Rubrika 10/3

1° EDIZIONE - 10 MARZO 2025

2
Mercoledì 5 Marzo 2025 Corriere della Sera
#
Primo piano La guerra in Europa
«Per il riarmo 800 miliardi»
Il piano di von der Leyen
No di Lega e M5S: bellicista. E Schlein: non è questa la strada. Venerdì summit con 5 Paesi extra Ue
La Germania
E Merz con la Spd
accantona il rigore:
via a fondi speciali
per gli investimenti
dalla nostra corrispondente a Berlino
Mara Gergolet
Friedrich Merz usa perfino le parole di
Mario Draghi: «Whatever it takes». E
detto da un rigorista come lui,
allergico al debito, spiega il passaggio
epocale che si appresta a fare la Germania.
La sua Cdu e i socialdemocratici si sono
messi d’accordo per uno straordinario
stimolo all’economia. Il prossimo governo
varerà un fondo speciale per le
infrastrutture dal valore di 500 miliardi in
10 anni e si prepara ad allentare il «freno al
debito» (la Schuldenbremse), scritto nella
costituzione, per le spese della difesa:
potranno superare a deficit l’1% del Pil.
Anche per gli investimenti militari, quindi,
Berlino metterà in campo centinaia di
miliardi. Si tratta, in sostanza, di un
doppio pacchetto monstre tra gli 800 e i
mille miliardi. È stata la prima conferenza
stampa dei negoziatori del nuovo governo.
Fianco a fianco, Friedrich Merz e il
presidente Spd Lars Klingbeil, entrambi
alti poco meno di 2 metri (così come il
bavarese Söder che completava in
quartetto con Saskia Esken, Spd) hanno
spiegato che l’intesa sulle finanze è molto
avanzata. L’inversione a U del cancelliere in
pectore, rispetto ai professati «dogmi» che
ha ereditato da Schäuble, hanno lasciato
tutti di stucco. Ma se la domenica sera
dopo le elezioni, Merz ha seppellito il forte
filo-atlantismo sostenendo che
probabilmente sulla sicurezza l’Europa
Trattativa Friedrich Merz (Cdu) e Lars Klingbeil (Spd)
dovrà diventare «autonoma» passo dopo
passo dagli Stati Uniti, ieri ha messo in
soffitta il pareggio di bilancio. In ogni caso
ha dimostrato di volersi muovere
velocemente. I dettagli si conosceranno
nei prossimi giorni. Siccome nel nuovo
Parlamento l’estrema destra AfD e la Linke
avranno la «minoranza di blocco» (che
consente loro di impedire le modifiche
costituzionali), l’allentamento della
Schuldenbremse per la difesa sarà votato
dal Parlamento uscente già la prossima
settimana. E con il sì dei Verdi dovrebbe
superare agevolmente il 66% dei voti
necessari. Le modifiche al freno al debito
sono state suggerite ieri anche dalla
Bundesbank. D’altra parte, la Germania ha
ampi margini fiscali, poiché Angela Merkel
ha lasciato le finanze in ordine con il
debito più basso tra i Paesi del G7 (poco
sopra al 60%). Merz quindi, oltre a usare le
parole dell’italiano Mario Draghi, si
prepara anche a imbracciare il doppio
bazooka. Berlino può trovare fondi per
riarmarsi ed è intenzionata a farlo.
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA
DALLA NOSTRA CORRISPONDENTE
BRUXELLES «La vera questione
che abbiamo di fronte è se
l’Europa è pronta ad agire con
la stessa decisione richiesta
dalla situazione, con la velocità
e l’ambizione necessarie».
La presidente della Commissione
europea Ursula von der
Leyen ha presentato ieri il piano
«ReArm Europe» che punta
a «mobilitare circa 800 miliardi
di euro per un’Europa
sicura e resiliente», ovviamente
«a stretto contatto con
i nostri partner nella Nato».
«Siamo in un’era di riarmo»,
ha detto von der Leyen.
