georgy po

@TrueStoneCold @ianbremmer Because China, unlike America, produces everything and cheaper. This means China will sell them more than it buys from them, and this gap will only widen.

@331167 @ianbremmer Why? Why does a friendship with China inherently “end with the destruction of their internal economy”?

an extraordinary set of responses

@alltejuupptaget @ianbremmer Do not forget to send your brilliant thoughts to China and point out their idiocy for maintaining a positive trade balance.

@331167 @ianbremmer Good grief he really doesn't understand

@skldgb @ianbremmer @CWilson96132511 The United States has sponsored Canada to the tune of $944 billion over the last 30 years due to unequal trade conditions. This $944 billion represents the hole in American trade with Canada.

@331167 @ianbremmer @CWilson96132511 I was referring to Canada not Europe.

Of course, only idiots understand how great a business is that loses money instead of earning it. Good luck explaining that to the fools from China who have a trillion-dollar annual surplus; they simply don't grasp that having a trillion-dollar deficit is far more profitable than having a trillion-dollar surplus.

@331167 @ianbremmer I thought even stup1d people had realized by now that a trade deficit isn't "lost money"

And perhaps China also created that $2.5 trillion trade surplus for the EU? In other words, not only did America pay for the EU's defense, but it also sponsored Europe through trade, since America lost $2.5 trillion over 30 years in trade with the EU—and not because Europe had $2.5 trillion worth of super exclusive goods.

@331167 @ianbremmer @CWilson96132511 Protection from whom?

@skldgb @ianbremmer @CWilson96132511 Who paid for NATO all these years? Who allowed the EU to underpay for defense and, thanks to that, build welfare states that are now dying because there will be no money for social spending? Maybe it was China that paid for Europe's security all those years?

@ianbremmer So, when a friend pays for your protection and also pays for your economy (through disproportionate tariffs) while you remain on equal footing, then of course it’s easy to be friends and love a friend like that. You want a continuation of that kind of friendship❓

@ianbremmer @CWilson96132511 So, when a friend pays for your protection and also pays for your economy (through disproportionate tariffs) while you remain on equal footing, then of course it’s easy to be friends and love a friend like that. You want a continuation of that kind of friendship❓

@CWilson96132511 when all of america’s closest allies are saying you’re an asshole…it’s possible self-reflection is required.

@ianbremmer It is not American cars killing the German auto industry, but Chinese ones.🚗🚙

The negotiations with Iran were highly successful—exactly as they should have been❗️❗️❗️ The primary objective was achieved: driving an even deeper wedge into the ranks of the Iranian political elite. Simultaneously, American markets recovered from their dips and hit new record highs. It is 100% certain that there are those in Iran who were ready to accept the terms of a deal with America. These moderate/pragmatic elements—those who want to preserve their capital, power, and survival—already sense that continuing the war is suicide. They see that Trump isn't bluffing and is prepared to go all the way. They won't just sit quietly; internal infighting in Iran will intensify. Iran didn't cave, yes, but the leadership is now even more torn between "pragmatists who want to survive" and "radicals screaming for war until total victory." Trump isn't just negotiating; he’s injecting a virus into the operating system of Iranian power. He isn’t looking for a compromise; he’s looking for the enemy’s capitulation on terms favorable to him. Believing that Iran, in its current state, can dictate anything to Trump is simply an admission of failing to understand the balance of power. Trump doesn't look for a "win-win"; he looks for his own victory under conditions where the opponent loses the most. Therefore, the most surprising thing about these negotiations wasn't even that Iran actually believed it was in a position to dictate terms to Trump. What surprised me most was that a large, even overwhelming majority of experts actually believed that at this stage, Iran could bend Trump to its demands. This only shows that these people still don't understand Trump, which means their forecasts regarding him and his actions will remain inaccurate. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could have thought Trump would agree to Iran's demands today—it’s a complete lack of competence in analyzing Trump. And Iran, much like Ukraine, has passed its "Istanbul," failing to stop in time. But unlike Ukraine, here it was obvious from the start. Iran’s leadership backed itself into a corner by promising its people such fairy-tale conditions, as if they were actually crushing the American army and inflicting millions of casualties on the front lines. After these foolish and public promises, it will now be very difficult for them to accept Trump's terms, which completely contradict what they promised their supporters back home. The Iranian elite made a classic mistake of authoritarian regimes—they confused internal propaganda with external reality. When you broadcast the image of an "America-conqueror" for years, you become a hostage to that rhetoric. Now, any realistic agreement with Trump will look like capitulation to their radical wing. They narrowed their own room for maneuver. Overall, everything went exactly as it was supposed to. When the initial analysis is correct, you just have to wait and stay calm while events begin to catch up with the theory. Text from March 27 🔴Controlled Detonation of the Regime🔴 What is the chance that Trump can find someone within the current Iranian government with whom he can negotiate a good end to the war for himself right now? The chance, let's say, is significant—such a person or group of people can be found within the current Iranian leadership. What is the chance that this person or group will represent the entire Iranian political elite? Now, the chance of that is small. This means Trump can reach an agreement with someone to end the conflict, but the problem will be that this person or group won't have the full support of the entire vertical of power. This means their orders will be sabotaged at the very least, and at most, the religious elite will simply declare them traitors. The situation for Iran will shift from an external conflict to an internal one—internal purges and infighting will begin. Does this mean Trump shouldn't look for someone to negotiate with if they can't stop the conflict anyway? No, on the contrary—such people must be sought out, negotiated with, and helped—even openly—specifically to incite hatred toward them from those who refuse to negotiate. Because the goal is to create an alternative center of power and dismantle the current power structure as a cohesive unit, transitioning to internal strife. The sooner Iran starts an internal conflict, the sooner it will end it, and accordingly, the war will shift from the outside to the inside for the most part. Then other players can be brought in, like the Kurds. Therefore, there’s no need to wait for a "sole representative of all Iran." Such a person simply doesn't exist right now. It's necessary to work with the pieces that are ready to talk and deliberately provoke a split in the rest of the leadership. Trump should look for a "pragmatist group" (those who want to survive and keep their money). By making a deal only with them, he automatically turns them into a target for the radicals and shatters the government. This isn't a strategy error; it's the main mechanism. This is controlled detonation. The faster Iran deals with itself internally, the faster the external war ends, and the higher the chance for a real (though painful) transition from theocracy to something more pragmatically secular. As was written even before the war: if Iranians want to remove theocratic rule and return to a secular one, they won't be able to do it without blood and internal conflict.

