From Saudi-Pak pact to Trump's China policy: Ian Bremmer interview full transcript

On Donald Trump’s China push, Bremmer was blunt: “It’s not really intended to be effective. It’s performative.” He linked Trump’s tariff talk to efforts to shift blame over Ukraine and strike a deal with Xi Jinping.

Despite global volatility, Bremmer concluded that India is “better positioned than many middle powers, even the European Union.”

Full transcript of Ian Bremmer's interview.

Good evening.

In an increasingly complex and unpredictable global landscape, understanding the intersection of politics and economics has never been more critical.

The dynamics shaping international relations, trade, diplomacy and geopolitical risks affect not only governments but also markets and businesses worldwide.

Today we bring these intricate realities into focus with an expert who has pioneered the field of political risk and helped decode the chaotic global order.

It's a privilege to welcome Ian Bremmer, a renowned political scientist, author and the founder of Eurasia Group, the world's leading geopolitical risk research and consulting firm.

Ian's insights have shaped how policymakers, business leaders and media understand emerging global challenges.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mr. Bremer, in the context of the newly signed Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defense Pact, which is amidst escalating Middle East tensions, how do you assess the implications of this agreement for regional security dynamics, particularly with Gulf states diversifying their alliances?

That's right.

I am happy to join you. And as you say, it is an effort to diversify alliances. It's an effort to rely less exclusively on security on the United States.

And there are a lot of countries that are doing that all over the world, a lot of hedging going on. I think the most specific precipitating event was the decision of the Israeli government to bomb the territory of Qatar. And one Qatari security member was killed. They were going after Hamas political leaders, and they failed.

But the United States certainly didn't do anything to stop it. And they did very little to complain about it afterwards. There's no punishment for Israel.

And if you're Saudi Arabia, you know, this is a fellow member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the GCC, that is an unacceptable response. And so Saudi Arabia thinking long term, not thinking just the next three months or one year, but decades, is recognizing that the need to ensure that they have a broader array of security partners around the world is growing.

And that's why I mean, this isn't a coincidence. That's why they made that decision. And it's a historic military ties with Saudi Arabia.

How do you see this pact represent perhaps a strategic shift with potential risks for South Asia, especially for India?

Certainly, it's going to make Pakistan feel like they are geopolitically stronger. Their principal ally remains China. That's not changing anytime soon. That's where they're getting most of their military support.

It's where they're getting most of their shared intelligence. But the fact that they have a better relationship with Trump through crypto investments and other investments, including with Trump's own family, certainly makes Pakistan feel more welcome, more confident, stronger.

And yes, it is true that Saudi Arabia has been helping to fund Pakistan and their plutonium program for many, many years.

And it had been an open secret that Saudi Arabia, in an event of crisis, considered Pakistan's nuclear program to be Saudi Arabia's emergency nuclear program if they ever needed it.

That's something that was discussed well before Trump became president. But the fact that they are now openly declaring collective security pact is a very significant new step forward.

And again, yes, I think it strengthens Pakistan and their hand, and the influence they feel like they can exert in their neighborhood.

So, you know, this is also coming in the backdrop of Operation Sindoor, which was seen as a massive success, you know, carried out by Indian armed forces.

Do you see this pact perhaps alter defence postures or deterrence calculations?

Look, I think that if you're India, and you have an ongoing very severe border security issue with Pakistan, that military conflict has escalated significantly in the past months.

You've got big challenges to the long-standing water agreement that India is essentially suspending their participation in.

You know, these are all things that make everyone recognize that in the future, there's a good chance we're going to see more another military altercation.

Now, if that happens, and Saudi Arabia is committed to come to Pakistan's defense, if I'm India, that has to factor into my calculations of what are the consequences if I decide that I'm going to engage in bombing drone strikes directly against Pakistan territory.

I mean, clearly, that even though we don't know exactly what the terms of the agreement are in any collective security agreement, there's a military attack against one, the other is obliged to come to their aid.

And so yeah, that that's going to change life for India, no question.

And Mr. Bremer, just few hours ago, on your social handle, and I must say that I follow your tweets very, very closely.

You have quoted Oscar Ben Benavides.

Can I correct my pronunciation here?

For my friends, everything for my enemy is the law. It's revelatory and philosophical at the same time.

In an uncertain geopolitical atmosphere, Mr. Bremer, where the axis of friendship is changing, and there are no permanent enemies, certainly.

How should this tweet of yours be read?

Rule of law is only legitimate when it applies equally. To all citizens in a country, rules of the road globally are only legitimate if they are upheld equally for other countries and other actors around the world.

We've seen just in the last hours China's defense minister categorically rejected the idea of a return to the so-called law of the jungle.

But in an environment where we don't have global leadership, where there is a great deal of disagreement among the G7 countries in what they believe in, and what their values are, and what they will support, what they will oppose.