Gli investimenti
Le spese per la difesa (% sul Pil)
2014 2024
Polonia
Estonia
Lettonia
Lituania
Finlandia
Danimarca
Regno Unito*
Romania
Bulgaria
Svezia
Germania
Ungheria
Rep. Ceca
Francia
Paesi Bassi
Slovacchia
Croazia
Portogallo
Italia
Belgio
Lussemburgo
Slovenia
Spagna
L’intervista
di Federico Fubini
2,41
2,37
2,33
2,25
2,18
2,14
2,12
2,11
2,1
2,06
2,05
2
1,81
1,55
3,43
3,15
2,85
4,12
1,49
Tetto minimo
1,3 di spesa indicato
1,29
dalla Nato
1,29
1,28
Il presidente lituano Gitanas
Nauseda, 60 anni, ha
visto ieri a Roma Giorgia
Meloni.
Dopo lo stop agli aiuti americani,
l’Europa da sola basta
a sostenere Kiev?
«Nel breve periodo, sì. Ma
alla lunga non credo che siamo
capaci di sostituire il ruolo
0 1 2 3 4 5
Il piano nel breve periodo
vuole mettere i Paesi Ue nella
condizione di «aumentare
notevolmente il loro sostegno
all’Ucraina», ora più urgente
che mai dopo la decisione
dell’amministrazione Trump
di sospendere gli aiuti a Kiev.
Nel medio-lungo termine il
piano punta a creare una difesa
europea, tenuto conto che
gli Stati Uniti non sono più intenzionati
a farsene carico.
La presidente von der
Leyen ha presentato il piano
nel giorno in cui lo ha anticipato
ai capi di Stato e di governo
dei Ventisette in una lettera
in vista del summit straordinario
di domani dedicato al
sostegno dell’Ucraina e ad accelerare
la creazione della difesa
comune. Ma se gli Stati
membri hanno espresso un
ampio apprezzamento sulle
proposte contenute nella lettera,
come è emerso ieri nella
riunione degli ambasciatori
presso la Ue, per quanto riguarda
il sostegno all’Ucraina
Ungheria e Slovacchia hanno
ribadito la loro contrarietà,
continuando a bloccare la
parte delle conclusioni del
Consiglio europeo su Kiev
(serve l’unanimità). Al summit
di domani la presidente
von der Leyen spiegherà ai
Leader
La presidente
della
Commissione
Ue Ursula
von der Leyen,
66 anni, ieri a
Bruxelles, per la
presentazione
del piano
da 800 miliardi
per la difesa
dell’Unione
europea
(Epa)
«Senza gli Stati Uniti
la Ue non è in grado
di garantire Kiev»
Il presidente lituano: Meloni può fare da ponte
degli Stati Uniti. Spero che al
Consiglio europeo (domani,
ndr) prenderemo tutte le decisioni
necessarie. Dobbiamo
smettere di essere un club di
discussioni e iniziare a essere
un club di decisioni. Anche se
uno o due Paesi sono contro,
credo che creeremo un pool di
risorse finanziarie; questo è
un momento assolutamente
cruciale della guerra».
Gli Stati Uniti puntano a un
accordo in tempi brevi...
«Per come la vediamo, finora
un accordo di pace rapido
non è possibile. L’Ucraina non
è disposta ad accettare una pace
a qualunque prezzo e credo
che abbia ragione. Ha sofferto
leader più nel dettaglio gli
elementi del piano per consentire
un dibattito il cui esito
troverà concretezza nel Libro
Bianco sulla Difesa, che sarà
presentato il 19 marzo. Inoltre
venerdì il presidente del Consiglio
europeo Costa, insieme
a von der Leyen e all’Alto rappresentante
Ue Kallas, farà il
punto della situazione in videocollegamento
con Regno
Unito, Norvegia, Islanda, Turchia
e Ucraina.
Il piano, in cinque punti,
vuole creare le condizioni
perché gli Stati membri aumentino
«rapidamente e significativamente
le spese per
molto in questi tre anni, ora
gli ucraini non devono vendere
la loro sovranità e integrità
territoriale per una quasi-pace
insostenibile».
Perché insostenibile?
«Perché non parliamo di un
cessate il fuoco di una o due
settimane, ma di garanzie di
lungo periodo e di fermare
l’aggressione. I russi non sono
pronti a stabilizzare la situazione,
sanno che si trovano in
posizione di forza».
