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 }}
Europe's biggest concerns about Middle East, one year after Oct. 7
What's the situation of Europe one year after the October 7th attack against Israel? What's the main takeaway from the visit of the new NATO Secretary General to Kyiv? Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Lisbon, Portugal.
What's the situation of Europe one year after the October 7th attack against Israel?
Well, I think deep apprehension is the best way of summing it up. Fears that we will see a further escalation of the conflict. Could be further problems in Gaza, could be further problems in West Bank. But perhaps particular now the situation of Lebanon, where there's the risk that we will see a further meltdown by the way of Lebanon. And we already have a million people on the move inside Lebanon. We have perhaps 100,000 people who are trying to flee from Lebanon into Syria. Mind you, there was a million and a half fleeing from Syria into Lebanon a couple of years ago. And the fear that we will see any refugee flow coming out of that area into Europe with all of the problems that would entail. So, deep apprehension on that situation.
What's the main takeaway from the visit of the new NATO Secretary General to Kyiv?
I think it was important for Mark Rutte to go to Kiev as the first thing he did really as the new Secretary General of NATO in order to make very clear his personal commitment to Ukraine, and the fact that he would put that at the top of his list of priorities, much in the same way as outgoing Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has done during the last few years. So, that was an important signal in itself.
U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin addresses a press conference at U.S. Capitol on the future of the Chesapeake Bay
Ben Cardin’s deepfake debacle
US Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, recently joined a videoconference with a top Ukrainian official. The only problem? It was a deepfake.
Cardin believed he was speaking with former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who wanted to chat over Zoom. But according to the New York Times, Cardin grew suspicious when the person posing as Kuleba began asking questions about politics, the upcoming election, and sensitive foreign policy questions. He asked Cardin whether he supported firing long-range missiles into Russia, for instance. Cardin ended the call, reported it to the State Department, and officials at State told him it was a deepfake. It’s not yet clear who was behind the artificial intelligence mask, which looked and sounded like Kuleba.
Senate security officials warned lawmakers and their aides after the incident. “While we have seen an increase of social engineering threats in the last several months and years, this attempt stands out due to its technical sophistication and believability,” they wrote, cautioning that similar incidents could arise in the future, especially ahead of the November elections.
Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM
Do NATO allies have the strength, patience, and unity to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to win the war and defeat Russia? According to Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, the answer is a resounding yes. On GZERO World, Sikorski sat down with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of NATO’s 75th-anniversary summit in Washington, DC, to talk about NATO’s strength, Putin’s missteps, and why continuing to send crucial military and economic assistance to Kyiv is a top priority for western allies and the future of NATO.
“Ukraine is heroically defending us before this evil man at a cost to us of less than 1% of our GDP,” Sikorski explains, “We can afford this."
Sikorski says that despite rogue alliance members like Hungary’s Victor Orbán, NATO remains united and is “back to basics” in its original mission of repelling an aggressive Russia. Bremmer and Sikorski also discuss Ukraine’s ongoing challenges, such as ensuring Kyiv can keep sending weapons and new troops to the front lines. Sikorski remains optimistic that Ukraine will prevail and win the war, with the help of Western allies and NATO, particularly Poland, which has taken in almost a million Ukrainian refugees and is helping train troops to NATO standards.
Bremmer pushed Sikorski on his conviction that Ukraine would win, pointing out that a potential second Donald Trump administration could severely limit further military assistance for Kyiv and the sheer amount of force required to get all of Ukraine’s territory back just isn’t available, but Sikorski held firm in his conviction.
“There is never a shortage of pocket Chamberlains willing to give up other people’s land or freedom for their own peace of mind,” Sikorski said, “I think we can win this one.”
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on 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 (🔔).
- Ukraine will define the future of NATO ›
- Does NATO need to be “Trump-proofed”? ›
- NATO’s pivot to the Indo-Pacific ›
- Ian Explains: Why Biden is the focus of the NATO Summit ›
- NATO Summit: Biden's uncertain future worries US allies ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia - GZERO Media ›
Handout photo shows Left to right: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Ukraine) with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Vilnius. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky to the NATO Summit on Wednesday July 12, 2023, ahead of the inaugural meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ukraine gets a NATO promise, sort of
NATO allies will reportedly announce today that Ukraine’s progress towards joining the organization is “irreversible.” The language will appear in the joint communiqué released by the alliance to conclude its three-day summit in Washington.
But when, precisely, that irreversible momentum will culminate in a NATO membership card for Kyiv is still no clearer now than it was three days ago.
Reports suggest that the allies spent hours hashing out how explicit to make any conditions in the text, but there seem to be two main hurdles: ending the war with Russia, and getting Ukraine’s governing and military institutions up to NATO-level snuff.
Neither of those things will happen anytime soon, which is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was clear earlier in the week that Ukraine’s membership is, in fact, still far off.
For Ukraine, then, it’s a mixed bag. A great vote of confidence from the world’s largest military alliance, yes. But no actual deterrent against a Kremlin which will, naturally, view the language as a provocation.
