Moomoo Ad (11:16)

Want to know what helps keep Wall street pros ahead? Level 2 Market Data Real time NYSE and NASDAQ data usually costs hundreds, but trading platform Moomoo gives you access for free with a qualified deposit. MooMoo also offers 0 commission stock trading plus pro level tools that let you trade seamlessly from your desk or on your phone. The best bit Open an account now and you can get up to 15 free stocks. Plus they're offering 8.1% APY on uninvested in cash. Yup, 8.1% APY. So head to moomoo.com and take charge of your trading. Terms and conditions apply. Please visit www.moomoo.com for all disclosures. You can find the link at the bottom of the homepage.

HubSpot Ad (12:10)

Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere and you're making content that no one sees. And it takes forever to build a campaign. Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos and posting on social a breeze. So now it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started@HubSpot.com marketers.

Scott Galloway (12:48)

Welcome back. Here's our conversation with Ian Bremmer, the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the world's leading political risk research and consulting firm. Ian, where does this podcast find you?

Ian Bremmer (12:58)

I'm in New York in our new headquarters.

Scott Galloway (13:01)

Okay, let's bust right into it. Eurasia Group's top risk report for 2025 is out. In the report, you say we are heading back to the law of the jungle. That's dramatic. Where the strongest do what they can, while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. What did you mean by that?

Ian Bremmer (13:18)

For the last 35 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Wall, we talked, at least nominally, about the idea that we're living in an increasingly globalized world, that the United States is a democracy that supports rule of law around the world, supports other democracies, collective security, all of those things. And yet the reality is that order's breaking down. And it's breaking down for a lot of reasons. It's breaking down because the Russians are not a part of the West. They're in decline structurally. They're really angry about it. They blame the US and they've now allianced up with North Korea and Iran, and they're pretty friendly with China too. So that's an incredibly dangerous place for the world to be. It's not something we had to deal with 10 or 20 years ago. Now we do. We've got China, second most powerful country in the world, but they're not aligning with the United States. They're actually becoming in many ways, a more consolidated dictatorship under Xi Jinping. And they're putting more pressure on the private sector. They're supporting more privately owned national champions and state capitalist, state owned enterprises. And so that's causing much more conflict in the most important geopolitical relationship in the world. And then most importantly, the US in particular has just fundamentally rejected the idea that we're gonna be global leaders supporting rule of law and multilateral institutions. It's America first, baby. It's our way or the highway. And we're gonna tell other countries, you're gonna work with us and do the things we want our way, or there's gonna be hell to pay. And so, yeah, that sounds a lot like a reversion to the law of the jungle, that the powerful and strongest countries and people get to do what they want. I think Trump is much more of a winner than he is a leader. I think that Elon is much more of a winner than he is a leader.

Scott Galloway (15:27)

What do you mean by that?

Ian Bremmer (15:29)

Well, leaders are people that in their organizations, they bring people together. So if you're the leader of the United States, all American citizens look and they say, this is my leader. Your leader of corporation. All the people in that corporation say, this is my leader. If you're a winner, you divide. You're a winner. There are other winners and then there are losers. Right? And I really think that that is a fundamental challenge that American democracy has and American capitalism has, that we've moved away from being a country of leaders that are trying to make a difference for their fellow man and woman and fellow citizens in the world. And instead, we're winning individually, but we're very tribal. We're very divided, including inside our own country and with our allies. And that makes the world a much more dangerous place. And if you're a loser, you gotta suck it up. You gotta accept the rules that the winners are making. Right? Because they won. So, I mean, you know, if you're Mark Zuckerberg, you know, you better change your attitude, my friend, because it's not about how successful you've been, it's about are you on board with the winners. Right? I mean, and that's true for everybody. If you're the French, the Germans, the Brits, you know, you better get on board if you're the Canadians. Right? I mean, Trudeau just resigned. Did he resign a little faster because he screwed up with Trump? Yeah, I think so. I think Trump pushed him. I mean, he was shot in the face by Christopher Freeland, his deputy prime minister, but he was still on life support until Trump shivved him and now he's out. So I think there's a lot of that happening in the world today, geopolitically as well as in your world, Scott.

Scott Galloway (17:13)

So just a couple theses I want you to respond to or get your reaction in terms of the law of the jungle. My sense is we're the king of the jungle, we being the US and that is, I look at our enemies, adversaries. So let's start with Iran, Russia, and North Korea. And you can throw China in, too.

Ian Bremmer (17:33)

If you want to.

Scott Galloway (17:34)

Well, I think of China. I'll come back to that. But I think China is what I call an adversary or competitor, but not our.

Ian Bremmer (17:38)

I completely agree. It's a different category, but it's interesting because they're weaker now than they were.

