Latest news with #Bremmer
India Today
3 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Is India a weak country or can it stand up to Trump? What Ian Bremmer said
Can India assert itself on the world stage — particularly in its dealings with Washington? In an interview with India Today Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, President of the Eurasia Group and geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer said that India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, still lacks the geopolitical clout to firmly stand up to a transactional Trump-led United States.'India is not China. India is not the United States. It is geopolitically much weaker,' Bremmer being the world's most populous nation, the fourth-largest economy, and a nuclear power, India finds itself in a tricky position when engaging with a leader like Trump, who is known to pressures allies with tariffs and threats, Bremmer noted. 'Trump says, 'I want to work with you, you're part of the QUAD, I like you.' But then he says, 'I'm going to hurt Apple if they decide to move their iPhone production from China to India. I'm going to tariff them.' He says there are going to be trade consequences and other consequences if you don't have a ceasefire with Pakistan,' Bremmer to Bremmer, powerful countries are able to prioritise their own interests and push back when Trump imposes demands.'Trump puts major tariffs on China. China puts tariffs back on the United States. Trump says we're going to hurt you. China says, we can take the pain more than you and Trump is the one that blinks,' he said. 'When it comes to Russia, so far Trump has been completely unwilling to put tough sanctions on Russia. They continue to engage in their war with impunity in Ukraine.'advertisementIn contrast, countries like Mexico, Panama, and Iran have capitulated under Trump's hectoring.'Look at the tariffs the Mexicans have immediately moved to do everything he's demanded on fentanyl, on border security. Look at Panama, how they try to force the sale of the Hong Kong firm to a American firm, take away the fees on American ships... Even the Iranians are much more willing to talk about stopping highly enriched uranium stockpiling,' Bremmer pointed he said, has shown signs of both resistance and vulnerability. While it rejected Trump's offer to mediate talks over Kashmir and publicly denied that any foreign power brokered its ceasefire agreement with Pakistan, it still ended up in what Bremmer described as an 'uncomfortable position' following Operation Sindoor.'There's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump,' he praised PM Modi's ability to shape domestic and foreign policy at will, calling him 'the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today'. But that may not be enough when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration.'At a time when other leaders around the world—the Germans, the French, the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans—have much more divided governments, much weaker, not lasting for as long, Modi is in a position to do everything he says he's gonna do. He can follow through on it,' he future, if the US makes demands that India doesn't like, will it be strong enough to say no? That's an interesting question, said InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Donald Trump#Narendra Modi
India Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Trump blinks before China, scares weaker countries: Ian Bremmer's full interview
In a wide-ranging interview with India Today Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group and one of the world's foremost geopolitical analysts, described Ukraine's recent drone attacks on Russian air bases as "shocking" and potentially a turning point in the nearly four-year-long also spoke in detail about US President Donald Trump's global engagement style, calling attention to how weaker countries tend to "take Trump more seriously and are scared of him".advertisementHe cited examples of Mexico, Panama, and Iran, where countries quickly fell in line with Trump's demands. However, he argued that more powerful states like China and Russia have been less responsive, forcing Trump to divert his diplomatic attention elsewhere. Discussing Ukraine's recent military strike, Bremmer pointed out that the Ukrainian operation-reportedly destroying up to 30 percent of Russia's strategic bomber fleet-poses a serious challenge to Russia's nuclear deterrence capability. He compared the attack to Israel's dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure in 2006, calling it both an "opportunity" and an "exceptionally dangerous development."Commenting on India's recent 87-hour military standoff with Pakistan, Bremmer said India currently finds itself in a more "uncomfortable" position. While he acknowledged Prime Minister Narendra Modi's international strength, he noted that geopolitically, India remains "much weaker" than the United States or China. He also described China as the "main military backer" of Pakistan, while emphasising that India and China share complex trade and diplomatic are key takeaways from Bremmer's remarks on different themes during the interview:ON RUSSIA-UKRAINE WARadvertisement"It is a shocking development. And it's unclear if it's going to reduce or increase the risks around this three and a half year now war, bloody, expensive and impacting the world. Ukraine has not just shown that they can hit back across all of Russian territory, they can do serious damage to Russia's military capabilities to fight the war, but also they can undermine Russia's nuclear capabilities, their