Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Ian Bremmer:

There was a small but real tail risk that didn’t exist on January 6th, two years ago, that there could be a constitutional crisis where the actual national election was broken in the United States. And that proximate risk no longer exists.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Ian Bremmer. He’s the founder and president of Eurasia Group, a political risk and research consulting firm. He also leads GZERO Media, a company focused on providing engaging coverage of international affairs. As many of you know, Ian has been a regular guest on Stay Tuned at the start of each new year to talk about Eurasia Group’s annual top risks report. It sizes up the most urgent geopolitical challenges facing the world in the upcoming year. So what are we up against in 2023? That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

 

QUESTION AND ANSWER:

 

Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes in an email from Susan who asks, “What are your thoughts on Trump’s tax returns? Can/will DOJ do something about this?” Well, to answer your second question partially first, DOJ’s hands are pretty full. There’s a special master, as you know, that’s been appointed to look at the shenanigans with respect to the documents that were classified, held at Mar-a-Lago. They’re also obviously laboring to investigate all the activities leading up to January 6th, the insurrection, and Donald Trump and other people’s potential criminal culpability with respect to the insurrection.

On the question of the tax returns, they’re sort of interesting. I think less interesting than some people had hoped or maybe expected. I don’t know if that has something to do with the fact that they were finally released to the public on Friday night of a big holiday weekend. One of the interesting things about it is it shows that Donald Trump most likely lied when he said publicly, more than once, that in particular years, he paid millions of dollars in taxes, and it turns out that he paid just a few hundred dollars in taxes and he paid $0 in federal income taxes in 2020.

Also interesting that the tax returns show that Donald Trump had bank accounts in foreign countries, including in China, which may raise some eyebrows for some people. There’s also no evidence that in certain years, he gave charitable contributions, even though he seems to have claimed to have given some of his salary to charity. Beyond that, I’m sure that people will be scrutinizing the tax returns. I have not seen anything immediately that suggests something for criminal enforcement, but I think the returns are voluminous, go on for many, many, many pages, and we’ll see. But at this point, I’m not sure that we’ll see anything from DOJ about it, and I’m not sure that’s wrong.

Here are a couple questions about George Santos. This one in a tweet from Morgan who writes, “What sort of crimes could George Santos be charged with for his chicanery?” And here’s an email from Mark who says, “Hi Preet. There was a story that the New York Attorney General was looking into George Santos, but I was wondering what law he might have broken. The news stories I see described lying to voters. Is that perhaps fraud?” Well, of course, all these questions, and there were many of them, refer to George Santos, who is still, as of the time of this recording, Congressman elect to New York’s third district, flipping a blue district to red.

As I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, the facts reveal that George Santos, in running for Congress, lied about his heritage, lied about his employment, lied about his business dealings, lied about his education, even seems to have lied about the circumstances and timing of his mother’s death. So that’s a lot of lying, even in an environment and at a time when we hear a lot of lies from people who are elected or are seeking to be elected. But lying to the public for the most part is not a federal or state crime. So he can’t be charged with telling those mistruths.

By my count, there are three prosecutors’ offices who have nonetheless decided to open up investigations of George Santos. There’s the state AG, as the commenter mentioned. There’s the Nassau County DA’s office. And there’s the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. With respect to the state AG and the Nassau County DA, I suppose it makes sense to look because someone who has lied about so many things in an effort to get elected may have engaged in other kinds of fraud or misconduct, financial misconduct in particular. But since it was a federal election, my guess is that the most fruitful investigation will be out of the Eastern District of New York.

Among other things in New York Times reports that with respect to that investigation, it’s focus, at least in part, on George Santos’s financial dealings. To quote the article, “Questions remain about how Mr. Santos has generated enough personal wealth to be able as campaign finance filing show to lend his campaign $700,000.” So this is a person who didn’t have a lot of money, didn’t have a lot of financial wherewithal, who suddenly has a lot of money, and that’s the kind of thing the prosecutors look at. So I don’t know if anything will come of it, but probably it’s going to be the case that any crime that arises from an investigation will relate to his finances, not misleading the public.

Finally, here’s a question that comes in a tweet from Jack who writes, “Let’s start at the top. What’s the meaning of life? We can work our way down from there.” So that’s easy for those of you in the know. What’s the meaning of life, the universe and everything? Well, it’s 42. If you know what I’m talking about, congratulations. If you don’t, I’ll explain next week. We’ll be right back with my conversation with Ian Bremmer.

 

THE INTERVIEW:

 

What are the top geopolitical risks facing the globe in 2023? Is there anything to be hopeful about? Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer joins me this week for our annual conversation about the year ahead. Ian Bremmer, welcome back to the show for the umpteenth time.

Ian Bremmer:

Preet, Happy New Year, my friend.

Preet Bharara:

Happy New Year. How many is umpteenth, by the way? Do you know?

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t know. Seven, maybe. Something like that. I don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

I think it’s like 11.

Ian Bremmer:

Is it? Is it really? It’s a lot of times.

Preet Bharara:

If it’s 11, we’re not at umpteenth just yet.

Ian Bremmer:

We did a short one. Wasn’t it a few weeks ago? We did a mini one.

Preet Bharara:

We did. You’re just always on. You’re always begging to be on.

Ian Bremmer:

Begging. My guys are begging.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m like, fine.

Ian Bremmer:

The dog without a bone. So I said, scrap from the Preet table. That’s what I’m looking for. Looking up a cute little furry dog.

Preet Bharara:

Well, we pay you all that money to come on.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s what it is. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

That’s prestige. That’s a prestige event for you.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s even funnier than the treat, actually. No, it’s just because I like you. That’s all. Isn’t that enough? That should be enough.

Preet Bharara:

So speaking of missing me, I saw that you posted a New Year’s resolution. Do you want to tell the folks?

Ian Bremmer:

On your page. I did. On your thread. That’s true. Well, because you were asking you. You were asking. You said, “Do you have any New Year’s resolutions?” And I happened to see that you posted that.

Preet Bharara:

And what was your resolution?

Ian Bremmer:

Did you like my resolution, Preet?

Preet Bharara:

I did. Can you tell the folks what your resolution was?

Ian Bremmer:

I can tell. My resolution was to spend more time in 2023 with my friend Preet.

Preet Bharara:

And here you are.

Ian Bremmer:

And here I am.

Preet Bharara:

Making good.

Ian Bremmer:

Making good.

Preet Bharara:

All these people who committed to losing weight and exercising and eating differently probably are not as successful as you already are on day three of the new year.

Ian Bremmer:

I try to shoot in a more manageable fashion.

Preet Bharara:

Hang out with Preet.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And look, you’re aspiring very high. Very high.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, I mean, at least it’s something I know I can do, right? I’m like, I’m up for it. And it’ll make both of us better people, or at least happier.