The alliance has, however, redoubled its commitment to helping Ukraine defend itself, announcing a $43 billion aid package, while the US said additional air defenses – as well as the first batch of F-16 fighter jets – were all on their way to Kyiv.
Russia-Ukraine reality check
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I think it's a good time to talk about Russia. Vladimir Putin, just back from a trip to the Hermit Kingdom. Not many people go there. And those that do frequently don't come back. North Korea. Kim Jong un.
Lots of pomp and showing of very close friendship, engagement, alignment. Kim Jong un said that they're now allies. Putin notedly did not use that terminology, and I'm sure advisedly. So, first time that Putin has been there in decades. And lots of ways to think about it. I mean, on the one hand, you can say that Putin's reduced to traveling to meet the world's worst dictator because there are very few countries in the world that are willing to provide wholehearted support for Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine. The Iranians will. The North Koreans will. The Syrians and Belarus. And that's kind of about it. And so that doesn't speak very well for Putin being able to get weapons, for example, to continue to fight his war. Even the Chinese won't do that because they're worried about US and other knock on secondary sanctions. So, you know, that's the positive spin that you can put on this from the United States and the NATO position.
But there's a negative spin too, and that is that Russia is increasingly allied with a very dangerous nuclear country with cyber capabilities, history of human trafficking, illegal drug transit and export, and a country that is already maximally sanctioned that benefits from chaos, and that previously their top friend was China who wanted more stability in the global order.
And the Russians certainly don't. So this provides cover for North Koreans to cause more trouble vis-à-vis South Korea and Japan and the rest of the world, and also gives lots of weaponry to the Russians and lots of technology to North Korea, none of which is good, not good for the world at all. And while it's true that Russia is isolated in terms of its war and its war goals, that doesn't mean that it's isolated.
And what I mean by that is the willingness of the United States and Europe to put really tough sanctions on Russia. I mean, the kind of sanctions that would reduce Russia and its ability to fight the war. They're not there. They're not there. They talk tough. But the reality is Russia is the largest country in the world geographically and within that territory. They have an awful lot of very important natural resources. They've got oil, they've got gas, they've got platinum, they've got diamonds, they've got uranium, they've got food, they've got fertilizer. And the United States and Europe, if they were so concerned about the war in Ukraine that they were truly willing to cut that off, they could. But it would cost them.
It would cost them because the world would be in a global recession out of not getting that oil and gas. It would cost them because a lot of the nuclear plants in the West wouldn't have uranium, and the prices would go way up. And they don't want to spend that money. And it would cost them because a lot of people in the Global South would starve, because they wouldn't have access to the food and fertilizer, except at a higher cost that they can't afford to pay. And the West isn't willing to pay that cost to take that risk and to squeeze the Russians that hard. They're willing to make the Russians less profitable in terms of the oil and gas they sell. They're willing to freeze and even increasingly seize hundreds of billions in Russian assets and use that to fund the Ukrainians, because it's better than having to pay for the Ukrainians yourself.
But that's very different from saying we're going to force the Russians to pay a price that they would be unwilling to pay. The price that the Russians are presently paying is at the margins. It isn’t an existential for Putin, and it's certainly a much lower cost than he's willing to exact for continued war on the ground in Ukraine, territorial conquest, and perhaps the ability to remove Zelenskyy in the future and have someone that is more aligned with his sensibilities. That's where we are. And the reality there is that Russia can keep on keeping on as a consequence.
Now, you know, we saw, this peace conference, as it's called, supporting Zelensky with representatives of over 90 countries and over 40 heads of state and heads of government. And it was an impressive display in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago. But it's also true that behind the scenes, Zelensky really, really, really wanted to have that meeting. And the Americans and many NATO allies were saying, maybe not so fast, because of course, every time you have one of these big global shows of support, you lose a little bit of the urgency and the support you show that there are fewer countries that are willing to support you as much as they were six months before, 12 months before. The Chinese didn't show up, the Indians showed up at a relatively low level. They didn't sign on to the ultimate memorandum. Neither did the Saudis. I mean, you know, this is an issue, right? The fact is that NATO is very strongly supportive of Ukraine and of continuing to allow them to have the types of support to defend themselves and rebuild their country. The Global South is increasingly “let's have a cease fire right now.” And China is “let's have a cease fire right now and we're kind of more in the Russian camp than we are in the West camp or in Ukraine's camp.” And Putin sees that and he sees that over time, if he waits these countries out, the likelihood that he'll end up in a better position than the Ukrainians goes up.
And this is why when you talk to members of NATO and you say, well, what's your position on negotiations? And their public statements are, look, it's it's completely up to the Ukrainians to decide. The reality is that you'll need to pressure the Ukrainians, both with carrots and sticks, to get to a place where you can negotiate, even if the Russians aren't yet ready to do that. And they aren't in reality though Putin says, “sure, I'll negotiate if you move out of the territories that I've illegally annexed, including those that you're presently occupying.” That's a nonstarter. But you have to get the Ukrainian there. You have to prepare them to be there.
