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 }}
Trump’s Middle East playbook: Business first, diplomacy later
Ian Bremmer unpacks the significance of AI, defense partnerships, ongoing Iran negotiations, and the potential lifting of Syria sanctions. He also looks at how Trump’s personal rapport with Middle Eastern leaders, absence from Israel, and business ties are shaping US foreign policy. What does this approach signal about Trump’s priorities abroad—and how might it affect America’s global relationships?
Trump's weekend of geopolitical success
Lots of headline announcements from Trump himself, and the biggest one in terms of the markets is not necessarily something you'd call a success. It's more a backtrack, but a useful backtrack nonetheless and one that we're all glad to see. Trump, of course, kicked off this global trade war with pretty much everyone, but especially with the Chinese, where he was essentially talking about a decoupling between the two largest economies in the world, raising tariffs against China to 145%, meaning nobody's going to buy any goods from China. Chinese doing the same against the Americans, raising up to 125%.
China was not going to pick up the phone to call Trump, and he was surprised that they hit back. He thought that this was going to lead to a negotiation and much more careful caution from the Chinese. As you saw from a lot of American allies around the world, not the case. And so, not only did he get his own administration to respond and talk with the Chinese and say, "We'd like to engage in person." But also sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer, US Trade Rep, by far the most capable on the trade side that are senior and report to Trump.
And after a couple of days of meetings in Geneva, we've got 90 days off, and we have 125% off the American tariffs. So, we're at, what? 30% or 115% off, or 30% for the Americans, 10% for the Chinese. In other words, trade can happen again. And a joint statement from the US and Chinese governments, which is very rare under any government, frankly, with China, certainly with an adversary, to show that there is no daylight on the desire to pull back against decoupling, and also to engage directly between the two countries over the coming months to try to ensure that these trade gets to a mutually more respectful place.
Now, what's interesting is Trump had been trying to push so many allies around the world to align with the US on decoupling from China as part of the trade negotiations, that obviously, that piece of the negotiations isn't going to move anywhere. Japan pushed back, most countries aren't interested, certainly not the Europeans. Now, it's not really going to be credible, and I think Trump will quietly drop it, and the markets of course shoot up as a consequence of that.
So, two steps forward, two steps back. We're kind of where we were before Liberation Day on US-China. Yes, there are some additional sectoral tariffs, and this is going to be costly. But on the bilateral relationship, frankly, not an enormous amount has actually changed. Okay, so that's not a win.
What do I mean that he's had successful time on the global stage? Well, internationally, there've been a bunch of wins. India, Pakistan, significant escalation on the back of this Kashmiri terrorist incident, with lots of Indians getting killed, Indian civilians. The Indians respond by hitting Pakistani terrorist targets, according to India, but in civilian locations, so they don't mind that Pakistani civilians are getting killed. Then Pakistan responded, then India responded, and the Americans stepped in and facilitated a ceasefire.
Marco Rubio probably his single win on the global stage that we've seen so far, helps him with Trump. He also announced there would be trilateral engagement going forward between the countries. That's not going to happen. But we are, I would say again, at the status quo ante on Pakistan, India at this time, the Americans facilitated.
The Houthis had been threatening US and other shipping through the Red Sea. The Americans decided to blow up lots of Houthis military leadership capabilities. That was the Signal Gate leak that came out. And a few weeks after that, the Houthis said, "Okay, we won't attack the shipping lanes anymore, as long as you stop attacking us." That's a win for the United States. It was facilitated by Iran, who's engaged in direct bilateral negotiations with the United States right now, and Iran in a much worse position geopolitically, the Gulf states would love to see that happening. They're hosting Trump this week. That's likely to progress significantly. Maybe even Trump will meet with high-level Iranians. We'll see if we get a surprise there. But nonetheless, that's all in a much better position than it was before. And so too relations between the Gulf States and the US. Saudi US bilateral relations, including a willingness to allow for nuclear energy and development in Saudi Arabia.
