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 }}
President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.
Is the Trump revolution off to a good or bad start?
Does Donald Trump’s revolutionary start make the grade?
On Tuesday, America once again celebrated the great presidential tradition called “marking your own homework,” also known as the Joint Session of Congress address. You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office.
“We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years, or eight years, and we are just getting started,” Trump said, causing half the room to explode in applause while the other side sat and waved little paper signs of protest.
The thundering braggadocio of the speech came across with all the subtlety of a revving Harley-Davidson on the Vegas Strip, but give Trump this: He promised radical change, and he has overdelivered. Bigly. Too many politicians promise roses and deliver thorns.
Trump is doing what he has always done: go over the top. His biggest win so far has been the southern border, where his policies have brought illegal migration to a crashing halt. Democrats blew that issue and paid the price. With over 100 executive orders and 400 executive actions, public brawls with world leaders, a pivot into the open claws of Vladimir Putin, and the daily grumblings of his imperialist appetite for land expansion, the transition to Trump has been a transformation of Washington. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue looks more like Fury Road in the “Mad Max” series, complete with a chain-saw-wielding sidekick.
Democrats look helpless, trying to choke down one half-digested policy—cancel USAID, cut off US intelligence to Ukraine, buy Gaza — as another one is jammed down their throats. You could give their entire party a political Heimlich maneuver, and they still wouldn’t be able to catch their breath.
Trump’s Deal Chaos
The rapid-fire, jump-cut scenes of Trump interventions — 25% tariffs on everything from Canada … except energy … and wait … not on cars for a month … or agriculture … or now … BREAKING NEWS today with Trump suspending tariffs for Mexico and Canada on anything that falls under the USMCA, but only until April 2 — might as well come with those photosensitivity warnings you see before shows that include flashing lights: Ladies and gentlemen, the barrage of conflicting policy announcements may cause Democratic seizures.
One thing is certain: The volatility is causing seizures in the markets, which are whipsawing up and down.
But if Trump gets to grade himself, maybe it’s time for a more objective report card. Let’s use two criteria: Trump as a dealmaker and Trump as a manager.
The Platonic ideal of Trump, taken from his ghostwritten book, “The Art of the Deal,” is that he is the greatest dealmaker in history. Want to end the war in Ukraine? Easy-peasy. That should take 24 hours. Well, that deal, whatever it was supposed to be, never materialized.
Trump is now trying to hustle a mineral deal out of Ukraine by shaking down President Volodymyr Zelensky in public, falsely claiming that Ukraine started the war and that Zelensky is the dictator. Trump says that he and his pal Vladimir Putin (“We had to go through the Russian hoax together”) are trying to pin Zelensky down for peace. The president claims the US has given $300 billion in aid to Ukraine, when it is actually $175 billion—and much of that going to US companies. Still, he’s demanding a $500 billion rare earth mineral deal as compensation and the key to a peace deal. “And they shall beat their swords into … Promethium, and their spears into Scandium,” to twist the old biblical saying.
In any case, that deal also fell through after he and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in a stunning public press conference last Friday in the Oval Office. But it is the substance of the deal, not just the politics, that is also in question. Does Ukraine really have rare earth materials that could be worth that kind of money? Is there really a big prize here? Not according to expert Javier Blas, who wrote in Bloomberg that “Ukraine has no significant rare earth deposits other than small scandium mines.” He points out that the US Geological Survey also doesn’t confirm that Ukraine has any rare earth reserves. “Simply put, ‘follow the money’ doesn’t work here,” Blas writes. “At best, the value of all the world’s rare earth production rounds to $15 billion a year … That’s equal to the value of just two days of global oil output. Even if Ukraine had gigantic deposits, they wouldn’t be that valuable in geo-economic terms.”
So, even if Trump gets the mineral deal, what’s it worth? It is a political win at best, but at the expense of ditching US allies in Europe, letting down Ukraine, and handing Putin a massive victory.
Is that a good deal?
Trump’s Tariff-ization
What about tariffs? So far, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China have proven to be an economic downer, and now Trump is rolling them back, fudging, and shifting as the trade war escalates. States like Kentucky that export to Canada are getting hurt. Prices are going up. The premier of Ontario is threatening to put 25% tariffs on electricity exports to three northern US states. Is this the deal people wanted?