Donald Trump sta svendendo
l’Ucraina ai russi?
«Non credo. Gli Stati Uniti
sono interessati a finalizzare
l’accordo sui minerali. Questa
potrebbe essere una garanzia
di sicurezza se non ce ne fossero
altre, perché diventerebbe
interesse americano mantenere
una presenza in Ucrai-

Corriere della Sera Mercoledì 5 Marzo 2025
PRIMO PIANO 3
#
le capacità di difesa», ha spiegato
von der Leyen. Gli strumenti
previsti non richiedono
decisioni all’unanimità, un
modo per consentire di muoversi
in fretta e soprattutto
per disinnescare eventuali veti
da parte del premier ungherese
Orbán, che ha ribadito il
suo allineamento a Trump e
oggi sarà a Parigi in visita da
Macron su invito dell’Eliseo.
Bruxelles proporrà a breve
di attivare la clausola di salvaguardia
nazionale del patto di
Stabilità in «modo coordinato»
per consentire di aumentare
significativamente le spese
per la difesa senza innescare
la procedura per i disavanzi
eccessivi. «Se gli Stati membri
aumentassero le loro spese
per la difesa dell’1,5% del Pil
— ha prospettato von der
Leyen —, ciò potrebbe creare
uno spazio fiscale di circa 650
miliardi di euro in un periodo
di quattro anni». La seconda
proposta è un nuovo strumento
che fornirà 150 miliardi
di prestiti ai Paesi Ue. La
Commissione andrà a prendere
i fondi sul mercato sul
modello Sure usato per il Covid.
L’obiettivo è «spendere
meglio e spendere insieme»
su progetti paneuropei come
la difesa aerea e missilistica,
sistemi di artiglieria, missili e
droni per munizioni e sistemi
anti-drone. Il terzo punto prevede
di usare programmi della
politica di coesione (destinati
normalmente a ridurre le
disparità di sviluppo tra le regioni
europee) per la difesa. Il
quarto punto riguarda l’ampliamento
delle capacità di
manovra della Banca europea
degli investimenti (Bei) e il
quinto il completamento dell’Unione
dei risparmi per liberare
gli investimenti privati.
Il piano, dunque, si basa su
un maggiore indebitamento
da parte dei Paesi Ue. Contraria
la Lega che parla di «deriva
bellicista». Per la segretaria
del Pd Schlein «non è la strada
che serve all’Europa. All’Ue
serve la difesa comune, non il
riarmo nazionale». E il leader
del M5S Conte la definisce
una «furia bellicista».
Francesca Basso
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA
Proporremo
di attivare la clausola
di sospensione
nazionale del patto
di Stabilità se i Paesi
aumenteranno
mediamente
le spese per la difesa
Per 1,5 punti di Pil
avremmo 650
miliardi in 4 anni
Il retroscena
di Marco Galluzzo
ROMA Nel governo, a Palazzo
Chigi come al ministero della
Difesa, applaudono le comunicazioni
arrivate da Bruxelles.
Ma lo fanno sottovoce, e
dunque senza alcun commento
ufficiale, perché come
sempre Giorgia Meloni deve
contemperare due linee diverse:
se Antonio Tajani
esprime soddisfazione per
una scelta che va «nel solco
del Ppe e di quanto voleva il
presidente Berlusconi, il sogno
di De Gasperi», per Matteo
Salvini invece l’annuncio
europeo è qualcosa di sbagliato,
«sembra che possiamo
fare debito comune solo
per armarci, e non per le
scuole o la sanità».
Insomma nel governo ci
sono almeno due posizioni
politiche, che ieri sera hanno
avuto modo di confrontarsi
in un vertice a Palazzo Chigi
fra la premier e i suoi due vice.
Un vertice da cui non è
trapelato nulla di ufficiale,
ma che sembra sia servito alla
premier per ribadire almeno
due concetti diretti a Salvini.
