[ Air raid sirens wail ] >> It started early this morning.

[ Explosion ] >> We will strive for the demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine.

>> They came on our land.

[ Launchers firing in distance ] [ Shouting in Ukrainian ] >> Putin is the aggressor.

Putin chose this war, and now he and his country will bear the consequences.

♪♪ >> Hello, and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer.

And after weeks of military buildup and consistent lies from the Kremlin, war has once again broken out in Europe.

As Russia's military mounts a nationwide invasion on Ukraine from land, air, sea, and digital space, we are watching a worst-case scenario play out in real time.

And with diplomacy dead, Western allies turn their attention to leveling crippling sanctions against Moscow and to helping the Ukrainians defend themselves however they can.

Just last weekend, I attended the Munich Security Conference alongside world leaders, all scrambling to avoid exactly this outcome.

>> It is in our collective interest that Russia should ultimately fail.

>> My conversations with those leaders made clear that though the Ukrainian people will suffer immensely from Putin's war of choice, this is far more than a regional conflict.

So today, I bring you my analysis and interviews from that gathering.

First, I'll sit down with former CIA director David Petraeus to discuss the "porcupine" that President Putin has just eaten.

And later, you'll hear from U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, who says that while Ukraine is the crisis of the moment and more than that, there is a threat that's even more existential than Putin.

It's climate change.

But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... And by... >> Wars in Europe rarely start on a Wednesday.

That flip remark came from a top Russian diplomat earlier this month.

He dismissed reports that his country would invade Ukraine on Wednesday, February 16th.

As we know now, that may have been the wrong date, but the day for war came soon thereafter.

[ Air raid sirens ] >> The war in Ukraine has begun.

>> Peace on our continent has been shattered.

>> Ironic considering what Vladimir Putin himself said at this very conference back in 2007.

What a difference 15 years make.

For the first time in decades, there was no Russian delegation at the security conference, and tension on the European continent is at levels we haven't seen since the Cold War.

We're also witnessing a rebirth of the transatlantic alliance as the United States and Europe come together in this crisis.

As recently as last month, there was no guarantee that NATO would respond to Russian aggression with anything like a united front.

President Biden said as much during a press conference.

>> And there are differences.

There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens, the degree to which they're able to go.

>> Biden quickly walked back those remarks, but some damage had been done.

If Putin wanted discord among NATO nations, that was music to his ears.

But in trying to exploit divisions in the West.

President Putin has actually brought his adversaries much closer together.

>> At every step, we have shown the United States and our allies and partners are working in unison, which he hasn't been counting on, Mr. Putin.

>> They've also responded with one voice to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and are set to impose unprecedented sanctions.

And here in Munich, the message was clear.

>> And if President Putin believes that, by these actions, he can drive NATO back or intimidate NATO, he will find that the opposite is the case.

>> Dark days are ahead.

But this newfound unity among Western allies gives me hope and not just for the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

It's a silver lining I discussed with retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus.

♪♪ David Petraeus, good to be with you.

>> Ian, good to be with you.

Thanks.

>> So this feels like a rather momentous Munich Security Conference.

Do you think that we are sort of heading back to the future?

>> Look, I think that Putin has had to have looked into the abyss or shaken the tree, and he sees what falls out, and it can't be real pleasing to him.

I mean, he's managed to unite NATO in a way that nothing else has since the end of the Cold War, other than his annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbas in 2014.

I mean, he has really given NATO a reason to live again.

And again, this is the best time for NATO since the end of the Cold War.

>> You've been coming to this conference for a long time now.

>> In the mid '80s.

I was a speechwriter for the supreme allied commander.

>> When was the last time NATO felt this coherent?

>> Well, back in the Cold War.

>> Right.

>> And it was, in fact, my boss, the supreme allied commander.

you know, in those days, the SAC here was almost the king of Europe, because, of course, you have the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, faced off with the West and NATO.

Yeah, I think it's right to say there hasn't been that degree of unity.

There have certainly been some missions that have been very important.

I would say the Balkans missions in the 1990s were very, very important in unifying Bosnia, Kosovo, and so forth.

Afghanistan was a NATO mission, of course, but the way it was ended, at least on this side of the Atlantic, is felt that there was not sufficient consultation.

Many of them wanted to stay.

And certainly the way that we ended up leaving was -- was not the most orderly of departures.

So, yeah, this is really quite a striking moment.

I also think you do have to actually understand the context for the U.S. delegation, the national security team.

And that is that, to a degree, Afghanistan forms that context and a recognition that whether they believe it or not in Washington, the Europeans did not feel adequately consulted.

Look at the consultation they have done this time.

