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 }}
JD Vance stuns Munich conference with critique on European democracy
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take from the Munich Security Conference. Just finished with the opening speech for Vice President JD Vance. Before that, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. Literally standing room only across the conference. I can't remember the last time it was so busy. And so busy because so many people believe that the NATO and the transatlantic alliance are at a crossroads, are facing a time of crisis.
First, the good news. The recognition on the part of the Europeans that action on their part is urgent is pretty consistent across the board. That a 2% spend on defense is not enough, that they have to take much more of a leadership role on Ukraine. That they have to be much more competitive in terms of growth. That indeed many of the criticisms that are being levied on the Europeans by Trump, as well as by Democrats and Republicans in the United States are things they have not taken adequately seriously, and now they do.
I think the level of urgency, the recognition of crisis is true across the board. The willingness to take action is a different story. We will see that over the course of the coming months, but there's no question it is significant.
Go beyond that to what JD Vance had to say. This speech did not include a mention of Russia and Ukraine. This is a speech to the Munich Security Conference to mention separately of elections in Romania overturned by their constitutional court, politicized questions about that to be sure. But not a speech that resonated or landed well for the Europeans in the audience. They were getting a lecture on freedom of speech and democracy from the United States. They were not getting a sense of how strong and secure the alliance needed to be.
JD Vance was talking about democracy for as opposed to protecting from. The Security Conference is of course much more about protecting from. It's about what kind of external threats exist to NATO, which is the reason it exists. And to the extent that Europeans are concerned about the future of NATO, a lot of it is coming from inside the house, a European sense that the Americans are not committed to them anymore. In fact, Defense Minister of Germany, Pistorius actually yelled out during JD Vance's speech, "This is unacceptable." I've never seen anything like that from a European leader during a major US plenary here at the Munich Security Conference before coming here for about 15 years. So that was quite surprising.
Having said all of that, when the vice president met with the German federal president earlier in the day, he was much more willing to talk constructively about working together on Ukraine, especially in terms of having the Ukrainians at the table, including the Europeans. How essential it'd be for everybody to work together to ensure that the Ukrainians can be reconstructed. That they'll have security guarantees and defense.
So to a degree, what we are seeing is a speech for Vance's domestic audience in the United States, as well as some of the anti-EU Euro-skeptic populace in Europe, including the AfD, the Alternative for Deutschland, who, of course, their support is going to the polls in a couple of weeks just like the rest of this country, Germany. But still, the level of tension here is extremely high. The level of trust has been reduced. And pretty much everyone I've talked to in this conference believes that the Russians today are in a considerably stronger position than they were in 48 hours ago. The Chinese are in a stronger position than they were in 48 hours ago. And that's something pretty much nobody in this conference wants to say, wants to hear. That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Trump's call with Putin is big win for Kremlin
“We cannot afford to be reactive,” said Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), responding to the news of President Trump’s recent call with Vladimir Putin.
Trump’s conversation with Putin, which reportedly included discussions on reducing US commitments to NATO, has sent shockwaves through European security circles. Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s recent remarks suggesting that Europe must take more responsibility for its defense have further fueled uncertainty among US allies.
Polyakova cautioned that authoritarian regimes are watching closely, using AI-driven disinformation and cyber warfare to exploit divisions. “The transatlantic alliance is at a crossroads,” she warned. “This is a moment where democracies must assert their leadership, not retreat.”
With European elections looming and global security tensions rising, the debate over the US commitment to its allies will remain a central issue in Munich in 2025—and one that will shape the future of Western security.
This interview, conducted by Tony Maciulis, is part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
- Putin shouldn't test NATO unity, says analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Why Ukraine is the target of Russian aggression – analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Putin has a “noose” around Ukraine, says Russia analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Did Trump actually talk to Putin? ›
- The endless ends of Vladimir Putin ›
- Putin is still winning ›
- Ian Explains: Putin's Ukraine gamble ›
Trump-Putin chat over Ukraine "deeply" worries Europe
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take from Munich, Germany, where the Munich Security Conference is just about to kick off. And it is going to be a historic meeting, and not necessarily in a good way.
Everyone I've been speaking to here, deeply concerned about the sudden conversation, 90-minute conversation, with a full readout from, both the Kremlin and from the United States, between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Not so much concerned that a conversation took place, rather that it happened, and Trump is engaging unilaterally without coordinating in advance with the Ukrainians or the Europeans. And in that regard, very, very different than what we've seen over the first three years of the war.
