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 }}
Spanish Vox party leader Santiago Abascal presided over the European Patriots Summit in Madrid over the weekend. The event brought together numerous conservative leaders from across Europe under the banner of "Make Europe Great Again."
From MAGA to MEGA? Europe’s far-right rallies in Madrid
Who are the Patriots and what do they want? Formed after the May 2024 European election, the bloc includes 86 members from 14 countries, representing 19 million votes. It is the third largest group in the 720-seat European Parliament, and it opposes green policies, migration, gender and family diversity, and “population replacement.” It wants to change the EU’s governance structure to one based on national sovereignty and boost Europe's economic competitiveness.
Could the Patriots make it happen? Other right-wing parties, including Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia, or FI, Poland’s Law and Justice, and the German AfD have so far refused to join. However, in a letter sent in late January, the European Conservatives and Reformists group, home to Italian Prime Minister and FI leader Giorgia Meloni, urged the center-right European People’s Party to ally with the Patriots. And as tariffs loom, Le Pen claims that the group is the only one that can “talk with the new Trump administration.”
We’ll be watching whether the AfD or other parties change their tune about joining the Patriots – and how this impacts the EU’s ability to negotiate with Trump.
Putin trolls Europe about "the master" Trump
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does Putin mean when he says Europe "will stand at the feet of the master"?
It means that he loves to troll his adversaries. Don't you remember when he said that he actually thought Biden would be a better president from Russia's perspective than Trump? He trolls. It's all misinformation. It's propaganda. It's all served to undermine and show that he's powerful, and he can say whatever he wants. And of course, he would love to see a fight between the Americans and their allies, whether it's the Nordics on Greenland or it's Canada on 51st state, or it's Panama on the canal, or it's Europe on tariffs. And he wants to undermine the countries that gets a divide and conquer kind of response from Putin. And that is what he is doing when he trolls the Europeans.
What's next for Panama after deciding to exit China's Belt and Road Initiative?
Well, certainly, of all the countries that are facing a deeply asymmetric relationship on the back of threats from President Trump, Panama is high on that list. And they really are trying to find a way to avoid tariffs and avoid the Americans squeezing them on the canal. And an easy way to do that, because they've heard this now directly from Trump and from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is that the Chinese have too much influence over transit. And that is particularly true through these port facilities that a Hong Kong-based company, read, China, is in charge of. And so, they are opening investigations into the contract and into how they engage there. And they're also saying they'll pull out of Belt and Road. All of that is clearly going to upset and antagonize the Chinese. And I think that the Panamanians are very, very comfortable showing that they are going to orient much more towards the United States, given how much more they rely on the Americans.
How would a potential Turkey defense pact with Syria reshape power dynamics in the Middle East?
Given who's on the ground in Syria and the fact that the Americans are likely to pull out the over 2,000 troops they have there, and that Trump has said it's really up to Turkey to maintain that relationship, they were the ones that were closest to the rebels that ended up defeating, overthrowing Assad's regime. Not surprised at all that that is where the diplomacy is heading. But that doesn't mean that it's going to be stable, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Kurds on the ground are going to be handled well. And that will be what we need to watch carefully. But Turkey, a NATO ally that has a lot of influence across the region and particularly now on the ground with Syria, I think that'll be relatively stable given the support from the United States. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, European leaders are reassessing their reliance on the United States for security and economic stability. In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. They discuss the evolving role of Europe in an era of shifting alliances, economic uncertainty, and rising geopolitical risks. In other words, Europe's role in a Trump 2.0 era. Stubb expresses cautious optimism about Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine but underscores the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense and technological leadership.
Stubb also acknowledges that Europe is facing a moment of reckoning. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Stubb agrees that Europe must strengthen its strategic position but remains wary of the region’s economic competitiveness, particularly in technology, where the US holds a clear advantage.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
- Envisioning Europe's path forward with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair ›
- Meloni joins Trump at Mar-a-Lago — with Europe’s economy on the line ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
Is Europe ready to embrace Trump's return to power?