And even if tariffs do bring back some US jobs in the long run, which is very possible, Trump has made the United States an unreliable trading and security partner. Who wants to sign a trade deal with him now, knowing he could rip it up or change his mind at any moment? What company wants to invest in long-term deals if there is no promise of stability? Do NATO countries still trust that the US would be a backstop? A deal today is gone tomorrow.
Perhaps this is all just the grinding gears of change. It’s only been 45 days, after all. Maybe the radical surgery Trump and Elon Musk are performing on the sclerotic body of the US government is needed and will make things more efficient. But so far, that has not been the case.
For now, inflation is back up, prices are up, allies are fleeing, and the markets are down. And this is just the start. It could get worse.
All this got me thinking about Clayton Christensen, the great thinker I had the chance to interview years ago. Back in 1997, he wrote the seminal book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” about how disruption happens, but he may just as well have been writing about what Trump and Musk are doing domestically and internationally today.
“Many think of management as cutting deals and laying people off and hiring people and buying and selling companies,” Christensen wrote. “That’s not management, that's dealmaking. Management is the opportunity to help people become better people. Practiced that way, it’s a magnificent profession.”
By that measure, we are clearly in the dealmaking phase of the Trump presidency. And the marks on that, so far, are not good. His big win on illegal immigration and Musk’s hacksawing of government must be measured against the chaos around the economy, the tanking markets, and the rise in inflation. Trump’s foreign policy deals have been a calamity for US allies, from the abandonment of Ukraine, the alienation of the EU, and the threats to and tariffs on Canada and Mexico, not to mention the pitch to take over Gaza. Russia is the big winner so far, so if that’s on the scorecard, you get the Cyrillic version of an A. Otlichnyy!
As far as grading the management of the United States? Helping people become better people? The report card on the magnificent profession reads: More work needs to be done. Fast.
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.
A Ukrainian serviceman searches for a target with a US Stinger air defense missile launcher on the front line in the Zaporizhzhia region.
US cuts off intelligence sharing with Ukraine
The US cut off intelligence-sharing with Ukraine this week, officials announced Wednesday. This move, which follows an announcement from President Donald Trump that halts US weapons provision to Ukraine’s military, will cripple Ukraine’s ability to monitor Russian troop movements and defend against missile and drone strikes on its cities. Unlike the weapons cutoff, the loss of US intelligence will have immediate battlefield effects.
Is this mainly a hardball negotiating tactic that might force Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to offer Trump the ceasefire terms he wants, a better deal on access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, or both? US National Security Advisor Mike Waltzsignaled as much in an interview with Fox News. “I think if we can nail down these negotiations … put some confidence-building measures on the table, then the president will take a hard look at lifting this pause,” said Waltz.
In the meantime, France on Thursday offered to supply more of l’intelligence to Kyiv, but this simply can’t match what the US has provided until now.
There’s another reason we’re closely tracking this story. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants a ceasefire deal to end the war in Ukraine. But why would Russian President Vladimir Putin agree to stop fighting at a moment when Ukraine is losing access to its most important source of weapons and intelligence?
President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025. Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson applaud behind him.
Trump lays out a bold vision for second term
Trump began by focusing on culture war issues, including the elimination of DEI programs and a ban on transgender athletes in competition. He tied these topics to the Department of Government Efficiency’s mission to reduce government waste, listing what he called “woke” programs that had been defunded. He also emphasized his administration’s success in strengthening US border security and immigration enforcement, pointing to a 25-year low in border crossings during his first month in office and the passage of multiple immigration bills through Congress.
Trump blamed the country’s economic struggles — such as high grocery prices and egg shortages — on Joe Biden’s administration. As for his approach, Trump touted populist economic policies, including eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, Social Security benefits, and car payments for US-made vehicles. He also urged Congress to extend his 2017 tax cuts and assured that DOGE initiatives would save taxpayers money.
Trump’s speech notably came amid market turmoil following his newly imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. On Monday, the S&P 500 dropped 1.2%, wiping out its gains since Election Day, while the Nasdaq declined 0.4%. Trump announced additional reciprocal tariffs set to take effect on April 2, acknowledging they could cause short-term economic pain and urging American farmers to “bear with me.” During his first term, Trump secured tariff relief from China for the agriculture industry ahead of the midterms.