Scott Galloway (17:42)

A couple of years ago, 100%. So this is your. This is the thesis, and you respond to it in terms of our enemies. We're kicking their ass. And that is Iran's air defenses have been penetrated by Israel. Their proxies, the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah have had their hands cut off.

Ian Bremmer (17:59)

And Assad's gone.

Scott Galloway (18:00)

And Assad's gone. Basically, kind of the ally of Russia has had to flee to Russia because of a collapse there. Russia is bogged down in a war. They were not expecting to go this long with these types of results. And then let's move to, as you said, our competitor, adversary, not our enemy. Their economy has just been underwhelming the last 10 years, whereas ours has accelerated. I mean, it's better to be lucky than good. I see Trump as inheriting the strongest hand he could have in America on almost every dimension. Other than the fact we hate each other, and a lot of our prosperity is not being distributed equally on a balanced scorecard, on a relative scorecard, we are kicking everyone's ass. Your thoughts?

Ian Bremmer (18:48)

First, let me add to your list, because you mentioned enemies and adversary, slash competitor. And I do think that's the right way to put it. I think China is not the axis of evil or a pariah state the way that the North Koreans, Russians and Iranians are. Those are chaos actors that want to destroy the international system. They want to defeat the Americans. The Chinese actually need a stable global economy to prosper themselves. So even if they would like to defeat the Americans, they know that that doesn't actually work with their system. But in addition to that, America's allies are also weaker, right? Technologically, much weaker. I mean, you think about where the Americans are in terms of entrepreneurship and semiconductors and AI and all these new companies and the markets and the strength of the dollar. Where are the Europeans? Where are the Japanese? Where are the South Koreans? Where are the Canadians? The answer is Nowhere Land. And their governments are so weak. The US has just elected Trump. And unlike all last time around, right, with. With BIDEN Winning and January 6th, I mean, Trump has a mandate. And unlike 2017, Trump has coattails, right? I mean, the. The Republicans see that they need him, not the other way around. So he's appointed a whole bunch of loyalists. You don't have any Rex tillerson's in this group. No Jim Mattis in this group. No Nikki Haley in this group. So no Mike Pence in this group. Right. So he's consolidated, he's strong, he's willing to use American power. And America's allies are incredibly weak. Their governments are falling apart. South Korea, Germany, France, Canada. Right. All of these countries. So everywhere you look, the United States is stronger. Now, I also think at home, the US Is not in decline, not at all. The people still want to come to America. The American economy is doing very well. American military is doing well. Its technology is doing very well. But of course, you said, accept the fact that we hate each other. Not just that. Not just that, Scott. Accept the fact that our political system is increasingly not representative. It's increasingly captured by money and special interests. The US System is increasingly a two tier system. And it's not Democrats versus Republicans, it's access to power versus no access to power. Right. And that is uniquely dysfunctional in the context of advanced industrial democracies. So you've got a political system that is not working, that is arguably in crisis. I mean, if Narendra Modi, who is the most popular democratically elected leader of a large country in the world today, okay, Bukele in El Salvador has him beat. But in a big country, if he were to have a phone call or meetings with heads of state and CEOs and bring in Gautam Adani, you and I would rightly state this country is an oligarchy, it's a kleptocracy. And yet that's precisely what's happening with Trump and Elon right now. And it's completely normalized. So I do think that we can't just say, well, with the exception of the fact that we hate each other and the political system doesn't work, actually, that's a pretty cool thing about the United States is the fact that the US Has a political system that other countries are supposed to admire, are supposed to be more aligned with. We've got values that set the standards for the rest of the world. Rule of law is something that the rest of the world wants to be a part of. Our worldview is supposed to be the dominant collective worldview. That's not true anymore. So we're very powerful and in the law of the jungle, we're the big ape. Absolutely. But the law of the jungle is a much more brutal, nasty and dangerous place than a world that has laws and accountability and responsibility and institutions and architecture that the United States is leading with its allies in trying to get other countries to increasingly align with it. It's a radically different place.

Scott Galloway (23:05)

You bring up an interesting thought, and that is we're now 50% of the world's market capitalization, our stocks. There's one company in the US that is more valuable than every stock market, with the exception of Japan. But if there is a global crisis that emerges as strong as we are, we just can't go it alone. We need allies. And I don't care if it's World War II or, you know, repelling Saddam out of Kuwait, whatever it might be. You know, even addressing Covid, There needs to be global cooperation. There needs to be a certain level of goodwill. There needs to be alliances. And I think, first and foremost, I think of how successful NATO has been keeping the peace since World War II. Is it fair to say that those alliances have been dramatically frayed, thereby making it a more dangerous world for America, despite its strength?