Preet Bharara:

Should we move to substance now.

Ian Bremmer:

I consider this substantive.

Preet Bharara:

Substantive due process. Okay. So we have you on for a lot of different things.

Ian Bremmer:

Did you? Well, no, but did you have an actual resolution?

Preet Bharara:

I didn’t.

Ian Bremmer:

You didn’t?

Preet Bharara:

I didn’t. My actual tweet that you responded to was, “Are we doing resolutions this year?”

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, I was.

Preet Bharara:

And I’m a little… I want to set the bar low. Not as low as you did.

Ian Bremmer:

Not as low, yes. Slightly higher than that.

Preet Bharara:

But I’ll join you. I’ll join you. I want to spend more time with you also.

Ian Bremmer:

There you go.

Preet Bharara:

I think the resolution is joined.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s nice.

Preet Bharara:

As they say-

Ian Bremmer:

That’s nice. That’s nice.

Preet Bharara:

… in the parliamentary language. The resolution is joined in.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. We’re successful, mutually. It’s very good.

Preet Bharara:

I think we’ve had you on at the beginning of every year going back to 1967 or 8.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, sure.

Preet Bharara:

Because you put out, your organization, your company puts out a report. Can you just describe for 20 seconds for the people who haven’t heard you talk about it, literally 20 seconds, Ian, the point of the report and why you do it?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s called the top risks report. And it assesses, in terms of likelihood, impact and imminence, all of the big things that we worry may go bump in the night over the course of the coming year. And then at the end of the year, we go back and we see how we did. And analytically, we think it’s a healthy thing for us to do.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So I’m not going to start at the top with the new risks. We’ll go through a number of them. But I want to talk about something that is unfolding literally as we speak. So we’re recording this in the 2:00 PM hour on Tuesday, January 3rd. And before I came to the microphone, I literally watched on television the aspiring speaker of the house, Kevin McCarthy, lose on the first ballot. And I don’t know how it’s going to unfold thereafter. Lots of people think he’ll still get it. We’ll know by the time this show drops on Thursday, in two days.

But the reason I mention it is, last year, your number three risk had to do with American politics. And in particular, you referred to the US midterms. This year, meaning for 2023, you have a parallel risk factor, which you refer to as the divided states of America. Is there anything about the McCarthy failure to rally the Republicans to him that tells you anything about that prediction?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, first, let’s congratulate the Republicans.

Preet Bharara:

Congratulations.

Ian Bremmer:

Because this is the first time since 1923 that a US speakership election has taken more than one vote. And it’s always nice to see that we can be part of history being made.

Preet Bharara:

Yes, we have a front row seat in.

Ian Bremmer:

We do. We do. Look, what we see upside and downside. The downside is that the level of dysfunction and polarization inside the US political system and process continues to grow. There’s nothing that’s stopping that from happening. And the way we are seeing the House speakership race being contested right now is absolutely part of the process. It is dysfunctional in part because a small but meaningful group of extremists have captured, and as a consequence, are working hard to break the process. That’s where we are.

On the other hand, there was a small but real tail risk that didn’t exist on January 6th two years ago, that there could be a constitutional crisis where the actual national election was broken in the United States. And that proximate risk no longer exists. And I think we should be very, very pleased about that. That’s a direct consequence. No longer exists.

Preet Bharara:

No longer exists, or it’s lower?

Ian Bremmer:

I think, for the foreseeable future, for 2024, 25, there is no longer a risk of a constitutional crisis in the US.

Preet Bharara:

That’s very interesting. So I imagine part of the reason you put the risk of the divided states of America as low as you do, number eight, was because of the results in the 2022 midterm.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Could you describe your process if it’s not overly proprietary? Is someone drafting this in September, October, and then you revise it? In other words, would this issue have been much higher up had the midterms turned out differently?

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. Yes, it was. And what happens, it starts in September. And the entire firm, and we’re talking like 200 plus people, all of the analysts are coming together and they’re talking about all of the things that they see out there. And it’s not 10 risks that we’re ranking, it’s 50 plus ideas that are then getting sculpted and winnowed and changing and adapting over the course of the year. And there’s no question that before the midterms, when everyone was thinking about not only a red wave, but also that a large number of Secretary of State and Governor positions were being contested by act of election deniers.

In other words, there was a reasonable likelihood that come 2024, a US national election could be determined by people in power to execute on those election outcomes who wanted to break the process. That was a plausible outcome directly of the midterm elections, which no longer can happen.

Preet Bharara:

If, for some reason, McCarthy doesn’t secure the speakership, what does that tell you about the risk in politics in America? Anything?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, I mean, it tells you, I think, a little bit about the snapback function. For me, it’s sort of like Roe versus Wade. For 50 years, we had a judicial ruling by the Supreme Court that was messy, it was probably not so well argued and defined, but nonetheless, was a compromise that actually reflected where the people of America are on abortion. That turns out America is a bell curve. You have a small number of people that think abortion should always be illegal. You have a small number of people that think that abortion should always be legal. And in the middle, you have the majority of Americans that are not wack-jobs.

The majority of Americans that think that infrequent, safe and rare reflects the way we want abortion to be treated, even if our religious and personal beliefs don’t necessarily completely align with that. And that was fine until a group of Supreme Court justices pushed the court too far to the right, out of balance with the American population, ripped up Roe versus Wade, and as a consequence, there’s a political reaction to that. And Trump can claim it’s not his fault, but the reality is the politics went too far away from the United States electorate. And I think that Kevin McCarthy and the way he embraced Trump and Trumpism has pushed his own party farther than the population is actually exists.

Preet Bharara:

You said a minute ago that, I’m paraphrasing, that you’re not that concerned about 2024. Are you assuming in that conclusion that Trump will not return to the presidency?

Ian Bremmer:

No. No, I’m not assuming that. I think that there’s-

Preet Bharara:

So if he returns to the presidency, where is the divided states of America going to be on the risk list that year?

Ian Bremmer:

It’ll certainly go up, but it won’t be number one. It won’t be number two. And it’s so critical to think about the top risks list this year holistically because the United States of America, even when Trump was president, he was president of a country that has checks and balances, president of a country that had experts around him who were prepared to say no and were prepared to even act in insubordinate fashion to prevent him from doing things he wanted to do.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Well, that’s why I ask about the next one because my view is, you’re largely correct, but if he were to assume the presidency again, he would not surround himself even by accident with people who might say no. It’ll be an entire White House full of, and if possible, a cabinet full of only yes men. Don’t you agree?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it’s much harder to effectuate that than Trump’s personal interests would dictate. And I also think his willingness to do the work to ensure that would happen, even at the age he is now, nevermind in two years, is much, much lower than the amount of work he’d have to put in on the ability to execute. So no, I would push back somewhat against that. Though I take your point. I would also say that it’s not just about who Trump appoints, it’s also about the military, it’s also about the judiciary, it’s also about the governors, it’s also about the people in power in the Republican Party that he was calling up in his own party saying find me votes, and they couldn’t and they wouldn’t find him votes.

