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 }}
MAGA, the American Dream and immigration
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take in this holiday season on the back of the biggest fight in the United States that we have seen among Trump supporters since his election win.
Started off when Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire, the co-director of this new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE as they're calling it, writing that we have to bring in lots of high-talent immigrants, complaining that American culture isn't getting it right for the people that they need to hire in order to make the United States win and more competitive. We hear it all the time. You need to staple a green card to every STEM PhD that's being awarded to non-Americans in the US so they can stay. You need to keep those students here. You need to bring in far more talented legal immigrants in larger numbers to address the talent gap in the United States, and if Americans want to win, that's what you need to do.
The average American has heard this before, and they've heard it for a long time. To be clear, it is not like the US economy isn't winning right now. You look at the stock market, you look at corporate profits, you look at Elon Musk, the dude is worth nearly half a trillion dollars, and that's with a very strong dollar. Look at how the United States' economy has performed since the pandemic, while Europe, and Japan, and South Korea, and Canada, and others just are not, and they're not innovating, and they don't have the big companies. I've heard this about other issues. I've heard about tariffs. I've heard about even free trade. You hear it about investments and capital flows around the world and need to make things work more effectively for the big money in the United States. And working-class and middle-class Americans know that when elites in the US say that the US is going to win, that it doesn't mean 'em. The United States, for so many Americans, is a country of second-class healthcare, and second-class education, and second-class opportunities. And if the American dream doesn't work for the average American citizen, then you're telling them we should be bringing in really much more talented Indians? Good luck with that argument for them.
And those of you that know me, know that that's not my personal perspective. I grew up in the projects with a mother though that did absolutely everything for her kids. And I had opportunities. We had opportunities. I feel very lucky to have been born in America, not better than anyone else, not having any more intrinsic worth, just super, super fortunate. So the American Dream absolutely worked for me. Capitalism in the US and the ability to be an entrepreneur absolutely worked for me. But most of the kids that grew up in my neighborhood don't feel that way today, along with far too many working and middle-class Americans.
And if the United States felt like the land of opportunity instead of a two-tier system where you buy your way into privilege, and you buy your way into opportunity, and then you make sure you do that for your kids, and the best indicator of how well an American is going to do is how fortunate your parents are compared to other advanced industrial democracies, rich democracies around the world, well, that is not a country that's going to say, "Yeah, we need to do more to help the wealthiest win." Because the wealthiest have already figured out how to win for themselves, and there are lobbying dollars, and their access to the best that the world has to offer for them in the United States. If the average American felt that way and felt that applied to them, then Trump wouldn't be president today. You wouldn't have "America First" resonating for so many people that want to undermine globalism because globalism wasn't about the globe and it wasn't about all Americans. It was about just getting it done for that small, small group of people with access to capital.
This is the failure of globalism, and this is why the United States doesn't want to take the lead on global security, or global trade, or even global democracy anymore. You have to be a leader at home before you can effectively lead anybody, nevermind everybody else. This is what we're facing come January 20th. I think it's a useful fight to see play out publicly because there's a very big difference between those that have access to decision-making, power and authority in the United States and those that turned out and actually voted, the masses that voted against the establishment. And to the extent that they continue to be hard done by and every expectation for the last 40 years in the US is that that will be the case, whether it's a Democrat or Republican running the country, this situation is only going to get more toxic.
That's it for me. I wish everyone Happy holidays. Hope you had a merry Christmas. Looking forward to the new Year. I'll talk to you all real soon.
What Trump's Panama Canal threats reveal about today's geopolitics
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your Merry Christmas week. Maybe it'll be a little bit quieter, but it doesn't feel that way these days.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the statements from President-elect Trump about the territories that he seems to have some interest in. Over the last day, we've had statements that the US should take the Panama Canal, and some memes being posted by Trump and the vice president-elect. And he said that it used to belong to the United States, the Panama Canal, and President Jimmy Carter foolishly gave it away. And now he wants it back. And is it because he's angry that the Panamanian government is claiming that he owes lots of taxes for Trump properties? Maybe. Certainly, the governments don't like each other. The Panamanian president came out and said sovereignty and independence of his country are not negotiable, not surprisingly.