Ian Bremmer (23:57)

That's an interesting question, Scott. You know, on the one hand, the level of trust of American allies for the United States, that the US Would be there when push comes to shove, has eroded dramatically. So there, I mean, if a collective security is in somehow fundamentally based on the notion that you believe in each other, you're accountable for each other, I think it has weakened. On the other hand, the Europeans are spending a lot more on defense now than they were, and the Japanese are spending a lot more on defense now than they were. And Mark Rutte, the new Secretary General of NATO, former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, is now working with the Europeans to move to 3% GDP spend on defense, which they're doing outside of the EU mechanisms so that the Hungarians can't veto it, which means they are moving. I think that's going to happen, which means that they're gonna be, in all likelihood, by the end of the Trump administration, the Europeans will be paying about as much percentage of GDP on defense as the Americans do. So that's a stronger NATO. And I mean, when Trump demands that NATO allies spend more on defense, that's not a pro Putin message. That's the exact opposite of what Putin wants them to do. So it's kind of interesting, right? I mean, it's the. In the same way that America's not in decline, but its political system is. The alliances, like the soft power, the, the, the. The willingness to engage with each other on the basis of, we like you, we trust you, this matters to us. That has eroded a lot. And yet with America as a much more powerful country that other countries have to align with or else, actually, the Americans can drive a lot more. And so you saw this in our risks report. We have red herrings at the end, things that people think are gonna happen that we think will not. And one of our herrings was Trump fails. And, you know, you see this a lot in the mainstream media. Oh, this guy's a buffoon. He's incompetent. You know, he only cares about himself. So of course he's gonna fail all over the place. We don't think so. We think that Trump is gonna say a whole bunch of stuff, and people are gonna get on board, they're gonna align with him. I mean, if you think that Facebook and Apple are kissing his ass in Mar a Lago, that's nothing compared to how foreign governments who are aligned with the United States and know they can't afford to do anything else, the Mexicans, you know, the Europeans, they're gonna want to find a way to ensure they don't have a crisis with this guy. So he's gonna have a lot of wins in the early stages.

Scott Galloway (26:46)

It's interesting because, to be fair, I think what you're saying is Trump's. I don't know, I wouldn't call it a middle finger, but his rolling his eyes, or is his lack of fear of saying aggressive things about allies has resulted in an increase in spending, which should, if you will, we still might be the world's policemen, but other people are now buying their own squad cars. That this has been a direct positive result of Trump's actions or adversarial tone complexion with our allies. Do you agree?

Ian Bremmer (27:24)

I do, I do. But also, I would say that the gap is big. It's going to take a long time for them to spend at that level to get close to capabilities to really defend themselves. This is not going to get resolved in four years. Even if their level of spending at that point, percentage wise, is equivalent to the US and some countries are already there, the Baltics, Poland, some of the Nordics, that kind of thing. But also, there's a question of the fact that the Americans have the capacity to be a global policeman. Even with support, Trump has no interest in doing that. Right. I mean, Trump was the one that cut the deal with the Taliban that Biden then executed on Syria. You know, you've got a government that's now in place in Syria that's very unlikely, going to be able to stabilize that incredibly complex and volatile territory. You've got over 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in Syria right now. Trump doesn't want to keep Those troops there, if Trump pulls them out, it's not like France is going to send those troops. It's not like the UK is. It's much more likely that the Turks are going to be on the ground. They're going to hit the Kurds hard, no longer jailing ISIS on the ground. And the potential for that to become fertile for a new caliphate is real. So, I mean, the absence of, of the US As a willing policeman will save American taxpayers. It will put fewer lives at risk, but it will lead to more ungoverned spaces. It will lead to more depredation, more forced migration that will affect other countries to a much greater degree than the U.S. because the U.S. is geographically very well located and between Canada and Mexico in two big bodies of water. But the world will become more dangerous and more unstable. So there's that.

Scott Galloway (29:25)

And I don't know if this is a function of living abroad now, but when I come back, or I don't feel as I'm as in touch with America, which is a good and a bad thing, and I'd like to think it's offered some perspective, but I am mildly horrified, minus the mildly. What I see is this full embrace by not only our leaders, but by acceptance by our media and the general public of what is just an obvious, naked, unafraid, unashamed kleptocracy that if you look at the inaugural campaigns, I think of all the Big Ten or the Magazine 10, there was like a couple $200,000 donations to the inaugural campaign or inaugural celebration of Biden, and now every one of them has lined up and put in a million bucks. I mean, this feels like literally an episode of the Sopran, where they walk into the local retailer and say, it'd be a shame if your windows got broken and this place got robbed. We need protection money. And this has now gone full kleptocracy, where Musk increases his wealth by 150 or 200 billion for no other reason, as far as I can tell, that they assume that because he put in a quarter of a billion dollars that the largest, deepest pocketed customer in the world will throw money at him and anybody else who decides pay for play. Have we gone? Is it unfair to say we have gone full kleptocratic?