Lots of new investments that are going to be announced with all three stops. Yes, there's this unfortunate announcement of a gift that shouldn't be accepted from Qatar of a 747. And then that's going to wrap up the first trip that Trump makes internationally, as well as the release of the sole remaining US hostage in Gaza. And that had been driven by the Israelis together with the US and the US angry with Netanyahu, who's continuing to engage in a war and taking over lots of territory in Gaza and not allowing humanitarian aid in. The Americans deciding they were going to negotiate directly for themselves, and with success before that trip.
So, all of those things, announcements that are frankly welcome. And the one big conflict where we're not seeing progress is Russia, Ukraine. It is plausible that there will be a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky on Thursday. Zelensky is calling for it, the Europeans, the Americans are calling for it directly. Let's see if Putin actually shows up, or if he says, "I want to do a lower level meeting to start." Either way, it looks very unlikely that he's going to actually accept a ceasefire on terms that would be remotely acceptable by the Ukrainians, the Europeans, or even the United States, which means not much progress there.
But at least Trump not willing to do a deal with Putin absent a ceasefire, which means the Americans, the Europeans, and even the Ukrainians are more aligned today than they were a week ago, two weeks ago. Certainly during that shambolic Zelensky visit to the Oval just a few weeks back. So, good news over the weekend, and some good news coming this week. And I'm personally delighted to be able to report some things that are positive about what's happening in Trump administration, as opposed to things that are breaking and things that are falling apart. Let's hope that continues. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Vietnam War, 50 years on
Fifty years ago today, North Vietnamese troops seized Saigon, and ended the Vietnam war with a communist victory. GZERO writers and producers have taken a deep dive into the history behind this solemn occasion, exploring life in Saigon during the war, the emotional and chaotic scenes that unfolded as thousands fled, the life Vietnamese-Americans built from scratch in their new homes, and asking whether we have learned the lessons of the war.
50 Years on, have we learned the Vietnam War's lessons?
Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies — and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to become a regional economic powerhouse.
Saigon’s Last Day: The fall, the flight, and the aftermath of the Vietnam War
Don Shearer, US Defense Department via National Archives
Saigon, April 29, 1975. For six weeks, South Vietnamese forces have been falling back in the face of a determined communist offensive. American troops have been gone for two years. The feeble government is in disarray. The people are traumatized by three decades of war and three million deaths.
Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” begins playing on radios across the capital.
Some Saigonese know it’s a sign: It is time to run.
Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, now a Columbia University history professor, was just five months old, the youngest of nine children. After a failed first escape attempt by helicopter, her family heard about an uncle with access to an oil transport boat. More than 100 refugees crammed aboard the small vessel, where they waited for hours to set sail. Nguyen’s father nearly became separated when he dashed back into the city in a futile attempt to find more relatives.
At nightfall, they finally departed, crossing enemy-controlled territory under cover of darkness before being ordered onto an ammunition barge floating off the coast, bursting with over 1,000 refugees.
“When the sun rose the next day, April 30, we realized Saigon had fallen,” says Nguyen.
Read more about the amazing stories of survival, and just what happened to Vietnam after the war here.
PODCAST: Revisiting the Vietnam War 50 years later, with authors Viet Thanh Nguyen and Mai Elliott
On the GZERO World Podcast, two authors with personal ties to the Vietnam War reflect on its enduring legacy and Vietnam’s remarkable rise as a modern geopolitical player.
Life in Saigon during the Vietnam War
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, author Mai Elliott recalls how witnessing the human toll of the Vietnam War firsthand changed her views — and forced her to keep a life-altering secret from her own family.
Growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in 1980s America
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer,Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen shares what it was like growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in the US — and how the Americans around him often misunderstood the emotional toll of displacement.
President Donald Trump raises a fist during a ceremony where he signs two executive orders that will lead to reciprocal tariffs against other countries that charge tariffs on US goods.
Is Donald Trump’s foreign policy … working?
What’s the old line about there being decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen?