And then, Trump with another statement, and it's not the first time, saying that ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. In his first administration, he wanted to try to buy it. Denmark said no. Now he's saying, "Look, national security reasons for the United States, absolute necessity, that's like pretty much 100%, right? So, got to take Greenland over." And the Greenland prime minister has said it's very much not for sale.
So, look, what are we talking about here? Well, first, national security reasons are of course defined by the United States as the most powerful country. That is a different type of US exceptionalism. Historically, US exceptionalism was more about the idea that the Americans actually had right on their side, and so their values were somehow different and better than those of other countries.
Now, it's more about we want it. It's for our national security. It has nothing to do with values, but we can get away with it because we are stronger. Now, lots of countries do this. Russia they have made that argument about Crimea, which used to belong to the Soviet Union under the leadership in Moscow and the Russian Federation first among equals. And then was given to the Ukrainians by Khrushchev, which I remember Elon Musk referred to as "Khrushchev's mistake," which seemed the kind of thing he wouldn't come up with and would've heard from the Kremlin. Now they want it, and they want it because it was historically theirs, and they shouldn't have given it back. And so, it doesn't matter if the Ukrainians have sovereignty, and the locals wanted to be a part of Russia anyway, which is true in the case of Crimea. Not in the case of the Southeast Ukrainian territories that the Russians presently occupy.
But of course, it's against international law. Having said that, against international law, when you're the more powerful country, doesn't seem to matter very much in today's international environment. Certainly not as much as it used to. That's why Ukraine is going to get partitioned, and Ukraine is going to have to accept a loss of territory de facto in order to maintain security guarantees going forward. We see this in terms of China and the "nine-dash line" in the South China Sea, which clearly is ridiculous, if anyone that looks at a map recognizes that China should have no claim on all of this territory and the resources inside that territory. But China's more powerful than all these other countries, like Indonesia, and the Philippines, and so they can get away with a lot more.
Israel in the West Bank, and more territory that they're taking, and more territory just in the last couple of weeks that they say is temporary. But for how long? Who knows. Near the Golan Heights, strategically important for them, national security reasons, so it's ours, right? That is where we are heading.
And does Trump mean it? Probably not. He didn't mean it last time with Greenland. It's just a negotiating stance, and he exaggerates a fair amount. And he's looking to both say things that amuse him and put other countries on the back foot. Just like he did with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada who is facing a much harder domestic political time because Trump is making him look like an idiot on the international stage, and Trump and the US are a lot more powerful than Trudeau in Canada.
But it does matter if the United States doesn't support international law. It does matter if the US is not interested in upholding its existing trade deals, its existing collective security agreements. And unlike in 2016, when Trump won for the first time, this time around there's more legitimacy to it in the United States. And what I mean by that is, Trump won, and he won the popular vote. And he almost got 50% of all of the voters in the United States. And it's not like Americans don't know what Trump did, don't know what he's accused of, don't know his role around January 6th, don't know what he's intending to do going forward. They're fully aware of this, and they voted for him anyway. Or maybe I should say they voted for him in part because of that.
So, you don't get to blame the Russians, which was farcical back in 2016, but no one's even trying to make that argument now. Trump won, and Trump won on an agenda that he is now very much moving forward with. And that is going to be a big issue for other countries because they are a lot less powerful than the United States. Elon Musk, similar challenge here, acting in many ways as the most powerful person in the US government after Trump. Certainly the most unfettered, and when he comes out publicly and says that Germany's in trouble if it's not for the alternatives for Deutschland, the AFD, it's not close to a majority of support in Germany, but the German government's in trouble. And he will push for more support for a Euro-skeptic group. Very far on the right in the German political spectrum, and the German government is going to be scared.
How much do you want to go after Elon and push him back when you know that he has the full support of the American president? Do you really want to fight with him? And the answer is a lot less than you would've been willing to fight with him before Trump won. So, I think all of this is really creating a much more transactional law of the jungle global space, where both the United States, and China, and a number of other countries are increasingly playing by a very similar lack of rule book if you will. And we're becoming more a world of winners and losers, as opposed to a world of leaders that bring people together, and that is a problem. We've experienced that in the past, but we haven't experienced it when the challenges are so obviously larger, the national challenges.