And that's even more true among the BRICS than what you see increasingly is a world order where the rules apply.

Selectively, where the weak are meant to suffer as they must, and the strong and powerful do as they will.

And increasingly, that's true in many countries around the world as well.

It's a world with much greater impunity, and of course, with much greater chaos, with much less collective security.

That's, that's really what's meant by that pretty evocative quote.

So, it is essentially a jungle law which is being applied by multiple global leaders right now?

Certainly, if you're Russia, you feel like you can do whatever you want, because you're the most powerful in your neighborhood.

And you're not going to be stopped by the Ukrainians, who are a lesser force, by the Europeans, who can act in only a limited collective way, and by the Americans, who have shown that repeatedly, that they don't really wanna be involved in leading the resistance to support Ukraine.

If you're Israel, you are the strongest military power, not to mention nuclear power, only nuclear power in the Middle East.

And I mean, Israel launched attacks on six countries in one day last week.

And they can ensure that not just they can deter their adversaries, but they can increasingly eradicate their adversaries.

And there's very little that anyone can do to stop them.

And of course, most importantly, the United States can choose to rip up trade agreements, tariff agreements, security agreements.

And you're gonna have to, if you want to continue to have, to enjoy a privileged relationship with the United States, unless you're very powerful and can say no to the US as the Chinese have.

For example, then you're going to have to hold your nose and ignore what you thought was a commitment by the Americans and recognise that they're much more powerful than you.

And so, for now, you're going to have to do what they want.

And there are many countries around the world, including India, that are having a very hard time navigating that.

Yes, since you speak about tariff talks, you know, trade talks, I would say.

Let me bring in the call that happened.

How significant was Donald Trump's personal call to Prime Minister Modi on the occasion of his birthday in advancing bilateral trade talks? Did it signal a shift in the United States approach?

It certainly didn't hurt.

You know, Trump and Modi had a much better relationship in the first term than they do right now.

And there are a lot of reasons for that, which I'm sure your viewers are very aware of.

Trade is one component of it, but certainly not the only one. I think on the back of that fight, which has included significant escalation of US tariffs against India, and frankly some pretty tough talk between the two leaders, I think that there's been some effective diplomacy behind the scenes.

And the fact that the birthday greetings were exchanged and that Modi's public response was quite favourable, and the readout for the call was anodyne but certainly friendly, implies that both leaders and their very significant egos are seeing it as in their interest in trying to reduce this tension.

And from your perspective, what concessions could India consider without undermining its economic sovereignty and regulatory autonomy?

Look, the agriculture piece has been the most challenging, and I do think that there can be some compromise there, even though it's politically challenging for Modi at home.

I think India is capable of speeding up their diversification away from Russia on the security side, because Russia doesn't have spare parts that are available, given their war in Ukraine, the quality of their defence manufacture is poor.

In return, the United States could potentially increase the kinds of technology that they are providing India access to.

And certainly, there can be more joint cooperation in advanced technology between the two countries, especially given the interest of advanced U.S. technology companies, hyperscalers, to do more in India and less in China.

There are some areas that we're not gonna see cooperation.

I don't see the Indians stopping their purchasing of Russian oil at a discount under any circumstance. I don't see that.

Mr. Bremer, President Trump has been repeatedly called a transactional leader. In fact, according to a report by Jefferies, Trump's personal peak, within quotes, was behind the U.S. imposing an unprecedented 50% tariff on India. Then how can India place faith in U.S. commitments when Donald Trump's decisions appear rooted more in personal impulses than in strategic considerations?

It's a very fair question.

There's a big difference between the fact that the US remains by far the most powerful country in the world and the fact that the United States is a country that increasingly will change its mind in ways that can be very harmful to other countries around the world, even countries that considers its friends, even countries that it's signed agreements with.

Just ask the Canadians or the Mexicans, and they're a lot closer to the US than India is.

So, I think it's a reasonable thing to ask. Brazil has a trade deficit with the United States, the US runs a surplus.

And Trump decided that he's going to savage the Brazilian economy, not because of trade, but because he doesn't like what the Supreme Court, not the President, the Supreme Court did to rule against his friend, the former President Bolsonaro, 27-year jail term.

I mean, if you're Brazil, how can you rely on the United States when they directly intervene in your political sovereignty in such a way?

And of course, the answer is you can't. So , the Brazilians as a consequence, are trying with urgency to step up their trade relations with the EU, with EFTA, with Mexico, with Canada, with ASEAN, and with India, right?

So, I mean, what applies to Brazil applies to India as well. And Donald Trump is also asking NATO countries to impose 50 to 100% tariffs on China in a bid to put pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war.

And the US president this time, though, has left India out of that message.

How do you view then Donald Trump's redirection of his wrath on China while omitting India? Will this pressuring of China really work?

