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.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks after signing an infrastructure agreement in Montreal, December 16, 2016.
Trudeau’s Darkest Hour
This is Justin Trudeau’s darkest hour.
Even as he shuffles his Cabinet tomorrow, it will not shuffle his political future. This is the endgame.
Eventually, all successful politicians turn into Dorian Gray — gazing into the mirror and seeing a reflection of beauty they believe voters will find irresistible. All the while, however, somewhere under a parliamentary staircase, a portrait of their political face is being ravaged by time, scandal, and betrayal. That is the bargain leaders inevitably make as they fight to stay in power.
There was President Joe Biden earlier in the year, still seeing the reflection of a robust man ready to govern for another four years despite the fact that he couldn’t get through 40 minutes of a presidential debate. He had to be pried out of the presidential limo by the Jaws of Pelosi.
In 2015, former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper thought he too saw another big election win in the mirror, but instead, insulated from reality inside his powerful prime minister’s office, he suffered a stunning defeat. The wheel of change is not partisan, but it is powerful.
Trudeau is now seeing the real portrait for the first time. After nine years in power, down 20 points in the polls, he has long refused to look, but his once trusted Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland just swiped the picture from under the stairs, waved it around publicly, and then lit it on fire.
It’s hard to imagine a more shambolic ending. Freeland was told by the PM — on a Zoom call, no less! —that she was going to be replaced as finance minister right after she presented the Fall Economic Statement (a kind of mini-budget in Canada) that would reveal the government blew past its own key deficit target by more than CA$20 billion. In other words, “Please wear this fiscal mess and let me move on to a new thing.”
How was that ever going to work? Naturally Freeland refused, but she didn’t simply quiet-quit and go gently into that good political night. Instead, just hours before she was set to deliver the FES, she chaos-quit with a controlled rage, rage-against-the-dying-of-light letter, dismissing Trudeau’s entire economic agenda as a self-serving “political gimmick.”
It blew the government apart.
It’s hard to declare winners and losers in this carnage, as everyone in the government is a casualty. The PM is now facing an open revolt by a growing number of MPs. Wayne Long, an outspoken Liberal, went on CTV’s ‘Power Play’ to say Trudeau is “delusional” and claimed that up to 40 MPS want him to resign, though that number has yet to be confirmed. Still, his sentiments were reflected in comments MPs told me, one saying bluntly, “I hope he announces he is stepping down.”
Freeland herself says she is running again, which basically kicked off the next leadership race, and she is likely the front-runner. But, as the saying goes, “The hand that wields the knife shall never wear the crown.” Freeland delivered four budgets for Trudeau, and even if she rightly fought back against the $1.6 billion goods and services tax holiday boondoggle, that hardly adds up to the over $20 billion overage on her own targets. If Canada is facing a fiscal reckoning and an angry electorate, isn’t Freeland as responsible as Trudeau? Would Canadians be able to disaggregate the two?
All this could not come at a worse time for Canada, now under direct threat from President-elect Donald Trump. He promises devastating 25% tariffs on Canada the day after he is inaugurated, and, with a hyena’s nose for weakness, he has persistently and publicly tormented Trudeau with the threat of making Canada the 51st state.
Pause on that for a second because it is unprecedented in Canadian-US history, unless you want to go back to … 1812, before Confederation. What started out as a Trump taunt is starting to look more like a Trump trial balloon. Trump’s son Eric has amplified the idea on social media, and now, on places like Fox News, taking over Canada is a topic of genuine debate.
With Trump, the first question is always: Do we take him literally, or seriously, or both?
And the lesson people have learned in the last eight years is: both.
Even as government officials have dismissed the threat as a joke, others are taking it seriously. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is showing up on American news programs defending Canada and threatening to cut off energy exports.
Trump trades in three currencies: power, fame, and loyalty. A lame duck leader of a foreign country who has only one of these three may come to Mar-a-Lago for dinner, but he might well end up on the menu.
