Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to India. Today's special coverage from Davos
Speaker 1: at the World Economic Forum. It's day four now. Many
Speaker 1: years ago, a British prime minister said a week is
Speaker 1: a long time in politics. He's perhaps wrong, because in
Speaker 1: the age in which we live, that Trumpian era, even
Speaker 1: twenty four hours can be a very long time. Just
Speaker 1: about twenty four hours ago, the US President launched an
Speaker 1: extraordinary attack on his European allies, describing them, many of
Speaker 1: them as stupid. A few hours later, though, on truth
Speaker 1: social Donald Trump said that he wasn't imposing tariffs on Europe,
Speaker 1: that NATO was still very much there, and that he
Speaker 1: would in fact have a framework for a deal on
Speaker 1: Greenland in place. Today he's about to sign, we are told,
Speaker 1: the Board of Peace on Gaza. There's also talk of
Speaker 1: a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenski and the possibility of
Speaker 1: some thaw in the ice between Russia and Ukraine. McDonald Trump,
Speaker 1: you never know what tomorrow brings. Therefore, to get a sense,
Speaker 1: today we are kicking off our special program with someone
Speaker 1: who's become an expert in predicting the future, even in
Speaker 1: these Trumpion times, these extraordinary times in which we live.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is Ian Bremer, President of Eurasia Group
Speaker 1: Political Scientists author. Good to have you, mister Bremmer on
Speaker 1: our special coverage. Give us your prediction for these extraordinary times.
Speaker 1: I know it's very tough. We had the World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum president where you were the other day, and he
Speaker 1: said we are living in the most challenging and complex
Speaker 1: time since nineteen forty five. Given all that, I still
Speaker 1: want you to put your thinking gap on and tell
Speaker 1: me what's going to happen over the next twelve months.
Speaker 1: What can we expect in this Trump your need on Nicks?
Speaker 2: Well, First, let's recognize that Trumpian era is what he
Speaker 2: wants you to call it. It's not very accurate. The
Speaker 2: United States is the most powerful country in the world.
Speaker 2: I accept that President Trump is not the most powerful leader.
Speaker 2: Xi Jinping is why is that Chizhiping doesn't have midterm elections,
Speaker 2: He doesn't have an independent judiciary. Trump is going to
Speaker 2: be there in three years. Xi Jinping is right, and
Speaker 2: so he's Trump is getting all the headlines, He's getting
Speaker 2: all the media attention. Xi Jinping is actually in the
Speaker 2: better position as a leader. In many ways. Mody is
Speaker 2: in better position as the leader, longer term, more consistent,
Speaker 2: allows Mody to push back more effectively than many of
Speaker 2: the European leaders, and we've seen that over the last
Speaker 2: few days. I guess one thing, I would say, one
Speaker 2: thing that we've learned from these three days that we've
Speaker 2: wasted on Greenland is that it turns out that even
Speaker 2: the Europeans are capable of hitting the Americans back effectively.
Speaker 2: Because this was Taco right, this was Trump chickening out.
Speaker 2: He said he was going to own Greenland. He threatened
Speaker 2: them there were going to be tariffs on all of
Speaker 2: the countries by February one that supported Denmark. He backed
Speaker 2: off of all of those things, and he got nothing
Speaker 2: for it. Why why did that happen?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: Number one, because the Europeans were prepared to actually put
Speaker 2: reciprocal tariffs in place and use the anti coercion instrument.
Speaker 2: Number two, because it turns out that there are issues
Speaker 2: back in the United States where there are real divides,
Speaker 2: including among Republicans, and this is one of them. In fact,
Speaker 2: Greenland was even worse for Trump than the Epstein files
Speaker 2: in polling minus thirty eight on Epstein, minus forty on Greenland,
Speaker 2: and the Republicans were telling him, we will not support
Speaker 2: you on this issue. So we had to back down,
Speaker 2: especially when the markets tanked. And then number three, and
Speaker 2: this is the most important thing. India is a partner
Speaker 2: and a friend of the United States. The Europeans are
Speaker 2: allies of the United States. That is different from being
Speaker 2: a partner and friend of President Trump. And when we
Speaker 2: see Paul that are being advanced by Trump that are
Speaker 2: in his interest but not in the interest of the
Speaker 2: United States, that has to be mentioned. And owning Greenland
Speaker 2: is not in the interests of the United States strategic
Speaker 2: cooperation more security with the Europeans. Sure, owning Greenland was
Speaker 2: an ego issue for President Trump personally, and that's why
Speaker 2: he failed. And that's an important thing for US underside.
