russia-ukraine. us-iran. both examples of superpowers not understanding their limits. @antonioguterres and i reflect on the erosion of international law ahead of his final unga summit. (full interview tk)

president trump’s greenland policy was among his most unpopular among americans (back in january it was even lower than his epstein policy: -40% vs -38%, per reuters/ipsos). it’s a relief and politically welcome for republicans that trump has shed that burden by backing away from implausible demands and taking a deal.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper tells @ianbremmer on GZERO World that the US is “on its back foot” strategically in Iran. Meanwhile, attention is being taken away from an even bigger threat: China.

the danes were prepared to negotiate all the terms of the greenland agreement back in january. instead president trump created mistrust and weakened the long term relationship. i’m not suggesting that matters to the president—it’s not like he is particualry concerned about what happens when he’s no longer in office. but it is important for the interests of the united states.

the united states secures greenland agreement by negotiating constructively with denmark and greenland. denmark supported that approach back in january, a welcome development to see president trump come to the same conclusion.

joined @nprkelly to discuss what's behind canada's turn to the eu across the political spectrum, canada is unified in feeling deeply vulnerable... at the expense of its main ally @npratc

putin’s increasingly kinetic warfare against nato states has europe on alert. several nato leaders taking steps to prepare for further attacks. but far from all. and they’re clearly not ready now.

the world’s leading ai firms all have two feet on the accelerator pedal. nothing i’ve seen in the past weeks from 1) ai company leadership (individually or collectively), 2) the us government or 3) china over the past weeks changes that view.

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Neither America nor Iran is actually trying to win this war. 6 months into the Iran war, Ian Bremmer sees something strange beneath all the escalation: Restraint. Iran has not launched major attacks on critical Gulf infrastructure. The U.S. has not sent ground troops, attacked Kharg Island, resumed leadership assassinations or unleashed the full economic campaign threatened against countries still dealing with Tehran. Bremmer calls what is happening instead “price discovery.” Washington and Tehran want incompatible outcomes in the Strait of Hormuz, but both are probing for how much pain the other side can absorb. So they escalate just enough to demonstrate leverage, while trying not to trigger the regional war neither side appears to want. That is why Bremmer remains less worried about a sudden massive escalation than many other analysts. “Neither the Iranians nor the Americans are actually trying to win. They're trying to avoid losing.” That distinction explains a lot. Iran keeps enough pressure on shipping and regional infrastructure to preserve leverage. Washington keeps enough military and economic pressure on Iran to deny Tehran control of the outcome. Neither can force the other to surrender. Neither wants to pay the price of trying. So the war continues, not because either side sees a clear path to victory, but because neither has yet found an acceptable way to lose. @ianbremmer