No, it's, you know, it's not really intended to be effective.

It's performative. Remember, Trump right now is trying to get a deal with China.

He's got a phone call with Xi Jinping at the end of this week. He's working to get a summit together.

The Chinese hit the Americans back pretty hard, not just on tariffs, but also on critical minerals licensing.

And Trump really is worried about that. So, I mean, his decision to call on NATO and the G7 to put tariffs on China is specifically because he knows that they have no intention of doing it.

And that allows Trump to shift the blame in his eyes for why he has failed to bring the Ukraine war to a close, despite his efforts with President Putin, including at their meeting in Anchorage

He wants to be able to say, well, look, I tried, but the Europeans are unwilling to take the steps that I said I would take, but they won't do it.

So, it's not my fault. Remember, it can never be Trump's fault. And how much of the change scenario has to do with what happened at.

The SCO summit in Tianjin. You know, there was that famous photo opportunity which happened between Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Modi and Xi Jinping.

You know, I don't think it was that important. Modi didn't sign on with the SCO countries in supporting Belt and Road.

Modi left China before the World War II commemorations and the military parade. I think if there was one photo that really did have an impact in the White House, it was Modi's decision to share the limousine ride with Putin in the same way that Trump invited Putin to do the same in Anchorage.

And that was really, you know, a very orchestrated message by the Indian Prime Minister to Trump.

And how hopeful are you of the Quad Summit here in New Delhi? This revival of SCO, what does it really mean for Quad?

I think that the SCO, it certainly has expanded, but it's not a collective security agreement.

It's not an alliance. It's much weaker than the Saudi-Pakistan agreement that just came about.

These are different countries with different motivations. Even the Central Asian countries, they have a much stronger relations with China.

Russia's very unhappy with that. That's part of the former Soviet Union.

So, I don't think the SCO really is very present in the minds of American decision makers thinking about policy on the global level.

I also would say that the Quad is becoming much itself more open to question.

You know, in part, the United States has raised questions of whether they can go ahead with their commitments to the Australians on submarines because they might need those submarines themselves.

There's a lot of pressure on Japan, which helped to make the Japanese government fall with the 550-billion-dollar commitment of investments that will be directed by the president himself, all of which has to be committed, or else more tariffs by the end of Trump's term.

So, I would say the quad is itself becoming more transactional, because that is the orientation of the most powerful country.

And in the past, Mr. Bremer, Washington has actively encouraged New Delhi to be a counterbalance to Beijing in this region, then how do you view our recent poor in India, China ties and Will you be seeing this with some kind of optimism or will you be cautious given the nature of how there has been multiple betrayals every time there has been a photo opportunity of some kind of relationship building?

I think a thaw between India and China is in the world's interest. These are two countries, most populous in the world, almost 1.5 billion people each.

They are major marketplaces. They are major military forces in the region.

We're much better off if they have stable relations, they're not oriented towards fighting, they can engage in trade and diplomacy with each other at a higher level with greater trust.

That would be good for the world. Now, it is true that the United States has historically been concerned about India and wanted India to be more of a counterweight against China.

I don't see Trump as focused as much on that today as he was in his first term as Biden was when Biden was president.

But I also don't think that there's much there there.

Okay, let's try and sum up this conversation, Mr. Bremer with, with something which has been perhaps on everybody's mind, that Donald Trump's tariffs and isolation of its allies has led to visible geopolitical shifts. There seems to be a global leadership vacuum, which China is moving to exploit. Then in this scenario, where does India fit in, in what is visibly an evolving power dynamic?

Well, there is an emerging multi polarity that will become stronger over time, but we're not there yet.

It's an absence of global leadership. United States does not want to promote global collective security. It doesn't want to lead free trade.

It doesn't want to promote foreign aid, it doesn't want to promote democracy, and rule of law, but no other country is prepared to take America's, you know, sort of space.

And China is the most powerful, but it's not capable of doing that.

And it knows it. So, in that environment, it's going to be less globalization, less growth.

It's harder for everybody. But some countries are better positioned than others.

India is better positioned than others, because India is not only a leader of the Global South, but it also is an effective bridge with the West, very strong relations with Japan, pretty strong relations with Australia, and very stable relations, functional relations with Europe.

I mean, really, Canada was the only big problem in the West. And that's been resolved somewhat with new Prime Minister Mark Carney.

And so that leaves the big questions of China and the United States. And it turns out that both of them are a little problematic.

But I'd rather be in India's position than that of many so-called middle powers around the world.

Certainly geopolitically, India is in better position right now than the European Union, for example.

That actually sums up this conversation, rightly.

India is better placed than European Union in the geopolitical dynamics as it is fast evolving.

Ian Bremmer, pleasure speaking to you, sir.

Thank you for your time here on India Today.

Thank you.

- Ends