Speaker 1: So was Greenland then a distraction, possibly from the Epstein
Speaker 1: files And are us saying therefore relations between the US
Speaker 1: and Europe will return back to some kind of normalcy
Speaker 1: ifn all that word can be used.
Speaker 2: No, No, what I'm saying is that Greenland was an
Speaker 2: opportunity for the Europeans to see that even divided with
Speaker 2: twenty seven countries and not a single state, it's not
Speaker 2: like India, It's not like China. That they were capable
Speaker 2: of drawing a red line and backing Trump down. But
Speaker 2: they have learned because I mean, let's face it, if
Speaker 2: it wasn't for Greenland, we would have been taught talking
Speaker 2: about the board to piece a lot more this week.
Speaker 2: And while Trump was pushing and treating the Europeans with
Speaker 2: contempt on Greenland, he was also inviting the Russian president
Speaker 2: and the Belarusian president to join the border piece. The
Speaker 2: countries that the Americans of the Europeans at war with.
Speaker 2: He didn't even discuss it with the Europeans in advance.
Speaker 2: So the Europeans do not feel like they can trust
Speaker 2: President Trump, and that is leading them to hedge with
Speaker 2: other countries. You know. President Trump has said that he
Speaker 2: wants credit for these eight wars that he has ended,
Speaker 2: but he deserves credit for the EU mercos Or trade deal.
Speaker 2: That trade deal was not going to happen until Trump
Speaker 2: became president and started pushing the Europeans and the Donroe
Speaker 2: doctrine South Americans around, and then they said, we need
Speaker 2: to do this deal. Mark Karney went to Beijing and
Speaker 2: he rebuilt a relationship with Chiji. Thing that had been
Speaker 2: in the toilet between Canada and China. Donald Trump deserves
Speaker 2: credit for that. I mean, if it wasn't for that,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't have happened. And we need to say that
Speaker 2: Trump get deserves credit for that.
Speaker 1: So Trump is actually enabling countries to sort of diversify
Speaker 1: and be risk away from America. But I just want
Speaker 1: to we'll come to the border piece in a moment,
Speaker 1: mister Bremer. Is the model of the story of the
Speaker 1: last three days that if you push back against Trump,
Speaker 1: the big bully Trump chickens out because there could be
Speaker 1: a lesson there for India as well. We've got a
Speaker 1: trade deal with the United States that is still hanging fire.
Speaker 1: That you don't seed to Donald Trump or to play
Speaker 1: to his ego. I mean, there are two ways to
Speaker 1: deal it appears with Donald Trump. Either you play with
Speaker 1: his ego as the pakistanis are doing, virtually suggesting that
Speaker 1: there's a red carpet rolled out for Donald Trump, or
Speaker 1: do you go the way certain other countries are doing.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Canada there. Markkhani was very clear that the
Speaker 1: Middle Powers have to come together at a moment like
Speaker 1: this and stop this coercion that America, without naming them,
Speaker 1: seems to be imposing on the world.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that there is a strategy to
Speaker 2: push back on Trump and succeed, but you have to
Speaker 2: have a leader that is willing and capable of actually
Speaker 2: executing on that policy. The obvious example of that is Shijiving, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, Trump hit the Chinese hard with tariffs Liberation Day.
Speaker 2: China did not pick up the phone. Instead, they retaliated,
Speaker 2: including on critical minerals, and basically showed the Americans without panicking.
Speaker 2: They showed the Americans, we will shut down your industries
Speaker 2: if you don't actually treat us with respect. What's happening now?