Ian Bremmer (30:49)

The trajectory is very strongly in that direction. And it was already bad before Trump. I mean, 3 billion plus spent on our presidential election over two years doesn't need to be that way. The incredible willingness of special interests in the US to capture the regulatory system to write their own policies. You know, that's not a competitive free market. A competitive free market is one where you've got regulators that represent the public interest and companies have to compete against each other. It's not about who has more access to power and who has the ability to write regulations that support them and get subsidies. It's about who has the best product, who's the most competitive. We're very far from that in the United States right now. We still have a great environment for small enterprises that start up with plucky entrepreneurs like you and I have experienced and benefited from through our lives. And America's still great at that. But in terms of big corporations and billionaires, no, we're talking about a country that is open to the highest bidder. And our allies see that and they're worried about it. They don't like it. And it's not the way their systems run. Not the advanced industrial economies anyway. It's closer to way a lot of emerging markets run and we should worry, I think a lot about that. Absolutely. And that's where the Elon thing really bothers me less about freedom of speech and more about what does it mean? What does he get for his quarter of a billion dollars with Trump? I mean, we see how much access he has. We see that he, I mean he has a position that's a non governmental advisory position in Doge. We see his ability to talk directly with competitor CEOs while he's sitting with the President or heads of state while he's sitting with the president to functionally even veto legislation when he speaks out against it, get people aligned. I mean, that's a pretty unique position. We've not seen anyone like that before. He's certainly the most powerful individual in the private sector that the US has experienced since the Gilded Age. What does that mean? What does that mean for the United States domestically, its political system? What does that mean for the US with its allies in the global order? I don't think it's a good development.

Scott Galloway (33:33)

We'll be right back.

Home Depot Ad (33:37)

Shop now at the Home Depot and get up to 35% off select appliances. Plus save up to an extra $400 on select appliances like Frigidaire. From the stainless steel French door refrigerator with crisp sealed drawers to keep produce fresh longer to the five burner electric range that lets you cook more at once and get meals on the table faster. Right now get up to 35% off select appliances like Frigidaire, the Home Depot. How doers get more done pricing thought January 9th through January 29th US only. See store online for details. Minimum purchase required.

Scott Galloway (34:07)

Oh it's such a clutch off season pickup Dave.

Ian Bremmer (34:10)

I was worried we'd bring back the same team.

Scott Galloway (34:12)

I meant Those blackout motorized shades lines.com.

Ian Bremmer (34:15)

Made it crazy affordable to replace our old blinds.

Scott Galloway (34:17)

Hard to install?

Ian Bremmer (34:18)

No? Oh, it's easy. I installed these and then got some for my mom. She talked to a design consultant for free and scheduled a professional measure and.

Scott Galloway (34:25)

Install hall of Fame sun.

Ian Bremmer (34:26)

They're the number one online retailer of custom window coverings in the world.

Scott Galloway (34:29)

Blinds.com is the goat shop.

HubSpot Ad (34:31)

Blinds.com right now and get up to 40% off select styles plus a free professional measure. Rules and restrictions may apply. Build a routine with Ollie that supports your wellness needs, like getting your daily vitamins and minerals with Ollie's Multigumies or keeping your mood upbeat with all the vitamin D and hello happy. Give your gut health some support with probiotics and wake up feeling refreshed after taking Ollie sleep. Do wellness on your terms. Find Ollie at a Walmart or Target near you or@ollie.com these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Scott Galloway (35:09)

So you touched on Syria and risk number nine you called ungoverned spaces. Do you think and you did begin to outline this. Do you think what's happened in Syria is a net positive or negative for the West?

Ian Bremmer (35:22)

I think the fact that Assad has gone is a net positive for the west because Assad was an utterly brutal dictator who allowed for more people around the world to believe that they could act with impunity in their own backyards, get away with it. Right? He was an ally to not just Russia, but Iran. He facilitated the illegal transfer of weapons from Iran into Lebanon, strengthening Hezbollah, which is seen by the US as a terrorist organization. As a principal adversary of Israel, he was the principal oversaw the principal production of Captagon, an incredibly addictive, enormously debilitating illegal drug that was being exported all over the region and Europe and some to the United States. I am delighted that he's gone and I don't shed any tears about him getting poisoned in Moscow within a couple weeks of the Russians accepting him in quotes. What has replaced him is at best, at best uncertain. I mean, this new government came out of ISIS connected folks and they are certainly showing that they want to be more inclusive, that they've turned over a new leaf. But does that really mean that they're going to be either capable or willing to run a more stable, more inclusive government that won't either collapse or won't launch a war against large numbers of its own citizens. We'll have to wait and see. But no, it's clearly a positive, a net positive for the west and for everyone that Assad is gone.