Quoting Vladimir Lenin may not be the wisest move in today’s America, but it’s an apt description of the (second) first 100 days of Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
In barely three months, he’s bashed America’s closest European allies, spooked NATO into worrying about its survival, taken a chainsaw to US foreign aid programs, pulled the rug out from under Ukraine, threatened to expand US territory for the first time since the 19th century, and started a global trade war that’s pushed protectionism to its highest levels since the Great Depression.
Not bad for 100 days! But is there a method to what seems – to horrified defenders of the “US-led world order” – like so much madness? “Method” is a risky word to use with a figure as famously capricious as Trump, but there are a few basic aspects of his worldview and commitment to “America First” that are consistent and worth understanding.
No new friends (also no old friends)
First, Trump believes that the world is a place where all countries are just trying to “screw” each other. This is true not only of adversaries but, especially, of allies. (Tell me you’re a New York real estate developer without telling me you’re a New York real estate developer.)
The mutual screwing occurs in an endless chain of zero-sum transactions between countries in which hard power and cold cash are all that matters. Deficits or defense umbrellas are ripoffs. Alliances based on “values” are silly. Soft power is a useless conceit, a virtue signal, a kind of “Geopolitical wokism.”
It’s a (multipolar) jungle out there
Second, there are various great powers in this world, and each has its own sphere of influence. The largest of these are the US and its chief rival China, but Russia is up there as well. You do not, in Trump’s view, mess with another power’s sphere of influence, and you do not waste time trying to win over countries of marginal economic or strategic value beyond your neighborhood. You put your country, to borrow a phrase Trump uses a lot, “first.”
Once you grasp that, for Trump, the world is a transactional and increasingly multipolar jungle, it actually explains a lot about his foreign policy.
It tells you why he doesn’t seem to care that much about Ukraine (he sees it as Russia’s sphere) or Taiwan (ditto for China) or why he’s OK slashing foreign aid (soft power is silly). It explains why he wants a piece of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal (all have immense strategic and economic value within Washington’s own sphere of influence, especially if conflict is coming with other powers.) And of course, it tells you why he loves to love tariffs – a crude but effective tool for unleashing America’s immense economic power
Hard power dreams, soft power missteps
All of this is a big rupture with the longstanding idea that the US, as a hegemon, gets more than it gives by providing security, market access, or development assistance to vast parts of the world.
But taken on its own terms, is Trump’s foreign policy ... working? The evidence is mixed. Many of his objectives – restore America’s lost manufacturing capacity, confront China, and force Europe to carry its share of the defense burden – can make sense on their own. But, taken together, the overall policy is still a mess of conflicting impulses.
Trump wants to isolate and pressure China, but he’s simultaneously wrecking relations with Europe, Washington’s most natural ally against Beijing. He wants to maintain technological supremacy over China, but his immigration and education policies are scaring the world’s best minds away from America.
He wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing – which, by definition, almost requires leaving them in place for a long time. But he also wants to use them to extract tactical concessions on trade and defense – which means not leaving them in place for a long time. Which is it?
And while he is right to force the West to confront the problems of Biden’s well-intentioned but poorly defined Ukraine policy, his pledge to end the war “within 24 hours” is already 2,376 hours overdue. Browbeating Ukraine while pleading with Vladimir Putin on social media is not exactly a foreign policy to be reckoned with.
It’s still early days to be sure. But whether the decades that have happened in these 100 days are a real revolution against the long-established order of US foreign policy, or a a tangle of disruptive but ultimately confused impulses remains to be seen.
Trump’s 4D checkers, China’s opportunity, climate hopes, and more: Your questions, answered
Welcome to another edition of my mailbag, where I attempt to make sense of our increasingly chaotic world, one reader question at a time. If you have a burning question for me before I go back to full-length columns, ask it here and I’ll answer as many as I can in next week’s newsletter.
Let’s dive in (with questions lightly edited for clarity).
Is the US currently a kleptocracy?