Speaker 2: Trump meets with Xi Jiving and Bussan. He calls it
Speaker 2: a G two, he gives parody, treats China as a peer,
Speaker 2: and now he's traveling to Beijing. It's going to be
Speaker 2: a much more successful meeting. So Shijin Ping was in
Speaker 2: the position that he could make that happen on Mark
Speaker 2: Carney thinks that he is in a stronger position and
Speaker 2: that's why he's pushing Trump around. But I saw in
Speaker 2: that speech that Trump gave here at Davos, he called
Speaker 2: out Mark Carney a number of times, and he said,
Speaker 2: you know, we're not going to tolerate that it is.
Speaker 2: This is a risk that Mark Carney is taking. I
Speaker 2: happen to think that it is a politically savvy move
Speaker 2: for him as Prime Minister. But it is possible that
Speaker 2: that risk will not pay off. It's possible that Canada
Speaker 2: will end up in a recession because of that risk
Speaker 2: and because of trumpetting back. Canada is not only a
Speaker 2: much smaller economy, but it's very dependent on the US economy.
Speaker 2: Now India, you've got a country that is growing by
Speaker 2: over seven percent. You've got a leader that's very popular
Speaker 2: with yes, a coalition government, but he's done very well
Speaker 2: in local elections recently Bihar and the rest right. And
Speaker 2: not only that, but the Indians are not that dependent
Speaker 2: on trade with the United States. India is useful to
Speaker 2: the US in its strategic relationship as a hedge against
Speaker 2: China with the Quad and the rest. So I believe
Speaker 2: that Mody is in one of the stronger positions to
Speaker 2: push back against Trump of most leaders in the world.
Speaker 1: Let's on that moment, come to what is the latest
Speaker 1: Trump headline, the Border Peace where he's effectively asking countries
Speaker 1: to put one billion dollars to become part of this
Speaker 1: board that's not exactly true.
Speaker 2: That's not exactly true.
Speaker 1: Frozen acid of one billion dollars.
Speaker 2: You can join no money, but if you want to
Speaker 2: be a permanent member as opposed to three years, then
Speaker 2: you have to pay a billion. No one has contributed
Speaker 2: that one billion to my knowledge that has accepted membership
Speaker 2: so far as you want to clarify that.
Speaker 1: So what should countries like India who've been offered to
Speaker 1: join the board of piece? In your of you do?
Speaker 1: Do you join hands with Donald Trump knowing that he
Speaker 1: could just change his mind in a month from now
Speaker 1: and move in an entirely different direction to what extent
Speaker 1: do countries like India. It comes back to the point
Speaker 1: of pushback. Do we indulge in Donald Trump when he
Speaker 1: comes back with an idea like the border piece on Gaza?
Speaker 1: Is it an idea worth pursuing In the first instance.
Speaker 2: The head of the World Bank is on it. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got the amoralties that have said that they're joining.
Speaker 2: The Israelis are joining, The Russians have not said they're
Speaker 2: joining yet, even though Trump said that Putin said was
Speaker 2: going to join. Frequently there's a gap there, but the
Speaker 2: friendship said they won't the Germans couldn't because the constitution
Speaker 2: actually forbids it. So I think that this is a
Speaker 2: less important question than how India handles their trade deal
Speaker 2: with the United States. This is not a matter of
Speaker 2: the Indians offering a billion dollars. This is not a
Speaker 2: permanent commitment. If it doesn't go well, the Indians could
Speaker 2: step away, just as the Italians joined Belton Road as
Speaker 2: a G seven country and then pulled right out. What
Speaker 2: I think is important is that this Board of Peace
Speaker 2: should not be used to undermine multilateralism of the United Nations,
Speaker 2: should not be used to break institutions that are important
Speaker 2: globally and that India benefits from. And then India participates it.
Speaker 2: And then if India decides to participate, they need to
Speaker 2: make sure that that participation is constructive and does not
Speaker 2: foster a long term development that will make everyone worse off.
Speaker 1: Let's look again at predictions. We are in Europe at
Speaker 1: the moment. Ukraine dominates a lot of the conversation. We
Speaker 1: still don't know at this moment while we are speaking,
Speaker 1: whether President Zelenski will meet Donald Trump here in Davos.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that the war could end in the
Speaker 1: next twelve months, or are we again heading potentially for
Speaker 1: a prolonged conflict that's already gone on really for.