the iranian government—the hardliners included—have every reason to engage in talks with the united states that extends the ceasefire. implementing an agreement is another matter.

Advice from whom❓ From business leaders❓ From those very individuals who have completely lost touch with the common people and think of nothing but how to rake in even more profit. What kind of counsel can they possibly offer? Do you really think pharmaceutical companies would provide tips on making healthcare more affordable for the average American? Of course not. Every single piece of their advice will inevitably boil down to one thing: how to make even more money.

leaders aren’t giving trump unvarnished, real expertise or advice, and it’s not just happening among members the administration and business leaders. it’s happening with world leaders too.

Ian, it's not fair that you named three reasons why Trump started the military operation in Iran but didn't list nuclear weapons as one of them—you didn't even put it in third place. This is despite the fact that even before his first presidency, Trump kept saying that Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The fact that you forgot to mention the main reason makes this look more like an interview with a propagandist than with an analyst.

great fun to sit down with @stevenbartlett and talk global risks, the war in iran, the ai revolution and more!

@ianbremmer Judging by this marvelous logic, have Russia’s positions in the world weakened after its war in Ukraine? Yes оr NO?

the conventional wisdom was that a destabilizing war in the oil-producing heart of the middle east would badly hurt china. it hasn’t worked out that way. so far, china is weathering the war with iran better than many of its neighbors and looks set to emerge stronger. gzeromedia.com/by-ian-bremmer…

China and America are nearly equal in the economic sphere, and therefore, neither side holds an overwhelming advantage in an economic war. In the military sphere, however, America possesses a total advantage because, while China has a massive army, it is not a combat-hardened one; furthermore, even when it fought in the past, it has not seen major historical military victories for a long time. Therefore, during this moment of global redistribution and the establishment of a new world order, it would be foolish not to utilize the military sphere—where China is not a competitor—to fight for world control.

Writing like this would only be possible if China were not dependent on oil prices and Arab oil at all, yet China is dependent on it. Thus, China suffers from high oil prices just as much as everyone else. It is just that, for now, the state uses its mechanisms to manually brake price increases, and these manual mechanisms are not cheap. Plus, unlike China, America is gaining experience in new high-tech warfare and is consuming weaponry that must be replenished, which means domestic production is expanding.

You miss the main difference between Judaism and Islam. Judaism is a closed religion; it is not even that easy to join. Islam, however, is an open and growing religion—meaning it is not enough for them to believe themselves; their main goal is to make others believe in their god too. In other words, having religious Jews as neighbors is an inconvenience, but it does not pose a danger; they do not want you to become like them. But neighbors who are religious followers of Islam want you to become like them and embrace their faith.

@331167 @ianbremmer You mean like how all the Hasidic Jews in my back yard have assimilated? They have their own set of rules that they live by and I don't hear you complaining about that.

netanyahu survived oct. 7 and engineered one of the greatest political comebacks of the era. he hasn't resolved the central tension: what saved him politically may destroy israel's standing internationally. time.com/collection/100…

As for Lebanon, it would be good to return it to its golden era, when it was essentially under Christian control and Christians made up more than half of the population. In other words, to bring Lebanon back under Christian authority again. As for the refugees, they will either settle in their own countries or in those that accept them, as has always been the case throughout history. Although, of course, there have been exceptions - for example, in America, where indigenous peoples were not pushed out beyond the country’s borders but were largely destroyed, and the remaining ones were confined to reservations.

@331167 @ianbremmer Where do you think all the displaced Iranians and Lebanese are going to end up?

@someonetookmy @ianbremmer You talk like this while the country still lives by the old rules, but once it switches to the new Islamic rules, you will be singing a different tune.

@331167 @ianbremmer I would choose a muslim in my country over a zionist every time.