>> The Russians saw an opportunity, perhaps, as a consequence.

>> It may be that, you know, that this message that we were not a dependable partner and so forth.

I don't believe that.

I mean, I think Afghanistan was something that was a one-off for the United -- for the commander in chief in particular.

So -- But I do think, having been very critical of the administration over the decision to withdraw and the way it was done, that the conduct of what they're doing now has been very impressive.

>> It almost feels like a different administration, in terms of both the communications, which they've done so much of in advance of the challenges with Russia over Ukraine -- to the public as well as the multilateralism.

It's just night and day.

>> Number one, people have their feet firmly on the ground.

That was very early on in the beginning, when the decision was made and then when the execution was carried out.

Again, you have that context that we've got to show that we are a dependable partner, that we do consult, and that we have the will to employ the extraordinary capabilities that that only we have.

So it's a very different sense, and I'm -- it's a very reassuring sense.

Again, I give credit to the administration for what they have done and the way that they are very quickly taking what is undoubtedly sensitive intelligence and laundering it into releasable public information to put Russia on notice repeatedly is also very impressive.

>> If the Russians engage in a false flag or the Russians -- that they will be seen to have been manipulating.

>> I mean, it does help that you have the media, the social media, you know, that you can follow this all on TikTok or on whatever is posted, so that -- Literally drawing social media plus all of the other sources.

And government does that, too, of course.

In fact, the CIA has an open-source center that mines all this stuff.

>> Tell me -- I mean, because you've got a lot of experience in terms of the disposition of forces that we're seeing right now.

And I mean, it's a big buildup.

I understand that.

Talk a little bit about what it means for the Russians to have... >> It's huge.

>> ...put what they have now arrayed across Ukraine's borders.

>> I think they have positioned a force that presents a number of options to President Putin.

There's no question about that.

I don't think that's -- You know, that's indisputable.

The question obviously is, does he really, truly, you know, want to go in from -- gosh, I don't know.

You can come in from the north and the south and, you know, have a pincer and shut it off and encircle the Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine or something.

Does he really want to try to digest what we believe will be a porcupine that will not go down easily?

>> What can you say about the Ukrainian forces, their preparedness, as well as the weapons systems that have been sent by the United States and NATO allies to Ukraine?

>> A lot better than 2014, which, frankly, is from a pretty low baseline.

Quite a bit.

I've actually been to the to the front, if you will, of the Donbas.

I went out three years ago before the lockdown, a visit with Ukrainian troops and all the Ukrainian leaders back in Kyiv, as well.

>> Line of contact there.

>> It is.

I mean, it's dug in.

This is World War I with drones, optics, and computers and the command post, but still mud and still trenches.

And if you pop your head above the ground for too long, there's a sniper on the other side who might take it off.

So it's deadly serious.

There are casualties every single week.

But those lines haven't moved much in recent years.

Ukraine took this hill back or did a little adjustment here and there, but by and large, it is a frozen conflict, in that regard.

>> And what about these weapons systems?

The Germans sent like 5,000 helmets.

It was embarrassed, but I mean, the systems that have been sent from the U.K., from the United States, from others to Ukraine, symbolic or actually meaningful?

>> Oh, no.

You know, the manned portable air -- anti-tank system and the manned portable anti-aircraft system, especially the anti-tank system, the Javelin, is a very lethal weapon.

I'm not sure I'd want to be shooting it head on at a tank, but those tanks have to stop sooner or later.

And if there are people with Javelins within, you know, a mile and a half or so, that's a good distance.

They're going to take them out.

It's a very good down payment, maybe a bit more than that again.

But, you know, give credit to the U.K.

They were the first ones that landed C-17s on the ground in Ukraine with lethal equipment.

So, again, none of this -- This is not offensive stuff.

Again, you're not going to run to Moscow with this anti-tank system on your shoulder, but it sure is pretty good if you want to make the invader pay a very heavy price.

The real question, of course, is, how fiercely would the Ukrainians forces... >> Actually fight.

>> ...and the partisan brigades.

Keep in mind, there aren't just several dozen conventional military brigades.

There are several dozen partisan brigades.

And if they want to put up resistance, it'd be a very, very difficult situation for the Russians.

I mean, you're not going to go outside your perimeter without, again, someone taking a shot at you and maybe even in the perimeter.

So...

The other thing is, again, keep in mind the numbers.

They sound enormous.

130,000, maybe even 150,000 troops, as President Biden said the other day.

That's about what we had in the invasion of Iraq.

That was nowhere near enough, even for just part of the country.

>> To hold the cities.

We couldn't even -- Yeah.

Nowhere near enough.

>> I vaguely remember a story from you around Najaf.