Speaker 2: Four years, four years almost four years. It doesn't look
Speaker 2: like it's ending soon. President Trump understands he wants to
Speaker 2: cease fire, but he has more leverage over Ukraine, even
Speaker 2: though Ukraine is the side that the United States is
Speaker 2: fighting with, because the Ukrainians are weak, so he believes
Speaker 2: he can convince, he can force Zelensky to capitulate. And
Speaker 2: we've seen that with the critical minerals deal. We've seen
Speaker 2: that with accepting a ceasefire with no preconditions. We've seen
Speaker 2: that with a willingness maybe even to withdraw from some
Speaker 2: of the presently Ukrainian occupied territories of Ukraine to make
Speaker 2: them demilitarized. We've seen that with even Zelenski willing to
Speaker 2: talk about elections while the war is going on. All
Speaker 2: of those are things he would not do under Biden,
Speaker 2: but Trump has forced him to. How has Putin conceded
Speaker 2: on anything? What has Putin offered? The United States has
Speaker 2: put a little bit of pressure on, not like Ukraine,
Speaker 2: they put a little pressure on. But Putin sees in
Speaker 2: his view that holding on longer and forcing the weaker
Speaker 2: Ukrainians to continue to capitulate while driving wedges between the
Speaker 2: United States and Europe and NATO is a stronger play
Speaker 2: for Russia. He believes they can wait the Ukrainians, the Americans,
Speaker 2: the Europeans out, and so far that's been a smart
Speaker 2: move on his part.
Speaker 1: So you're saying no immediate end to the conflict in Ukraine. Today,
Speaker 1: the German Chancellor Fredrick Mrtz said the world is seeing
Speaker 1: the final days of Iran's regime predictions for that part
Speaker 1: of the world. Do you see the Iranian regime being
Speaker 1: toppled in the in the near future? I mean, it
Speaker 1: almost seemed that because Trump did what he did in
Speaker 1: Venezuela very effect did a regime change, not a regime change.
Speaker 1: Removed the president, removed an individual and has allowed his
Speaker 1: vice president to continue, but and spoke more of oil
Speaker 1: than democracy in Venezuela, that he could do the same
Speaker 1: in it on it is clearly not Venezuela. How do
Speaker 1: you see it on playing out?
Speaker 2: So I was I have to say Chancellor Mertz first
Speaker 2: said it was about a week and a half ago.
Speaker 2: He said that he thought that the Iranian regime was
Speaker 2: on its last days or weeks. I was quite startled
Speaker 2: by that. There's no intelligence on the ground that implies that.
Speaker 2: I mean, the demonstrations at that point were already getting
Speaker 2: much weaker. The Iranian regime is willing and capable to
Speaker 2: repress with great force. And there were no breaches, no
Speaker 2: breaks within the regime that I could see, either within
Speaker 2: the IRGC, the revolution of GUARDCOREP, the besiege, the paramilitary
Speaker 2: groups that carry out most of the actual repression. I
Speaker 2: didn't see it. With the state media, not with telecommunication
Speaker 2: and the internet that was all shut down. I didn't
Speaker 2: see it. And so yes, the United States might well
Speaker 2: engage in further strikes against Iran. But I just saw
Speaker 2: Steve Whitcoff, the principal negotiator on many of these issues,
Speaker 2: came out and he said, look, you know, even after
Speaker 2: the Iranians have killed thousands of kill thousands of civilians,
Speaker 2: he said, well, maybe we can negotiate with it. If
Speaker 2: they're willing to negotiate, maybe we can get something done.
Speaker 2: So I don't see. I would love to see, I'd
Speaker 2: love to be wrong, but I don't think that in
Speaker 2: the near term, this Islamic Republic is about to collapse.
Speaker 1: So, in conclusion the big worldview are we heading As
Speaker 1: the German Chancellor again says, it's the end of the
Speaker 1: old order as we knew it. There is a new
Speaker 1: world order there, if there is one. What is the
Speaker 1: shape of this new world order? I keep hearing word
Speaker 1: like multipolar world order G two China and America. What
Speaker 1: is this new world order that's emerging out of this scale?