On Ukraine, Trump spoke at length about brokering a peace deal, reading a letter from President Volodymyr Zelensky stating that Ukraine was ready to negotiate and commit to a minerals agreement. He criticized Europe for spending more on Russian gas than on Ukraine’s defense and emphasized the importance of engaging both sides in diplomacy. “If you want to end wars, you have to talk to both sides,” he said.
Trump also argued that the US needed Greenland for “international world security.” He extended an open invitation, saying Greenland would be welcomed into the US “if you choose,” before adding moments later, “I think we’re going to get it one way or the other.”
What about the Democrats? Partisan tensions flared from the start of the speech. Still, Democratic boos were quickly subdued when Rep. Al Green from Texas was removed from the chamber after repeatedly shouting, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” at the president. Democratic protests then became more restrained. Many members silently expressed their opposition through their attire — women dressed in pink, while men wore blue and yellow ties in support of Ukraine. Later, a handful of members walked out, revealing black t-shirts emblazoned with the word “RESIST.”
Following Trump’s speech, Democrats made their appeal to the American people. Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin called for a return to bipartisanship and outlined key policy priorities, including lowering costs, strengthening national security – both at the border and abroad – and defending American democracy. She criticized Trump for prioritizing billionaires and for abandoning US allies in favor of autocrats.
Slotkin’s speech was concise, though likely delivered after many Americans had already turned off their televisions. Still, it marked the first time Democrats had formally outlined a party platform since losing the White House and both chambers of Congress in November.
Could Russia invade the Baltics next?
Baltic leaders have few illusions that once Putin is done with Ukraine he won't look to his northwest neighbors next. On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže addresses concerns about a potential Russian invasion of the Baltic states, saying that such a move would be an entirely new ballgame and would mean direct war with NATO; even still, Braže says, no scenario should be ruled out. “The task for all of us is not to exclude anything. So to be ready, to be prepared, to exercise, to test, and to make sure it doesn’t happen,” she says.
Braže underscores the importance of NATO’s deterrence strategy, stressing that the alliance must demonstrate both strength and resolve to prevent any miscalculations from Moscow. Beyond conventional military threats, she highlights the dangers of hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks and disinformation, as key battlegrounds in the ongoing struggle between Russia and the West.
Watch full episode: The fight to decide Ukraine's fate
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 (🔔).
Can Europe broker a Ukraine ceasefire?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. The big news, everything around Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and Europe. The Europeans now with the ball in their court, a big summit, a coalition of the willing in London this week. And Zelensky very warmly embraced, quite literally, by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and by everyone in attendance. It was very different visuals, very different takeaways than the meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance in the Oval Office, which couldn't have gone much worse if everyone tried.
Where we are right now, certainly this coalition of the willing had everyone that mattered in Europe. I mean, not the countries, not the leaders that have been skeptical, that have been more aligned with the Russians, or more, say, in a minimal position, like the Hungarians, like the Slovaks, but everybody else was there. So, you've got the Brits, you've got the French, you've got the Italians, and the Germans. You also have EU leadership, Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and also you have all of the frontline leaders that have the most at stake from a national security perspective: the Nordics, the Balts, the Poles. You even have Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who doesn't spend very much on defense, but nonetheless going there to show he's aligned with the Ukrainians, whether or not the Americans, who the Canadians rely on completely economically, are not.
Does it matter? Does it matter? If you're asking does it matter in the sense that can the Europeans go it alone without the Americans? I'm still skeptical, though they're putting a lot more on the table now than they were a week ago, and they should have been doing that years ago. And that's going to remain a very big question, and I'm probably going to remain pretty skeptical. But very interesting that the Europeans do now have a level of ownership. Remember that Trump, both when he was running for president and once he became president, said that the United States was going to end this war, that he, Trump, would be responsible for the ceasefire, that he's going to do it himself with the Ukrainians, with the Russians, he could do it in 24 hours. That's obviously an exaggeration, but nonetheless, even as he realized it was going to take longer, he was the dominant actor. That's now changed. Keir Starmer has now told Trump that the Europeans, this coalition of the willing, is coming up with a ceasefire plan, and they are going to present it to the United States, and Trump is expecting it.
So for now, the Europeans don't just have a seat at the table, but they actually are in the driver's seat, in terms of the ceasefire on the back of the Ukrainian-US relationship having functionally blown up, and the Americans saying they're not going to do anything particularly more for the Ukrainians. They're not even prepared to sign the critical minerals deal that Zelensky now says he is prepared to sign. But if the Europeans are the ones that are going to be coughing up the money and providing the troops, then certainly they're the ones that are responsible for the terms of the ceasefire.