Scott Galloway (37:21)

So one of the few places I think we have a bit of a differing viewpoint is on Israel and the conflict there. And I'll put forward another thesis that Israel's bold and courageous actions, taking out more terrorists in six weeks than we took out in 25 years on our most wanted list, cutting off the hands of the proxies of Iran, incredibly bold, the most precise anti terrorist action or operation in history with the pagers and Hezbollah that Israel has demonstrated not only tremendous power, expertise and strategy here, but they, in my view their actions are going to make the Middle East a safer, more stable, more pro west place because of their actions. Your thoughts?

Ian Bremmer (38:09)

Well, first of all, the only risk that shows up in our report on the Middle east, one is that oil prices are likely to be low, which means less money for the Gulf states, both for themselves as well as to help countries in the region that need and have benefited from their aid, like Jordan, for example, Egypt, for example, Tunisia for example. And secondly Iran, which is a significant risk in part because their regime is on life support. They've lost their empire. And the Americans and the Israelis might well decide this is the opportunity to really hit them hard. Those are the risks. So I mean, we didn't have in the report Hezbollah or the west bank or Gaza because the Israelis have shown that they are militarily dominant, they determine the nature of escalation and their enemies can't do anything to them. And that includes frankly, the Iranians. So I certainly accept the fact that the Israelis have defeated their enemies in a pretty spectacular fashion over the last year and a bit following October 7th. I agree with that. Where you and I probably disagree, and we've had discussions about this in the past, Scott, is that I don't believe that you can resolve the Palestinian problem by blowing them all up. I just don't. I mean, I think that, you know, if Hamas is an army, they're defeated. If Hamas is an ideology and an idea, you probably made them stronger because you've radicalized people for generations. And what I see in Gaza and the lack of humanitarian support and the comparative breadth of bombing and lack of willingness to be accountable for the risks of the civilian population. And I'm not in any way trying to say that Israel shouldn't want to blow up Hamas. I absolutely accept terrorist organization. They've done horrible things to the Israelis and to their own population. But ultimately, the fact that as a result of this war, the Palestinians are facing far greater depredation than they were on October 6th. And also, the Palestinians in the west bank have lost a lot more territory. They're living under more of a security state. They are much farther from having a state. I believe that will lead to more radicalism. I believe that will lead to more violence against Israel, against the United States and more broadly in the region. I believe that. Now, I mean, how do you balance those things? Because again, at the end of the day, Israel is a tiny country. They're very wealthy. They're incredible in terms of surveillance. If they keep their eyes on the ball, as Netanyahu did, not before October 7th, they will have great control over their borders. So I think in the context of that, maybe they can effectively occupy Palestinian territories and the Palestinians will just live as an imprisoned people. It's possible. And that that won't be a threat to Israel. I don't believe that that's humane. That's not a world I want to live in. But I also don't think it's true. So, I mean, even if you don't care about the Palestinians as people, and there are a lot of people that don't, I believe, and I do, but I understand that there are people that just have decided that's my enemy, and I don't care. But I actually believe that these are people that are industrious, they are capable, and with advanced technologies, they will increasingly find ways to make their voice heard. And I worry about that. I mean, I worry about that in the same way that I worry about when the CEO of United Healthcare is assassinated by some pretty boy idiot. That a whole bunch of people on the Internet, and by the way, some establishment Democrats, like, seem to lionize the guy, oh, I understand what he did. This is what happens. You radicalize people, they do crazy shit, and they have supporters. And I worry that the Palestinians are increasingly gonna be prone, larger numbers of them, to do crazy shit with supporters.

Scott Galloway (42:48)

This idea, and a lot of people hold it that you, even if you kill, you can kill people, but you can't kill an idea. I would push back and say, we, for the most part, killed communism. We, for the most part, at least we thought, killed fascism. And at the end of World War II, we were bombing Hamburg. We killed 40 service or military and killed 40,000 civilians. And we had already won the war. And when asked the generals and Eisenhower asked why they continued to devastate Hamburg, they said they need to know they lost. And I know that sounds brutal, but I would argue that we would have done worse had we been as viciously attacked. And two, when you actually look at the data, specifically the deaths of combatants relative to civilians, that the Israelis are prosecuting this war more humanely than any Western nation has prosecuted another war. Your thoughts?