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the spotlight was on President Trump’s virtual address, where he reiterated his stance that Europe has treated the US unfairly and that this dynamic will change. However, it was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech that may have left a stronger impression. Zelensky warned that Europe can no longer afford to be an afterthought for its allies, questioning whether Trump sees NATO as necessary or respects EU institutions. His blunt message—Europe is on its own—was echoed by leaders across the continent, especially given that Trump didn’t mention Europe or Ukraine once in his inaugural address.
In response, European leaders are adopting a more pragmatic stance. French President Emmanuel Macron urged Europe to “wake up” and take greater responsibility for its own defense, while NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed that Trump was right to push for higher defense spending. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, meanwhile, signaled that Europe has economic alternatives beyond the US Now, the real test begins: Will European nations follow through on defense spending, technological investment, and strategic independence? Or will they seek stability elsewhere, even with geopolitical rivals like China?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
EU rolls back Syria sanctions for economic rebound
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Is the European Union opening up to cooperation with the new government or regime in Damascus?
Yes, they are gradually. The foreign minister of the European Union took the decision early this week to start to ease sanctions on Syria that have been in place for years. And that is very important in order to start to get the economy going in the country. And that, of course, is very important in terms to start addressing all of the humanitarian needs. And also, eventually getting the economy going so that at some point in time perhaps people can start to move back to the country that they were forced to flee from during the years of civil war and repression.
Why was the prime minister of Serbia sacked?
That was part of a bigger move, defensive move, you can say by the president, by President Vučić. He has been under intense pressure due the last few months. There was an accident in Novi Sad, the second-biggest city that was blamed on the roof fell in, and that was blamed on bad construction and corruption. That has crystallized massive opposition to his regime, which has been there for a long time and is seen as increasingly authoritarian. So, pressure has been building up and he was now forced to concede sacking the prime minister and announcing new elections in April. So new elections in April in Serbia. There will be elections in Kosovo before that. There will be elections also in Albania. So, a lot of things are in flux in the Southern Balkans.
Trump's Davos address sets up big shifts in US strategy
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to close out our week in Davos, Switzerland.
Want to talk about now President Trump's address; virtual, direct to everybody, collected yesterday, assembled yesterday, to hear his speech, and then to ask a few pre-planned questions. The speech itself, at the beginning, not all that surprising, "America's back open for business. Everything was horrible before. Everything's going to be great, now." Not a surprise, kind of exaggerated. You'd never think that the US was by far the strongest-performing economy in the advanced industrial world, coming out of the pandemic. But people roll their eyes a bit, they get on getting on. There was still a fair amount of news that was actually made, and some interesting thoughts about where the initial Trump administration is going to go.
First point, on OPEC, talks a lot about Saudi Arabia directly, Mohammed bin Salman. They're very close, they've worked together closely. Not only when he was president the first time, it was his first trip as president back in 2017, but since then. A lot of business with the family as well. And has been promised $600 billion to invest in the United States directly. That beats the $500 billion announcement that the AI giants have just made in what they're going to do, this Stargate project. He likes that. He said, "Why don't you up it to a trillion?" That's a round number. Good thing we're base-10 in this country. Anyway, the fact that Trump is interested in engaging very closely with the Saudis, not a surprise at all, there is going to be a very big push to try to ensure that Saudi Arabia moves on normalization of relations with Israel. Given the fact that there's no two-state solution on the table for the Palestinians, that's challenging, but I wouldn't count it out, frankly.
Secondly, a lot of talk about oil and the fact that Trump really doesn't like where oil prices are right now. Now, the Americans are going to try to pump more, but he knows that there's only so much that can be done in the near term, maybe another 500,000 barrels a day. OPEC, on the other hand, has over four million barrels that are off the market. Why? Because they're willing to ensure that prices are comparatively high. And if that means they lose a little bit of market share, they're happy to do that. Well, Trump doesn't like that one bit, and especially because he wants to hit Iran hard, and take more of their oil off the market. He doesn't want prices to go up, so he wants the Saudis to lean in. How are they going to react? We'll see. Something at least nominal in the near-term, that brings prices maybe down towards, let's say, $70, as opposed to roughly $80, where they've been, that would be interesting to see. I wouldn't put it past the Saudis at all to lean in on that.