strategic deterrence capabilities, their second strike capabilities, the balance of power between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. Some of the strikes that we saw this weekend were at the Russian border with Mongolia... literally thousands of miles away from the Ukrainian front line. My biggest fear is that the Russians refuse to accept that they have fewer cards than they thought they have... and instead take this as a necessity to escalate against Ukraine.""I suppose the most serious concern would be if the Russians decided that this was the reason to engage in a tactical nuclear strike. That would be the worst possible near-term scenario. I don't think it's likely, but it is certainly more likely than it was two days ago. This also plays to something that India and Pakistan... need to understand-that you don't need to be an economic superpower to be able to pose incredible damage to a much bigger country. It should tell us that war should be avoided at all costs."advertisement"A big part of the reason that Putin has felt that he can continue this war... is that he doesn't value the lives of his own civilians and he hasn't felt like there have been serious consequences for him domestically by pursuing this war. Maybe if Russia keeps pursuing this war... Russia is not going to be a military superpower any more. The fact that the Russians are willing to persist with that discussion [in Istanbul], which the Americans, the Europeans, China, India-everyone wants... even just 24 hours after Russia's massive strategic defeat at the hands of Ukraine, is a reason to believe that this is an opportunity."ON TRUMP'S DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY"Trump has spent a lot more time and diplomatic effort and political capital in the past few weeks engaging in the Middle East, talking about perhaps a breakthrough deal with the Iranians but less time on Russia, Ukraine. If Trump is unwilling to spell out exactly what the threats would be against Russia then our basic expectation should be that Trump ends his diplomatic engagement on Russia-Ukraine and walks away."advertisementON TRUMP'S IMPACT ON GLOBAL POWER DYNAMICS"There are countries that are scared of Trump, and they capitulate quickly when he makes demands. Look at Panama, how they immediately try to sell, force the sale of the Hong Kong firm of the ports to an American firm and say, we won't charge the Americans to ship through Panama military, we'll take away the fees, even though it hurts the Panamanians. Look at how the Iranians are in a much weaker diplomatic and geopolitical position, much more willing to accept talks and talk about stopping highly enriched uranium stockpiling, all of these things. Weaker countries take Trump much more seriously and are scared of him. More powerful countries. More powerful countries, I'll give you another example you didn't mention: Trump put major tariffs on China. China puts tariffs back on the United States. Trump says, 'We're going to hurt you.' China says, 'I don't need a phone call with you. We can take the pain more than you can.' And Trump is the one that blinks. And when it comes to Russia, so far Trump has been completely unwilling, unwilling to put tough sanctions on Russia, consequences. Russia has been unwilling to blink. They continue to engage in their war with impunity in Ukraine."advertisementON INDIA-PAKISTAN CEASEFIRE"India said no to some of what the Americans demanded. The ceasefire has stuck. I think everyone's glad the ceasefire has stuck. India is in a more uncomfortable position there's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump. The ceasefire has stuck. I think everyone's glad the ceasefire has stuck. I think it's good for India, Pakistan, and the world. But my point is that I think that there is right now, look, Modi is arguably the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today, over 10 years in place. He's able to make domestic and foreign policy pretty much at his will at a time when other leaders around the world: the Germans, the French, the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans."ON PM NARENDRA MODI'S POSITION GLOBALLY"PM Modi is arguably the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today but India is not China, India is not the United States. It is geopolitically much weaker. And so, I think that there's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent the Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump and Americans, if and when the Americans say, we're making some demands of you that you aren't going to like. Is India a strong country that can stand up to Trump or are they a weak country? I don't think we know that yet."advertisementON CHINA AS A THREAT TO INDIAChina is the military backer of Pakistan but China is also an incredibly important trade partner for India. India and China desire a relationship of stability with each other both want a stable world. And a lot of the goods that go to the rest of the world from China go through India and have value added in India. And India and China, as we've seen from the last face-to-face meeting that Modi and Xi Jinping have had, desire a relationship of stability with each other, don't want to be fighting over their own contested border, and also both want a stable world. They're both part of the BRICS. They're both members in good standing of the G20. They play leadership roles in multilateral institutions. That the United States has been showing less interest in President Trump. So yes, of course, China is a competitor is an adversary in Asia, which is India's backyard. So those things are important. And India and China compete not just on Pakistan, but for influence in places like Sri Lanka and the Maldives and Bhutan and all over the region. So that's really THE STATE OF GLOBAL SECURITY"Absolutely. It's what I call a G-Zero world. That's a geopolitical recession. The United States increasingly is not the global policeman but no other country or group of countries is willing and capable to replace Americans. That is a place where we see much more impunity, it's much more dangerous, it's much more unstable, it's much more uncertain."Must Watch
