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 }}
Is the US-Europe alliance permanently damaged?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
Is the transatlantic relationship permanently damaged by what we have seen during the last 10 days or so?
Well, there is no question that the last 10 days or so have been the worst by far for the transatlantic relationship in, well, modern recorded history. You can go through all of the details if you want. It started with the shameful vote in the UN General Assembly on the same day that was three years after the war of aggression that Russia started, where the United States turned around, lined up with Russia, and with primarily a bunch of countries that you would not normally like to be seen in the company of, in order to try to defeat the Europeans, and defeat the Ukrainians, and defeat the Japanese, and defeat the Australians, defeat all of the friends who have criticized the Russians.
It was truly shameful. It was defeated, needless to say, but it left deep marks there. And then it was downhill from there, with that particular week ending with the ambush in the Oval Office, with all of the details associated with that, with sort of a childish dispute about dress codes, and respect for whatever, and total disregard for the important issues that are at stake at the moment. And to that was added, the vice president seriously insulting the allies, primarily the British and the French, and then cutting of aid to Ukraine, including intelligence cooperation, which is unheard of, unheard of when it comes to these particular issues.
So, is damage permanent? Well, one would hope that... well, hope springs eternal, that there would be a way back. But this will be remembered for a long time to come. And the reaction in Europe, well, you have to keep a straight face if you are a political leader. And they do, they hope for the best, but they're increasingly preparing for the worst. What we might be heading into is Mr. Trump, President Trump lining up with President Putin in a deal that is essentially on Russia's term over Ukraine, then trying to force Ukraine into that particular deal, a repetition of Munich 1938.
Will that work? I think it's unlikely to work because the Ukrainians are determined to stand up for their country. And they have the support of the Europeans. Czechoslovakia in 1938 didn't have much support. So, whether it will work or not is debatable, but that is the direction in which things are heading at the moment. Can this be stopped or can the trajectory of things be changed? Let's hope. There's a flurry of meetings in Europe. There will be a lot of contacts across the Atlantic. There is a strong support for Ukraine in Europe, but then deep apprehensions of where we are heading. Further four years with President Trump. After that, (possibly) four to eight years with JD Vance. Well, well, there's a lot of thinking that needs to be done on this side of the Atlantic.
Make America … Alone?
Is the free world lost without America, or is America lost without the free world? We are looking for your answers today.
It’s a question no one thought about when Donald Trump assumed office just 38 days ago.
Though he promised to be a transformative, “drain the swamp,” America First leader, Trump 2.0 is exponentially more radical and less restrained than his first term as the 45th president.
In less than five weeks, Trump has upended the postwar world order, forcing America’s longtime allies to redraw their maps, literally in the case of the Gulf of Mexico/America and strategically in every other way. It is a new world.
To Trump supporters, he is simply fulfilling his campaign promise of delivering deep change to the “deep state.” After all, with a clean sweep of the presidency, Congress, and the popular vote, he has a genuine mandate — one that is strengthened by a right-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Cue Elon Musk’s DOGE chain saw.
But let’s pause for a moment and ask what exactly was included in the promise to make America great again:
- Tax cuts? Those are coming as he just won a big victory in the House of Representatives on that.
- Cutting the size of government? Sure. Finding inefficiencies matters.
- Border security and cutting down on illegal immigration? That has already started, and he has support on that too from a wide array of voters.
- Ending the war in Ukraine? Yes. Who would be against that in principle?
But the details of these things matter. You can treat a broken foot by amputating the whole leg with a chain saw, but then you can’t walk. In less than 40 days of mass policy amputations, you might start getting the sense that the treatment is already worse than the disease.
For example, do Republican voters, who wanted a more isolationist foreign policy, really want the US to take over the Gaza Strip? What part of the MAGA agenda saw that one coming?
Do they want to take over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal too? Imperial land grabs were never part of Trump’s campaign promises.
What about threatening to destroy Canada’s economy in a trade war? Was that part of the promise? Because that’s a lot different from negotiating better trade deals with friends.