So, clearly global challenges when it comes to climate, or it comes to AI, when it comes to the proliferation of dangerous weapons. So, clearly a much more dangerous environment is the consequence of all of that, and that's how I think I respond to what I see from Trump. Not that it's so different from what we're seeing from other countries, but precisely because it's so similar, and because those are countries that the Americans historically are like, "No, no, no, we don't play by that." And that's increasingly where we are. So, anyway, a lot that we'll be looking towards in 2025, and a very, very volatile geopolitical environment. Merry Christmas to everyone. Hope you have a happy New Year, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Global leaders scramble to align with Trump
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. A lot more information about where the Trump administration is going in terms of the appointees that they're making and also, the responses that we see from leaders around the world. Maybe focus a little on the global, because if you think that Republicans who privately don't really like Trump are publicly all lining up and saying, "This is God's gift," you've seen nothing compared to what you're going to see from allies of the United States all over the world who know that they get crosswise with the president-elect at their own peril. He is a lot more powerful, and his country is a lot more powerful than their own. We've already seen that with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel saying that an upcoming Lebanon ceasefire would be a gift to the president-elect. We've seen Zelenskyy in Ukraine saying, "Great meetings, great phone calls."
Of course, the war is going to be over faster with the policies of the incoming president-elect. We're seeing all sorts of outreach from individual European leaders, Asian leaders saying, "We can't wait to find a way to work with this guy. Congratulations. Please don't tariff us. Please don't cause any problems for our country." So, I do think we're going to see a lot of wins in the near term from countries all around the world because the alternative is problematic. And when you look at the G7, the G20, NATO, it is different from last time around in a few ways. First of all, that you now have a number of countries that are ideologically aligned with Trump, and there's going to be more in the near term. I mean, Giorgia Meloni, who is the most popular of G7 leaders, assertively, is someone who sees herself much closer to Trump's worldview in terms of immigration policy, social policy, even to a degree economic policy. And that is going to make him feel much more comfortable when he's sitting at those summits. That wasn't the case first G7 Summit he attended last time around.
Canada, still Justin Trudeau, but won't be for long and soon Canada's going to be Pierre Poilievre who runs the Conservative Party and is absolutely much more aligned with Trump and be a very close friend of the US President-elect when he becomes Prime Minister of Canada. Of course, you've got the Gulf states on board with Trump. You've got the Israelis much more aligned with him than otherwise. The South Korean leader, President Yoon, a conservative, taking up golf again so that he'll be able to play with Trump effectively and wants to be the new Shinzo Abe from Asia in terms of being able to maintain stable relations. That's one reason. The second reason is that there's a lot more at stake. The world is much more dangerous. Getting Trump wrong is a lot more costly when you've got a major war going on in Europe, a major war going on in the Middle East, when the US-China relations are in a worse place, but China's under much more economic pressure at home than they were before. So getting it wrong is trouble.
And so already seeing outreach from the Chinese to the United States saying, "Look, here are some things that might be the beginnings of a deal. We could buy more US treasuries. We could maybe organize a Ukraine conference. We could buy a bunch more American goods. What do we need to do? What do we need to do?" So I'm not saying it's going to go well, but clearly there is more such orientation. And then you have the fact that Trump is more powerful at home in the United States. He has the House, he has the Senate, and he's creating far more loyalists around him as opposed to adults that are more independent in his own cabinet. Which means that if you are a foreign leader, your ability to work around Trump with other parts of the US political firmament is very constrained. And all of that implies that whatever it is that Trump decides he wants to do going forward is going to be what other leaders are going to have to engage with and align with.