New York Post
26-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump vs. Harvard and the dangerous myth of ‘academic brain drain'
Has President Donald Trump declared war on Albert Einstein? 'America is in danger of experiencing an academic brain drain,' The Economist warns. As soon as the Department of Homeland Security announced Harvard University would no longer be allowed to enroll foreign students, the Eurasia Group's Ian Bremmer — a political scientist well-connected in Washington — declared the move 'fantastic news for China.' Advertisement 4 U.S. President Donald Trump gestures at the annual National Memorial Day Observance in the Memorial Amphitheater, at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., May 26, 2025. REUTERS The government is trying to use its leverage over foreign students' immigration status to compel Harvard to adopt stricter policies against antisemitism and scrap racially charged 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives. But this isn't just another battle in America's culture war: Foreign-policy mavens like Bremmer say what the administration is doing threatens national security and America's technological edge over its rivals. The Manhattan Project was a success thanks to émigré geniuses who contributed a great deal more to America's World War II effort, and subsequent struggle with the Soviet Union, than just the atomic bomb. Advertisement And isn't it true that something like 40% of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants? Liberals might support high immigration levels, and large numbers of foreign students in particular, simply because they like the new and unfamiliar — though it's hard not to notice that foreign students typically pay more tuition and pad the bottom line of our colleges and universities, just as immigration on the whole gives liberals opportunities to court newcomers with social services and identity politics. 4 New York Post cover for Thursday, October 12, 2023. rfaraino Advertisement Yet supposedly hard-headed realists say it's not liberal ideology but America's need for more scientists and entrepreneurs that's the real reason we have to open our campuses (and borders) to the world's talents. After all, if we don't do that, where else are we going to get the brains we need to compete with China? Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The trouble with this tale, which is an article of faith for The Economist and the likes of Bremmer, is that it's patently false — and largely intended to deceive. Advertisement In fact, very few companies on the Fortune 500 were started solely by immigrants; almost all were founded by Americans, occasionally in partnership with émigrés. 4 Demonstrators gather on Cambridge Common to protest Harvard's stance on the war in Gaza and show support for the Palestinian people, outside Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 25, 2025. AFP via Getty Images The source for the factoid, the American Immigration Council, has to fudge the numbers by lumping 'children of immigrants' into the same category as 'immigrants,' even when those children are born American citizens. As for competing with China, how can it be that China itself is so competitive when it accepts relatively few foreign students or immigrants? China, with a native population of more than 1.4 billion people, had only about 258,000 foreign students enrolled in degree-granting programs before COVID-19. And while China sometimes claims to have nearly 500,000 foreign students overall, nearly half that number appear to be in non-degree programs: They're not even full-time students, let alone Einsteins. China's economic and military competitiveness is home-grown, not a result of harvesting engineers from India. Advertisement America has a great many foreign-born Nobel Prize winners, to be sure. But when America, and America's campuses, have had more restrictive attitudes toward migration in the past, they have nonetheless competed, and won, at the highest levels — while developing countries, even when their most talented individuals have not been able to migrate, have not risen to America's levels. That's not because individual talent doesn't matter; it does, and the most truly exceptional minds, such as Einstein's or other Nobel laureates', should not only be welcomed by America but actively courted by us. But where most people are concerned, even most people of above-average talent, the national environment counts more. Advertisement 4 Violet Barron, a Harvard junior and activist with multiple pro-Palestinian groups, speaks at a protest against Harvard's stance on the Gaza war in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 25, 2025. AFP via Getty Images This is why the outlook of The Economist is so dangerous to America: It encourages lowered expectations of Americans themselves, with more disciplined if not more talented immigrants picking up the slack. That's the real brain drain: It's draining the world's intellectual capital to make up for self-imposed habits of failure in America. The