Ian Bremmer (43:41)

So I accept the fact that the United States in the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan also saw massive amounts of civilian damage and brutality. Accepted completely. But I was focused when I said I take exception to the way the Israelis approach proselytize this war. I've talked about the utter lack of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza and I also talked about taking more land and the greatest security state in the West Bank. And again, I think those things matter now. I don't think you need, you can blow up Hamas and still allow food in for the Palestinians. I mean, my view is that if you're a friend of Israel, as I am, you want Israel to do well and sustainably long term. And that means criticizing Israel when you think it's fucking up. The United States, which has been the strongest supporter of Israel, bar none, no one else is close. Over the last year has been incredibly critical, mostly privately, of the fact that not enough aid has gotten in. So again, my point here is simply that I believe that there's going to be greater radicalization and, and we need to move to thinking about how after they've lost and do they know they've lost. It's not like just the war. Since October 7, the Palestinians have known that they've lost for decades now. Right? I mean, like they have less and less territory. They've been moved farther and farther out. Their opportunities, economic opportunities, educational opportunities are more and more constrained. A lot of that is on their own poor governance. Don't get me wrong, it's not just all about Israel. A lot of that's because they were forgotten by the Gulf states. A lot of that's because the Americans don't care about them, the Europeans don't care about them. I mean, no one cares about the Palestinians except the Palestinians. They do. The Palestinians care about the Palestinians and ultimately I think that's gonna cause a problem.

Scott Galloway (45:49)

Hasn't Qatar sent over a billion dollars which they decided to spend on tunnels and rockets? Haven't they been the beneficiary of a tremendous amount of aid?

Ian Bremmer (45:57)

Qatar has been the single biggest supporter on the ground in Gaza over past years. And of course, that's now been cut off. Absolutely. But if you look at what kind of support the Palestinians have had on the ground to build their economy compared to other countries, actual countries in the region, the answer is very, very little. And look, you know that my. My mother's side of the family is Armenian. I mean, 125,000 Armenians just ethnically cleansed from Nagorno Kharabak. And no one's talking about it. You're not going to ask me about it? It's not in our top risk report. We didn't write about it at all. Even in ungoverned territories, we didn't even bother to mention it because nobody cares. And that's what I'm saying. Law of the jungle. The fact is, we could have a very long conversation about why it got to this situation where 125,000 civilians got tossed out of their homes, left with nothing, places blown up, occupied, all their historic monuments, their churches blown up. Nobody talks about it. It bothers me as a person, you know, but the fact is, I mean, look, we talk about the Palestinians because it gets a lot more attention. But we could. There are so many places where these are the same conversations.

Scott Galloway (47:12)

But again, I love this. Cause I wanna stop you because I feel like I'm sitting across the table from someone I respect immensely. And I can have a civil conversation I recognize, I feel strongly about, but I don't know what I don't know. And that is you talk about. We're not having these conversations around the 120,000 people who have been disappeared in Syria under Assad or what's happened in Yemen. Isn't it mostly because when Jews kill people, it's seen as a different crime against humanity than when other people kill people. Isn't there just a tremendous double standard here, Ian?

Ian Bremmer (47:46)

Look, I think that there are all sorts of double standards, Scott, but they don't just go one way. I mean, the Holocaust has been seared in the collective historical memory and the imagination of everyone that lived at that time and since. And, you know, for a long time, the Jews were seen to be like the principal global victim. And we all had to ensure that never happened again. Today, that is not true. Today, Israel is the dominant military actor in the entire Middle east, not just vis a vis the Palestinians. And they are the ones that get to decide. Now, we in the United States love an underdog. I think that there has been a shift for a lot of young people in the United States that suddenly don't see support for Israel as support of the underdog. They think that we're somehow the bad guys because, like, we're in favor of the powerful and not in favor of the oppressed. And the Ukrainians are, you know, in the position that the Israelis used to be in. So I think there's some of that. I think there is. There's been a massive surge in antisemitism around the world. Very disturbing. And that certainly has to do with the fact there are a hell of a lot more Muslims than there are Jews, and a lot of them are on TikTok, for example. And so you see that performing algorithmically, not because TikTok is nefarious, but just because it performs with those eyeballs. There's some of that and also the fact that there's just a lot of media occupying that space. You know, I mean, this is an area that has a lot of journalists on the ground and covering it. There ain't no journalists in Sudan or Yemen writing about it. This part of the world matters economically, technologically. It doesn't. Sudan, nobody cares. Right? Doesn't have a market impact. There's no one that's going to school there that's gonna come and talk about. There's not as much of a diaspora in the West. There is when you talk about the Israelis and the Palestinians. So I think there are lots of reasons to simplify this to just one factor. You and I would not do that about any other discussion we'd have. We certainly wouldn't want to simplify this in that way.

Scott Galloway (50:10)

Let me pause again. First comment. I absolutely love these conversations, so thank you too. You said that TikTok not because TikTok is nefarious. Another thesis, TikTok is largely influenced, if not controlled by the CCP, who has a strategic reason to deposition us or make us weaker. If they can't beat us economically or kinetically, why wouldn't they put their thumb on the scale of content that polarizes us, resulting in 52 pro Hamas videos for every one pro Israel video, which, according to the research I've seen, is taking place on TikTok. In sum, I would argue TikTok is nefarious and purposely trying to delegitimize or create polarization amongst our public.