The United States is the most structurally kleptocratic of any advanced industrial democracy, with public policy increasingly captured by monied special interests and the rules of the marketplace determined by the highest bidder. The wealthiest Americans not only can fund political campaigns but also buy favorable regulatory and legal treatment and lobby for policies that perpetuate their economic interests. This system is two-tiered alright, but it doesn’t see red and blue – only green.
President Donald Trump is a beneficiary and an accelerant of this disease, but it long predates him. Which is why Trump faced so little pushback from the business world both times he was elected. After all, a system where the connected can buy their preferred policy outcomes is a system much of the private sector is both used to and comfortable with.
Has Trump done to brand USA what Musk did to Tesla?
He’s working on it. The long-term damage to America’s reputational capital has been incalculable (though it hasn’t been as great as the >50% in value Tesla has lost since its mid-December peak). Sometimes you have a personal relationship and someone does something that can’t be unseen. That’s what has happened particularly with Canadians and Europeans of late. I think that damage is permanent. And we are not even 100 days in …
How do other nations view America in light of Trump’s aggressive tariffs, threats, and general disdain for allies?
They all see the United States as the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty. In the near term, most countries – especially smaller, poorer ones – will look to cut trade deals with Trump relatively quickly because the alternative, direct confrontation with the world’s sole superpower, is too costly to bear. We’re seeing that already with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and many other delegations coming to Washington to try to do everything they can to secure at least functional relations with the US.
At the same time, every country recognizes the longer-term need to hedge away and “de-risk” from the United States as much and as fast as possible to reduce their exposure to Trump-driven disruption. Even those that manage to come away with deals know the president could change his mind. After spending the last decade focusing on the dangers of having too much exposure to Beijing’s opaque, arbitrary, and personalistic decision-making, policymakers, businesses, and investors all over the world now suddenly see de-risking from the US as the more urgent priority. That’s an extraordinary shift when you stop to think about it.
Granted, de-risking from the US is a tall order given America’s asymmetric power advantages and the global embeddedness of so many of the things it provides – defense, advanced technologies, finance – that are hard to substitute (read: to break free from). But many US allies see no choice but to start seriously looking for alternatives. We’re already seeing the European Union and Latin America speed up their conversations to fast-track approval of the EU-Mercosur trade deal. Trump-aligned India is likewise moving to improve its trade relations with the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others. Canada is trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans. Even Vietnam, which has long harbored deep mistrust of China, signed 45 new economic cooperation agreements with Beijing days after Trump trade czar Peter Navarro rebuffed its offer to lower its tariffs on US goods to zero.
Can China capitalize on Trump’s global trade war to peel off US allies?
Xi Jinping just wrapped up a Southeast Asian charm offensive to try to do exactly that. For the first time since the Vietnam War, most Vietnamese are now more well-disposed toward China than the US. That’s not true everywhere (e.g., the Philippines is still about 80% pro-American), but the trend line is clear. China sees the moment as a historic opportunity to move economically closer to many countries and portray itself as a champion of globalization and a force for stability.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean America’s loss will be China’s gain everywhere. The Europeans don’t suddenly trust the Chinese more just because they now trust the Americans less. They still have big issues with Chinese dumping, overcapacity exports (especially in the auto industry), data surveillance, and other beggar-thy-neighbor practices that have not gone away. Europe’s de-risking will be less about tilting to China and more about strengthening its own capabilities and hedging with pretty much everybody else. Plus, as I mentioned above, while Trump has worked hard to alienate US allies, America remains the only game in town for most Western countries in many strategic sectors and critical networks. Going cold turkey is unthinkable.
If everyone thinks tariffs are a bad idea even for the American economy, why is Trump persisting? Do you see a way the US can win on this?
As much as I’d like to believe so, I just can't see any way the US comes out ahead on this. Myself and others have written extensively about why the tariffs (and the massive ongoing uncertainty surrounding US policy) are an economic lose-lose, not only for America’s trade partners but for American consumers and businesses, and not just in the short term but also in the long run. Rather than boost domestic manufacturing, they will accelerate the country’s deindustrialization. And if the administration had really intended to use the tariffs as a cudgel to forge a united front against China (as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others have claimed), it wouldn’t have slapped punishing duties on friendly countries already inclined to join this alliance before asking for their help. I’m afraid there’s no “4D chess” strategy or master plan.