There are big problems from a Trump administration coming in. He's not interested in multilateralism. He doesn't want a strong European Union. He's prepared to end the Russia-Ukraine war, even at terms that are problematic for the Ukrainians. Has very little interest in promoting rule of law or democracy internationally. In fact, one of the most interesting things about Trump and the United States for right now is that for almost half a century, the US has been trying to get the Chinese to orient more towards an American worldview. This is what the idea of responsible stakeholdership was, that China was meant to play more of a leadership role in US-led multilateral institutions, promote US-led rule of law and values on the global stage, and become more aligned with the Americans and its allies over time as it got wealthier. Turns out China hasn't done that, but America has. The United States is becoming more like China on the global stage, much more transactional in their foreign policy, indifferent to the values of other countries or the political systems and economic system of other countries on the global stage.
Certainly not interested in the global promotion of democracy or even rule of law, and rather bilateral relations between the US and other countries where the US is more powerful to get the outcomes that they want. Exactly the way that Chinese engage globally. It has been successful for China in many places because they're more powerful than most of the other countries they deal with except the Americans. They've had challenges in Southeast Asia, for example, because the US has led a more multilateral approach on things like the South China Sea. Doubt you're going to see as much of that under Trump. So a very dramatic change in how we think about the world, and we'll be watching very closely as Trump continues to fill out his cabinet and starts talking much more with global leaders on the global stage.
That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Trump's plans for policy & personnel
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Everyone, of course, talking about the incoming Trump administration. What it's going to mean in terms of personnel and in terms of policy. The latter, more important, but informed very significantly by the former. Couple of things I would say.
First of all, on the personnel side, clearly most important point here and very different from the first administration is that loyalty matters immensely. Trump is angriest not at Democrats, angriest at people that used to work for him who have now flipped, who are calling him a fascist. Some of the worst things that have been said about Trump in the first administration came from senior people that he put in that weren't loyal. They may have been long-term establishment Republicans and adults, but now he couldn't be bothered with them in the slightest and wants them to know it.
And that's why nobody really expected, that was talking to the Trump team, that Pompeo or Haley were going to be appointed. But the fact that Trump came out immediately before even making other appointments to a cabinet and saying, "No, you two, thanks, but no thanks. You can go get on with the rest of your lives." Because he sees them as not loyal. Nikki said all sorts of horrible things about Trump, and Pompeo was feeling around with other candidates and didn't endorse until way too late. And Trump was angry about that at the time, and he holds that grudge.
So you're going to see a team that I think is much more consolidated around Trump. And that doesn't mean there won't be different constellations, groups of people that are more aligned with each other, but when Trump has something he wants done, everyone's going to run alongside him.
And I think that's true for JD Vance too. The idea that there's going to be a shadow cabinet that is run by Vance, and he's the Project 2025 guy. No, if that happens, Trump will be angry. If there's any large meeting internally, Trump wants to be the star. And he expects Vance to do his bidding and to be effective at it and to run other things that he doesn't care as much about. And that is, I think, the role that Vance will play.
Is it going to be more populist on some issues? Sure, but not necessarily on as many as you'd think. Why? Because there are going to be a lot of billionaires who are interested in their business interests, their investment interests around the Trump team. There will be CEOs. There'll be a lot of people that aren't globalists in name; they've been thoroughly repudiated, but globalists in more policy than you would think.
Now here, China policy is extremely interesting because on the one hand, Trump really wants to see higher tariffs on China and has talked about that. Robert Lighthizer, who was US trade rep for Trump last time around, very professional, very capable in that role, clearly playing a very significant role in running trade and maybe other things economically for Trump this time around. He is pushing for more jobs in the United States, more investment in the United States, decoupling from China. Very comfortable with a new Cold War between the US and China.
You know who isn't? Elon Musk. Has massive investments on the ground in China, wants a more comfortable relationship there, and has basically told the Chinese that he's very interested in helping to be an interlocutor. Kissinger is dead. And the one person who's out there that could be a conduit of information and potentially better relations between the two most powerful countries in the world is Elon. Will he be effective? A technology policy is kind of interesting because Trump first time around didn't do technology policy. Remember the CHIPS Act? That was Biden. Semiconductors, export controls, that was Biden. Wasn't something Trump was focused on. He was focused on trade, on the trade deficit, on tariffs, on those issues, intellectual property theft, those issues. Not as focused on technology. Elon will be, and he's going to want people he wants to be appointed in relevant positions in the Trump administration. So if that happens, maybe it's true that US-China relations become more functional than they otherwise might've been. But this is an untested proposition, something very interesting to watch.
