian government tweaked the Ukrainians by claiming borscht was “one of Russia’s most famous and beloved dishes.” One typical response read: “You stole the Crimea and you try to steal borscht!”
But it’s not just Moscow’s menus that Kyiv is worried about when it comes to borscht. For several years now, Kyiv has been on a broader mission to make sure the world knows that the soup is Ukrainian.
In 2020, Ukraine’s government lobbied the famed Michelin restaurant guide to remove a reference to borscht from its first-ever writeup of Moscow’s restaurant scene. Kyiv also launched a formal campaign for UNESCO to recognize the soup as a uniquely Ukrainian contribution to human civilization, alongside Neapolitan pizzaiuolo, Belgian beer, and Korean kimchi.
A bowl of borscht. Credit: GZERO Media
So what’s the borscht backstory? Most of the available evidence suggests that the beetroot-based soup was invented in what is today Ukraine, according to Marianna Dushar, a Ukrainian food historian currently based in Poland. It has its origins in the peasant villages that dot the Dnieper river basin, an area world famous for its rich, “black earth” soil.
But during the Tsarist and Soviet periods, the hearty soup recipe spread far and wide, becoming a staple at dinner tables across Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. Jews from the Pale of Settlement played a major role in borscht's spread throughout the region and, ultimately, to the United States as well, says Dushar.
By the 1930s, when Stalin commissioned a Soviet cookbook, it listed more than a dozen kinds of borscht, the classic recipes being from Ukraine.
All nations are attached to their cuisines, of course, but food plays an outsized role in Ukraine’s identity, says Johanna Mendelson-Forman, a scholar at American University in Washington, DC, who has developed a curriculum focusing on what she calls “Conflict Cuisine.”
Ukraine, she points out, is itself one of the largest food producers in the world — as a major wheat exporter, it’s long been seen as “the breadbasket of Europe.” But the experience of Soviet-forced famines in the 1930s, which killed millions of Ukrainians, is still a grim touchstone of national identity too.
Now Russia’s invasion has thrust that past into the present again. As Ukrainians struggle against an aggressor who openly denies their right to exist as an independent nation, borscht has boiled up into something bigger — a symbol of survival and perseverance.
“They launched the war to erase our history,” says Ievgen Klopotenko, a celebrated Ukrainian chef who currently runs soup kitchens for refugees in western Ukraine. The charismatic 34-year-old — who looks uncannily like a young Sean Penn — posts regularly about Ukrainian food to his 700,000 followers on Instagram. And for him, borscht is everything.
“It’s part of our identity. It’s in the cells of our bodies,” he says urgently. “If they take our food, they’ll take half of us, and then they’ll take half of our language, and then our religion.” After that, he warns, “they can take our lives and then there will be no such nation as Ukraine any more.”
Ievgen Klopotenko. Credit: Vlad Nagorniy
But borscht isn’t all high politics. It’s also home cooking. To get a sense of what that means for Ukrainians far from their homeland, I dropped by the apartment of Mikhail and Sophia Turovsky, who live in Brooklyn, NY.
The Turovskys came to New York from Kyiv in the late 1970s as part of a mass exodus of Soviet Jews that began when the Kremlin relaxed its emigration rules.
It’s hard to overstate how important borscht is to the Turovsky household.
“Borscht is life!” exclaims Mikhail, 88, a celebrated painter and writer.
A trim, energetic, man with an Amish-style beard and a Shakespearean shock of hair, Mikhail’s eyes sparkle constantly with the makings of a good joke or aphorism. “It is a philosophy!” he says, while Sophia, who worked for decades as an engineer to support the family here in America, stirs a bubbling pot of the soup. “It’s the collective wisdom of a nation!”
Even after nearly half a century in the United States, both Mikhail and Sophia still feel close to Ukraine. “It’s the land that gave us life, after all,” Sophia says. It’s where they studied, where they met, and where they lived until they emigrated in their 40s with their two children, Mikhail's aunt, and Sophia's mother. Mikhail is even officially recognized as a People’s Artist of Ukraine, the highest honor an artist can receive there.
Mikhail and Sophia Turovsky. Credit: GZERO Media
But as for whether a spoonful of borscht triggers a kind of deeper Proustian connection to their homeland — not so much.
“It’s just food, you know? You like to eat it,” says Sophia. For her it’s really a tie to something more personal than political.
“All my life I was a working woman,” she says, “and cooking wasn’t a big part of my life. But I learned it from my mom, and since my mom passed away, each time I do something, I think about her.”
With her bubbling pot of borscht ready, Sophia carefully ladles it into bowls and sets them on a table laden with rushniki, the traditional red-and-white embroidered cloths from Ukraine.
And with a dollop of sour cream, a sprinkle of parsley, and — at Mikhail’s insistence — a shot of vodka (two shots), it’s time to eat.
