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 }}
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink as he prepares to depart the train station in Kyiv, Ukraine, September 11, 2024.
Will the US let Ukraine use long-range missiles against Russia?
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy suggested during a visit to Kyiv on Wednesday that their governments might reconsider prohibitions on letting Ukraine use Western weapons to hit targets inside Russia.
Until now, the US and UK have refused Ukraine’s requests, because of concerns about escalating the war with a nuclear-armed Russia.
But Lammy said recent reports of Russia acquiring ballistic missiles from Iran “clearly change the debate,” while Blinken suggested Washington might be more flexible too, saying the US has “adjusted and adapted as needs have changed.” US President Joe Biden on Tuesday said his administration was “working that out” when asked about a policy change.
In addition, the US this week alleged for the first time that China has provided direct support for Russia’s “war machine,” while Lammy urged China “not to throw their lot in” with Russia and other “renegades.”
These discussions all come as Russia continues to announce gains in eastern Ukraine, even as Ukrainian forces continue to hold territory in Russia’s Kursk region, where Moscow has so far failed to drive them out.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday urged his Western allies to make “strong decisions.” Will they?Palestinians inspect the site of an Israeli strike on a house, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip May 7, 2024.
Biden threatens to cut off some weapons to Israel if Rafah invaded
“We’re not going to supply the weapons and the artillery shells used” in a seemingly imminent Israeli invasion of Rafah, US President Joe Biden said in a CNN interview Wednesday, his toughest language on Israel yet.
Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t seem all that intimidated. Israel massed armor and troops on the outskirts of Rafah Thursday morning, after seizing the city’s crossing into Egypt on Wednesday. Over a million civilians are sheltering in the last Gazan city Israeli troops have not entered, but Netanyahu seems determined to take out the remaining Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants based there.
Meanwhile, CIA director William Burns has been shuttling between Jerusalem and Cairo for urgent cease-fire negotiations that the US hopes could save untold numbers of civilians. Earlier this week Hamas said it would accept a cease-fire agreement, but it was modified in ways Israel found unacceptable.
If Biden does follow through with his threat, we’re watching for further acrimony in the already inflamed relationship with Netanyahu, as well as how his rivals with better reputations at the White House, like Benny Gantz, react.
Why the US-China relationship is more stable than you might think
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. US Secretary of State Tony Blinken in the Middle East right now. But he just came from China, Beijing and Shanghai, and the US-China relationship is what I'm thinking about. Want to give you a state of play.
It continues to be better managed and more stable than we've seen in a long time. Now, not clear that would necessarily be the case, given the number of issues and places where we have friction between these two countries. Just over the course of the last couple weeks, you've got President Biden, putting new tariffs on Chinese steel, opening a new investigation into Chinese shipbuilding. You've got this anti TikTok policy that's coming down from US Congress. You've got $2 billion in additional military aid for Taiwan from the United States. You've also got lots of criticism from the Americans on ongoing Chinese support, dual use technologies for the Russians, allowing them to better fight the war in Ukraine.
Given all of that, is the relationship starting to become much more confrontational? And the answer is not really. It's true that the Chinese foreign minister said that the Americans need to choose between having a relationship of containment and a relationship of partnership, and it's certainly true that the Americans would rather have it both ways. They want to have partnership in areas where it suits the Americans, and containment in areas where it suits the Americans. The Americans getting away with more than that than other countries can because the US is the most powerful country in the world and ultimately the Chinese need Americans more than Americans need China. Still, there's a lot of interdependence, and there is an ability to push back. How much is China actually doing that? And the answer is there's been very little direct Chinese tit for tat, despite all of the policies I just mentioned. It is true that overnight, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that there would be resolute and forceful measures if the supplemental support for Taiwan, which is a red line for the Chinese, is signed and Taiwanese assistance from the US moves ahead, and I suspect that means we're going to see some more sanctions from China against US defense contractors.
That is largely symbolic. It is a tit for tat. But on all the other policies I've mentioned that the Americans have just brought against China, we've seen Chinese focus on making their country and their economy more resilient against American efforts to contain, but not hitting the Americans back, not calibrated, moves of sanctions or reciprocal investigations. In fact, the Chinese have been pretty stable.