A couple other places that are really important, Russia-Ukraine. Did Trump, did Trump not have a conversation already with Putin? Kremlin's saying no, that means absolutely nothing. But clearly he is very interested in pushing Zelensky, who is on the back foot militarily right now, to end this war. And the likelihood of a near-term ceasefire has gone way up because of Trump. Orbán of course, already been saying that from Hungary. Robert Fico from Slovakia wasn't saying that before Trump was elected. Now he is. Are we going to see that from Giorgia Meloni in Italy, for example, who's ideologically disposed to Trump, but has been much more anti-Russia in her policies? Watch that very, very carefully. Other countries that aren't on the front lines.
So it's going to be a lot of pressure on the Ukrainians, an opportunity for Putin, if he wants it, though he's doing well militarily, so he's going to probably drive a harder bargain on even a short-term ceasefire than he might have three months ago, six months ago. And he knows Trump wants to get this done. And then we need to see what the Europeans do. Do they hang together under a relatively strong and aligned European Union leadership, or do we start to see a real split among a whole bunch of European individual government leaders that are a lot weaker? Super interesting.
And then of course, you have the Middle East. And on the Middle East policies are even stronger than Biden's pro-Israel policies. And you've seen a lot of support for going after Iran. Might the Israelis now do that? Oil prices are low. China's not demanding much energy. Hitting the Iranians nuclear and energy capabilities wouldn't bring oil as high as they would've been 6 months ago, 12 months ago. Depends on what the Iranians do in response, how disruptive they want to be. But right now they're reaching out to everyone. The Europeans, the Iranians are reaching out to the Saudis. They just did some low level military exercises with the Saudis. This is a country that is basically saying, "We don't want a big fight. We know that we're going to lose if we have one." Easy time for Trump to press in the Middle East. Last time he was president, first place he went was Saudi Arabia, then Israel. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he does that again. Though he probably flips it this time around in terms of the order.
Okay, so much to talk about, so much to watch. I hope you find this interesting. We'll be on top of it and we'll talk to you all real soon.
- Trump lays the groundwork to contest the election ›
- Viewpoint: Trump to overshadow UN climate conference ›
- How Trump won – and what it means for the world ›
- How will Trump 2.0 approach foreign policy? ›
- How a second Trump term could reshape global politics ›
- Global leaders scramble to align with Trump - GZERO Media ›
Putin visits US voters
Turnout in this US election fell. The world's leading expert on American democracy saw, first hand, why that was. #PUPPETREGIME
Handout photo dated January 14, 2020 shows an MQ-9 Reaper flies over the Nevada Test and Training Range.
What We’re Watching: Drone drama, DeSantis vs. Ukraine, Japan hearts South Korea, Pakistan-Khan standoff
Drone drama over the Black Sea
In what is so far the closest thing to a direct clash between the US and Russia over Ukraine, a Russian jet on Tuesday crashed into an American drone over the Black Sea, sending the unmanned craft hurtling into the water.
Moscow disputes the claim, saying its jets didn't hit the drone. The US accused the pilots of two Russian Su-27s of being “unprofessional” and “environmentally unsafe” for harassing and “dumping fuel” on the $32 million MQ-9 Reaper drone.
But scholars point out that the US didn’t call the act “unlawful.” Russia was evidently within its rights to disrupt a drone in international territory that was almost certainly gathering intel for Moscow’s adversaries in Kyiv. Still, the incident shows the dangers of US and Russian military hardware operating in such close proximity, even if they aren’t in direct conflict.
Ron goes Don on Ukraine
Speaking of those dangers, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has waded into some foreign policy waters of his own, telling FOX News host Tucker Carlson he thinks that the Russia-Ukraine “territorial dispute” is not a vital US national interest and that Biden’s “blank check” for Kyiv is a distraction from more pressing issues like China.
This puts Desantis at odds with much of the GOP but firmly in line with … former President Donald Trump, whom he is all but sure to challenge for the Republican nomination in 2024.