So it’s not just about his handpicked group of cadre, of loyalists, even in that worst case. The United States and Brazil, and it’s good to bring Brazilians since Bolsonaro and Trump have been hanging out for the last few days.

Preet Bharara:

Mar-a-Lago.

Ian Bremmer:

And eating KFC. I mean, he’s turns out that no matter what country Bolsonaro is in, he’s surrounding himself by military leaders, the colonel.

Preet Bharara:

Took me a second.

Ian Bremmer:

It took you a second. [inaudible 00:17:14]. I’m like, “No, he didn’t get it. Didn’t get it.”

Preet Bharara:

Did you workshop that one?

Ian Bremmer:

No, I didn’t workshop that. That was just for you.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Are you using this podcast as you’re workshopping? That’s not really cool.

Ian Bremmer:

No, I’m sorry.

Preet Bharara:

You should hone your jokes before the podcast.

Ian Bremmer:

Probably. Right.

Preet Bharara:

This is not open mic night. You’re like, “Let me try this crappy joke on Preet’s podcast and then we’ll see if I’ll use it at Davos.” Right? Is that your plan?

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, that’s so dirty, man. I appreciate you going there.

Preet Bharara:

All right, let’s move to something else for a second.

Ian Bremmer:

No, but I’m bringing in Brazil just because-

Preet Bharara:

Okay.

Ian Bremmer:

… the point is that these democracies are more resilient than a lot of people expected. Don’t panic. You and I have talked about this on many occasions on this podcast before. But this year, there are things to panic about. And those things are the places, the institutions, the individuals that don’t have checks and balances, that are prepared to act without expertise, and that really create proximate danger for the global stage.

Preet Bharara:

We’re going to get to those top two in a second.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, sure.

Preet Bharara:

But I want to note before we get there that there’s one issue that seems, unless I missed it, not on your list, and even last year I recall you were more sanguine about this issue.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, the pandemic?

Preet Bharara:

No. Climate change.

Ian Bremmer:

Climate change. Oh, it’s on there. It’s on there. It’s just in a bunch of different risks as opposed to by itself.

Preet Bharara:

It’s not in any of the headlines. It doesn’t have its own standalone section.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s true. It’s true.

Preet Bharara:

Some people would say that’s nuts. Ian, what do you say?

Ian Bremmer:

I take the point. It really shows-

Preet Bharara:

You took a lot of points today. I think that’s like the third point you’ve taken.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, it’s the third point. Well, because you make some good points. The place that it really shows up the most directly is in Arrested Global Development. And what this means is that after 50 years of globalization, creating a global middle class and bringing billions out of poverty, we now are experiencing the third year in a row where human development is actually regressing. And climate change is a big piece of that, as is the knock on effects of the pandemic and the Russia war. Put it together and what you’re really seeing is a growing gap between the advanced industrial economies of the north, of the west, and the developing economies of the south.

And that reality, this growing west-south gap, of which climate change is probably the biggest single piece, the biggest single driver, shows up all over the top risks report this year. So some of this is how you want to frame it as opposed to where the hell is climate change. The fact is, this report is all about climate change.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, I’ll take that in. I take your point.

Ian Bremmer:

There you go.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s talk about the risk factor that’s number one, which you refer to as rogue Russia. And remind folks that last year, Russia was at number five.

Ian Bremmer:

Number five. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And obviously when the report came out last year, we had our discussion, it was six weeks or so before Russia invaded Ukraine. I’ll also remind folks that you and I were on stage a few days before that at the Pivot Conference in Miami, where there had been overnight some, I guess, arguably good news that suggested Russia was not going to engage in a full scale invasion. You disabused everyone in the audience about that. It was a pretty somber presentation, but you turned out to be correct. Describe how-

Ian Bremmer:

Which occasionally happens. You say that in a way that shocks you.

Preet Bharara:

If you’re a clock, it happens twice. Twice every day on a daily basis.

Ian Bremmer:

Every day.

Preet Bharara:

Could you talk generally about, now that the war is in its, I guess, 10th month, and it has not gone well for the Russians, what this means for global risk.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s also not gone well for the Ukrainians. It’s not gone well for the West. It’s not gone well for the world.

Preet Bharara:

For anyone.

Ian Bremmer:

No, it’s gone horribly.

Preet Bharara:

Has it gone well for NATO?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, it’s gone well for NATO. And in some ways, it’s gone well for the United States in the sense that we now have a raison d’etre for being the policeman in the region. And our allies, our critical allies, all recognize they really do need to follow us, to support us, to start spending more on their own defense budgets. Even a country like Japan, not exactly on the front lines right now of the Ukraine war, is announcing 2% GDP spend on the back of the invasion.

Preet Bharara:

Is that good or bad?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s largely good in the sense that a strong-

Preet Bharara:

It’s largely good that previously, low spending on defense countries are going to increase armaments. And once you start increasing armaments, people never go back.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. No, I don’t think it’s good that there’s a war on in Europe. That’s a horrible thing. It’s good that there is a stronger alliance between the United States and its core allies, an alliance that increasingly was becoming divided. A NATO that Trump said was obsolete, Macron said was brain-dead, a G7 that, in principle, has common values, but was going every which way. I think it’s a positive thing that those countries are more aligned with each other. But the fact of a war in Ukraine that is driving the end of the peace dividend and all of this defense spending, no, no, no, that’s not a good thing at all. It’s a horrible thing.

Preet Bharara:

So what is going to happen? I’m sure this is the question you get most frequently. How do we come to an end now that we’re 10 months in? And by the way, if you want in your answer, feel free to address your reaction and impression of Zelenskyy’s visit to the US Capitol.

Ian Bremmer:

Very well. His visits all over the world, he’s a very impressive, he’s a charismatic statesman. He speaks with integrity. He has walked the talk. He is living in danger of his life being ended every day. And so he has enormous credibility on the global stage with those who are predisposed to support him. And that’s a really big deal. So the fact that, I mean, it’s a red herring on our list this year that there will not be a divide inside the West in the United States or Europe. 2023 is going to continue to have incredibly strong support for Ukraine. That’s a really big deal after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after the pivot to Asia, all of these things, that’s enormous. And Zelenskyy deserves a lot of credit for that.