Hungry to make your own bowl of borscht? Get details on Ukrainian chef Ievgen Klopotenko's own recipe here.
Eastern European leaders visit Kyiv in unprecedented show of support
With three European leaders visiting Kyiv on Tuesday, that's today, does this signify a stronger EU-Ukrainian alliance? Are Western sanctions against Russia working? With cases surging, got to talk about COVID, is China's zero-COVID policy a complete failure? Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
First, with three European leaders visiting Kyiv on Tuesday, that's today, does this signify a stronger EU-Ukrainian alliance?
Oh, you bet it does. And particularly from the Eastern European countries who, frankly, see this as an incredibly important issue and are trying to get the West Europeans and the United States to do even more than they already have in terms of sanctions against Russia. It's unprecedented for the prime ministers of Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic to be heading to Kyiv to support Zelensky while it's being bombed. Certainly it shows that Putin and the success of his military campaign is not bringing any of the fruit for Russian security measures in Europe that Putin had clearly hoped for. Where this all goes in terms of a climbdown, we are not close to that. I'm still very unconvinced that negotiations are going to bear fruit, irrespective of that. But extraordinary statement from the East Europeans today.
Are Western sanctions against Russia working?
Well, they're working in two ways. They're working first to show a unified NATO response to President Putin's invasion of an independent Ukraine. They're also enormously punishing Russia and Putin as a consequence of that. And that does mean that if the Russians choose not to capitulate, if they refuse to remove their troops and allow Ukraine to persist independently, that they are going to suffer and that will create some instability of the Russian regime. Now, I do believe that the Russians are also going to retaliate against NATO in various ways, some economic, some cyber, some disinformation. I mean asymmetric attacks are what the Russians do. That's why this Cold War is more dangerous in some ways than the first Cold War with the Soviets. But, the fact remains, that irrespective of the level of economic sanctions, Putin is still, as of right now three weeks in, bombing the Ukrainians who have over 3 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe as a consequence. In that regard you can't say they're working.
Finally, with cases surging, got to talk about COVID, is China's zero-COVID policy a complete failure?
No, it's not a complete failure. It succeeded enormously for the Chinese for the first two years. After they admitted that they had COVID, they were able to track, to trace, to surveil, to lockdown and they were the economy that got fastest back up to speed while the rest of the world was still locked down and dealing with all of these challenging quarantines. But now you've got a population of 1.4 billion, the vast majority of whom have never gotten COVID, and they're not going to be able to say that for long unless they have massive disruptions to supply chain. As of today, almost 40 million Chinese under quarantined, small percentage, but a lot of people. And for an economy that everyone relies on, the fact that their second largest port is shut down, Shenzhen, is a really big problem.
Zero-COVID is increasingly not working for China. It was our top risk for 2022. This is why. See you all soon.
- Zelensky's fate and Ukraine's future - GZERO Media ›
- Petraeus: Putin has united his adversaries - GZERO Media ›
- Putin shouldn't test NATO unity, says analyst Alina Polyakova ... ›
- Rising gas prices will test US resolve on Russian sanctions ... ›
- The problem with China's Zero COVID strategy | GZERO World ... ›
- Ian Bremmer: Zero COVID no longer works, and China will pay a ... ›
- Ukraine dominates the dialogue in Munich - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine dominates the dialogue in Munich - GZERO Media ›
Biden deploys US troops to Eastern Europe as a deterrent
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares his perspective on Biden's strategy on the Ukraine crisis.
Does Biden's decision to send troops to Eastern Europe signal that he expects a military conflict in Ukraine?
No. The deployment of 2000 additional troops accomplishes three goals. One, it acts as a deterrent to Russian aggression. Two, it reassures US allies including Poland and Romania that the US is prepared to defend them against Russia, should it come to that. And three, it potentially opens the door to additional talks between the US and Russia. Notably, these troops are not going to Ukraine. The US is not bound by any treaty to protect Ukraine and nor would it be likely to deploy troops to Ukraine if Russia does invade. But in case an invasion happens, Biden wants to signal to allies that he's prepared to escalate both by supplying additional weapons to Ukrainian forces and through sanctions that would hurt key Russian leaders and the Russian economy.
Other Western allies have already deployed troops to these countries. France is sending troops to Romania and the United Kingdom is doubling deployments in both Estonia and Poland. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress support the troop deployments. And they're saying that if Biden doesn't do more to deter Putin, they're likely to act probably with a sanctions bill that does. The US, for now, remains committed to diplomacy to diffuse this standoff. And Russia is sending strong signals that it's open to future talks, which are likely to unfold over the next several weeks as the Beijing Olympics open. And this has the potential to be another deterrent to Putin given the relationship between China and Russia.