Political wrangling aside, Desantis may be trying to catch a broader trend: In February, polls showed that only 48% of Americans favored providing weapons to Ukraine, down 12 points from May of last year. Is Ron on to something?
Japan and South Korea’s efforts to strengthen ties
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida are meeting in Tokyo this week in a bid to forge stronger economic and security ties. Diplomatic engagement between the countries has stalled in recent years owing to territorial disputes and Japan’s rearmament amid what Koreans see as Japan’s efforts to whitewash World War II-era atrocities.
This follows a recent landmark agreement between Tokyo and Seoul for a South Korean fund to compensate victims of Japan’s forced labor camps during its 20th-century colonization of the Korean peninsula – a deal that has proven unpopular with South Koreans for not holding Japan directly and financially accountable.
Improved cooperation would help both countries meet the increasing security challenges posed by China and North Korea in the region. Restoring trade links between South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, will help alleviate high-tech global supply chains. But for this to work, Kishida’s government must first win over South Korean hearts and minds.
Imran Khan 1 - Pakistan’s government 0
Pakistani security forces on Wednesday withdrew from near Imran Khan’s home in Lahore after failing to detain the former PM, despite having an arrest warrant. The reason: to allow a big cricket match to take place in the city.
As the standoff unfolded, Khan — who used to captain the national team in cricket-crazy Pakistan — took to Twitter, urging his supporters not to give up. He was ousted in a no-confidence vote last April over allegations of corruption and “terrorism”, which he and his supporters dismiss as politically motivated. But since then, Khan has fervently sought to win back the top job, leading a populist movement against Pakistan’s political elite and all-powerful army, whom he accused of being behind an assassination attempt against him in Nov. 2022.
So far, the government was too scared of igniting his base to arrest the former PM, even after he was a no-show in court. Yet, in a country where the army calls many political shots, perhaps he’s made too many enemies. And if he’s behind bars when Pakistanis vote in provincial elections this fall, will his fans remain silent?
A motorist rides past a hoarding decorated with flowers to welcome G20 foreign ministers in New Delhi, India, March 1, 2023.
What We’re Watching: Tense G-20 talks in India, Finland’s fence-building, China’s economic activity, Chicago’s mayoral runoff
An awkward G-20 summit in Delhi
When G-20 foreign ministers met in New Delhi on Thursday, it was, as expected, an awkward affair. While India, the current G-20 chair, had hoped that the bloc would focus on issues of importance to the Global South, like climate change and the global food crisis, the agenda was disrupted by US-Russia bickering over the war in Ukraine, which US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called "unprovoked and unjustified war", while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blamed the West for not doing enough to extend a deal to allow Ukrainian grain exports that will soon expire. Of course, focusing on anything else was going to be a tall order when the top diplomats of the US, China, and Russia were all in the same room. (President Biden and Xi Jinping last met at the G-20 summit in Bali in November, though there was no bilateral meeting between the US and Russia.) In a sign of how fractured Washington's relationship remains with these two states, Blinken on Wednesday again urged Beijing not to send lethal weapons to Russia and canned China’s peace plan for Ukraine. As for US-Russia relations … need we say more? India, which has gone to painstaking lengths to maintain its neutral status over the past year, says it thinks the group can get stuff done. But at a meeting last month of G-20 financial heads, the group couldn’t even agree on a joint statement.
Finland builds a border fence against Russia
Rakentaa se aita! That's Finnish for "Build that fence!" — which is what Finland plans to do to protect its borders from Russian draft dodgers. Construction of a 10-foot tall wall, ahem, fence began this week along Finland's 800-mile border with Russia, with the first section expected to be finished by June. The Finns want to stop Russians from entering after fleeing the draft to fight in Ukraine, a number that could rise if Vladimir Putin orders another mobilization in the coming months. Meanwhile, Finland's parliament on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the government's plan to speed up the process to join NATO — ideally along with Sweden, a fellow Nordic, if Turkey ever backs off. Going back to the fence, parts of it will have all the bells and whistles — night-vision cameras, lights, and loudspeakers — that former US President Donald Trump could only dream of for his partially built "Big, beautiful wall." And like Mexico, you can bet that Russia won't pay for it.