The best hope Canada has is for the 35 state governors who depend on Canada as their top trading partner to act as de facto proxies for Canada, and push back against tariffs that will hurt their workers and economies.
Now what?
A few paths:
One, Trudeau stays and runs again after tomorrow’s Cabinet shuffle. There are no polls or signs that would suggest this is the most productive path, but, until he leaves, it has to be an option.
Two, Trudeau leaves, prorogues parliament, and the leadership race kicks off. The rules around that election will be crucial for the Liberal Party.
Can Liberals afford to take three months to elect a leader while Trump launches trade tariffs and the Conservatives consolidate their lead in the polls? It is not advisable.
On the other hand, can they afford to do a short 30-35-day process, in which case very few Canadian voters and new candidates will get involved? That might not end up injecting any fresh blood into the party at all. The Democrats tried it in the US and ended up with a frothy Kamala Harris campaign start and a miserable end.
There are few good options for the leader and the party right now, but if the government falls on a confidence motion in the new year, then the race is one with Trudeau at the helm, which is exactly what the opposition parties want most of all.
Nothing can happen until the prime minister decides what he will do.
It’s coming on Christmas, as Joni Mitchell once sang, the day the prime minister was born, but instead of seeing a star in the sky, even he knows this is his darkest political hour. The only guide he has might be those portraits of other prime ministers that hang in the halls of Parliament, each of whom has had to ask the same impossibly hard question: When is my time up?
Only a few of them got to choose their own answer.
Putin isn't winning in Ukraine, says US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Filmed live before an audience at New York City’s iconic 92nd Street Y, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sat down for an in-depth conversation with Ian Bremmer as part of GZERO World, Bremmer's PBS global affairs TV series. Marking one of his final public interviews as President Biden's top foreign policy advisor, Sullivan offered a candid assessment of global geopolitics, with a sharp focus on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its broader implications.
In a striking moment, Sullivan dismantled the perception of Russian success in Ukraine: “They set out on a strategic objective of taking the capital Kyiv, wiping Ukraine as we know it off the map... and they have failed in that. And they will fail in that,” he declared. Sullivan emphasized that while the war imposes profound costs on Ukraine, the resilience of its people and the steadfast support of allies have kept the nation standing.
The revealing conversation also touched on the shifting dynamics within NATO, the economic strain on authoritarian regimes, and the critical path toward a just peace for Ukraine. Reflecting on the broader picture, Sullivan noted, “We tend, as democracies, to think, ‘Oh, we’re not doing so great.’ But let’s not forget: Kyiv stands. Ukraine stands. Ukraine will stand at the end of this.”
Watch the full interview with Jake Sullivan on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television beginning this Friday, December 20. Check local listings.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Trump can't "stay out" of Syria entirely, says Kim Ghattas
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer and Beirut-based journalist Kim Ghattas discuss the aftermath of Assad’s fall in Syria and how an incoming Trump administration will approach it.
As the region braces for a pivotal transition or a power vacuum, the conversation centers on the delicate balance between America First and the necessity of being a part of the conversation in one of the most contested regions in the world.
“There’s a difference between supporting a country and having a military intervention,” Ghattas explains, emphasizing that Syrians must lead their own rebuilding process. While President Biden’s administration has signaled its willingness to recognize Syria’s transitional government under conditions respecting freedoms and minority rights, Ghattas acknowledges the complexities of working with groups like HTS. “They are saying all the right things… but we should trust Syrians to push back if HTS tries to impose Islamic rule on Damascus,” she notes.
Ghattas interprets Trump’s position—“this is not our fight”—as a call for restraint rather than indifference. “It is of national security interest to the United States to make sure this transition goes forward as smoothly as possible,” Ghattas asserts, warning against spoilers that could derail progress.
Watch full episode: Syria after Assad.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
10 memorable quotes on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer in 2024
On our award-winning weekly global affairs show, GZERO World, Ian Bremmer explains the key global stories of the moment and sits down for in-depth conversations with the newsmakers and thought leaders shaping our world. In no particular order, here’s a look back at the 10 most quotable moments from this year’s episodes.