Now, that's interesting. And we're hearing certainly that there's going to be a lot more engagement, that potentially Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky will all three come together to the White House to meet Trump maybe later this week, maybe next week. Certainly Zelensky should not be attending meetings like that by himself anymore, I think he understands that, the Europeans understand that as well.
What they should do now, the Europeans, is present a UN Security Council resolution with the plan once Trump has seen it and is prepared to move forward. A simple thing, deciding nothing, just saying that the Security Council supports the path to peace as outlined from the UK summit. This will force Russian amendments, which the UK and France will veto, and then Russia will be forced to veto the resolution. And that's useful in a couple of different ways. First of all, it costs the French and the UK nothing, and they win a fair amount. The news will be all about how their Russian veto was used for the first time since 1989, and it places the Americans on the same side as the Europeans on the ceasefire issue, which is what the Europeans, the Ukrainians desperately need, and frankly, the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress as well.
The UK and France can then show Trump that they indeed don't need to be invited to the table, because they're at the table, they have the ceasefire plan and they're the ones that are driving it. Now, having a ceasefire plan is different from being able to implement the ceasefire and support the Ukrainians, and that is where there's still an awful lot that still needs to be accomplished.
Specifically the one piece of good news, surprising news, is that the Germans are now talking about 800 billion Euro package, outside of their debt break, that would support defense spending and infrastructure spending. They weren't talking about anything remotely like this even a few days ago. It would have to be done well before the end of the month because when the new chancellor comes in, then you are going to have the far left and the far right with the ability to block any constitutional majority. They don't have that capacity now, which means the debt break can be overridden by a vote in the Bundestag. That's really important, and would lead to German leadership in helping to finance this war.
You also have the 300 billion Euros that are frozen, the Russian sovereign assets that are mostly in the hands of the Europeans, the Belgians, as it turns out, and some others as opposed to the Americans, the Japanese. So, that could also be used to support Ukraine to buy more weapons, also to build up Ukraine's military industrial complex. In other words, while this situation is difficult and urgent, I would not yet say that it has fallen apart for the Ukrainians or the Europeans. They are still, as it were, in the game.
Now, the big question overlooking all of this is the United States and Russia, because they still want to do a deal, and that deal is not mostly about Ukraine, that deal mostly is about rapprochement between the United States and Russia over the heads of their NATO allies. This is what Trump is interested in, this is what Putin is interested. And frankly, it's a little easier to do that deal if you don't have a ceasefire, because the Russians don't really want one, than it is to do that deal if a ceasefire is a part of it. That's what has to be watched very carefully because of course, Trump and Putin are talking about where they're going to meet in person, Saudi Arabia maybe in May, Trump would even be willing to go to Moscow. This could include things like the United States taking unilateral sanctions off of Russia while the Europeans would still have them on. Could lead to a lot of business, a much bigger critical minerals deal than the one that was going to be signed between the Americans and the Ukrainians, and now, at least, is off the table.
Also note that the US Defense Department has at least temporarily suspended offensive cyberattacks against the Russians, which is quite something, again, in the context of nothing having been agreed to between the Americans and the Russians, but clearly Trump much more willing to be on Putin's good side right now than he is with Zelensky. So ultimately, that is a very big challenge for the Europeans, but they will be in far better shape if they're able to move on the ceasefire in the near-term, which looks likely, and on support for Ukraine in the medium-term, which looks like more of a challenge.
So, that's it for now. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Playing cards depicting President Donald Trump on display in West Palm Beach, Florida, late last year.
Opinion: The US president plays a Trump card on Ukraine
On the 2016 campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was fond of repeating the truism: When someone shows you who they are, believe them. In a particular clip from August 2016, Clinton underscored her assessment of then-adversary and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump by saying, “There is no new Donald Trump.”
Europe has been forced to confront this lesson once again in recent weeks. As the Trump 2.0 administration unveiled its foreign policy priorities, European leaders initially adopted a wait-and-see approach. They even held their breath for a window of opportunity around Ukraine. When Trump adjusted his ambitions to allow for a six-month timeframe to reach an agreement, after promising repeatedly on the campaign trail to end the war on his first day in office, European capitals felt buoyed that he was perhaps pursuing pragmatism.