But here’s the problem, and there are many problems, but the biggest problem is that Putin has no way out. Putin’s made this horrible series of misjudgments. And on the basis of very bad information, bad information about what NATO would do, bad information about his own defense capabilities, bad information about how the Ukrainians would respond, and now he faces a much more powerful Ukraine, a much more expanded NATO, a Russian economy that will be forcibly decoupled from the West.

Preet Bharara:

And winter.

Ian Bremmer:

And no way out. And no way out.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Well, the way you put it is, I think, in the report and elsewhere, he has nothing to lose. And leaders with power and with armies and in particular with nuclear weapons who have nothing to lose are very dangerous people.

Ian Bremmer:

They’re very dangerous people. And so given that he has really no military solutions, no way to advance his aims, his war aims on the ground. And increasingly even in the air, I mean, his efforts to punish the Ukrainians are going to be met by more effective air defenses and patriot systems over the course of this year. Unless you think he’s going to give up. And I certainly don’t believe that. Where and how will he escalate? And there are really only two options. One is weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine, which I think is relatively unlikely. And the second is he starts to engage in asymmetric attacks, cyber and espionage and fiber and pipeline against NATO.

Preet Bharara:

Well, why hasn’t he done that yet? So I’m confused. I’ve asked this before. I understand why, and I’m grateful that he has not used nuclear weapons, but why not this other asymmetrical warfare, cyber and other things? I don’t understand why he’s not doing that. I’m glad he hasn’t, but I don’t understand why.

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, well, I think, in part, he hasn’t because he’s believed that he can get a divide inside the United States and Europe by freezing out the Europeans on energy, they’ll want to come back, the fact that the Nord Stream one, two pipelines have been sabotaged, and we don’t know actually by who, makes it harder to come back on that point. And also a feeling that, well, I’m going to be able to eventually bludgeon the Ukrainians into submission by hitting them so hard.

Preet Bharara:

Wait. So does he still think that?

Ian Bremmer:

No, I think he increasingly doesn’t think that. That’s the point.

Preet Bharara:

So he is finally realizing the predicament he’s in.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

So do you think he has a plan?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, I think that Putin is much more of a day-to-day as opposed to a long-term strategic planner.

Preet Bharara:

Well, he’s a lot like me.

Ian Bremmer:

So I think that’s been the case. Less like you perhaps. I mean, you’re taller.

Preet Bharara:

I do long-term strategic planning all the time.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

I’m always doing it.

Ian Bremmer:

What does it mean? Look, if you are watching the news in Russia, if you’re listening to the leaders in Russia, they believe that they’ve been fighting NATO for a year now.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

And I’m sympathetic to that view. But NATO doesn’t believe they’re fighting Russia. NATO thinks, “No, no, no. The Ukrainians are fighting Russia. We’re just helping.” 2023 is increasingly year where NATO thinks they’re fighting Russia directly.

Preet Bharara:

And you said something a minute ago that did not comfort me. When you’re referring to the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons, you said that’s “relatively unlikely.” You and I once had a discussion, I think, last fall about… And I know this is a little bit of a silly exercise, but it gets to the point, what the likelihood is of some kind of nuclear usage, tactical or otherwise. I think you put it, and remind me if I’m wrong, at 10%.

Ian Bremmer:

I think I put it five to 10.

Preet Bharara:

Five to 10.

Ian Bremmer:

And I think what I said was at the time that the White House thought it was more like 20 to 25%.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And what do you think now, and what do you think generally our experts think is the likelihood of that?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that I’m still at five to 10. I think the White House is now closer to me than they were in that brief period of time when the Russians were talking about a Ukrainians dirty bomb being used that everyone thought was just the Russian efforts at a false flag attack. And that’s why Biden kept delivering these very strong warnings to the Russians, “Don’t you dare? Here’s what we’ll do if you use a nuke.” So I think there was a period of time when the White House was more concerned. NATO leaders as well. But still, my point is five to 10 is actually higher than at any point since 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s unacceptably high. And there are things that could easily happen this year that would raise those numbers.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

A nuclear weapon being used on the battlefield in Europe, absolutely insanity.

Preet Bharara:

No matter how minimal.

Ian Bremmer:

No matter how minimal.

Preet Bharara:

It’s a horrible outcome. So why can’t it be the case that the way this unfolds is it just becomes something like a war of attrition where there’s an impasse, there’s fighting, there’s shelling, there’s bombing, territories are taken, territories are taken back, and nobody admits defeat, nobody surrenders, there’s no diplomacy, and Putin just does this until his last day.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, the part of the reason it’s harder is because the Ukrainians have been given such extraordinary military support that it will feel much more like an unacceptable defeat. Russia is not coming back to the status quo ante. And remember, the reason that he invaded to begin with was because he wanted to ensure Ukrainian neutrality. He wanted to overthrow the Nazi Ukrainian regime that was committing so-called genocide against Russians on the ground, all of which was complete BS. But that’s what he said.

Now, he’s in a situation where Ukraine will possess the most well-trained, best intelligence, most powerful and well-equipped military force in all of Europe right on his border. That’s not remotely acceptable for Russia, and his economy is going to be in free fall.

Preet Bharara:

So then you’re saying he can’t afford to be in this for another three, four, five, six, seven years. And if he’s come to that realization, which I’m not sure he has, the alternative seems to me diplomacy, but that doesn’t seem like something that the Ukrainians will take up unless the offer is very, very, very robust. Right?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. I think that the gap between the Russians and Ukrainians for plausible diplomacy is way too yawning to make anyone believe that that’s plausible. I’ll tell you what I think the good outcome is. I think there is a good outcome.

Preet Bharara:

Really?

Ian Bremmer:

But it’s a really dangerous one.

Preet Bharara:

Okay.

Ian Bremmer:

I think that I could imagine that the Ukrainians are going to have a counter offensive in the coming weeks. And once the ground is frozen, they’re trying to take more land. Let’s imagine they break through the land bridge in Zaporizhzhia. They get all the way back to the coast and they’ve got their HIMARS that just killed, the Russians admit, 63 Russian soldiers yesterday. The Ukrainians claim 300, 400, whatever. But they’ve got them there. And those HIMARS from the coast will be able to strike directly Crimea and the bridge from Crimea to Russia. That is enormously dangerous for Putin. That’s considered a red line by the Kremlin.

I can imagine the Russians at that point, facing that kind of defeat with Zelenskyy, hard to retake Crimea, would threaten nuclear use, would increase their nuclear threat alert and posture, and would bring tactical nuclear weapons forward deploy into the field. Suddenly, we would be in a Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the worst case scenario in the next three months for the Russia-Ukraine War.

Preet Bharara:

I thought you said this was good.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

I’m not liking this very much.