Secondly, China. We are going to now see tariffs early on China, 10% across the board, February 1. Markets seem to like the fact that, on the first day, Trump didn't do anything, but a few days later, is that really much better? What was interesting about the conversation, Trump is trying to make it very clear, he doesn't have an ideological beef with China. He continues to speak broadly, more warmly about Xi Jinping, and specifically about China, than generally President Biden has. That's not all that different from the first term, but it's different from expectations over the past few months. And I do expect we're going to see a summit meeting relatively soon, even though there's been no announcements around it. Having said all of that, the fact that the US has a really tough take on China, not only bilaterally but also versus all these other countries, Trump wants to punish the Europeans to ensure that they coordinate with the US on China, wants to ensure the Mexicans, the Indians, the Vietnamese, and others don't allow Chinese goods into the US through their countries.
It's very hard for the US and China to maintain a stable relationship when Trump's going to respond to China, "Well, that's our business. Those are relations with other countries. You have nothing to say about it." They're really stuck on this, and I expect that, despite maybe a bit of a honeymoon, which I wasn't thinking we'd have a few weeks ago, the US-China relations are still going to get a lot more challenging over the coming months.
And then we have Russia. And I thought it was very interesting that when Trump was asked, "So, next year at Davos, if you were here, is the war going to be over between Russia and Ukraine?" Because, of course, he's been saying, "I can end the war in a day." Then he's saying, "100 days." Now, he's saying, "Actually, the Ukrainians are ready for a deal." And by the way, that's true. But you're going to have to ask the Russians. Well, that's very different from, "I can get the deal done very easily."
He also continues to lean into the fact that the Chinese can be useful here, and that's true. That's something that the Biden administration and Trump administration actually agree pretty strongly on, that China has a lot more direct leverage over Russia than the United States does. And there's only so much the US can do with additional sanctions to convince the Russians to stop. Now, Trump can say that Russia needs to end the war, and that this is hurting them, but Putin doesn't actually feel that way. Certainly isn't prepared to accept less than the territory that he's presently occupying. So that, to me, is very interesting.
I would say the place that Trump has moved the most in the last three months, moved specifically towards the position that the Europeans have, and they're a lot less panicked about it now than they were even a week ago, is on the Russia-Ukraine issue. No one here in Europe, not one European leader I spoke with, now believes that Trump is going to basically throw Zelenskyy under the bus. And that's absolutely not where they were even, let's say, in December. So, that's a big deal.
That doesn't mean that the Europeans are feeling comfortable about Trump because, of course, Trump does not like Europe. Does not like a consolidated Europe, doesn't think a strong Europe is good for the United States. He wants to deal with individual European countries, and he wants to deal, of course, preferably with more Europe-first types in those individual countries. So, it's not the British Prime Minister, it's not the German Chancellor. It's organizations like the Reform Party and AFD. And, of course, Giorgia Meloni from Italy. He also bitterly complains about all the regulations, all the taxes, how hard it is to do business in Europe, how hard it is to do business with Europe. And that is a big challenge for Europe, that understands they need to be more competitive, but isn't prepared to spend the money, isn't capable of coordinating to get the kind of industrial policy done that the Americans are now doing.
So, on defense, on Ukraine, existential threat from Russia, Europe's doing a lot more coordination with the United States. On the economy, which concerns the Europeans equally much, and technology, where the Americans are a clear leader and leaning in very heavily, and the regulations are only going to get more comfortable and aligned with the technology companies, those that remain, the regulations, that is, not the tech companies, the Europeans are in very serious trouble.
So, that's it from me. I hope you all guys are well, and I'll talk to you all from New York next week.
President Donald Trump makes a special address remotely during the 55th annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23, 2025.