All their cautious confidence has now left the room – only to be replaced by a rolling panic.
A period marked by Vice President JD Vance chastising Europe at the Munich Security Conference, high-level meetings between US and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia, and Trump declaring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” on Truth Social has riled European allies and left them looking for solid ground. A televised White House meeting between Zelensky and Trump on Friday devolved from cordial to transparently contentious in just 45 minutes.
With no apparent points of leverage, Vladimir Putin has managed to bring the US significantly closer to Russia’s preferred position. At this weekend’s summit in London, European leaders were forced to face a familiar and devastating fact: Even an isolated Russia is capable of strategically shifting the conversation as long as Putin leads. No amount of economic pain, coordinated sanctions, or falling of Syria’s Assad regime has changed this.
A set of votes at the United Nations last week measured just how much things have changed. Three years ago, a March 2022 UN General Assembly resolution deploring Russian aggression against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter was overwhelmingly adopted. The US joined 141 others in favor, while Russia found itself in the company of only four states. Last week, in an about-face, the US sided with Russia (and against its European allies) in two resolutions to mark the third anniversary of the conflict.
These votes reflect not only the gulf that has opened across the Atlantic; they also raise questions about the geopolitical landscape moving forward. After the March 2022 resolution, analysts began speaking fervently of a Global North-South world order. Russia and its near partners (those who stood against) – Belarus, North Korea, and Syria – and its sympathizers (the abstainers) – South Africa, China, India, and Bolivia against the US and Europe. Now, a question with long-term implications is emerging: How entrenched will the US pivot on Russia-Ukraine prove to be, and what does it mean for the future world order?
In the near term, European leaders are wrestling with how to manage the US president. Projects such asHarvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation categorize business negotiation styles from collaborative (I win – you win) on one end of the spectrum to avoidant (I lose – you lose) on the other. Negotiations are frequently circumstance-dependent, meaning that adopting a flexible approach responsive to the business at hand – and one’s adversary – is often advantageous.
Trump is, however, a predictable negotiator. His worldview always leads him to adopt a competitive (I win – you lose) approach in which heanchors a negotiation by “naming a price” early in the process, effectively bounding subsequent rounds. This is what is meant when his foreign policy is described as “transactional.”
With Colombia, for example, Trump threatened 25% tariffs that would escalate to 50% if it did not accept migrant flights. There was no win in these “negotiations.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro gave Trump what he wanted, and Trump backed off. Canada and Mexico were left in similar positions after Trump announced 25% tariffs. Each quickly made concessions to give Trump the win and reduce the economic pain at home. Both now face the hard news that their compromises were not enough, and levies are set to go ahead this week after the brief reprieve.
European allies would do well to remember that there is no new Trump. And there is evidence that some European leaders are beginning to update their model of him, accordingly. As part of a joint press conference last week held with Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron indicated that he and Europe were ready to help guarantee Ukraine’s security by sending troops to Ukraine. Not to be outdone, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer preempted his own visit to the White House by announcing that British troops would also be available when needed.
Zelensky, who had a front line to Trump during his first administration, is also keenly aware of who he is. Anticipating a Trump 2.0 presidency, Zelensky’s team purportedly devised the idea for the US-Ukraine mineral deal, which the two were meant to sign in Washington on Friday.
In the closing minutes of their fruitless meeting,Trump warned Zelensky, “You’ve got to be more thankful because, let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”
Trump prefers to hold all the cards, shuffle them at will, and throw down a new hand to the world’s surprise. Yet, even when the substance shifts – as it has dramatically over the last weeks in Europe – the process remains the same: Trump will be looking for the win.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
Russian analyst: Let the US and Russia settle the Ukraine war
Who gets to decide Ukraine's future? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, former Russian colonel and ex-Carnegie Moscow Center director Dmitri Trenin argues that the real power players in the conflict are the United States and Russia—not Ukraine or Europe.
“There are two countries that have agency in the Ukraine conflict. One is the United States, and the other one is Russia,” he states, insisting that while Ukraine fights on the battlefield, its political decisions are dictated by Washington.
Trenin frames the war as a proxy conflict between two superpowers, arguing that any long-term peace deal must be negotiated primarily between Moscow and Washington.
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 (🔔).