Ian Bremmer:

At that point, the Chinese, who so far have stood on the sidelines and been supporting the Russians, will recognize that this war can get to a place where it is deeply dangerous for China. China does not want $150 oil. China does not want the end of food and grain and fertilizer export for Ukraine and Russia. China certainly does not want an even limited nuclear exchange on the ground in Ukraine. China might very well then say to the Russians very publicly, “We will cut you off unless you stop this, end this, and come to the diplomatic table.” And I don’t think the Americans would immediately sit down with the Chinese, but I think the French would, I think the Germans would, I think there would be a real effort from both sides to end the war at that point, immediately enforce Russia to accept outcomes that heretofore Putin’s been unwilling to.

And that would create a possibility, a window geopolitically for the United States and China to actually reset. In other words, in the last 10 months, Preet, you and I have watched as NATO has gotten stronger, as the G7 has gotten stronger, and it’s happened because the war in Ukraine is so threatening, it’s such a big crisis that the West is coming back together. But it’s not a big enough crisis to force the West to get back together with China. Absolutely not. Well, what if the crisis were to become that big? I think that’s actually the window of opportunity here. But again, it’s a very dangerous window.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean, what you’re describing to me sounds a little bit like, what you might say after the fact, when things spiraled out of control, we came to the razor’s edge of nuclear war for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Ian Bremmer:

In ’62.

Preet Bharara:

Well, no, but actual use of weapons in the ’40s.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And then you would teach your history class, “Well, that’s the thing that prompted everyone to come a little bit to their senses and for the alliances to shift and for China to play its role.” It doesn’t sound like something that can be strategized about and done deliberately, right?

Ian Bremmer:

No.

Preet Bharara:

And you’d be a crazy person-

Ian Bremmer:

No, not at all, to try.

Preet Bharara:

… to try, even though at the end of the day…

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. That’s right.

Preet Bharara:

Right? So you’re describing something that may, by happenstance, play out the way you’re describing it, but God forbid anyone ever tries to manage it in that way. Right?

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t think anyone is trying to manage it that way. I think the Americans are doing everything they can to stop that from happening. But the Americans have a very difficult balance here, because the US is supporting Ukraine incredibly strongly. But even though they’re aligned, their interests are not identical. And the US is trying to provide support for Ukraine without allowing the war to escalate in ways that could lead to nuclear confrontation, to direct military confrontation with the Russians. And how do you do that and still keep the Ukrainians onsite? How do you do that and still keep the NATO alliance as strongly cohesive as it has been for the last 10 months? The answer is that’s very, very hard to do.

Preet Bharara:

Last question on Russia, and then we want to move on to some other things.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

If Putin were to disappear from the scene tomorrow, there are all these rumors about his health, I don’t put any stock in them, but he’s not the youngest man in the world, and I don’t think he’s the healthiest man in the world. If he were to suddenly pass tomorrow, does the situation in Russia-Ukraine subside? Does it get better? Does his successor or likely successor get out of it or will they double down? Would there be the situation in which the world would be less secure even with the passage of Putin or not?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it would be slightly more secure, but not much. And the reason for that is because a successor to Putin would not be someone like Boris Nemtsov, the pro west Democrat who was assassinated outside of the Kremlin.

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

Wouldn’t be like Navalny, right? Who is languishing in prison right now. Wouldn’t be like Kasparov who you and I know, the former grandmaster who has to live in exile now. It would be someone much more like Prigozhin who runs the Wagner Group, the paramilitary forces that are fighting in occupied Ukraine and are increasingly publicly blaming the Russian defense forces for not being well-trained and effective. Or it would be a man or group of men from the Russian Security Council, that group of yes men that were voting in favor of the invasion back when it was the early special military operation in February.

Those are all people that hate the West, feel humiliated by the West, but would probably be a little bit more risk averse than a Putin who controls all the shots himself, and who feels like if this doesn’t go well, it could be the end of him, not just the end of Russia’s position in the region.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Ian Bremmer after this. So I think I lied. I said that was the last question on Russia, but then I remembered I wanted to ask you about a tweet that you posted in between Christmas and New Year’s where you said, “Hard to see why Putin doesn’t execute all these oligarchs instead of having them fall out of windows. A confident, taller dictator would own it.” Can you elaborate on that, Ian?

Ian Bremmer:

There were people… I saw some people that are saying, “Are you sure? How does this not break the terms of agreement on Twitter?” And my response was, “I was reliably told that humor is now legal on Twitter.” So I thought it was okay.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And you have a strong personal bond with Elon Musk, I recall.

Ian Bremmer:

And Elon likes me. Yeah, absolutely. So I feel okay on that front.

Preet Bharara:

I think he literally tweeted about you, “Don’t believe anything this man says.”

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. But I mean, he’s a jokester.

Preet Bharara:

But he meant it in jest. He meant it in jest.

Ian Bremmer:

He meant it in jest. Yeah. I think that Elon’s ability to use Twitter for sarcasm is virtually unmatched on the platform. So be that as it may. And you and I have discussed that whole point before on your show.

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

What I meant was, I think there’s been 19 mid-level oligarchs that have committed “suicide by jumping out of windows” over the last 10 months. And why the theatrics, why does Putin have to pretend that he’s not killing these people? We know he is killing these people. We know he considers it unacceptable.

Preet Bharara:

So why does he pretend?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s not actually that he’s too short. That was a bit of a dig at Putin. It’s really that, in the same way that he feels the need to have an election, even though he’s unelected, he feels the need to have the trappings, what would you call it? Like a Potemkin village. It’s the trappings, the show trials, the trappings of authority and legitimacy, that Russia’s historically has always wanted to be accepted as part of the West. Where for the Chinese, that doesn’t matter at all. The Chinese view is that the Western system is a different system. It’s not the system they prefer. They think their system will ultimately be successful. They have been successful historically.

Russia’s view is, “No, we’ve always wanted to be European and you are forcing us to not be European, but we still do have these rules and regulations. And if we lie, well, it’s only because everybody lies and you are just as bad as we are.” So this desire to belong in Western institutions is very high. And it must have hurt Putin so much to not be able to show up at the G20 because he knew he was going to be isolated and disrespected in front of other world leaders on the global stage, world leaders that he has kept waiting in the Kremlin for 15 minutes, an hour, three hours. Over the years-

Preet Bharara:

Very mature.

Ian Bremmer:

… suddenly… Well, but, I mean that describes his personality.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s move on to the second highest risk.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And I think you were alluding to this before when you were saying, “Well, Trump was dangerous and disruptive, but he was operating in a system with checks and balances.” You made a reference to places where there are fewer or no checks and balances. And you refer to the second most important risk for 2023, Maximum Xi. Reference to the leader of China. Can you describe for a second for people who haven’t been following how much he has consolidated his power and how it compares to his predecessors?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, this is, in some ways, very similar to the Russia risk. Not that Xi Jinping is facing the kind of global isolation or rogue status that Russia is and Putin is, but rather, because Xi Jinping has consolidated all of this power in his own hands that if you look following the election to an unprecedented third term, 86% of the politburo standing committee and 79% of the politburo are communist party members that have personal ties historically to Xi, worked under Xi directly or worked under a top Xi lieutenant.