Chinese economic activity rebounds
China's official manufacturing sector purchasing managers’ index — a closely watched indicator of economic activity — reached 52.6% in February, expanding at its fastest monthly pace in over a decade. What's more, home sales rose for the first time in two years amid a persistent property-sector slump. The good: The two figures beat expectations and are a clear sign that the world's second-largest economy is recovering quicker than expected after abruptly ditching zero-COVID. The bad: The starting point was very low, as China's GDP grew last year by only 3%, barely half of what the ruling Communist Party had targeted. The ugly: While this is excellent news for Xi Jinping and a global economy that's eager for both more Chinese demand for stuff and more Chinese capacity to make stuff, economic activity has yet to reach pre-pandemic levels. Also, China's economy is still facing strong pressure from the fallout of the US-China rivalry, with American companies feeling increasingly bearish about the future as ties between Beijing and Washington get icier.
Chicago election result portends impending showdown over policing
Voters in Chicago denied Lori Lightfoot, who made history as the city’s first openly gay and Black female mayor, a second term amid concerns over rising crime, which increased by 41% between 2021 and 2022. Lightfoot, who cruised to office in 2019 on an anti-corruption platform, had been widely criticized for the high crime rate in America’s third-largest city. No candidate in the Democratic stronghold clinched over 50% of the vote needed to win outright this week, so the two remaining candidates – both Dems – will go to an April 4th runoff, with the controversial issue of policing underscoring the stark divide between them. On one side is Paul Vallas, who has drawn criticism for past comments and for associating with the Windy City’s controversial police union leader. He promises to add hundreds of officers back to the police force if elected. His challenger, Brian Johnson, favors investment in services like housing, education, and mental health over more policing. Amid rising post-pandemic crime in major US cities, political differences over investment in public safety measures will play an increasingly central role in US mayoral elections. We’ll be watching as Philadelphia and Houston head to the polls later this year.Photo composite of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping
What We’re Watching: China’s budding diplomacy, Biden’s border control, Russia’s big plans
What’s next for Russia & China?
Russia and China broadcast their friendship to the world on Wednesday as the West freaked out about the possibility of Beijing turning to arm Moscow’s troops in Ukraine. After meeting Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin said that strong Russia-China ties are “important for stabilizing the international situation.” (A tad rich coming from the guy who upended geopolitics by invading Ukraine a year ago.) Putin also confirmed that Xi Jinping would visit Moscow for a summit in the coming months. Wang, for his part, clarified that while their famous partnership “without limits” is not directed against any other nation, it certainly should not be subject to external pressure. He said both countries support “multipolarity and democratization of international relations” – in other words, not a US-led liberal international order. Still, no matter what Western governments say, the Chinese are not so willing to break ties with the US and its allies, mainly because Beijing's trade relations are too important. Meanwhile, we wonder whether the current status of the Russia-China relationship — friends with benefits but complicated — will blossom into a marriage (of convenience) or end in a bad breakup. What we know for sure is that China is getting more involved in the Ukraine conflict generally. Learn more here.
Biden’s tough new move on immigration
The Biden administration this week unveiled a new hardline immigration plan that will likely come into effect after the current pandemic-era immigration policy, known as Title 42, lapses on May 11. It would then stay in place for two years. Under the measure, first revealed last month, asylum-seekers who cross the US southern border illegally or who fail to apply for asylum in the first country they cross through will be banned from applying for asylum in America. This comes after Biden’s team last month introduced a new policy, whereby migrants from Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, in addition to Venezuela, would be eligible for “parole” – meaning temporary two-year work visas – only if they apply for asylum from outside the US and if they have a US sponsor. The new plan mirrors a similar policy introduced by former President Donald Trump that was ultimately blocked by the courts. Rights groups, citing a potential threat to humanitarian protections, say they will seek legal action again. Biden has been struggling to contain an uptick in migrants arriving at the southern border in recent months – and the subsequent political backlash. But this plan will infuriate the left flank of the Democratic Party whose support Biden needs as the 2024 presidential race gets underway.