Davos Dispatch Day 5: 3 takeaways & 3 things to watch
GZERO’s very own Tony Maciulis is in the Alps all week to report from the 55th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
________
The official theme of this year’s World Economic Forum is “A Call for Collaboration in the Intelligent Age,” but after four days of speeches, panels, off-the-record discussions, and coffee bar chitchat, I’ve decided on my unofficial theme: “Trying to turn anxiety and fear into action.”
Davos participants acknowledge there are so many unknowns right now, and I wouldn’t describe the outlook from European delegates as rosy. Multilateral organizations like the World Health Organization risk losing significant funding, Ukraine waits to see who will stick around as the war approaches a third anniversary, and climate activists wonder if their work over the past decade will melt away like glacial ice.
But, on the flip side, we’ve heard quite a bit of pragmatism on stages that are normally filled with talk of “cooperation” and kumbaya. On Thursday, NATO’s new Secretary General Mark Rutte called for increased defense spending, saying, “Donald Trump is right.” Earlier this week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed simplifying regulations and creating an environment where “made-in-Europe innovation and risk-taking thrive.”
As Littlefinger said in “Game of Thrones,” “Chaos is a ladder.” I’m not sure about that, but some here in Davos see this moment as a much-needed push.
A few highlights from Thursday:
1. Trump does Davos by remote: It was easily the most anticipated moment of the week, and it drew the biggest crowd to Congress Hall I’ve seen during this forum. President Donald Trump appeared via live video, delivering a short speech (by Trump standards) followed by a Q&A with financial industry leaders, many of whom were described as “friends.”
In his remarks, Trump called the past few days “a revolution of common sense,” reciting his litany of executive orders that he said would launch “the golden age of America.” In the room, the crowd was quiet and attentive aside from a noticeable laugh or groan in response to Trump’s assertion that the EU has “treated America very unfairly,” and his insistence that Chinese President Xi Jinping called him first to initiate dialogue.
On tariffs, Trump stressed the importance of making products in America where manufacturers would find low taxes. While he didn’t address specifics on tariffs for goods made abroad, he did say they would happen and be in “varying amounts.”
Overall, Trump was tougher on Europe than he was on China, saying he likes President Xi very much, expects a good relationship, and hopes to enlist China’s help in ending the war in Ukraine. Despite campaign claims that he’d end that conflict in 24 hours, he reiterated to the Davos crowd that a ceasefire would take time and depend on Russia but that “Ukraine is ready.”
Børge Brende, WEF president and CEO, thanked Trump for a “powerful speech” and told him he was sure the US president could hear the applause all the way to the White House.
Truthfully, you could barely hear it in the hallway outside the auditorium. But the warm hospitality here in chilly Davos heated up some members of the crowd who became more chatty after the livestream.
2. Milei says he wants to “Make the West Great Again.” Wow. Anyone who heard Argentina’s President Javier Milei left thinking even Donald Trump would tell him to “Simma down nah.” Milei essentially read the Davos crowd to filth, chastising “wokeism” and its evils while praising a posse of leaders with whom he sees himself closely aligned: Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Trump, to name a handful.
The speech had it all — an Ayn Rand reference, a condemnation of the Malthusian trap, an attack on “radical feminism,” and, of course, lots of blame for the LGBTQ+ community. “Wokeism is turning Western values upside down,” he said, and then called out the WEF organizers and attendees for being complicit in promulgating woke narratives. Good times. And yes, he ended by repeating his famous, “Long live freedom, dammit!”
3. Meet your new AI co-worker. In a panel conversation on the main stage of Congress Centre, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff declared that his generation of leaders “will be the last to only manage humans.” He described an army of agents powered by artificial intelligence that will “augment” the human workforce and make their jobs more efficient.
Last year, as WEF began, the International Monetary Fund released a jarring report estimating that up to 40% of jobs globally would be impacted by or lost to AI. This time around, I’m hearing more tempered language. Like Benioff, many leaders are discussing “enhancement” as opposed to replacement, though they’re also stressing the need for skilling and training to prepare workers for their new digital desk mates.