Speaker 2: So what I called it fifteen years ago was a
Speaker 2: G zero world I said that as the as it
Speaker 2: means well, as the United States withdraws from leadership of
Speaker 2: its own global order with its allies, that no other
Speaker 2: country or group of countries are capable and willing of
Speaker 2: replacing the United States. So you will have a period
Speaker 2: of time of a geopolitical recession, a bus cycle where
Speaker 2: it is MESSI where it is chaotic, where there is
Speaker 2: a lot of impunity. And I see emerging three very
Speaker 2: different kinds of global orders. In the economic space, the
Speaker 2: world is already very multipolar. The Europeans are showing that
Speaker 2: with their trade competencies. The Chinese showed this to Trump
Speaker 2: very clearly. The US is clearly a major poll India
Speaker 2: is emerging very rapidly it's multipolar, but in the security
Speaker 2: order it's still very unipolar. If the United States wants
Speaker 2: to do something, very few people can stop them. No
Speaker 2: one else can project power like that globally. And then
Speaker 2: in the technology space, actually China dominates it as a government,
Speaker 2: but in the West it's dominated not by governments, it's
Speaker 2: dominated by companies. It's becoming increasingly technopolar, and so these
Speaker 2: three emerging orders are kind of jostling side by side
Speaker 2: in different spaces at the same time.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating you said that about technopolar world because you
Speaker 1: stirred a bit of a controversy by suggesting that India
Speaker 1: was a laggard when it came to AI, which is
Speaker 1: the other big buzzword here in Davos. Not what I said,
Speaker 1: it was suggested. I mean, that's what we heard that
Speaker 1: Ian Bremer said India is a laggard when it comes
Speaker 1: to Ian.
Speaker 2: Bremer said that there are two countries that are leading
Speaker 2: in the world on AI, the United States and China.
Speaker 2: This is obvious, it is a fact. It is true.
Speaker 2: India is doing quite well compared to its economic status
Speaker 2: and relative power as developing AI, especially human capacity, talent,
Speaker 2: and increasingly investment, even legal framework. But but you cannot
Speaker 2: compare the ability to attract capital and impact outcomes of
Speaker 2: India to the US and China today and AI.
Speaker 1: So therefore, in this world of various polarities economic, political,
Speaker 1: and technology netwhere does India stand? How should India see
Speaker 1: itself as we go ahead to twenty twenty six? What
Speaker 1: do you see India's immediate twelve month timeline. I'm not
Speaker 1: even looking beyond fluster.
Speaker 2: As you said at the beginning, India's a middle power.
Speaker 2: It's very important. It's stable. And the fact that India
Speaker 2: has leadership that is more consolidated and popular than leadership
Speaker 2: in almost any other democracy around the world. Only Mexico
Speaker 2: really has similarity among larger countries means that India is
Speaker 2: capable of pushing back in ways that other countries are not.
Speaker 2: That helps India. Consistent leadership over time is something that
Speaker 2: is lacking in the world today. India looks very stable.
Speaker 2: It's a great growth story. But still the Americans and
Speaker 2: the Chinese are dominating most of the common When you
Speaker 2: talk to the big players here who are like allocating
Speaker 2: capra all over the world, and they say, we don't
Speaker 2: trust the United States so much anymore. What are they
Speaker 2: talking about reallocating to China Because China has the market
Speaker 2: size and China has the technology. India is not in
Speaker 2: that conversation at this point.
Speaker 1: Which is interesting because someone told me that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: decided that he wanted to make America great again. He's
Speaker 1: ended up making China looking great again.
Speaker 2: He is There's no question that Donald Trump is making
Speaker 2: China great again.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, Ian Brema for giving us this wonderful worldview
Speaker 1: in twenty minutes about where we stand. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: all the chaos around us. I appreciate you breaking it
Speaker 1: down for us so sussantly. Thank you very much. Good
Speaker 1: to have you here on India today at the Davos Summit.
Speaker 1: Thank you Ian Bremer at the World Economic Forum. One
Speaker 1: of the finest minds that you can get when it
Speaker 1: comes to breaking down the world order as it stands.
Speaker 1: Raj Deep sundays I in Davos for India Today