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 }}
Putin needs Xi to win the war in Ukraine
David Sanger, Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times journalist and author of "New Cold Wars," discusses the evolving relationship between China and Russia, highlighting its asymmetry and significance in today's geopolitical landscape. He points out how much the tables have turned. During the Cold War of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union was the dominant power when it came to its relationship with China. Decades later, it's clear that China holds the upper hand. "China holds more cards than the Russians do," Sanger tells Ian Bremmer. Not only that, Russia's Vladimir Putin needs China's Xi Jinping by his side in order to prevail in his war with Ukraine. "He [Putin] needs that Chinese technology desperately... He does not have a choice except to deal with the Chinese on Chinese terms right now."
And what does that mean for China's interests when it comes to the United States? "If you're Xi," Sanger says, "the two best things that can happen to you is that the US is tied up in Ukraine or ripping itself apart about the aid and consumed again in the Middle East." And at least in that respect, Xi seems to be getting everything he wants.
Watch Ian Bremmer's full interview with David Sanger on GZERO World - Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger ›
- The limits of a China-Russia partnership ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Xi’s “peace” plan for Ukraine: China “wins” ›
- Russia & China vs “the West” ›
- Xi invites Putin to China to strengthen "no limits" partnership - GZERO Media ›
"Patriots" on Broadway: The story of Putin's rise to power
“Putin was my mistake. Getting rid of him is my responsibility.”
It’s clear by the time the character Boris Berezovsky utters that chilling line in the new Broadway play “Patriots” that any attempt to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rise would be futile, perhaps even fatal.
The show, which opened for a limited run in New York on April 22, stars Tony and Emmy-nominated actor Michael Stuhlbarg as Berezovsky, a larger-than-life oligarch whose billions buy him into the highest ranks of Russian power after the fall of the Soviet Union. When asked by President Boris Yeltsin to find a successor to lead the fledgling nation, Berezovsky taps Putin, a former KGB agent and ex-mayor of St. Petersburg who few knew well.
The play’s director, Rupert Goold, said while the play is set in a specific moment in modern Russian history, the script has needed changes along the way as major developments colored Putin’s story.
“It does feel like the filter on it changes every day because something else happens every day,” actor Will Keen, who originated the role of Putin in London two years ago, told GZERO’s Tony Maciulis. “It feels like the play has, overall, become darker and darker. It seems to become more and more perturbing.”
“Patriots'' was written by Peter Morgan, creator of Netflix’s “The Crown” and the play puts a similarly-styled lens on Russian history. It’s Shakespearean, more melodrama than history lesson, but the characters are very real. The Broadway audience will also likely receive the show differently than the West End crowd in London, in part because of America’s long and contentious relationship with Russia, and the current polarization in US politics and discourse.
“Patriots” is playing a 12-week run at Broadway’s Barrymore theater.
Catch this full episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on public television beginning this Friday, April 26. Check local listings.
Soldiers of the seven newest NATO members parade during a ceremony marking the expansion of NATO's membership from 19 countries to 26 at the alliance headquarters in Brussels April 2, 2004. NATO foreign ministers participated in an event marking the formal accession of the seven newest members, Bulgaria, Estonia Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slonevia.
NATO turns 75. Will it make it to 80?
Seventy-five years ago today, 12 leaders from the US, Canada, and Western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty, creating the world’s most powerful military alliance: NATO
Where it’s been: As World War II drew to a close in 1945, Europe faced the overwhelming challenge of reconstruction. Over 11 million displaced people were wandering the bombed-out cities and scorched countryside, including hundreds of thousands of war orphans. And on the east bank of the Elbe River stood the massive, battle-hardened Soviet Red Army, a worrying prospect as the USSR came increasingly into conflict with its erstwhile allies.
Just 18 months later, Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk, pledging mutual defense as world powers rapidly coalesced into ideological blocs. Following a Soviet-backed communist coup in Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands joined to create the Western Union in March 1948, but within months, the Soviet blockade of West Berlin would make clear only US involvement could deter Moscow.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty just over a year hence, binding one another to mutual defense.
Five months later, the USSR tested its first nuclear bomb.
Identity crisis: Through the Cold War, NATO had a clear mission to deter the Soviet Bloc. But as the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991, what would become of the alliance?
Instead of guarding against Eastern Europe, NATO began absorbing former Soviet bloc countries and protecting the liberal democratic order more generally. In March 1999, the alliance welcomed Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary — and initiated a bombing campaign that ended the Serbian invasion of Kosovo.
Then, in 2001, the alliance’s mutual defense clause was invoked for the first time in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the US, leading to the multilateral International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. By 2004, another seven former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries had joined.