talented foreign student turns into an excuse for having Americans waste their own talents — not least by studying the kinds of highly ideological subjects that give rise to wokeness, antisemitism and 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' in the first place. Advertisement The Trump administration faces another fierce fight in the courts over its attempt to revoke Harvard's ability to host international students. It's a heavy-handed remedy, though perhaps nothing short of such pressure will be enough. The most elite institutions of higher education in this country have long been a force unto themselves, even as they receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers and enjoy privileges for importing workers and customers — foreign talent and students — most businesses could only dream of. Advertisement A reckoning is overdue. But Trump's brawl with Harvard isn't just about an institution — it's also about the ideas that have led Americans to think they can't succeed anymore, they can only import someone else to succeed in their place. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
Yomiuri Shimbun
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Bremmer: U.S. Now Dysfunctional, Ushering in ‘G Zero' Era; Warns China Will Benefit From Lack of U.S. Leadership
Courtesy of the Eurasia Group Ian Bremmer WASHINGTON — International political scientist Ian Bremmer has warned in an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun that the United States has become 'dysfunctional' under President Donald Trump, and that the world has entered a 'G-Zero' era in which no country is willing to lead the international order. Bremmer, 55, made the remarks before Trump, who has touted his policy of 'America first,' marked his 100th day in office on Tuesday. Bremmer brought up the idea of 'G-Zero' for the first time in 2012. 'No other country or group of countries is capable of replacing the U.S.,' he said, analyzing the situation in the wake of the Trump administration's announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, an international framework to combat global warming, and the World Health Organization. 'The Chinese are the principal long-term beneficiary,' Bremmer added. The United States' power in the international community comes from its 'reputational strength,' not just its economic and military strength, Bremmer said, and other countries could count on such 'reputational capital' no matter who was president. He expressed concerns over Trump's political tactics, saying that the U.S. president has 'done his best to destroy' that reputational capital. Trump's stance that 'if I have the power, I will get the outcome I want' pushes around weaker countries, Bremmer said. He described this approach as the United States inflicting 'self-harm' geopolitically. Noting that the 'reciprocal tariffs' imposed by the Trump administration have heightened uncertainty and will further worsen global economic growth, Bremmer stressed that 'no one is a winner' in a trade war. He predicted that many countries, including Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, would work on 'de-risking' in their relations with the United States. Even if these countries are asked by the Trump administration to sever ties with China, they will 'continue to hedge and work with both the Americans and the Chinese simultaneously,' Bremmer said. The following is excerpted from the interview, which was conducted online on April 23. Q: Regarding Trump's first 100 days, what has surprised you so far compared to the first time he was elected? A: The broad thing is how much more confident Trump is this time around. I think especially after he was almost assassinated and he was shot in the head [in July last year]. I think that that really did affect his personality. It made him believe that he was saved by God to accomplish something important, and that he could have a very short time to accomplish it. He could be gone at any moment. So, with Trump this time there's also a level of urgency; so, it is both confidence and urgency. That has led to a much more disruptive and much more revolutionary behavior on the part of the president. Q: I see that geopolitically the impact of President Trump is huge. You have also often mentioned about how it is self-harming. Would you elaborate some more on that? A: It is self-harm because the United States' power on the global stage does not just come from its economic strength. It does not just come from its military strength. It also comes from its reputational strength. That reputational capital that the United States stands for things like collective security and free trade and rule of law and democracy, and that other countries can count on that no matter who is the president, and Trump has really done his best to destroy a lot of that reputational capital. Now it is 'if I have the power, I will get the outcome I want,' which is also actually a very Chinese perspective. We know that Trump is much more effective pushing around weaker countries. The Ukrainians are much weaker, and so Trump was much more effective in saying, I'm going to cut off your intelligence. I'm going to cut off your defense support. And the Ukrainians took that seriously. They realized that they need the Americans, and so that's why Ukraine suddenly accepted a 30-day ceasefire with no preconditions. China's influence Now we are in a G-Zero world. The United States does not want to lead globally, but no other country or group of countries is capable of replacing the U.S. So, the Chinese are the principal long-term beneficiary. This is good for China long