Also. We saw that Xi Jinping still met with Secretary of State Blinken directly, a meeting that would be very easy for the Chinese government to take down, and historically certainly wouldn't have been present if there had been a lot of tension in the relationship. They chose not to do that. And in fact, Blinken went to a record store, you know, he plays guitar and sings, and he's into music. And the coverage from the Chinese state media of that trip was very humanizing, was very friendly, frankly, better coverage of a US secretary of state than I've seen at any point since Xi Jinping has been in power. That's something it's very easy for the Chinese government to put their thumb on the scale if they want to show that they're unhappy with where the US relationship is. I think about Obama and the town hall, that he wanted to put together and the Chinese unwilling to give him the kind of coverage that the Americans at the time had wanted. You know, this is a lesser official from the US and is still getting, frankly, tremendous treatment from the Chinese government. I think that matters a lot.
Having said all of that, this is a relationship that is becoming more challenging to manage. And that's true because in the United States, whether you're Democrat or Republican, one of the very few things you can agree on in foreign policy is that there is a benefit in going after China. So the policy from the US is not just about Biden making decisions himself, but it's also about members of Congress. It's about governors. It's about the media. All of whom are taking their own shots. And they're not coordinated. Where from China, if Xi Jinping wants it, everyone basically rose in the same direction. Now, there are lots of American corporations and banks that are sending their CEOs, making trips with China right now. And there's much more people to people engagement between the two countries, something that Chinese officials are strongly focused on.
There's a lot more communication and cooperation on things like climate, as well as in response to America's fentanyl crisis, where the Chinese are shutting down the labs, the companies that have been exporting the precursor chemicals. Those things matter. They are engaged. There's also a lot of willingness of the United States, at the highest level, to provide more information to China, just on what the Americans are seeing happening around a confrontation in the Middle East that China would like to see a cease-fire for, so would the Americans at this point. And also, the Chinese don't have a lot of high level diplomats and a lot of ability to collect information that the Americans do. And when high level Americans are talking to their Chinese counterparts about the Middle East, the Chinese are very much in taking notes mode and appreciating that they're getting that information from the US.
So overall, I continue to see a lot of high level engagement that is very constructive. But coming against a relationship that has virtually no trust and where the baseline of conflict is going to pop up in a lot of different ways and a lot of different places around the world. Over time it's going to be harder to maintain that stable floor on US-China relations. But for now, I think we're likely to continue to see it, at least until elections in November.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Finland's PM Sanna Marin at news conference in Stockholm, Sweden, February 2, 2023.
Finland’s next step
This is a big moment for Finland. For decades, its leaders tried to safeguard its security by remaining officially neutral in conflicts between giant neighbor Russia and the West. A clear majority of Finns considered that the more prudent choice. Since the end of the Cold War, Finland has drawn closer to NATO but remained outside the alliance to avoid provoking the Kremlin.
Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and Finnish minds quickly changed. Polls say nearly 80% of Finns support full NATO membership, and the alliance is eager to welcome a valuable new partner.
Finland’s application cleared its one remaining hurdle on Thursday as lawmakers in Turkey, the last NATO member needed to make it official, approved Finland’s bid. Nothing left now but paperwork.
And this Sunday, voters in Finland will choose the party and prime minister who will lead the nation in this historic step. At stake are all 200 seats in Finland’s parliament, which are now divided among nine different parties.
Current Prime Minister Sanna Marin hopes her center-left Social Democrats will win enough seats to lead the next government, allowing her to finish the NATO process she pushed into motion last year. Polls suggest the race will be close because the center-right National Coalition Party and the far-right Finns Party both appear strong.
If the election becomes a referendum on personal attitudes toward Marin, her party has a good shot. A recent poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Finnish voters say she’s done a solid job leading the country through the pandemic and the crisis created by Russia’s war.
Marin’s party, however, is less popular than its leader, and the nativist Finns Party has seen its popularity surge. Led by Riikka Purra, another of the country’s rising female politicians, the Finns are known mainly for their pledge to end all migration into Finland from outside the European Union. The center-right National Coalition is led by Petteri Orpo, the only man to lead one of the country’s leading parties.
Because it’s so popular in Finland, NATO membership has figured only indirectly in the election campaign. Orpo says it’s irresponsible for Marin to mull the provision of fighter jets to Ukraine, for example. Instead, voter perceptions of Finland’s high-and-rising cost of living, the importance of the government balancing its books, and the future of immigration policy will decide which party is best positioned to lead a coalition government. (No individual party is likely to win more than 20-25% of seats. Post-election bargaining over partnerships will take time.)