Adam Grant on how AI is changing the world of work
Aired on February 2, 2024
The AI revolution is coming… fast. But what does that mean for your job? Watch Ian Bremmer’s conversation with organizational psychologist Adam Grant.Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)
Aired on March 8, 2024
In a conversation filmed live at the historic 92nd Street Y in NYC, Yuval Noah Harari delves into the foundational role of storytelling in human civilization, the existential challenges posed by artificial intelligence, the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine war, and the most pressing questions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Watch the full episode.Thomas L. Friedman on How the Israel-Gaza war could end - if Netanyahu wants it to
Aired on April 5, 2024
Pulitzer-prize-winning author and New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman games out a possible resolution to the war in Gaza and explains why both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas are obstacles to peace. Watch the full episode.
Emily Bazelon on the major Supreme Court decisions of June 2024
Aired on May 3, 2024
Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon unpacks some of the biggest cases that were on the docket this year and how the rulings will impact Americans. Watch the full episode.
Justice & peace in Gaza: The UN Palestinian ambassador's perspective with Riyad Mansour
Aired on July 5, 2024
Ian Bremmer sits down with Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour for a candid interview about his role in the UN, the war in Gaza, and how it might end. Watch the full episode.
An exclusive interview with Argentina's radical new president, Javier Milei
Aired on August 2, 2024
Argentine President Javier Milei defends his radical approach to saving Argentina’s struggling economy, his commitment to aligning with liberal democracies, and his pragmatic stance on international trade and alliances. Watch the full interview.
Why António Guterres believes the UN should lead on AI
Aired on September 20, 2024
In an exclusive interview for GZERO World, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres sat with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to discuss his vision for the future of the UN during his last term in office. Watch the full interview.
Iran's next move: Interview with VP Javad Zarif
Aired on October 4, 2024
Ian Bremmer sits down with Iran's new Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif just days before the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to discuss the escalating conflict in the Middle East and where Iran stands. Watch the full episode.
Roberta Metsola on whether Europe can become a global superpower
Aired on October 20, 2024
European Parliament President Roberta Metsola discusses Europe’s future amid an ongoing migrant crisis, the war in Ukraine, and an economic slowdown. Can the bloc’s 27 member states stay united? Watch the full episode.
Oren Cass on the case for Trump's tariffs
Aired on December 6, 2024
Trump has vowed to raise tariffs, slash business regulation, and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, policies he says will put Americans first. Oren Cass outlines what that will mean practically for workers and consumers. Watch the full episode.
Don’t miss an episode in 2025!
GZERO World airs nationwide on US public television (check local listings), and new digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.
Can Trump's tariff plan boost the US economy?
President-elect Donald Trump has made no secret of his love of tariffs, vowing steep import taxes on China, Mexico, Canada, and almost every product that crosses the US border on his first day in office. Will they boost US jobs and manufacturing, as Trump promises, or lead to rising inflation, as many economists warn? On GZERO World, Oren Cass, founder and chief economist at conservative think tank American Compass, joins Ian Bremmer for an in-depth discussion about Trump’s tariff plan and the future of US-China trade policy. Cass believes that tariffs are a way to level the playing field with China, which he says “flouts international rules and any concept of a free market.” He says tariffs can help correct global trade imbalances and doesn’t believe they’ll lead to a dramatic spike in consumer prices.
“When you raise money through a tariff, you don’t set that money on fire. It’s also tax revenue,” Cass explains, “We have a $2 trillion deficit. If I told you that there was some other tax that was going to help reduce the deficit, you’d probably say that would help reign inflation in.”
Watch full episode: The case for Trump's tariffs
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Opinion: The world prepares its go bags
The abundance of volatility in the global system since at least the start of the pandemic has meant that we should expect more geopolitical risk rather than less. Now, in addition to multiple ongoing conflicts, a year of electoral instability, and pandemic hangovers, the return of Donald Trump as the US president injects further unpredictability into this landscape.