term, because if the U.S. is ending USAID and pulling out of the Global South, who's going to benefit the most? China. Who will benefit, if the U.S. is pulling out of the World Health Organization and is less interested in the U.N., who will then be the most powerful country in influencing those organizations? It will be China. Negotiations with U.S. Trump doesn't really see the world through the frame of allies, so if you're Japan, you need to get through that. You know where you just sent a delegation over and they're wearing Make America Great Again [Trump's campaign slogan] hats in the White House, which makes them look stupid, frankly, and they shouldn't do that, and it undermines Japan. But the reality is that with the U.S., as powerful as it is today, most countries are going to do what Japan is doing. Publicly maybe they sometimes say different things because they don't want to fight and what they want is to announce a deal with the Americans as soon as possible, because the Americans have a more powerful economy, and because the Japanese need the American defense umbrella over Japan, and the South Koreans feel the same way, and the Vietnamese feel the same way, and the Mexicans feel the same way. They will work to de-risk themselves from the United States, which is kind of a staggering thing to say, given that we've been talking about de-risking from China for the last decade or more. Trade war No one is a winner. The ability of goods and services and capital and people to move faster and faster across borders is economically good for everyone. Now, some people are displaced and they get angry, and they need to … see redistribution which comes from the wealth that the companies, the shareholders, the governments, have managed to make through all this growth. The U.S. has failed in that policy to help those who were displaced. But undoing that and bringing tariffs to 1930s levels or higher is an environment where no one will win. Global growth is going down, and that is compounded by greater uncertainty. It is targeting absolutely everybody at the same time. It's a mistake in my view. In some cases, there's permanent damage. Some things cannot be unseen and can't be fixed. Ian Bremmer After serving as a research fellow at Stanford University and in other positions, Bremmer in 1998 founded the Eurasia Group, which conducts risk analysis of international affairs and other research. He is known for his concept of 'G-Zero,' and his list of the top 10 risks for the year, which is released at the beginning of each year, attracts significant attention.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Yes, DeepSeek Provides Censored Responses to Questions About China
On January 23, U.S. technology companies and financial markets were shaken by the release of a groundbreaking artificial intelligence model built by DeepSeek, a China-based technology company. While the DeepSeek-R1 model represents a significant step forward in AI development, Western users began questioning whether its output would be subject to the same censorship applied by the Chinese government to internet and media in the country. The Chinese government's broad censorship regime has long been criticized for restricting access to information about controversial subjects including the Tiananmen Square massacre, the country's repression of the Uyghurs, and even Chinese President Xi Jinping's resemblance to Winnie the Pooh. One notable post by Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, claimed that the model refused to answer questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, a series of political protests in Beijing that ended with the killing of hundreds—possibly thousands—of civilians by Chinese military and police forces. 'I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses,' the model responded when asked by Bremmer, 'What happened in tianemen [sic] square in 1989?' By comparison, Bremmer showed that the model gave a detailed description of the 1970 Kent State shootings when asked, 'What happened in Ohio in 1970?' The claim is true: DeepSeek-R1 does refuse to answer questions about sensitive topics to the Chinese government. While AI models can return different answers to the same queries for different users or on different devices, The Dispatch Fact Check put this censorship to the test, asking DeepSeek's AI model questions about all three of the topics above. We received answers that were very similar to those Bremmer received. When asked what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the model responded 'Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else.' Other questions that mention Tiananmen Square also appear to be censored, even if they do not refer to the 1989 protests. When asked about China's Uyghur population, the model responded with an answer matching the Chinese Communist Party's official line on the repression of Uyghurs: Nothing to see here. The model provided a similar answer when asked to identify the current president of Taiwan. The Chinese government denies the existence of a separate Taiwanese state and considers the island part of its territory. Several questions about Xi Jinping, even those that only asked for his identification, also received censored responses. By comparison, when asked Bremmer's question about Ohio in 1970, DeepSeek-R1 provided a detailed explanation of the shootings at Kent State University. It also provided detailed responses when asked about American leaders including Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Kent State: Biden and Trump: If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