Ian Bremmer (50:54)

So I think social media is nefarious. And I agree that TikTok is certainly influenced by the CCP, the Communist Party of China, and we should not trust that they have said that they are not giving any information to the Chinese Communist Party. That has been proved in many investigations. Wall Street Journal, other reports to be not true. So I'm not comfortable with the idea that TikTok is just a free market corporation that's only seeking profits and nothing matters. But to the extent that the Chinese have been involved in cyber operations to influence US elections and the Russians have been involved and the Iranians and the North Koreans, the Russians are actively promoting information that is trying to increase a sense of racism, rage, violence, hostility, maltreatment. I mean, they're flooding the zone with shit in ways that really is trying to disrupt and undermine US democracy and stability. China's cyber influence on the US elections was overwhelmingly intelligence seeking. It was get inside the systems to figure out what they're really doing so that we can take advantage from it. It was also get inside critical infrastructure so that just in case things go badly, we might be able to blow these guys up. So I'm someone that believes that I don't know what I don't know. I know what I know. I am not inside. I know the CEO of TikTok. I've met him many times. I'm not inside their decision making process. I don't know what they're saying to the Communist Party. But I know what I see the evidence from what the Chinese have done in other areas. There's no reason for me to believe that that would uniquely and somehow be different with TikTok than it is with their entire national strategy, which has been risk averse and influence and information maximizing for them directly. It has not been breaking and blowing up the United States. And I also think that there's a much simpler Occam's razor explanation for why young people would get a lot more pro Islam and pro Palestinian content, then they would get pro Israel and pro Jewish. And it's because TikTok is a global platform with enormous numbers of people from Pakistan and Indonesia on it and also oriented towards younger people that are already, even in the west, much more pro Palestinian than they are pro Israel all over the world. And that's just being driven algorithmically. I think that's the simplest argument. So that's how I feel about that.

Scott Galloway (53:45)

Let's talk about Ukraine. Give us your state of play in Ukraine.

Ian Bremmer (53:49)

So you'll remember back at the beginning of 2024, you and I talked about this and I said, and I wasn't happy about it at all. I said, I think Ukraine is going to get partitioned.

Scott Galloway (53:58)

You were one of the first people that ever said that out loud. I want to point that out. You said, look, this land, they're never getting it back is essentially what you said.

Ian Bremmer (54:07)

Yeah. I want to be very clear. I really don't want that outcome, but it's not for me to be telling everybody what I want. It's much more about where you think things are going. And the Ukrainians, I think, increasingly understand that they're now trying to position themselves for the best possible negotiation, where they are going to have to lose most, if not all, of the territory that the Russians presently occupy. They'd like a little leverage, which is why they're continuing the offensive in Kursk, which is inside Russia, so that they have something to trade. That's gonna make the negotiations more fraught, but does give them leverage. The Russians also are. They'd benefit from a breather. I mean, yeah, they've got 15,000 North Korean troops that are not fighting well and are dying in large numbers, but they're having a harder time raising significant numbers of troops for the war effort. And their economy is increasingly performing badly under strain of sanction and lack of human capital. So I think that Trump is gonna succeed in getting a ceasefire. I don't think it's gonna take a day. It's gonna be harder than he thought. But when he tells the Ukrainians, you need to accept what I'm telling you, or else, first of all, he's creating some cover for Zelensky to say, look, I've got no. Because of the Americans, which is helpful to Zelensky, frankly. But also he does know that the Americans will cut off aid if he doesn't, so that will move. And the French, Macron has also delivered that message just yesterday to Zelenskyy. He's heard it from the Germans and others, so he's getting that pressure. And the Russians also know, though it's harder to pressure them in this environment, the US has less leverage. They know that if they don't accept negotiations in a ceasefire, that they're gonna get tougher sanctions from. From Trump. I do believe that, and Trump has delivered that message. I also thought it was very interesting. I mean, Trump's tweets aren't always interesting, but sometimes they are. And there was one he put out a couple weeks ago that said about Russia, Ukraine, that also China can help. And it was very interesting that Trump would say that. I fully agree with it. China does not benefit from this war continuum. They would like the Russians to have a ceasefire. It is undermining China's relationship with Europe, which, especially the frontline states, which they would like to be more stable. It is making it harder for the Chinese to have flexibility globally. They really don't like the Russia, North Korea relationship. They want this war over. As you said before, the Chinese need stability. The Russians are chaos actors. So they're not fully aligned in this. If I were Trump, I would absolutely reach out to the Chinese to be a part of this solution. And the first Trump Xi Jinping call is gonna be utterly fascinating for so many reasons, but this is one of them.

Scott Galloway (57:13)

So just as we wrap up here, Ian, we have a lot of young people who listen to this podcast and are very focused on trying to develop their own careers. And I think a lot of people listen to this and hear about your background in Gzero Media and think, God, that is just such a cool job and business. What? Just give us just a Cliff Notes. I would imagine your business is booming and what is the friction right now in your business? When you look at 2025 as the founder of this consulting firm or media company, what are you most excited about and most worried about as it relates to being an entrepreneur and building, building your business?