Historically, that is unprecedented since the time of Mao. There is no longer a balancing between the hardliners and the technocrats. There’s no longer a group of pragmatic mid-level party officials who are getting information up to the Chinese leader. He’s in charge. He makes decisions in a very snap function. That’s exactly how we got from zero COVID to, we’re not even going to monitor COVID.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll just remind people the number one risk that you cited in year report last year-

Ian Bremmer:

For last year.

Preet Bharara:

… was zero COVID.

Ian Bremmer:

Zero COVID, which we said was going to fail, was going to fail in an enormous way. The Chinese government came after us afterwards.

Preet Bharara:

They did.

Ian Bremmer:

The Chinese People’s Daily actually did cartoons showing Eurasia Group so incredibly mistaken by pointing aspersions at the Chinese government zero COVID while our own countries were failing to deal with COVID. And of course, what we found is that the Chinese, 10 months later, had to back completely away into a 180, but their 180 was done without any preparation.

Preet Bharara:

Have they apologized to you?

Ian Bremmer:

No. But that’s okay. I mean, I think they get it. They get it. I mean, the good news is when you don’t take any money from them, you can say whatever you want. I mean, they also know that I’m only going to criticize them if they believe it. If I think they’re doing something right, I’ll say they’re doing something right as well.

Preet Bharara:

So can I ask a dumb question?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

So you’re talking about the ways in which Xi has consolidated his power and fewer checks and balances and the powers in his own name. Does that really matter that much?

Ian Bremmer:

It matters a lot.

Preet Bharara:

Are we talking about orders of magnitude or are we talking about marginal gains and power?

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t think it’s marginal. I think that if it wasn’t for Xi, if it was a previous leader, or if it was even Xi in his first term, you would’ve seen a much more incremental shift away from zero COVID. They would’ve had the vaccines in place, they would’ve had the hospitals built and more capable, and they would’ve been giving the orders to party officials all the way down the line of here’s how we’re going to make these changes.

Instead, overnight, they basically, responding to demonstrations, Xi Jinping says, “Okay, that’s it.” And now they have hundreds of millions of likely cases, probably well over a million Chinese going to die. And it’s going to be, not only is this ground zero for the largest outbreak of COVID since this thing started in China three years ago, but if there are new dangerous variants that come out, we’re not going to find out about them. So it’s much more dangerous than what we would’ve experienced.

Preet Bharara:

And all this happens though with no consequence-

Ian Bremmer:

That’s right.

Preet Bharara:

… to Xi.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s right. And also-

Preet Bharara:

Because of the consolidation of power.

Ian Bremmer:

Last year, a trillion dollars was taken off of Chinese market cap because Xi Jinping decided that the Communist Party was going to heavily intervene inside technology companies, private sector in China that are among their most efficient actors in the private sector. I think that what you’ve just seen on zero COVID, you will now see Xi Jinping doing in the economy in China, you’ll see him doing in national security in China, and it’s incredibly dangerous. The only surprising thing about the Maximum Xi risk is that there was something even more dangerous than that on our risk list this year. And it’s because Putin’s got 6,000 nukes and he’s in a horrible spot.

Preet Bharara:

What do you think will be the American political posture, and I use the word posture deliberately, towards China? Because what people tell me is, it’s impossible for an American politician, for an elected official, to at least in rhetoric be too tough on China. It’s one of the very few things about which there’s bipartisan belief and support. And the reason I said I was using the word posture deliberately is, how much of that is rhetoric? And you and I have talked about this also offline. How much of that is rhetoric to satiate people who have a problem and appreciate the problem that China poses versus the reality of what kind of decoupling can actually happen in the globe today?

Ian Bremmer:

So I’m going to answer this question a little differently than I think you expect. Which is that, I think to the degree that we are going to see more decoupling in 2023 between the US and China and the West and China, more of it is going to come from concerns and lack of information about what is happening inside China than it’s going to come from a response to US policy. That you increasingly have corporations that want to be in China, and they just say, “I can’t trust this environment. I don’t have data. I’m not getting good economic information. I’m not getting good health information. It’s increasingly dangerous for me to do this much of my production for the global supply chain out of a country like this.” And you’ve seen some of that from Foxconn, you’ve seen some of that from Apple. I think you’re going to see more of that.

You’re certainly right, Preet, that Biden understands that he can’t lose politically at home by taking a harder line on China. But Biden also has a read on Xi Jinping. He’s known him for a long time. He has a fair amount of confidence in his leadership on most foreign policy issues, certainly with Europe, Russia, and in China. And in the three-hour meeting that Biden and Xi Jinping had in the Bali at the G20 a month ago, it was a pragmatic meeting, it was a constructive meeting. And Biden wasn’t trying to launch a cold war. He wasn’t trying to hold Xi Jinping’s feet to the fire. He certainly wasn’t trying to embarrass him publicly, all of which would’ve played well at home.

Instead, he was saying there’s some areas where we’re going to compete very hard, particularly on semiconductors and export controls around dual use, military economic, national security stuff. But there are lots of other places that we really want to work together more closely, more constructively, and I’m going to work on that too. And I don’t think Biden feels like he’s taken any particular political hit at home, certainly not in terms of the midterm elections and not in terms of his popularity for having made those decisions.

I will say that the politics prevented Biden from taking the Trump tariffs off of China. He had asked Secretary Yellen a year ago to put a study together of what impact that would have on inflation if he removed all of them. That study came back, said a hundred basis points. One percentage of inflation would come off. This was when Biden, the biggest problem he had at home was inflation. He wanted to do it. He was told by domestic advisors, including Ron Klain as chief of staff, “You can’t do this. It’s political suicide.” So that was a place that it played out.

Preet Bharara:

I want to get to number three on the risk list, which you refer to as Weapons of Mass Disruption. And here’s the first sentence in the summary. “Recent advances represent a step change in the potential of artificial intelligence, AI, to manipulate people and disrupt society.” And then this is an interesting part of it, “And 2023 will be a tipping point for this trend.” And you and I have talked on this podcast and I’ve talked with a number of other guests about AI. We did a short segment on ChatGPT not too long ago. I do think that the issue of AI and its use and its misuse is more front of mind than it’s ever been. Why do you think 2023 is a tipping point and not some future year?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, it’s the first time the ChatGPT actually wrote a part of my report.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, yeah. Who do you think wrote these questions?