But pocketbook issues aside, Finland’s next prime minister will lead a NATO country with a Russian border that’s as long (more than 800 miles) as those of all other NATO countries put together. Moscow is very likely to reinforce its military presence – and make occasional mischief – along that long frontier.
Across the line, Finland has the largest and best-equipped artillery forces in Western Europe, according to the Wilson Center, a US think tank, as well as a conscription system that could mobilize 280,000 soldiers with hundreds of thousands more in reserve. This is a force NATO is glad to welcome.
In short, on Sunday, Finnish voters may focus mainly on their economic future, but the government they elect will face security choices and risks that no Finnish prime minister has ever faced.
Thousands gathered at the Place de la Concorde to denounce the government’s use of a constitutional loophole to pass the pension reform, raising the retirement age without a vote in the National Assembly.
What We’re Watching: France’s fiery response, Poland’s first big step, Israeli president’s “civil war” warning
Macron bypasses the legislature on pension reform
French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday made the risky call to bypass the National Assembly, France’s powerful lower house, and push through a very unpopular pension reform scheme.
As expected, protesters responded with anger. More than 300 people were arrested overnight, and on Friday morning demonstrators halted production at a fuel refinery and briefly blocked traffic on a highway outside Paris.
(A brief recap on the proposal that’s sent France into a tailspin: Macron’s government wants to incrementally raise the national retirement age by two years to 64 by 2030. Starting from 2027, workers will need to have worked for 43 years, up from 41, to access a full pension.)
Why’s he doing this? Macron has long said that France's public spending, 14% of which goes toward its pension scheme – the highest of any OECD country after Greece and Italy – is crucial to addressing its growing debt-to-GDP ratio. But this approach is very unpopular in France, where retirement is sacred and government interference is abhorred.
Fearing he wouldn’t have the votes in the lower chamber, Macron triggered a constitutional loophole to get the bill through (it had already passed in the upper chamber). But by taking this route – which his political opponents say renders the bill illegitimate, though it is legal – Macron now opens himself up to serious political blowback.
On Friday, a group of opposition centrist lawmakers — backed by the far-left NUPES coalition — filed a no-confidence vote against the government, while far-right leader Marine Le Pen announced she'll table her own. But any vote would need to pass by an absolute majority to topple the government – meaning PM Élisabeth Borne and the cabinet, not the president. Still, that’s very unlikely to happen, analysts say.
But Macron, who cannot run again after 2027 due to term limits, is not out of the woods. Unions have vowed to make the government pay, and prolonged strikes are expected. Meanwhile, far-left and far-right factions say they’ll intensify efforts to topple the French government.
Bibi rejects judicial compromise. What now?
It’s been another dramatic 24 hours in Israel as the country moves closer toward a constitutional crisis over judicial reform. President Isaac Herzog, whose role is largely ceremonial, came out with a compromise proposal to placate both the government — pushing to limit the power of the courts — and opposition factions that dub the move a judicial coup. Crucially, Herzog warned that the prospect of “civil war” looms large.
Five (out of six) opposition party leaders now say they support Herzog’s proposal, which they can live with despite not being perfect. But Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who’s increasingly powerless as he tries to appease a discordant far-right coalition, rejected the pitch, calling it “one-sided.”
Meanwhile, anti-government protests continued to sweep Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and scores of army reservists said that they will not show up for training in protest.
As the government moves ahead with its plans, the future looks more and more uncertain. What’ll happen if the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passes a law which then gets struck down by the Supreme Court? Would citizens — and the military — obey the legislature or the courts? When asked what to expect, Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli justice and foreign minister, said: "Anarchy.”
Polish fighter jets for Ukraine
Ukraine finally got its wish — sort of. On Thursday, Poland announced that it’ll supply Kyiv with MiG-29 fighter jets, the first NATO member to do so. That sounds like a big deal, right? Yes and no.
For months, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has been begging the US and its European friends for warplanes to fight Russia. But NATO allies have been slow-walking him because that might push the Russians to escalate on the battlefield. Yet, the Soviet-era MiGs — of which Ukraine has a few dozen relics — are hardly the modern warplanes Zelensky wants, and they’re no match for Russia’s Su-27s.
Still, perhaps Poland's gambit will encourage other NATO countries to follow suit — and maybe even force a rethink on sending Ukraine more high-tech warplanes in the future. After all, that's exactly what happened weeks ago with heavy tanks until the US and Germany changed their mind.