Look, there's no question, everyone does want to see the war wind down. Everyone would love to see a ceasefire. The question is, how and what does the NATO alliance look like after that? What does Europe look like in terms of its engagement, its trust with the United States, the transatlantic relationship? And, of course, what happens with Ukraine? The statements that have been made by Trump and by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are things that we've heard a lot about privately, not just from the Trump administration, from the Europeans, from the Biden administration too, the idea that NATO membership is not in the cards, long-term, if there's going to be some sort of formal peace agreement, that Ukraine is going to have to give up some kind of territory, not that they should, not that that's reasonable, not they don't have territorial integrity, but there's no way for them to get back all the territory that they had back in 2014. Those are things that have now been said publicly by the Americans. But they are being said both unilaterally and also in advance of any negotiation. In other words, concessions are being made to the Russians before both sides sit down. And that is, of course, a very significant concern, for the Europeans and the Ukrainians.
There is also a question what kind of security guarantees would be provided to Ukraine? According to the United States, certainly will not involve Americans on the ground. No troops. Would be European troops. They're the ones that have to do the bulk of the lifting. They're the ones that have to ensure that there was a response if Ukraine were attacked again, after a ceasefire. Now, it's not that the Americans are suddenly washing their hands of all of this. In fact, the first cabinet official to go to Kiev from the Trump administration, just met with Zelensky in the last 24-hours; that’s Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent. Why Treasury? Because Trump is trying to get something for giving something. It's transactional, as he always is. And in this case, focusing on critical minerals from Ukraine. Nominally, the number is some $500 billion of what would be Ukrainian resources to the United States in return for ongoing, US military support for Ukraine.
Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “This is selfish, the Americans shouldn't be doing this.” The Ukrainian president, who actually has to work with the Americans going forward, unlike Scholz, saying, “What a great offer. Happy to talk to you. Want to find a way to make this work?” So, on the one hand, it's not as if the United States is leaving Ukraine high and dry. And certainly, a level of engagement between the Americans and the Russians is very important. It’s essential going forward. But of course, what Putin wants is a deal not only to his favor, but not just about Ukraine. He wants to be talking just to the Americans, and he wants to be talking to them about missile defense, about NATO enlargement, about a whole range of issues that he has, that he takes issue with. And that's something that Trump is perfectly interested in.
At the end of the day, Trump is a lot more interested in cutting a deal for himself that allows the Americans to focus a lot more on China and on Asia, from a security perspective, than working with the Europeans to try to do something collectively on Ukraine. And this is the biggest challenge and also the biggest difference between Trump and Biden, in terms of foreign policy. Biden fundamentally believe that a strong Europe, coordinated with the United States, was long-term in American interests. President Trump does not. He believes that a strong Europe is a bad thing. He wants to see more exits, like Brexit, from other countries. He supports Euro-skeptic movements across Europe. He would much rather have individual negotiations with individual European countries where the Americans are stronger.
What does that mean for the Munich Security Conference? What does it mean for NATO? What does it mean for the transatlantic relationship? Long-term, nothing good. Final point here, the Europeans are taking this seriously, but it's late. They've been told, by Americans for several administrations now, they need to be spending more time and more money on their own defense, their own collective security. Macron has talked about it a fair amount in France. The Polish government is certainly taking the lead on that, especially after the Russians invade Ukraine. But most European governments aren't taking it nearly as seriously and aren't prepared to spend the money. And that reality, for decades now, made much more stark and severe with the Russian invasion in 2014 of Ukraine, which the Europeans did virtually nothing about, and now, when 2022, you've got Trump coming in and saying, “I'm not going to do this,” that's forcing the Europeans in a much more stark way, but also much too late for them to get their act together, in my view.
So, we'll see what we see over the next couple of days, but this is going to be a very, again, historic Munich Security Conference. Glad to be here, and we'll talk to you soon.
Countries' risk perceptions of the US
Graphic Truth: Who's afraid of the US
Each year, the Munich Security Conference – the Super Bowl of international security events – asks leaders what they believe are the biggest risks facing their countries. This year’s poll found that fears of the US skyrocketed in seven of the 10 countries surveyed between October 2023 and November 2024, as Donald Trump’s return to the White House went from possibility to reality.
Risks perceptions of the US increased the most for Germany and Canada – growing by 21 points each. For Germany, the jump was likely fueled by memories of Trump’s first term, when he cast doubt on NATO and threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, combined with campaign trail threats to halt Ukraine aid and implement tariffs on the EU. Canada, meanwhile, knew it would soon face the threat of 25% tariffs from its biggest trading partner. Notably, this data was taken before Trump began threatening to make Canada the “51st state,” and could be higher today.
The only country where risk outlooks stayed the same was the US’ greatest rival, China. It decreased by 1 point in Brazil, and by 7 points in South Africa – where the government likely did not foresee Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, taking issue with its recent land policy and Trump threatening to halt aid to the country.
“The United States today is the biggest driver of geopolitical uncertainty on the global stage,” says Eurasia Group and GZERO founder Ian Bremmer. “Uniquely in modern history, it’s a country committed to unwinding large pieces of a global order that the United States itself has built and led.”