But Moscow’s sudden invasion of Georgia in 2008, just months after the small Caucasian nation voted overwhelmingly to start NATO accession talks, raised the specter of a renewed Cold War. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 restored focus on the old enemy.
Future peril. Today, NATO has expanded to 32 countries with over 3.3 million active troops, 1 million armored vehicles, 20,000 aircraft, and 2,100 warships, all backed by the US, French, and British nuclear arsenals — without question the most powerful military force ever assembled.
Yet despite its strength, the alliance is beset by anxiety over its future. Should Donald Trump win reelection in November, planners from Ottawa to Ankara worry he will hollow out the alliance’s core and expose members to Russian predation while abandoning Ukraine to the cruel fate of partition, or worse.
The upside? Europeans are starting to get more serious about protecting themselves. The invasion of Ukraine spurred a 13% increase in defense spending in Europe 2022, and Sweden and Finland, both of which punch above their weight militarily, to join NATO. Most pressingly, NATO is working on a $100 billion fund to keep Ukraine in the fight — money Trump 2.0 couldn’t touch.Brandon Flowers of The Killers performs at the Virgin Festival in Baltimore, Maryland
Russia kills the mood at The Killers concert
Somebody told me you had a boyfriend ... but, apparently, not that Georgia is a former Soviet state!
Those could be new lyrics to The Killers song after the band invited a Russian fan on stage at a concert in Georgia and encouraged the audience to embrace him as a brother. Yep, you read that right.
Frontman Brandon Flowers introduced the audience member as Russian during their ritual of inviting a fan to play the drums on stage. When the crowd responded with boos, Flowers responded, "You can't recognize if someone's your brother? We all separate on the borders of our countries? Am I not your brother, being from America?"
What Flowers overlooked: Calling for Russian brotherhood in Georgia brings back memories of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. Russia invaded the former Soviet state 15 years ago and has occupied 20% of its territory ever since. Fears of Russian aggression have skyrocketed among Georgians since the invasion of Ukraine, and tensions have been exacerbated by thousands of Russians entering the country to flee the draft.
“Inviting a Russian drummer to serenade a crowd of Georgians on their soil amid a crawling Russian occupation was a mind-blowing oversight,” says Tinatin Japaridze, a Eurasian political risk analyst at Eurasia Group and native Georgian. “While we cannot expect every rockstar to have an in-house geopolitical risk analyst on speed dial, I find it hard to believe that The Killers had not been at least casually informed that the place where they were about to perform had spent 70 years under Soviet occupation, and relations with Russia — a northern neighbor that invaded my country in 2008 — continue to be tumultuous, to say the least.”
“Hopefully, The Killers will spread the word among their colleagues in entertainment and make it public knowledge in the West that for as long as Moscow continues to occupy our sovereign territory, Russians cannot and will not be our siblings,” she adds.
Flowers has since apologized, but we’re skeptical he’ll be invited to bring “Mr. Brightside” back to Georgia anytime soon.
Armenia, Azerbaijan & the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis that needs attention
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week.
I want to talk about an issue that is not getting the attention that it should, and that is the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is one of many impacts from the Russian war in Ukraine. Not new. There's been a war for decades over this little territory, an autonomous Armenian populated territory inside Azerbaijan, former two Soviet republics.
Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is small, it is mountainous, it is all of 120,000 people. It is fiercely contested. When the Soviet Union collapsed, in part would support from Russia, Armenia had military superiority. They were able to not only have control over it, but also buffer regions bordering it. They didn't negotiate very seriously with the Azeris, in part because they had the upper hand. That is now changing. Azerbaijan has been building up their own military capabilities, in part from a lot of energy wealth from the Caspian, in part with support from Turkey, which is very aligned with Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile, Russia, which is Armenia's major supporter, really their only kind of strong geopolitical supporter with troops in Armenia and peacekeepers on the ground, very distracted given the invasion of Ukraine and under a lot of pressure. That has meant reduced troop presence and them acting largely on the sidelines. Azerbaijan, sensing opportunity, struck, took back occupied territory around Nagorno-Karabakh, and now have a functional lock on any ability to get in or out of the territory.
Now, Armenia, the Armenian government itself in Yerevan, has said that they are willing to renounce claims on this territory. They no longer see it as part of Armenia if these Armenians are given guarantees of rights and autonomy. That is not the view, at least not therefore, not thus far of the local government in Karabakh.
Meanwhile, in Azerbaijan, they have cut off the humanitarian corridor. In part, this is to force the local Armenians to the table, but it's also a massive humanitarian crisis. And there is now a real possibility that 120,000 people are going to face starvation.