It’d be one thing if the Trump team were only picking this one fight. But it’s going to be much harder to convince the world not to hedge away from the United States when at the same time as they’re hitting everyone with tariffs, they’re also picking all sorts of fights on other fronts. They are directly and indirectly threatening other countries’ sovereignty and territoriality, whether it’s Greenland and Denmark, Panama, Canada, or Ukraine. They are exporting algorithms and disinformation that undermine democracies around the world. They are destroying the transatlantic alliance. They are aligning with Russia over longstanding allies at the United Nations and the G7. They are driving away foreign tourists and international students. And they’re picking fights domestically, trying to weaken checks and balances, undermine the rule of law, and erode state capacity in ways that will make the US a worse place to live, invest, and do business.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but this policy set looks hands down like the most extraordinary geopolitical own goal I’ve ever witnessed.
Is it possible that Trump is purposely upsetting the economy in an effort to lower interest rates, reduce the US government’s debt servicing costs, and shrink the federal deficit?
Nope. That’s another one of those 4D chess stories flying around, and it’s nonsense. It’s true that a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced US recession can make existing US government debt (and mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, etc.) cheaper to refinance by bringing down long-term interest rates. But if long rates decline because the real economy has deteriorated to the point where the Fed has to cut short-term rates to boost aggregate demand, the money saved on debt interest payments probably will be offset by the lower tax revenue collected and the higher unemployment benefits paid out during the recession. The overall deficit will likely be higher than if said recession hadn’t been engineered in the first place – destroying trillions in economic value and hurting millions of real Americans in the process.
And all this assumes that long rates will in fact go down when the US enters a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced recession, which financial markets are currently telling us is not guaranteed in light of growing inflation and default risks. Thus far, Trump’s stagflationary policy mix and erratic policymaking style have made the world’s safe-haven assets relatively less attractive, prompted investors to sell US bonds, and caused long rates to rise rather than fall.
Will Trump succeed in brokering a ceasefire in Ukraine like he promised on the campaign trail?
Only if he’s willing to effectively use both carrots and sticks on Russia and Ukraine alike. So far he hasn’t, deploying mostly sticks (suspending military aid and intelligence sharing) to force the Ukrainians to come to terms and principally only carrots (the promise of sanctions nonenforcement and relief, and even full normalization of relations) to get the Russians to back off their maximalist demands.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week the administration is giving the talks “a matter of days” to make progress or else they’ll walk away from the peace effort altogether. The problem is that Vladimir Putin continues to be uninterested in a durable ceasefire, at least not unless the so-called “root causes” of the conflict are addressed through a permanent settlement. He started this war to change the facts on the ground and is convinced he still has what it takes to win it. What’s more, he’s betting that if he can keep slow rolling the peace talks and convince Trump that it was Kyiv’s intransigence that tanked them, Russia could plausibly get a US rapprochement while it continues to wage war against a Ukraine deprived of US assistance. I’m not a betting man, but at this point, it’s a reasonable wager for Putin to make.
What do you expect from incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz?
Less capacity to spend and lead than many people hope, despite having managed to pass a historic fiscal package through the Bundestag lifting the country’s “debt brake” for defense spending and creating a 500 billion euro special fund for infrastructure investments. The incoming coalition is serious but relatively unpopular and divided, facing a stronger-than-ever far-right Alternative for Germany leading the opposition in the new parliament.
This political weakness, combined with the sheer scale of the challenges it faces, will water down the government’s ambitions. Germany is undergoing a severe, decade-long economic crisis. Merz will be under considerable pressure to jumpstart growth quickly amid global trade wars and under tight budget conditions. Just a few weeks ago, he was well-disposed to take on a European leadership role. Now that talk is no longer cheap, his constraints and risk tolerance will change. And if the Germans won’t step up, who in Europe can?