>> Well, yeah, I mean, I called up my boss, and I said, "Hey, this is the very first big city that we take."

There was some resistance, couple of days of fighting, then it sort of melted away.

But now you're left with a city of 500,000 or 600,000 people.

At that time, there were still applauding.

There were well -- Of course, it's a Shia city, happy to see the Sunni Arab leader be cast out.

>> Yeah.

>> But I remember calling my boss on the radio, and I said, "I got good news and bad news."

He said, "What's the good news?"

I said, "We own Najaf."

And by the way, it's also the holiest city in Shia Islam.

He said, "What's the bad news?"

I said, "We own Najaf.

I mean, what do you want us to do with it?"

And we ended up with an entire brigade combat team pinned down just sort of administering it.

And there wasn't even really much resistance left at all.

>> I think if you're calling Putin from Ukraine, you probably just give him the good news.

>> You probably do.

In fact, I'm not sure there's a respon-- You know, the channels -- remember the old Soviet army?

You could only call down, not back up.

But the reality is that he knows enough to realize that, okay, they could probably run the government out of Kyiv.

Actually, most of them are here right now.

Keep them from landing back there.

But how do you hold it?

It's not about taking part of the country or good bit of it, even the capital.

It's about, how do you hang on to it?

And that's not a trivial issue.

>> Yeah.

David Petraeus.

>> Pleasure.

Great to be with you, Ian.

>> Take care.

♪♪ Russia and Ukraine taking up most of the attention in Munich Security Conference, but my next guest says that the most important crisis globally is climate change -- not a big surprise.

John Kerry is special climate envoy, member of cabinet in the U.S. government.

Secretary Kerry, so good to see you again.

>> Happy to be here.

Thank you.

>> So, as we're kicking off the Munich Security Conference, this thing I want to start with, of course, is, everyone is so incredibly distracted with the potential of direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.

To what extent, if at all, is that a distraction in the meetings that you're having with heads of state, with principles and trying to get climate moving?

>> Well, obviously.

Look, it goes without saying that critical principles and values are at risk and at stake in this.

It's not a small confrontation, in that regard.

So, obviously, I wouldn't call it distracting.

Will it consume a certain amount of focus?

Of course it will.

Should.

But the key is to remember here that Ukraine, one way or the other, we're gonna resolve it, ultimately, over X number of years.

But climate crisis remains existential, just as it was before the Ukraine crisis came up.

So if, in fact, President Putin decides to go into Ukraine, it's going to have monumental impact on the ability and willingness of people to do what's necessary because prices are going to go up on fuel.

The immediate response to economic stress is going to be trying to find the easiest way forward, and that's going to, unfortunately, inevitably, result in more fossil-fuel consumption.

So it could be very tough for the climate agenda.

There's no question about it.

And of course there's going to be pressure to fill the gap.

And that means that some of the choices we had available to us to try to follow through on Glasgow are going to be pinched.

No question about it.

But I think if leaders around the world stay focused, including, frankly, China and Russia -- Russia has a profound climate problem.

66% of Russian territory sits on top of what used to be frozen land, and the permafrost is now thawing.

Their Infrastructure and cities built up there is in trouble.

And their extractive infrastructure, the infrastructure with which they extract their gas, is also in trouble in places.

So, you know, President Putin really has a much bigger challenge facing him with regard to his own economy and his own long-term economic future for Russia, which, frankly, dwarfs, in my judgment, Ukraine, where he ought to be putting focus.

>> Historically, Putin, at these global summits on climate, is someone that has been oriented in both the denialist camp and also in the, "Well, look at all of the things that we can profit from."

We're gonna open up the Arctic.

We'll have resources.

Have you seen that change in recent years?

>> Yes, he is definitively, increasingly concerned about Siberia, about the tundra, about the fires they've had.

And he appointed a very capable team to negotiate going into Glasgow.

They understand they have a challenge, and they, I hope, are going to focus in on methane, which is particularly problematic, because as the tundra, as the -- as the northern part of Siberia and Russia thaws, massive amount of methane is going to be released, and that is damaging the whole world, including Russia.

>> Final question on Russia.

Over the course of the past month, your relationship, your engagement and your teams with the Russian climate envoy and them, changed at all or still kind of business as usual?

>> No, we've been able to stay on a pretty clear track.

The only problem is, Russia is not among the nations that has taken on ambition sufficient to the task.

And -- And Russia is one of the top emitters in the world.

Together with China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, some others, we have a big job to do to bring them on board.

And obviously many of us would far rather that we were -- that that was the battle in front of everybody here in Munich and elsewhere, rather than a rather retro kind of diversion that he has confronted the world with.

>> Sure, I mean... >> And that's very sad.