And that's why I'm bringing this up right now. Look, there are lots of places around the world that need more international attention, and GZERO Media is trying our best to shine more of a light on them in Haiti, in Niger, in Yemen. Well, you can now add Karabakh to that list. And international pressure from the US, from the Europeans, from the Japanese, from everyone is needed to get that humanitarian assistance in immediately. And then hopefully, and quite plausibly a deal that allows both Armenian and Azeri populations to live in peace.It's a small territory. These are not very powerful countries. A little bit of pressure and focus from these governments, from the G-7 governments in particular would go a long way. Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States. They have a lot of influence over the Azeris, but it's not hitting the headlines right now. And in that regard, it's worth all of us doing a little bit more.
So hopefully this makes a tiny bit of difference. You can spread the word too. I thank you for your attention for a few moments this summer. And I hope everyone's doing well. Thanks a lot.
- The Graphic Truth: How do Azerbaijan and Armenia stack up? ›
- What's happening in Nagorno-Karabakh? ›
- Special podcast: View from "fully blockaded" Nagorno-Karabakh during Armenia's conflict with Azerbaijan ›
- What We're Watching: Turkish political verdict, Nagorno-Karabakh flareup, Sunak's immigration plan, Lula's military ›
- Canada-India relations strained by murder allegation - GZERO Media ›
- Russian Black Sea Fleet commander still alive despite Ukraine's claims - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: 2023: A good year for warmongers - GZERO Media ›
- Armenia’s capital reels from the aftermath of Nagorno-Karabakh & Russia-Ukraine wars - GZERO Media ›
- Overlooked stories in 2023 - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Gaming out the 2024 US election - GZERO Media ›
Ian Explains: how NATO got its groove back
It’s been 365 days since Russia began its brutal war in Ukraine.
On the anniversary of the invasion, the world looks a lot different than it did a year ago. GZERO World traveled to the Munich Security Conference to understand just how much it's changed amid Europe's biggest land war since World War II. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin's best efforts, one of the biggest knock-on effects is NATO's increased strength and renewed purpose in the face of Russian aggression, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO
NATO was founded in 1949 to counter the growing Soviet threat, but after the fall of the USSR, it experienced an existential crisis about its purpose in a world where a hot war in Europe felt like a relic of the 20th century. In 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea only 3 NATO members out of 28 met the alliance’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defense. Now, nine countries meet or exceed it and 19 more have plans to hit 2% by 2024.
NATO is now stockpiling more military supplies, increasing high-readiness troops, boosting air defenses, and upgrading defense plans. And it's expanding: Sweden and Finland, who for years thought it was safer to be neutral, applied for fast-track membership.
But it's not all rosy. Global inflation is going to limit the buying power of all those increased defense budgets. And NATO members have very different ideas about how far to go in maintaining its support in Ukraine. Can NATO keep up it's momentum?
"Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas
Everyone knows that war is bad and peace is good, but what about the difference between peace and "peace"? Estonia's Prime Minister Kaja Kallas sat down with Ian Bremmer at the Munich Security Conference to discuss the war in Ukraine and how her perspective has changed since the Russian invasion began one year ago. Europe is a small region, says Kallas, and maintaining unity in the face of Russian aggression could come down to acknowledging European countries' lived experiences and not-so-distant history.
Kallas makes the important distinction between the post-World War II eras in Eastern vs. Western Europe. While countries like France and Germany were rebuilding their economies and national institutions, Soviet-occupied countries in the Eastern bloc experienced violence, persecution, and economic stagnation. "For 50 years we were occupied, and we were not really missed," says Kallas, "But we missed you."
Catch Ian Bremmer's full interview with Kallas in this week's episode of "GZERO World with Ian Bremmer," airing on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
Mitt Romney on the threat Russia poses to the world
It was nearly 11 years ago that then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney sat on stage with then-president Barack Obama and was ridiculed for identifying Russia as America’s chief geopolitical foe. Looking back today, the Utah Senator stands by what he said then. And he looks a heck of a lot smarter on the subject today than he may have in 2012. “They were a geopolitical adversary. No question about it. Every initiative that we had at the UN, they would block.”
In the latest episode of GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits down with Senator Romney in his DC office to discuss a range of geopolitical issues, including the current threat that Russia poses, not just to Ukraine but to the world at large. But when Bremmer presses the Senator on how far US military support for Ukraine should go, Romney punts the question back onto the Biden administration. “Someone's got to lay out how we get where we want to get as opposed to just hoping that the extraordinary resolve of the Ukrainian military and of their people, that that'll be enough.”
Watch the GZERO World episode: Sen. Mitt Romney on DC dysfunction, Russian attacks, and banning TikTok