Already since his reelection, an unusual set of waves have crested. In South Korea – a key US ally – the declaration of martial law last week stunned the domestic and international audience. After widespread protests broke out, President Yoon Suk Yeol issued a quick (but not immediate) retraction with more fallout yet to come. Elsewhere, in France, Prime Minister Michel Barnier lost a no-confidence vote after parliamentary budget talks stalled. The measure reveals the fractures and radicalized forces that continue to plague one of Europe’s leading economies. And in Syria, Islamist militants turned Aleppo and Damascus into a hot zone once again – raising tensions in an already active neighborhood – before spectacularly overthrowing Bashar Assad’s government on Saturday.
Trump is, of course, not responsible for any of these developments. But the world is on edge. His posts in recent weeks on Truth Social have done little to assuage the anxieties and instead serve as kerosene to various burning fires. Trump roiled markets in late November when he announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on all products coming into the US from Mexico and Canada with an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The market remarkably found the news surprising despite Trump’s avowal throughout his 2024 election campaign that he would again rely on the tariff lever as president.
More recently, Trump posted to warn that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration there will be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” Trump’s commitment to “hit harder” those responsible at a historic level strikes a distinctly different tone than the one regional actors have become accustomed to with Joe Biden’s administration.
In response to the preexisting condition of volatility and the forthcoming infusion of Trumpredictability, the world is preparing “go bags” for the year(s) ahead. For both global political leaders and private sector firms, this preparation involves kicking the tires on current strategy, stress testing supply chains and sourcing, evaluating budget plans, and checking in with the man himself.
After Trump’s tariff threats, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew immediately to Mar-a-Lago to assess the damage. Inremarks afterward, Trudeau said it was an “excellent conversation” and that he “look[ed] forward to the work we can do together, again.” In his own posts, Trump said the two had discussed many important topics that would require the US and Canada to work together, including trade, illegal drugs, and energy. In the days that followed, Trump posted a photo of himself staring out at snow-capped mountains with the Canadian flag at his side – after jokingly saying the country could become America’s 51st state. It was a reminder to Trudeau that one dinner will not resolve everything.
European leaders, meanwhile, are debating a lot more defensive spending for the journey ahead. At early December meetings of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary-General Mark Rutte thanked Trump for getting NATO territory allies to the 2% defensive spend target, calling it the “Trump push.” Rutte went on to say that – and not just because of Trump – he now believes strongly the 2% is not enough for long-term deterrence. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock similarly called on NATO to make big investments in European security beyond the standard 2% defensive target.
In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has seemingly demonstrated a new willingness to consider negotiations as a Trump return looms. After repeatedly vowing to continue the fight, Zelensky indicated this week he would be open to Western troops deploying in Ukraine as a security guarantee and step toward NATO membership to halt the war with Russia. The shift comes as polls suggest that Ukrainians are increasingly inclined toward a negotiated solution, but also after months of Trump campaign pledges to swiftly drive settlement and end the war. With Assad’s toppling in Syria, having long been propped up by Russia, Putin will be recalculating his own ambitions in Ukraine in real time in the coming weeks.
Unsurprisingly, Trump is not immune to the effect he is having on global behavior. He launched a site to track the “Promises Kept,” which tallies “securing our border,” “working towards international peace,” and “propelling economic growth” among his pre-inauguration successes.
The world at the close of 2024 stands on the precipice, awaiting the impact that another Trump presidency will bring. Trump 2.0 will be all-encompassing. His administration will pursue policies that reshape the global economy and international trade patterns. It will target ongoing fault lines and new challengers. And there will be unpredictability. Global leaders of all stripes are counting on being kept on their toes. Some across Europe have even begun ramping up crisis capabilities for citizens with initiatives advising on stockpiling and bunker building. They have six weeks to pack their bags.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.