>> But there's nothing more 20th century than potentially putting tanks into Ukraine.

>> It's just so behind, in a sense, the times and the capacity we have to resolve these kinds of issues.

I believe President Biden and Secretary Blinken have put very sound and strong proposals to Russia, that if you really want to find a solution, you can.

And the issue is whether or not President Putin can see the wisdom of moving in a better and different direction.

>> Does it worry you that, in the opening of the Chinese Beijing Olympics, that Xi Jinping was talking to global leaders and saying, "Look, I don't think that the Americans are going to get there for net zero and 2050"?

>> Well, sure, it should concern everybody in the world.

And I think the meeting that President Putin had with President Xi produced a document which is unlike any readout of a head-of-state meeting that I've seen in the last 25, 30 years or more.

It's a very significant statement about their antipathy, their chafing under the liberal order of the West and their sense that America's best moments have come and gone.

They are genuinely attached to the narrative that this century will be the century of an authoritarian, different kind of governance.

And that clash does threaten the world.

That is a very serious misconception, I believe, on their part about the way forward by which we are all going to do better.

The United States of America remains very strong, very deep -- deep in our culture, deep in our business practices as the capacity to innovate and produce.

And whatever political problems we have today within the Congress or on the surface, very visible to everybody, we're not -- we're going to continue to be the most powerful economy for years to come.

We're going to continue to be able to break the barrier.

Just look at what we did with respect to vaccines when we put our mind to it.

Look at what we've done with respect to private enterprise in space and so forth.

>> So these leaders shouldn't be just paying attention to Washington, in other words.

>> I think that it's a mistake.

I think the American people have a unifying set of values that we don't feel particularly in the cacophony and the divisions of today.

But I think, deep down, threatened as a nation and threatened in a way of life, Americans will unite and come together, as we have in the past.

And we are to be reckoned with.

And I think that Russia -- I mean, look at Russian economy.

Russian economy is smaller than that of Spain.

The Russian economy doesn't really make very much.

There's a serious challenge in Russia with respect to young people leaving and not, you know, feeling they have a future.

You have to look underneath a lot of the surface noise and discern trend lines and have a sense of what's really happening.

My judgment is that the West has, frankly, been made stronger by what President Putin has done, and it has unified NATO, to some degree.

It's brought people together.

So now let's try to break down these sort of simplistic ways in which we kind of find the differences.

And climate is the perfect place to begin the process of proving we can cooperate together and of highlighting the very big, broad principles that should unite us.

>> So last question for you.

You said there are only so many things you can do in an administration.

That's true for President Biden.

It's true for Secretary Kerry.

If there's one -- I mean, there are hundreds of things that are priorities for climate right now, but if there's one big thing that would make you more optimistic that you could accomplish while you're in your position as special envoy for climate before the end of Biden's term, it would be what?

>> Raise the mitigation efforts of those 35% of the nations that are still hanging outside because they believe they are entitled to what they call carbon space, that you can use more carbon, despite what the science says, because you're owed it, because you haven't been developing for as long.

The truth is, you don't have to do that to develop.

You can develop and keep a balance to your energy base by deploying huge amounts of renewable while we develop the technologies that will leapfrog so that, at the end of the 10 years, when we have cut emissions by 50%, we still have the 1.5 degrees alive.

We still have below -- well below 2 degrees alive.

Currently, we're on a track to blow through 2 degrees, let alone 1.5.

So this is the urgency that people need to understand.

The promises are fine, but they don't get the job done.

It's the implementation that gets the job done.

>> John Kerry, you've got a lot of meetings to make that happen.

But thanks for kicking off Munich with me.

>> Thank you.

♪♪ >> Before we go, there's something else from Munich that I just have to tell you about.

Take a look at this.

♪♪ It's river surfing in the middle of the city in the dead of winter.

In fact, Germans do it all year round.

They're nuts.

That's the Eisbach River -- doesn't sound warm -- at a spot in Munich known as the English Gardens.

It has a standing wave about a meter high -- a little more than 3 feet, my American friends.

>> This wetsuit keeps you warm, but there's a point where, yeah, you get cold.

It doesn't matter if it's raining, snowing, or minus-10 degrees.

It's worth it.

>> Since the 1970s, surfers have come from all over the world to ride that wave.

They even host surfing competitions at the site.

I had no idea.

But be warned -- "eisbach" means "icy brook" in German.

It does sound that way, doesn't it?

And the average temperature of that water, about 50 degrees.

That's 10 Celsius.

♪♪ That's our show this week.

Come back next week, and if you like what you see or if you're just worried about global thermonuclear war, why don't you check us out on gzeromedia.com.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... And by...