Ian Bremmer:

It wrote the title Weapons of Mass Disruption. That was a ChatGPT answer.

Preet Bharara:

I was going to say, that’s kind of lame. That’s kind of lame. I didn’t know that and I thought that was a lame title.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, there you go. So the other titles were all written by me, so it’s okay. Now look, I think that very similar to the first two risks, it turns out that basically what we’re talking about is aging autocrats and tech bros. And it turns out that they’re kind of the same thing, quite literally in some cases. Right? And these are individuals that are not getting enough expertise on macro issues, and they don’t have checks and balances on their decision making, and they’re incredibly disruptive, and they’re driving the risk in the world today. It’s not the US government, it’s not the EU, it’s a small group of people. Right?

Preet Bharara:

But what’s the principle risk? Is the principle risk disinformation so that deep fakes and AI will be able to convince people that politicians and other people that they might like and admire can be shown in video and by voice doing terrible heinous things, or they’re used for military purposes or something else?

Ian Bremmer:

I think in 2023, I think especially because of where ChatGPT and GPT-3 and then GPT-4 are going, you’re talking about disinformation. That means it’s impossible for people to differentiate who is and is not a real person. And that can be very easily weaponized by disgruntled people. And you asked about that causing problems in politics. I was thinking about it causing problems for companies with reputational risks. When executives or accounts are impersonated with malicious intent and you get PR scandals and you get stock sell-offs. I mean, imagine GameStop and all of the meme stock challenges then exponentially accelerated by deep fakes of those companies or of those companies competitors. I think that we’re not remotely ready for how fast this is going to move.

Preet Bharara:

What about military applications?

Ian Bremmer:

I think there are going to be military applications. I address some of them in risk number one, because the Russians are the most likely to use them. And it’s a question of all sorts of disinformation that you want to engage in against countries that you consider yourself to be at war with, but you know you can’t engage in direct military strikes because then they’re going to strike you back. I mean, you remember when Kim Jong-un decided he was going to attack Sony, and he came close to bankrupting Sony. Right?

And I mean, just imagine if instead of using cyber, he used conventional missiles in the middle of the night and nobody dies, but same basic impact. There’s almost no doubt we would’ve been at war with a nuclear North Korea the next day. But when you use cyber or disinformation or these asymmetric capabilities, you can get away with it, right? And I think that’s why this is so problematic in the national security arena.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And at the time that happened, the Sony hack, I remember I did a number of panel discussions about cyber threat when I was US attorney, and I said, just bear in mind that North Korea was able to do that with the collective computing power of like a Commodore 64.

Ian Bremmer:

Pretty much.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, I think they only had 6,000 internet nodes at the time in the country. When we shut down their internet in response, the US government did, there wasn’t much internet to shut down.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, if you look at, I don’t know if you call it a heat map or something else, of internet activity and computer activity in the globe, there’s a big dark spot, and that’s North Korea. And yet even they were able to do something very substantial that had a big impact, not just financially, but also I feel like emotionally on the psyche of American business people.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. I thought that we could have taken this risk and focus more broadly on cyber, but the sea change, which is exponentially growing in application, is generative AI. It’s the ability for any citizen with any motivation to create thousands and thousands of accounts, of fake accounts, that can act like human beings and be programmed to do things that you want them to do. And the disinformation capacity that that can have on human beings whose brains just aren’t wired to handle this kind of incoming, we’re just not ready for that.

Preet Bharara:

What about changes that these things will wreak in the job market? Will many, many jobs become obsolete? Have you thought about that as well, or no?

Ian Bremmer:

I’ve thought about it. And this is another one of these, it can get so bad that it could become good. Usually when jobs are displaced, because manufacturing jobs go abroad or relatively low end capabilities can be done by robots, then the people that are living with decent jobs but don’t have any political power, get screwed. And the people with real political power say, “Well, not my problem.” In the generation, it’ll work itself out. It’s possible that the advances in AI that we are presently seeing are so transformative that it’s going to actually affect the top 10%. It’ll affect the lawyers, the accountants, the people that not only make real coin, but that actually have influence over how political decisions are made.

And if AI starts threatening them or their kids, then you’re going to see real money being spent on a change in the social contract, in redistribution, in regulatory environment. That’s how you get political change, when you threaten the people that actually have political power.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s move on to number four. I’m going to give you a little-

Ian Bremmer:

You didn’t like that?

Preet Bharara:

No, I like that.

Ian Bremmer:

Nothing. No response to that at all. I don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

No, I have actually a lot to say about it. I’ve not been thinking about it, but we’re running out of time. Look, there have been articles recently about… This is not as shattering as potential disruptive war in the world with huge displacement of labor forces. But simply, I still have kids in school. One in high school and two in college. And the idea that even the current version of ChatGPT can put out an essay that is grammatical and smooth with topic sentences, it may not be the most brilliant essay in the world, but in many high schools probably get you a B or B plus. What does that mean for how we teach our children language and writing skills?

We were told when we were… So now you got me started on a rant. We were told when were younger that you’re not supposed to use calculators. I don’t remember ever being permitted to use a calculator on a math test. Now, calculators are used all the time because there’s an understanding that everyone will have a calculator. And so you don’t have to bother with simple, in your head, computations. And maybe I have this all wrong, my son will correct me. And the calculator becomes a tool to free up the mind to do higher order things.

And there’s some people who are debating whether or not now, with respect to basic writing function, maybe it’s a good thing. ChatGPT gives you an initial draft. And then the things that it’s not good at, like titles that we discussed, or cleverness or humor or tone or style, are things that the human adds to the product. So maybe it’s not as bad. I just don’t know where I come out on it, but it’s something I think about all the time now.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. No, I understand that. That’s a good point.

Preet Bharara:

All right. So I’m going to get to number four. I’m going to give you a little grief about this.

Ian Bremmer:

Yep.

Preet Bharara:

The number four risk Inflation Shockwaves. I’m looking back at last year. I don’t see inflation anywhere. You totally missed this one.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s true. That’s true. It’s funny thing. It’s embarrassing why I missed it.

Preet Bharara:

You didn’t use AI?

Ian Bremmer:

No, no, it’s not that. It’s because we are a global political science shop and have been since I started the firm 25 years ago. And a year ago, we started a geo-economics practice. And I never really wanted to opine on the politics of economics, on fed policy and inflation and pricing and markets because I felt like it wasn’t our wheelhouse because we didn’t have a practice. And we now do, and we got them fully involved. And so now, we feel like we can cover the whole waterfront. So basically, the interviews you were doing with me in previous years had an economic blind spot. And it wasn’t just last year, I would say it was true for the last 10.