Trump is threatening to slap a 25% tariff on all EU goods because he argues, wrongly, that the EU was created in order to “screw the United States.” It was not. The EU was formed out of a desire for stability on a continent that had bled through two world wars. Do Trump supporters really think Russia is a better ally than the European Union?
What about the war in Afghanistan? Do MAGA supporters genuinely want US troops to go back to Afghanistan and take over the Bagram Air Base as the president promised on Wednesday? “We are going to keep Bagram,” he announced. “We are going to keep a small force on Bagram.” A small force? How small? Trump believes Bagram has strategic importance as a forward operating base near China and its nuclear weapons. He also wants to take back the over $7 billion worth of military equipment that the Biden administration left there in 2021. How will he do all this? With another invasion of Afghanistan?
Maybe Republican voters believed Trump would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, but did that include siding with Russia, blaming Ukraine for starting the conflict, and calling President Volodymyr Zelensky, not Vladimir Putin, a dictator?
This past week at the UN, the US sided with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea against a resolution to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. “This war is far more important to Europe than it is to us,” Trump said as he moved the US further away from its longtime allies. “We have a big, beautiful ocean as separation.”
Separation. That is the watchword of the moment. The Trump revolution that is meant to Make America Great Again is making America Alone and for the very first time.
The costs of reversing 80 years of US foreign and domestic policy are still being calculated, but here is one measure: A recent Leger poll found that more than a quarter of Canadians, 27%, now regard the US as the “enemy.” The enemy. Meanwhile, 56% of Americans view Canada as an ally, while only 30% of Canadians see the US as an ally.
These are remarkable pieces of data, especially for countries that fought side by side in Afghanistan, Korea, and two world wars and worked together on countless peacekeeping missions.
To its closest allies, the US is giving away its reputation as the “indispensable nation” and risks becoming an indefensible nation.
Yesterday, Trump announced his new “gold card” idea targeted at “wealthy people” around the world. “We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship," he said. Would he welcome Russian oligarchs to the program? There was no hesitation. “Yeah, possibly,” he said with a smile. “Hey, I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”
If you can afford the $5 million gold card, you are nice enough for America these days, even if you are a Russian thug.
Russia and China are cheering on this new alignment because it comes at a cheap price. Both are poised to test the limits of a world without US guardrails, a world where there is no global cop on the beat to enforce the rule of law. Watch to see how China moves to expand its influence in the South China Sea, around Japan and the Philippines, and, of course, Taiwan. Russia is already clamoring to digest 20% of Ukraine, with Trump’s blessing. Does anyone think that’s enough to satisfy Putin’s imperialist appetite?
What will this mean for global trade, where US enforcement of secure shipping lanes has been the foundational insurance policy of globalization? It is why you can buy such cheap goods from around the world at places like Costco. That backstopping of sea-lane security is now as up for grabs as the Panama Canal. As Ian Bremmer says, this is now the law of the jungle.
All these are deeply polarizing questions, and coming at such a pace that people may take refuge in the certainty of partisanship to avoid the hard work of answering them.
So I want to ask you for your thoughts. Do you think the US is still a trusted ally to its longtime friends in democracies around the world? Do you consider the US an ally to its fellow NATO members, an enemy, or just neutral?
We would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please email us here.
Trump's Ukraine peace plan confuses Europe leaders
What is the European reaction to what President Trump is trying to achieve in terms of peace?
Well, confusion. A lot of people, and there are quite a number of European leaders here, today, don't really understand what President Trump is up to. He wants peace, that's fine. But peace can be, well, that could be the complete capitulation of Ukraine, that is the Putin definition of peace. Or it can be the victory of Ukraine, that's another definition of peace. So exactly how President Trump intends to pursue this? And without Europe, obviously, neither Putin nor Trump wants Europe around the table.
But how do you do it without Ukraine on the table? Because a lot of the things that are going to be necessary to agree with are things that have to be agreed with Ukraine, with President Zelensky. So a lot of question marks. The desire for peace is clearly here, no question about that. This war has to come to end. But the peace has to be just, it has to be stable. It has to be something that is not just a pause for Russia to recalibrate and restart the war.