And here’s what we’re watching Friday:
1. A war on science? It probably won’t make headlines, but a morning panel today on science may raise some of the most provocative questions I’ve heard this week. Could growing political polarization and national protectionism make it harder to be a scientist and to find the kind of cross-border collaboration that often leads to faster breakthroughs in research? It was an issue UNESCO’s Gabriela Ramos raised with me during our conversation at the Paris Peace Forum in November.
2. The global economic outlook. In the final hours of WEF, a powerhouse panel will assemble to dissect what these turbulent times mean for growth and stability in the coming months. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, and other moola masters from around the world will talk tariffs, mounting public debt, and market movement in 2025.
3. "Uf Widerluege” from Davos. At noon local time, WEF President and CEO Børge Brende will deliver his closing remarks in the Congress Centre, bringing the 55th annual meeting to a close and sending participants out into the deep uncertainty of this geopolitical moment.
Ian Bremmer on the forces behind the geopolitical recession
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take for you today. I want to talk to you about the geopolitical recession that we, the world, are now in. What is a geopolitical recession you ask?
Well, economic recessions you kind of understand. We have boom cycles and bust cycles. They happen frequently. So frequently that we even have solid measurements for when an advanced industrial economy is in a technical recession. That's two quarters in a row of negative growth. Or when the world is experiencing a recessionary year. They happen frequently in the United States since World War II, every seven to 10 years on average. And that means that we have been through many of those cycles, and we can recognize them and we know that we don't like them. We want to respond to them.
And whether you are an advanced industrial economy, a free market economy, or whether you are an authoritarian state and a state capitalist system, either way, you've got central bankers and finance ministers or treasury secretaries that are using monetary and fiscal tools to try to minimize the impact of a recession and get back towards effective more sustainable growth.
Okay, so that's the economic side. But I'm not an economist. I'm a political scientist. Are there cycles in geopolitics? And the answer is yes. But they're a lot longer. And because the cycles are longer, playing out over several generations, we don't live through a lot of them individually. And so, we don't recognize them as a pattern. But we are right now in a geopolitical recession.
What causes a geopolitical recession? Well, basically it's when the balance of power becomes misaligned, out of whack, with the rules of the road geopolitically. With how the world order is structured, the institutions, the architecture. So, for example, the global order that we have been living through both after World War II through the Cold War, and then through Soviet collapse, was all about a number of global institutions and architecture that the United States created with its allies, its friends, after World War II was over.
So, the world has just gone through this horrible cataclysm, a geopolitical depression, and now we've got a boom cycle. And the United States is creating the United Nations and the WTO and the IMF and all of these other global institutions with the idea being support for collective security, support for a multilateral free trade architecture, support for rule of law, promotion of human rights, promotion of democracy all over the world. Generally speaking, the United States created a whole bunch of global institutions that reflected what the United States thought about how the world should be run.
Then over time, the balance of power changes, but the institutions don't. At least not as much because they're sticky, because it takes a lot of political capital to change them. People kick the can down the road. Let somebody else do it. And when that gap grows too wide, then the geopolitical order starts to shake. It becomes much more unstable.
So, what happened here? Three big reasons why we are now in a geopolitical recession. Number one, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was not integrated into the West, not into the EU, not into NATO. They're angry about it. They blame the United States. They are now a chaos actor on the global stage, at least insofar as the advanced industrial economies. The G7 are concerned, and their top allies are fellow chaos actors: North Korea and Iran. That's reason number one.
Reason number two, China was integrated into the global order, particularly the global economy on the notion that as they got wealthier, as they benefited from that, they would become responsible stakeholders. And what that means for Americans is that they're going to align with these US led global institutions and values and norms. They'll support rule of law. They'll become more politically liberalized. They'll become more economically free market in orientation. The Chinese have gotten much wealthier. They're now a technological peer to the United States, no one else is close, ahead in some areas, behind in others. But they absolutely have not aligned with the United States. And that is making a lot of Americans and a lot of American allies very concerned, and it's leading to confrontation between the two most powerful countries.