Is climate action possible in a disintegrating world? Have the odds of avoiding catastrophic climate change worsened in the past three months?
I’m more optimistic here. We’ve already broken the back of the most catastrophic climate change scenarios. Economic self-interest – not ideology or idealism – is driving the clean energy revolution as technological innovation and steep learning curves have dramatically reduced the price tag of clean power technologies, making them the cheapest and most profitable option in a lot of markets regardless of politics. Deep-red Texas and Florida lead the US in solar and wind power deployment. China is set to hit its emissions peak several years ahead of schedule. Europe sees renewables as an energy security imperative. Emerging markets from India to Indonesia and Pakistan are eager to develop using cheaper and cleaner domestic energy sources than high-volatility, dirty imported fuels.
I don’t want to be glib. The planet is still heating up faster than we’d like, and the present state of geopolitics – from Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” to the G-Zero vacuum of global climate leadership – will slow the pace of decarbonization. With every fraction of a degree of warming causing bigger and more frequent disasters, lower growth, and more deaths, that’s not good news. But for every environmental regulation repealed, clean energy policy revoked, fossil fuel project approved, and international commitment abandoned, there’s another, much more structural force pulling even harder in the opposite direction. As my colleagues and I put it in Eurasia Group’s 2025 Top Risks report, the global energy transition “has reached escape velocity.”
Would you ride Moose like a jockey if given the opportunity?
I’d train him with a well-disposed toddler first. That would be must-see television. Any volunteers?
Can the US win by undoing globalization?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week, and what an extraordinary geopolitical environment we all find ourselves in right now.
The big macro lens is that the United States, my country, has become the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty on the global stage. The most powerful country in the world, the biggest economy in the world, the home of the global reserve currency. And yet, at the same time, by far the most dysfunctional and kleptocratic and unfree political system of the advanced industrial democracies, so the G7 plus, compared to Japan or Germany or France or the UK or Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea. That's what we're looking at right now. And of course, that's a really challenging thing for pretty much everybody to navigate.
It is playing out the most dramatically in global trade with massive tariffs coming from the United States. And it's unclear who is going to get hit the worst, but it is clear that everyone is going to take a hit. This isn't a good environment for anybody. You want to talk about winners? There's not really any winners when you're undoing globalization. It's painful for pretty much everyone inside the United States. It's painful for multinational corporations, it's painful for consumers, it's painful for friends and adversaries of the United States all over the world. Whether it's China, it's Europe, Japan, Global South, you name it, everyone is taking a hit, everyone's economy will do worse, global growth will do worse. We will all feel it in the pocketbook, in the portfolio. Uncertainty, a massive amount of uncertainty being driven and driven continuously by the most powerful country in the world is hard for everybody to navigate and creates more cost.
Now, the markets are clearly glad that there has been rollback from the United States, from Trump, in particular the over 10% tariffs on most countries coming off for some 90 days, the electronics and iPhone exception, at least for now, on China, et cetera. But it's certainly unclear how long those exemptions are going to last and what happens after that. And even where we are right now, with 10% additional tariffs on everybody and significant essentially trade embargo on most goods between the United States and China, the two most powerful countries in the world, that already brings us squarely back to the 1930s in terms of the global tariff environment, and also at a time that things are moving much faster, that efficiencies are much greater, that global interconnectedness and supply chains so much more important.
So that's a real problem. That is not going to get managed anytime soon because no one is going to suddenly believe, oh, okay, I now have a deal with the United States, and that isn't going to be upset in a week or in a month or in a year. So the amount of hedging that you have to do economically is going to be structural and great. Now, countries around the world do want to cut deals with the United States because it's very costly not to do so, and I think that Secretary Treasury Bessent, and as well as President Trump, absolutely right about that. And we see that in particular you've got the Japanese delegation coming this week, plenty of things they want to do to ensure that the US and Japan have a more functional trading relationship going forward. Countries around the world are going to be looking to make deals relatively quickly, especially smaller, poorer countries.