So a lot of things to discuss between the European leaders and between the European leaders and President Zelensky, is happening in Kyiv here today. But also eventually, across the Atlantic, President Macron is in Washington today, Prime Minister Starmer is heading into Washington on Thursday.
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they meet in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018.
Trump embraces Russia, attacks Ukraine
The realignment was announced at a meeting in Saudi Arabia between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which was initially expected to focus on ending the war in Ukraine but ended up being about improving their diplomatic and economic ties. This would end the isolation that Vladimir Putin’s government has endured since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
The meeting – held without the presence of Ukraine or European countries – was a huge win for Putin. The Americans had already signaled that they accepted his terms for talks on ending the war: No NATO membership for Ukraine, no territorial concessions by the Russians, and no US military presence to enforce the peace.
Even as European leaders were scrambling to respond, Trump cranked up the pressure, denouncingVolodymyr Zelensky as a dictator and blaming him for the war. Zelensky replied that Trump is “living in a disinformation space.” Vance denounced him in turn.
Trump’s friends in the Kremlin say Putin and he may meet this month, at which point their plans may be clearer.
Two GOP senators have spoken against Putin, but Trump’s control over his party looks too strong to turn him, which leaves Ukraine in a desperate position, pleading for European help to either keep fighting or enforce a peace that the Americans force on him.
What if Palestinians want to leave Gaza?
President Trump recently shocked the world by proposing that the United States take over Gaza and that displaced Gazans should be resettled elsewhere. On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour pushes back, arguing that Palestinians are deeply tied to their land and will not abandon it—even in ruins. Mansour highlights the 450,000 Palestinians who marched back to North Gaza despite the destruction, illustrating their unwavering commitment to their homeland. “We have very, very strong attachment to the land, whether it is you have a palace on it or whether it is destroyed,” he says.
Mansour also warns that efforts to encourage Palestinian relocation—whether voluntary or forced—are part of a broader strategy to erase Palestinian identity. “The Zionist movement has been working all along to push the idea that Palestine is a land without a people,” he asserts, rejecting any large-scale displacement plans. Instead, he advocates for temporary housing solutions within Gaza as reconstruction begins. This exchange is part of a larger interview that Ian Bremmer filmed with Ambassador Mansour for the latest episode of GZERO World.
Watch full episode: Who gets to decide Gaza's future?
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 (🔔).
Who gets to decide Gaza's future?
President Trump stunned the world when he proposed that the United States take over Gaza and transform it into the "Riviera of the Middle East," suggesting that displaced Gazans should be resettled elsewhere. America’s Middle Eastern allies have widely rejected the proposal, but what does it mean for the future of Gaza and its people? On GZERO World, Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour joins Ian Bremmer to discuss Trump’s remarks, the realities of displacement, and what Palestinians want.
Mansour pushes back against the idea that Gazans should leave, pointing to the hundreds of thousands who have already returned to their devastated homes despite the destruction. He emphasizes the deep connection Palestinians have to their land, saying, “We have a very, very strong attachment to the land, whether it is you have a palace on it, or whether it is destroyed.” He also warns that forced displacement—no matter how it’s framed—creates instability for both Palestinians and neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan, which have rejected any large-scale resettlement plans.
Beyond Trump’s proposal, Bremmer and Mansour examine Gaza's broader political future, the stalled peace process, and the challenges of rebuilding after the war. With global powers like China expressing interest in Palestinian statehood and an upcoming international conference on a two-state solution, could diplomatic momentum finally shift in Palestine’s favor? Mansour remains cautious but hopeful, acknowledging that “it gets so dark early in the morning before we see the sunlight.”
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 (🔔).
Is the Europe-US rift leaving us all vulnerable?
As the tense and politically charged 2025 Munich Security Conference draws to a close, GZERO’s Global Stage series presents a conversation about strained relationships between the US and Europe, Ukraine's path ahead, and rising threats in cyberspace.
This provocative panel discussion was moderated by David Sanger, a White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times. It features GZERO and Eurasia Group Founder and President Ian Bremmer, Microsoft’s Vice Chair and President Brad Smith, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, and former US Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies Anne Neuberger.