And there are a couple of ways you do that, right? One is you give the Ukrainians the support to rebuild their country. You fast track them into the European Union, so they have a shot at better rule of law, improving their democracy, reducing their corruption that gives them a future. And you also give them some harder security guarantees for the parts of their territory that Russia hasn't occupied and hasn't illegally annexed. And if you do all of those things, you're in a better position to get the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.
You provide more cover to Zelensky or the future leaders of Ukraine and the future leaders of Ukraine. And you also make it more compelling multilaterally before you're in a position where Ukraine gets thrown under the bus as they might, for example, if Trump wins, come November, as they might, for example, if Le Pen gets a majority, in the European, in the French Parliament, and then the French are suddenly vetoing European additional gives to Ukraine.
I mean, this is the problem is that a lot of the uncertainty about Ukraine isn't only about what Russia does, isn’t only about Ukrainian capacity, but it's also keeping that multilateral effort, which has been strong and united together. And there have been a couple of almost misses, especially the US, the six months getting them $61 billion, but also coming up with the electoral cycles. And the longer you push that out, the more dangerous it is for Ukraine and ultimately for the NATO alliance. So that's a little bit of the sort of real talk about what's happening in Russia and Ukraine on the back of the news of the past week. As always, what you want to happen is not the same as analysis.
And if it is, it means that your analysis is crap. That is not what we do here. And I hope all of you have a great week. Talk to you soon.
Ukraine on the path to joining NATO, says deputy Mircea Geoanǎ
After two years of fighting and brutal warfare in Ukraine, NATO deputy Mircea Geoanǎ says the stakes of the war could not be higher for the West. Ian Bremmer spoke with Geoanǎ on GZERO World at the Munich Security Conference and asked him to give a sober assessment of the war so far, as political battles and mounting crisis fatigue in the US and EU put military and financial assistance for Kyiv in jeopardy. Geoanǎ says the West can't afford to desert Ukraine in its time of need.
“Ukraine will become a member of NATO, it will become a member of the EU,” the NATO deputy warns, “If they don’t prevail, there is no NATO, there’s no EU.”
NATO and Ukraine are getting closer every day, Geoanǎ argues, they're becoming more interoperable with each other, and a level of trust has developed with Kyiv. Abandoning the fight now would be a broader sign of the West’s collective ability to deal with global security challenges coming from elsewhere in the world, like Iran and North Korea. This war is bigger than Ukraine, which is why it’s so important for allies to stay united.
Watch full episode here: Can Ukraine win the war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
Ukraine joining NATO "is the only option," says Alina Polyakova
GZERO’s Tony Maciulis catches up with Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Analysis, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to assess Ukraine’s precarious situation two years after Russia's invasion. Polyakova highlights the intensified military strategy employed by Russia, making the situation dire for Ukraine. She stresses the urgent need for more military support and equipment from Ukraine's allies, especially from the United States.
Polyakova also addresses the debate around Ukraine's potential NATO membership, arguing vehemently for its inclusion. “The only way to secure what have been very positive wins of Western support for Ukraine is to solidify that at the NATO summit by extending an invitation to Ukraine, to even a session talks," Polyakova tells Maciulis. She dismisses the notion that Ukraine's membership would escalate tensions with Russia, asserting that NATO serves as a deterrent to aggression. She emphasizes that Ukraine's integration into NATO is crucial for Europe's long-term security.
Polyakova also clarifies misconceptions about Article 5 of the NATO treaty, stating that it doesn't automatically lead to military intervention. She advocates for starting accession conversations with Ukraine, emphasizing its military capabilities and the benefits it could bring to NATO.
Maciulis and Polyakova also touch on the potential impact of the upcoming US presidential election on Ukraine and NATO. She suggests that while President Trump's rhetoric about NATO has been concerning, his actions have largely supported the alliance. However, she acknowledges uncertainty about the future and the importance of maintaining trust and unity within NATO.
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? ›
- Putin has a “noose” around Ukraine, says Russia analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Why Ukraine is the target of Russian aggression – analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Ukraine's NATO & EU ambitions ›
- Should NATO embrace Ukraine? ›
- How Russian cyberwarfare could impact Ukraine & NATO response ›
- Sending NATO troops to Ukraine unlikely despite Macron's remarks - GZERO Media ›
Ukraine's NATO & EU ambitions
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
First question, is Ukraine going to be a member of NATO?
Well, eventually it will. There's no question about it. There was no even formal limitation issued in the news for fairly obvious reasons. The country is in war at the moment. But at the same time, no question, there were substantial commitments by NATO, even more substantial commitment by the different G-7 nations to build up the armed forces of Ukraine long term, integrate them into NATO. And no question that Washington Summit next year is going to be a lot of discussions on when NATO formally has go to admit Ukraine as a member.
Second question, will Ukraine be a member of the European Union?
Well, same answer. It will be at some point in time, but that's going to be somewhat more drawn out process necessarily. I would hope that by the autumn of this year, that we will have first opinion by the European Commission to say yes and a decision by the heads of government, heads of state and government of the European Union in December to start accession negotiations.