Primo, non ci si può dividere
su una materia tanto
delicata e soprattutto in questo
momento. Il secondo,
stando a quel che si raccoglie
da fonti di governo, è una
precisazione quasi di natura
gerarchica: «Sono io che decido
le politiche europee e di
difesa — avrebbe rivendicato
Meloni — e non ho nessuna
intenzione di aprire trattative
interne alla maggioranza su
obiettivi che da anni l’Italia
chiede e sta ottenendo». Un
modo per avvertire Salvini
che non ci sono spazi politici
per divisioni o per aprire una
gestione collegiale di un dossier
che si ritiene faccia capo
al presidente del consiglio.
Ma nel vertice sono stati
discussi anche i dati, e i numeri
che fra i palazzi della
politica cominciano a essere
oggetto di ragionamento. In
sostanza nei prossimi mesi,
Meloni convoca i vice
e avverte Salvini:
decido io le politiche
su Europa e difesa
Per l’Italia possibile arrivare fino a 50 miliardi di spesa
certamente nell’arco del
prossimo anno, Giorgia Meloni
potrebbe trovarsi a gestire
non meno di 40 miliardi di
euro di investimenti nella Difesa
italiana. Ma l’asticella
potrebbe anche superare i 50
miliardi se tutti i dispostivi
che la Comunità europea sta
definendo verranno usati da
Roma. Sono cifre molto grosse
per il bilancio italiano,
sempre costretto a contorsioni
contabili per trovare un
minimo di risorse in investimenti
ritenuti strategici. Sono
circa 22 miliardi di euro
gli investimenti in più se Palazzo
Chigi deciderà di salire
nella spesa militare dall’attuale
1,5%% sul Pil al 2,5%. Sono
33 se — come ha suggerito
ieri Ursula von der Leyen
— tutti e 27 gli Stati della Ue
dovessero arrivare al 3% delle
spese militari sul Pil.
A questa somma, che sarà
scomputabile dal patto di
Stabilità ma andrà restituita
in un arco pluriennale, si aggiungerà
la quota dei 150 miliardi
di risorse finanziarie
che Bruxelles nel breve periodo
ha deciso di reperire sul
mercato: il 12 % di questa cifra,
la percentuale del nostro
contributo al bilancio europeo,
fa 18 miliardi di euro.
Che potranno essere spesi
Il governo
La premier: obiettivi
che chiediamo da anni
L’opposizione protesta:
subito in Aula
nella ricostituzione dei magazzini,
nell’acquisto di nuova
e moderna artiglieria e sistemi
antimissile, nel programma
che secondo Guido
Crosetto è indispensabile, e
cioè avere una dotazione cospicua
e moderna di carri armati
così come di unità navali
capaci di coprire i quadranti
che oggi la nostra Marina
militare fatica a presidiare.
Insomma andranno prese
decisioni politiche di un certo
rilievo, e anche in fretta, e
da parte di un Paese che da
anni chiede le misure appena
arrivate da Bruxelles. Ma non
è detto che giunti al dunque
non prevalgano cautele legate
al consenso e alla popolarità
di queste misure.
Tutto questo mentre le opposizioni
chiedono che Giorgia
Meloni riferisca in Parlamento
prima di domani,
quando si svolgerà un Consiglio
europeo di un giorno,
che precederà quello formale
del 20 e 21 marzo. Ma Meloni
ha deciso che interverrà alla
Camera e al Senato solo alla
vigilia del secondo Consiglio
di marzo, scatenando la protesta
delle opposizioni.
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA
na. Gli Stati Uniti dicono che
non vogliono lunghe discussioni,
senza risultati chiari».
E i russi chiedono che siano
tolte le sanzioni, in cambio di
un cessate il fuoco?
«Sicuro. Vorrebbero che
fossero tolte quelle americane.
Certo questo non deve influenzare
Londra e l’Unione
europea, in questa fase della
guerra sarebbe imperdonabile.
Al contrario, noi dobbiamo
rafforzare le sanzioni».
Lei si aspetta un breve cessate
il fuoco con il ritiro di alcune
sanzioni americane?