Ian Bremmer (57:53)

Well, I mean, it's kind of funny because of course, given that we try to help people understand the world, when there's more uncertainty, more people need us. And that's true both in terms of the companies that pay us to do consulting and advisory work, and also in terms of just the members of the public that engage with our media channels and the rest. I mean, we did a lot better growth wise in the Trump administration than we did in Biden. Leaving aside the fact that tax rates went down, so all the corporates did well under that. And just generally speaking, much more uncertainty driven by the Trump administration. And we already see that starting now, he's certainly acting as president with Biden doing much less. I expect that'll be true again. So that's not a point of friction. The point of friction, and I think you'll appreciate this. So we've got almost 250 employees, right? For me that sounds amazing because I started as a kid from the projects and it was just sounds like a headache. Well, I've got a CEO. It's not like I'm running it it but I mean, 250 people is a small company in the grand scheme of things, it's a small company. And the biggest point of friction is that we need to ensure that the bets that we make in a given year, there are so many places that we could go and engage and build the firm. Different types of businesses, different geographies, different sectors. We can invest in different kinds of Staff, all sorts of things we can do. And yet, as a firm with 250 people, you can only make four or five of those bets in a serious way in any given year. So it's not about who your competitors are globally. It's much more about marshaling your resources intelligently, yourself and making those bets. So they're not singles, but a couple of them are actually home runs that they really do. You know, you're constrained. I mean, it's kind of like you and I have so many hours in the day. You've got so many hours with the kids before they don't want to talk to you anymore. How are you going to spend that time with them? That maximizes it. We've got only so many people and so much money we can deploy. How do we do that in a big world that's rife with opportunity? There's too much opportunity in the world, and there's only one of me, and there's only one Eurasia Group, only one Gzero Media. How do you do that? And I'm an optimist. My eyes are always bigger than my stomach. Everything can work out. The people around me are meant to sort of ensure that there is structure and reality around all of that. And I think they do a real good job.

Scott Galloway (60:41)

Yeah. The charge of any leader is not what to do, but what not to do. How you allocate capital to its greatest return. Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the world's leading political risk research and consulting firm, and Gzero Media, a company dedicated to providing intelligent and engaging coverage of international affairs. He's also the author of 11 books, including the New York Times bestsellers Us versus the Failure of Globalism and his latest book, the Power of How Three Threats and Our Response Will Change the World. Ian, Alec Baldwin has hosted SNL 17 times. You have now been on Prop G seven times. We are catching up fast. You are hands down our favorite guest. You're thoughtful, you're civil, you're creative. I just love these conversations. Really appreciate your partnership and friendship. All right, brother, Take care. Happy New Year. Algebra of happiness. This guy, I think his name is Tyler. I found him on TikTok or Instagram. I'm kind of obsessed with him. He's this former financial advisor that takes these long walks in the woods. It looks like he's in a work camp in Vladivostok and gives financial advice. And I just think he's fantastic, what he does. And he said something that impacted me. He said that here is the definition of success. A series of small actions every day. And it just, it struck me as so simple. But this is what I hope we're all gonna do, or I'm gonna suggest you do. And I'm gonna try and do the same thing. And that is every day this year, do one small thing. One small thing that's going to add up to something great at the end of the year. 15, 20, 30 minutes of exercise. It might be a long walk, a text message every day to someone you care about telling them that you care about them. And it might not be, I care about you, but just checking in. Hi, how are you? You're going to aggregate those text messages are going to compound something for yourself. Create one or two minutes of content every day. I'm going to write a blog post or a hundred words of a blog post every day. I'm going to put out a minute or, you know, every three days I'm going to put out a video. I'm going to put out interesting content on a social media platform to try and garner my following. I'm going to save 10 bucks a day. I'm going to not take an Uber. I'm going to take the subway, and I am not going to buy that latte from Starbucks. And I'm going to invest 10 bucks every day in Vanguard and ETF or on the Acorns app, whatever it might be, right? A series of small actions every day that add up to something great, especially around relationships. This is our year. It's 2025. Everything behind you is gone. It's done. It's immutable. But 2025 is mutable. Let's start now. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Our intern is Dan Shalon. Drew Burrows is our technical director. It's so nice to see Drew again. So nice to see Drew. He comes over to my house. He sets everything up. He's this nice presence. Thank you for listening to the Prophet G Pod from the Vox Media Podcast network. We will catch you on Saturday for no mercy, no malice, as read by George Hahn. And please follow our Prophet G markets pod wherever you get your pods for new episodes every Monday and Thursday.

Ian Bremmer (63:59)

Woo hoo.