Voters beware: Elections and the looming threat of deepfakes
With AI tools already being used to manipulate voters across the globe via deepfakes, more needs to be done to help people comprehend what this technology is capable of, says Microsoft vice chair and president Brad Smith.
Smith highlighted a recent example of AI being used to deceive voters in New Hampshire.
“The voters in New Hampshire, before the New Hampshire primary, got phone calls. When they answered the phone, there was the voice of Joe Biden — AI-created — telling people not to vote. He did not authorize that; he did not believe in it. That was a deepfake designed to deceive people,” Smith said during a Global Stage panel on AI and elections on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference last month.
“What we fundamentally need to start with is help people understand the state of what technology can do and then start to define what's appropriate, what is inappropriate, and how do we manage that difference?” Smith went on to say.
Watch the full conversation here: How to protect elections in the age of AI
- Hard Numbers: Bukele 2024, German troops in Lithuania, Manipur unrest, Chinese deepfake scam ›
- Taylor Swift AI images & the rise of the deepfakes problem ›
- Will Taylor Swift's AI deepfake problems prompt Congress to act? ›
- Combating AI deepfakes in elections through a new tech accord ›
- Can we use AI to secure the world's digital future? - GZERO Media ›
- Protecting science from rising populism is critical, says UNESCO's Gabriela Ramos - GZERO Media ›
Protect free media in democracies, urges Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid
In recent years, numerous reports and studies have emerged warning that democracies around the world are backsliding and autocracy is on the rise. A free media could be the key to reversing this trend, according to former Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid.
The former Estonian leader said supporting free media is part of defending democracy. “Democracies indeed are always voluntary. You always have to go and vote and sustain our democracies, and every nation finally has the right to ruin their country as well. We've seen countries… give up on democratic path,” Kaljulaid said during a Global Stage panel on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference last month.
But when democracies that have begun to crumble manage to turn back, it’s often because there is “some extent of the free media remaining in the country,” Kaljulaid said.
Watch the full conversation: How to protect elections in the age of AI
Watch more Global Stage coverage on the 2024 Munich Security Conference.
- Ukraine is fighting for all of us, says Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid ›
- AI, election integrity, and authoritarianism: Insights from Maria Ressa ›
- AI vs. truth: Battling deepfakes amid 2024 elections ›
- Ian Bremmer: On AI regulation, governments must step up to protect our social fabric ›
- How to protect elections in the age of AI ›
Deepfakes and dissent: How AI makes the opposition more dangerous
Former US National Security Council advisor Fiona Hill has plenty of experience dealing with dangerous dictators – but 2024 is even throwing her some curveballs.
After Imran Khan upset the Pakistani establishment in February’s elections by using AI to rally his voters behind bars, she thinks authoritarians must reconsider their strategies around suppressing dissent.
Speaking at a Global Stage panel on AI and elections hosted by GZERO and Microsoft on the sidelines of the Munich Security Forum, she said in this new world, someone like Alexei Navalny “would've been able to use AI in some extraordinary creative way to shake up what in the case of the Russian election is something of a foregone conclusion.”
The conversation was part of the Global Stage series, produced by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft. These discussions convene heads of state, business leaders, technology experts from around the world for critical debate about the geopolitical and technology trends shaping our world.
Watch the full conversation here: How to protect elections in the age of AI
AI vs. truth: Battling deepfakes amid 2024 elections
With nearly half of the globe heading to the polls this year amid lightning-speed developments in generative AI, fears are running rampant over tech-driven disinformation campaigns.
During a Global Stage panel at the Munich Security Conference, Bulgarian politician and European Parliament member Eva Maydell said she fears we will soon be unable to separate fact from deepfake fiction.
While acknowledging the important developments AI and emerging tech offer, Maydell warned that we also “need to be very sober” about how they are threatening the “very fabric of our democratic societies” and eroding trust.
While the EU is trying to push voluntary measures and legislative proposals, Maydell points out that political conversations often revolve around the sense that “we'll probably never be as good as those that are trying to deceive society.”
“But you still have to give it a try, and you need to do it in a very prepared way,” she adds.
Watch the full conversation: How to protect elections in the age of AI
Watch more Global Stage coverage on the 2024 Munich Security Conference.
- How to protect elections in the age of AI ›
- How AI and deepfakes are being used for malicious reasons ›
- Deepfakes on are on the campaign trail too ›
- Taylor Swift AI images & the rise of the deepfakes problem ›
- Deepfakes are ‘fraud,’ says Microsoft's Brad Smith ›
- Combating AI deepfakes in elections through a new tech accord ›
- Protect free media in democracies, urges Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid - GZERO Media ›