«Un breve cessate il fuoco
forse è possibile, ma cosa porterebbe
all’Ucraina? Qualche
giorno di sollievo? Dobbiamo
preservare questa pace o tregua
lunga. E senza una forza di
mantenimento o imposizione
I rapporti
La relazione speciale
della vostra premier con
Washington è preziosa
per l’Unione europea
della pace, senza la rete di sicurezza
degli Stati Uniti, credo
che dovremmo essere onesti
con noi stessi e dire che l’Europa
non è pronta da sola a fornire
le garanzie di sicurezza. È
la triste realtà».
Perché non è pronta?
«Perché la frontiera è molto
lunga, servono almeno 100 mila
soldati. Oggi noi europei ne
possiamo dare 20 mila, 30 mila,
forse 40 mila se stiamo insieme
e troviamo un consenso
nell’Unione. Ma la Russia sarà
molto interessata a violare il
cessate il fuoco, se non avremo
dietro il sostegno dell’America.
Questo è il problema.
In caso di violazione, se c’è
un incidente, se un soldato
viene ucciso, ci sarebbero ripercussioni
politiche enormi.
Dunque non credo a questo
scenario».
Un vero cessate il fuoco resta
difficile?
«Potrebbe essere persino
impossibile. L’esito più realistico
è che la guerra continui.
Gli ucraini combatteranno,
perché non vedono una fine a
un prezzo accettabile. Ma io
spero che gli Stati Uniti vogliano
tornare al tavolo. So che Volodymyr
Zelensky ha molto
Palazzo Chigi Giorgia Meloni, ieri, con il presidente lituano Gitanas Nauseda
desiderio di continuare a discutere
di tutto con gli Stati
Uniti. È pronto a tornare a
Washington e spero che accada
nel giro di qualche giorno o
almeno di settimane».
Kiev e Washington si stanno
parlando?
«Sempre. Non fra presidenti
ma al livello inferiore. I contatti
ci sono. Ho parlato con
Zelensky ieri (il 3 marzo, ndr)
e mi ha detto che prevedeva
contatti fra consiglieri oggi (4
marzo, ndr)».
Le è chiaro com’è composto
il pacchetto per la Difesa da
800 miliardi annunciato da
Ursula von der Leyen?
«Nessuno l’ha capito bene,
ma spero che avremo la risposta
al Consiglio europeo giovedì
(domani, ndr). Ci sono elementi
diversi».
Lei è per una confisca delle
riserve di Mosca, se la Russia
violasse un cessate il fuoco?
«Lo sono anche senza neanche
attendere una violazione».
Meloni può davvero fare da
ponte fra Europa e Stati Uniti?
«Le ho detto che la sua relazione
speciale con gli Stati
Uniti è preziosa per l’Unione
europea. Le dà incisività e una
possibilità di avere un impatto
maggiore sulle scelte degli
americani. Anche se non possiamo
cambiare subito le loro
posizioni, avere questo ponte
emotivo e politico con l’America
ha molto valore».
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA

How the United States turned
the world economy into a
battlefield
By weaponizing the global economy, the U.S. initiated a new era of
economic warfare and transformed how major powers compete
Kevin Dickinson - March 6, 2025
W
e’ve all experienced
the illusion of
knowledge. This
cognitive bias leads us to walk around
overconfident in the depth of our
understanding of how the world
works. We believe we know how
zippers zip, the internet connects, and
local politics work until someone asks
us to explain. We then suddenly find
ourselves fumbling for an answer that
sounds plausible.
This happened to me last year when
my son asked me to explain sanctions.
I’ve been reading about them in the
news for most of my adult life.
Sanctions imposed on Iran to ice its
nuclear program. Sanctions on Russia
for invading Crimea. Sanctions on
Venezuela for anti-democratic
corruption. The list goes on, yet I
barely stammered a respectable
answer: “They’re economic penalties
placed on a country to compel it to
change something. I think they mostly
have to do with the oil. So boats are
probably involved … somehow. Maybe
pipelines, too.”
Okay, not exactly respectable, and
truth be told, I left out the more
embarrassing fumbles. Still, we don’t
know what we don’t know until we
know, you know? Thankfully, a good
book provides a brilliant way to dispel
the illusion of knowledge, so when I
was given the chance to read Edward
Fishman’s new book, Chokepoints:
American Power in the Age of Economic
Warfare, I took it.