Number three, while those first two things were going on, lots of people in the West, and especially the United States, increasingly felt like their own leaders, their political leaders, their business leaders, their corporate leaders, their media leaders, their elites, were promoting globalism, were promoting a bunch of things for a global order that didn't help them. So, all of those ideas about collective security and promotion of democracy and promoting free trade, not interested, because the average American doesn't feel like they're benefiting from it.
And certainly that is a big reason why Trump won, not just once, but twice, and more decisively the second time around. And so now, not only do you have the Russians acting like rogues with allies, and the Chinese much more powerful, but not aligned with the US-led global system. But you have the Americans saying, "We're not very interested in promoting that global system anymore. In fact, we're more interested in the law of the jungle."
It's a worldview that's closer to the Chinese. Not multilateralism but just one-on-one relations where you are stronger and you tell the other country what you want to have done. It's very transactional, it's very pragmatic. Doesn't really matter what kind of values that country holds. If you're Trump, you'll do a deal with Russia or China or an ally, and you'll criticize and pressure anybody if they're not behaving the way you want to. The fact that there are common values doesn't really matter. The fact that you're part of the same infrastructure and architecture doesn't really matter. It's, "What are you doing for me now?"
So given all of that, we are now in a serious geopolitical recession. What I call a G-Zero world. Not a G7, not a G20, where there's an absence of global leadership. Now, what's very interesting about that G-Zero world, what's very interesting about this geopolitical recession that I believe that we're in is that the United States is in a particularly strong position right now. Particularly strong compared to its adversaries like China facing the worst economic conditions since the 90s, maybe even the 70s. Like Russia in a period of severe economic decline, and other decline, national security, political. And Iran, which has basically just lost their empire, their empire by proxy, the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East. The US is also much stronger relationally to its allies. America's technology capabilities becoming so dominant compared to what the Europeans, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Canadians don't have. America's military capabilities. The strength of the US economy coming out of the pandemic compared to every other G7 democracy shows that the United States can get a lot more done in a geopolitical recession. Can ensure that its will is followed.
Also, the fact that Trump is consolidated so much more power this time around compared to 2017 when he was first president. Last time, he had all of these establishment Republicans that didn't really support him, all the way from Mike Pence, his vice president, to Mad Dog Mattis, to Mike Pompeo, to Nikki Haley, to Gary Cohn, and on and on and on. This time around, not at all. Everyone is aligned with Trump.
Also last time, the GOP, the Republican Party, didn't feel like they had to ride Trump's coattails. He wasn't as popular as a lot of they were in their own individual campaigns. This time around not at all. Trump's much more popular than them, they need him much more. And that's happening at a time when so many allied governments are very, very weak. And that's a problem, right? For them. If you're Canada and your government's imploding, or you're South Korea and your government's imploding, or you're Germany, your government's imploding, or France and your government's imploding. Or even countries like the United Kingdom and Japan where the establishment is very, very vulnerable, and very unpopular, Trump's ability to tell you, "This is what we want. And by the way, we are a lot more effective at playing the law of the jungle than either our allies or our adversaries."
It's going to be very hard for them not to kiss the ring, not to provide big wins for the Americans. So, lots of wins for Trump, and that's what we're going to see over the course of the coming year, and a lot of defense being played by a lot of those other countries around the world. But is that sustainable?
Because to get out of a geopolitical recession, you ultimately need to create new rules of the road. You need new global architecture, especially because our challenges, whether it's climate change or an arms race, nuclear weapons, whether it's AI and new disruptive technologies, for good and for bad, they all are global challenges and global opportunities. But we are increasingly fragmenting our responses to national and even local levels.
So, this is not a sustainable trajectory, and that is what we're going to spend an awful lot of time looking at over the coming year, over the coming administration, and going beyond. Because, of course, this is the first time that any of us have experienced a country, the United States, essentially unwinding, undoing its own order. These global institutions that Trump and others are saying are globalist and not useful for the Americans to align with are institutions the United States initially created to help run the world in America's own image, but the US no longer believes that that works for it. And that is a fantastically interesting, but also unnerving, unsettling, and unstable time for us all geopolitically.
So, that's what a geopolitical recession is. I hope you found this worthwhile, and I'll talk to you all real soon.