The group gathered atop the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, home to the Munich Security Conference for six decades, at a critical time for Europe and the world. Following a stunning and controversial speech from US Vice President J.D. Vance and concern about the next steps on the road to a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, our Global Stage program broke down key takeaways from the 61st MSC. It illuminated the threat landscape online as cyber-attacks escalate globally.
This livestream discussion is part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
President Donald Trump before the Super Bowl.
Opinion: The world plays Two Truths and a Lie
Over his first month in office, President Donald Trump has presented a range of policy prospects as possible. He has also undertaken a wide number of presidential actions. Together, these measures have shifted the global context, leaving partners and rivals to orient to a vastly changing reality and wonder how seriously they should take him.
Trade dissonance
Despite campaigning on US trade imbalances and promising to impose global tariffs, many doggedly doubted Trump’s intentions as president. When he suggested on Truth Social last December that his administration would introduce 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico by Feb. 1, with a 10% additional tariff for China, the market held its breath. A common refrain of wait and see made the rounds. Colombia’s near-miss in late January when Trump threatened to escalate tariffs if the country did not accept military deportation flights sparked concern but felt further afield.
The mixed response to Trump’s tariff threats belies a cognitive dissonance that surrounds him and his administration. But there’s one thing anyone who’s followed Trump’s political career over the last decade should know: to believe him when he tells us what he intends to do. When he offers up an idea in a press conference, lists it on a webpage as a promise to be kept, posts about it on Truth Social, repeats it hundreds of times on the campaign trail, puts policy in place around it as president, and establishes a new governmental agency (the External Revenue Service) to execute, it is a pretty safe bet he plans to impose the tariffs.
On Feb. 1, the Trump administration formally announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, with an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. When both Canadian and Mexican leadership reached out to Trump with commitments on border safety and curbing the flow of illegal drugs, the president agreed to a 30-day tariff reprieve. China offered no such concessions, and now the two are locked in a potentially accelerating dance of trade threats and investigations. With incoming levies on steel and aluminum, the Trump administration has already shown that it plans to rely over and over on pulling the tariff lever to further its trade agenda. This is the truth.
Foreign aid dismantling
As the new administration pursued its trade plan ambitions, details of another policy shift emerged: the apparent unwinding of the US Agency for International Development. The sudden reversal in 60 years of US foreign aid policy caught many working in the agency off-guard and sent ripples across the development community. Global headlines highlighted impacts on health missions, sustainability and climate initiatives, and frontline staff in Ukraine. Long a foundational component of American soft power, a US retrenchment on foreign aid likely opens the door for other global participants like China to step through.
Even with the fallout tally still being counted, the USAID decision was a foreseeable reaction to developing facts on the ground. Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.” According to the order, “The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” Trump immediately implemented a 90-day pause in US foreign development assistance. Likewise, in his capacity as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk has persistently targeted USAID as a “criminal organization” and “beyond repair.”
Drowned out by attention on some of the administration’s more headline-grabbing maneuvers like an end to “Birthright Citizenship” and an extended pause on the TikTok ban, the impact on US foreign aid was initially overlooked. But the underlying context was there. This is another truth.
Middle East dismay
Trump saved the boldest declaration of his young administration for the arena of US hard power. Last week, Trump proposed an alternative trajectory for the Middle East: He repeatedly called for Egypt, Jordan, and others to accept millions of Palestinians from Gaza. At a press conference following meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Trump took it a step further, suggesting that “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too.”
Trump’s plan to “own” Gaza and convert it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” stunned the global audience. While Trump’s plans struck like lightning, they were not without prior seeding. According to reports, a thread of redeveloping Gaza has been woven at times throughout the Trump presidential campaign, including by the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner early last year. In response, voices ranging from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman to the French foreign ministry raised deep concerns. Even still, as farfetched as Trump’s Gaza ambitions may seem, they provide a barometer of how far the current administration is willing to push the envelope. A fabrication, for now, but with designs on converting some kernel – “a concept of a plan” – into reality.
In describing the “historic proposal” for the US to take over Gaza, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Through a breakneck pace of policy change and action, the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to rethink the “same thing.” Everyone else is left to calibrate to the new dynamics, pondering if it just might all turn out to be truths.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.