Preet Bharara:

Can you make a prediction at this early stage so we can come back to it in a year of what you think will be a new risk in the top 10 that is not in this year’s list?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that the biotech space is a place that right now we have as great a blind spot as a firm as we had on geo-economics two years ago, or we had on climate five years ago, or geo-technology seven years ago. And the changes that I can imagine as I’m just starting to learn from people that are expert in the field of what happens when you are literally reprogramming human beings and genetics and agriculture and the rest, both opportunities, but also downside, that’s something that right now, I mean literally played no role in the top risk conversations we’ve had in the last four months. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

You mentioned earlier that there are corporations in the world who are not thinking about some of the risks to reputation that they will face due to these weapons of mass disruption, sorts of other things. You counsel companies all the time. I have clients as well. If you’re able to say, are there particular blind spots you think that leadership of major global corporations have about future risk or impending risk?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. So I think that one of the bottom risk we had this year was on water. And water suddenly, there’s a global systemic issue. Corporations, when asked, mispriced water, usually by a factor of four in terms of what they think the impact it has on their business. They don’t understand it. They’re not lobbying around it. They’re not spending time on it. They don’t have experts on it. It’s becoming a much more systemic issue. The global governance around it. You’ve got big cops on biodiversity that make major headlines, of course, on getting carbon reduced in the atmosphere. Same thing.

There are cops on water, nobody pays any attention whatsoever, and it’s becoming a massive issue starting in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Middle East, but increasingly in Europe and the United States as well. I think that major corporations in all sorts of different sectors, not just your Coca-Colas and Santori, need to suddenly put a lot more time into that. But there are a whole bunch of issues like that. I mean, it depends on what sectors you’re talking about, of course. But generally speaking, any given year, you’ll find corporations will run to the latest, most exciting issue that’s getting all of the attention on the media and by the boards and they’ll over resource for that and they’ll under resource for other stuff.

I mean, everyone’s paying attention to health policy post pandemic, but what are they not paying attention to now that they’re doing that?

Preet Bharara:

Can I ask you a final question?

Ian Bremmer:

Yep.

Preet Bharara:

If you and I, on television, did a New Year’s Eve show-

Ian Bremmer:

We’d drink.

Preet Bharara:

Yes. You anticipated my question. A, would we drink? And B, who would be Andy Cohen and who would be Anderson Cooper.

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, I’d be Anderson Cooper because I’m goofier than you are.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have a funnier giggle?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, I do have a funnier giggle than you.

Preet Bharara:

You do. You do.

Ian Bremmer:

I think we actually heard it here. No, I think… And also, you hold your alcohol better than I do.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Well, we didn’t-

Ian Bremmer:

And that has been proven before.

Preet Bharara:

After a round of District Nines.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. Yes. Ward Eights.

Preet Bharara:

Ward Eight.

Ian Bremmer:

They’re not District Nines.

Preet Bharara:

I was confused there.

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t know why you want to make that up. One is a science, a bad science fiction film, and the other is a prohibition era drink that came from the outskirts of Boston.

Preet Bharara:

Yes, you taught me that.

Ian Bremmer:

I know.

Preet Bharara:

Next year, depending on how the year unfolds, that could be a top risk.

Ian Bremmer:

Do you want to do it?

Preet Bharara:

It could be a top risk.

Ian Bremmer:

Do you want to do a live New Year’s show? You and me?

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know how much demand there is for that, but we have 12 and a half months to think about it. 11 and a half months.

Ian Bremmer:

I bet more than you and I anticipate. Maybe, probably.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe. Ian, I got to get rid of you.

Ian Bremmer:

We could do it from the front lines in Ukraine.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t think so. Leave that for Richard Engel.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, exactly. Okay.

Preet Bharara:

Ian Bremmer, thanks again.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. Preet.

Preet Bharara:

I’m sure we’ll be talking to you again throughout the year.

Ian Bremmer:

Happy New Year’s resolution.

Preet Bharara:

Happy year’s resolution. My conversation with Ian Bremmer continues from members of the CAFE Insider community. To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider.

 

THE BUTTON:

I want to end this show and start the year with a note on of all things poetry. So I love poetry. I love reading poetry, and I used to write poetry too. I still do sometimes, though it’s pretty infrequent. Over the weekend, I saw a post on Twitter by the user @danirosepoet. The tweet read, “Poetry is dead and the insular, self-focused, disconnected poetry community is exactly what a dead art looks like. Poetry has been utterly eclipsed by new forms of entertainment and art that are far more accessible and exciting to the population at large.”

Now, to claim poetry is dead is a controversial statement. It might remind some people of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s 19th century statement, “God is dead.” Controversial idea, which many are still wrapping their heads around. I think the comment on poetry was made in good faith, but it got me thinking, “Did people agree? Is poetry dead?” So I posed the question myself on Twitter and I watched as the replies rolled in. Some people had quick thoughts on the matter. Joe Leydon, the prominent film critic and a handful of others responded simply, “No.” One user reflected, “We still have poets. We just don’t recognize them as much.”

Another account drew my attention to an event that many people may have missed just before the New year. In New Delhi, India, over 300,000 people gathered to celebrate a three-day Urdu poetry festival. 300,000 people. That’s a lot of people even for India. Another user, who may have listened to our show about ChatGPT a couple of weeks ago, took the AI software to share their opinion. They asked the chatbot to write a poem on the subject that poetry is not dead. Here’s what they got. “Poetry may not have a big stage, but its spirit is not ready to rage. It lives on in the hearts of the few. And its beauty is something to renew.” Ugh, maybe that means that poetry is dead.

Some people responded by highlighting some great poets. Celebrated writer Rebecca Solnit responded with a thoughtful rebuttal to the idea that poetry is dead. She wrote, “Poetry is in a golden age. Ocean Vuong, Li-Young Lee, Sharon Olds, Joy Harjo, Natalie Diaz, Robert Hass, Ross Gay and other great visionary voices too numerous to count.” Another user pointed to poet Patricia Smith to show poetry isn’t dead. “I’m amazed at her command of language,” the user wrote. Another commented, “Amanda Gorman would like a word.” Someone else summed up their answer to the question, is poetry dead? “Only to those who decide It is.” Touche.

I loved reading all the thoughts and poems and favorite authors of those who responded, who also engaged in this thought experiment in good faith and with an open mind. It would seem, even if poetry is dying, that there are many people working to keep it alive, and more so who believe that it’s worth keeping alive. With that, I’d like to leave you with something that the late poet Mary Oliver wrote, “Poetry is a life cherishing force. For poems are not words, after all, but fires for the cold, ropes let down to the lost, something as necessary as bread in the pockets of the hungry. Yes, indeed.” So what do you think? Is poetry dead? Send us your thoughts, reactions, or favorite poems to letters@cafe.com.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Ian Bremmer. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag #askpreet, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer Staden, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara. Stay Tuned.