But also, an even more structural change is that everyone is going to try to hedge. For decades now, we've been talking and increasingly about the dangers of having too much exposure to China. And increasingly, in the last five plus years, this idea of de-risking your investments, your exposures, away from China. That's now shifting to conversations about de-risking the United States, which is extremely hard to do, and nonetheless, increasingly urgent. And so, we see this happening all over the world right now. The EU and Latin America are looking to speed up and make much more likely their trade deal, EU-Mercosur, than it would've been before the United States slapped all of these tariffs because it creates alternatives for increased trade.
We see India now moving to fast track their trade relations and improve them with the United Kingdom, with Australia, with the EU, with many other countries as well. We see China, Xi Jinping, making a snap trip to Southeast Asia and wanting to ensure that they can expand their trade and ease the regulatory and the constraints around that. Xi Jinping first in Vietnam and signing 45 new agreements for economic cooperation with them. And they'll do a lot more. They'll try to do that with the Europeans, with the Global South. More broadly, Canada, trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
How is the United States winning here? And the answer is I don't see it, and I don't see it not only because I think it's going to be very hard to convince countries that they need to stop hedging away from the US and just work on getting a better deal with the United States, but also because the US isn't only picking this fight. The US is picking all sorts of fights simultaneously. The US is at the same time hitting other countries on trade, it's also trying to make itself less attractive for tourists to come to the United States, make them worry more that they are going to be treated as they might in an emerging market when they come over. Their smartphones are going to be combed through and they might get detained, they might even get arrested. A lot of people are worried about that. You go on Reddit threads, all of my friends outside the United States coming to the US, they're increasingly concerned about that.
You've got fights with the United States on issues of democracy and the export of algorithms and disinformation that undermines democracies around the world. You see the US picking fights with other countries on territoriality, whether it's with Greenland and Denmark or it's Panama or it's Canada. You see the Americans looking to work with the Russians over the heads of their closest allies in the G7. So they're not just picking one fight, they're picking lots of simultaneous fights, and they're also picking fights domestically at home. The United States trying to undo checks and balances on the executive, on the president that undermines rule of law and makes the US a less attractive place long-term to do business, to live, to educate, you name it.
So for all of those reasons, this to me, and I hope I'm wrong, looks like the most extraordinary act of geopolitical self-harm that I've witnessed. It's Brexit, but on a global scale. And my friends, all I can tell you is buckle up and we'll be watching this going forward. That's it, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Will Trump pressure Putin for a Ukraine ceasefire?
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said ending the war in Ukraine would be easy. Again and again, he promised to end the fighting within “24 hours” of taking office. But as president, and as Russia drags its feet in ceasefire negotiations, Trump has walked that confidence back. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer looks at President Trump’s push for a ceasefire deal in Ukraine and what it will take to bring both sides to the negotiating table. The Trump administration has been engaging diplomatically with Moscow and making it clear to Kyiv that ongoing US support isn’t a guarantee.
The problem is that so far, the Kremlin seems uninterested in meaningful compromise. Instead, it’s been slow-walking negotiations and increasing its demands for concessions, all while advancing on the battlefield and targeting Ukraine’s population centers with drone strikes. Turns out, diplomacy is a lot more complicated than a Manhattan real estate deal: complex, slow, and full of people who don’t care about self-imposed deadlines. But there are signs that the president’s patience with Moscow is wearing thin. As Russia keeps stalling, will Trump start piling the pressure on Putin to make a ceasefire happen?
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Can Venezuela's opposition leader unseat Nicolás Maduro?
Venezuela stands at a crossroads. Amid fraud allegations and Nicolás Maduro’s controversial third term, opposition leader María Corina Machado fights from the shadows. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks with Machado about Venezuela’s future, America’s role, and why she believes Maduro’s grip on power is weaker than it seems. For Machado, it’s not just about toppling a dictator; it’s about rebuilding democracy in Venezuela from the ground up. The real question isn’t just how Maduro’s rule ends but what comes next.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.