Fishman’s book tells the story of how
the United States turned the world
economy into a battlefield by
developing the economic weapons
necessary to win international
struggles before they expand into
shooting wars. A leading authority in
economic statecraft, Fishman works
today as a professor at Columbia
University’s School of International
and Public Affairs; however, earlier in
his career, he worked at the U.S.
Treasury Department as a special
assistant to the Under Secretary for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
at a time when the new rules for
economic engagement were being
written.
After reading his book, I sat down to
talk with Fishman about this new age
of economic warfare and what it
means in our increasingly fractured,
yet still globalized, world.
ECONOMIC
WARFARE FROM
BOSPHORUS TO
BAGHDAD
I
n defense of my stammerings,
Fishman’s book opens with a
boat. Many, in fact, all waging
war across the 5th-century Aegean
Sea. The skirmish pitted Athens
against their Spartan rivals and
marked the decisive moment in the
27-year-long Peloponnesian War.
With backing from the Persian
Empire, which saw Athens as a
mutual adversary, the Spartan leader
Lysander constructed an armada large
enough to destroy the ostensibly
invincible Athenian navy. He then
sailed victoriously to Lampsacus, a
city strategically located on the
Bosporus Strait. There, he seized the
city and cut Athens off from the trade
routes it relied on for its food supplies.
“The Bosphorus had been the
Athenian’s lifeline, and the Bosphorus
was where their empire met its
demise,” Fishman writes.
The strait proved to be a chokepoint
for the ancient Greek city-state — an
economic gateway so critical that, as
Fishman notes, “controlling it confers
immense power” while “blocking it
can bring your enemy to its knees.”
Such chokepoints not only inspired
Fishman’s title; they also served as the
focal points of economic warfare for
millennia. The Siege of Tripoli in the
12th century, Great Britain’s blockade
of its rebellious colonies in the 18th
century, the Union’s blockade of the
rebellious South in the 19th century,
and German U-boats prowling the
Atlantic in the 20th century, all
represent attempts to locate and
squeeze a rival’s chokepoints in times
of war.
And that’s how economic warfare
went even up to the 1990s. To enforce
international sanctions against Iraq
for its invasion of Kuwait, U.N.
coalition ships parked outside the
country’s ports. For 13 lengthy and
costly years, crews painstakingly
inspected ships for banned goods. The
most significant strategic update:
Unlike in Lysander’s days,
enforcement involved fines and
impoundments rather than public
executions in the city square.
As with so much else, everything
changed after the 9/11 attacks. Iran’s
efforts to develop a nuclear bomb
stoked fears in Washington, yet the
U.S. had already launched wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The prolonged
conflicts stretched the country’s
willingness to enter another
battlezone thin — and its credibility
thinner after its justifications for Iraq
proved unfounded. Meanwhile, Iran
was getting closer to its goal.
“America was the most powerful
country in the world, but here we
were fighting these wars that were
costing a lot of blood and treasure, but
we didn’t have much to show for it,”
Fishman said during our conversation.
The prevailing question in some
Washington circles became: “Is there
another way for the U.S. to exercise its
power and potentially get what it
wants more effectively, cheaper, and
less violently around the world?”

THE IRON BANK OF
DAVOS
E
nter Stuart Levey, a lawyer at
the Justice Department who
would go on to become the
Treasury Department’s first
undersecretary for terrorism and
financial intelligence. Levey
recognized that the 60 years since
World War II had left the U.S. in a
historically remarkable position. Its
dollar had become the world’s reserve
currency and the lifeblood of global
trade. That and a lack of equally
powerful geopolitical rivals gave the
U.S. immense economic sway.
In hindsight, Levey’s plan seems
obvious. The U.S. would go beyond
sanctioning a few visas here and
embargoing a specific export there.
The country would also persuade the
world’s banks to cease their business
with Iran. CEOs would be shown
declassified information about how
Iran funded its nuclear program and
terrorist proxies. They would then be
given a choice: Cut ties with Iran or
lose access to the all-important
American dollar. The endgame was to
isolate Iran from the international
financial system and weaken the
country’s economy. If enough
economic pain accumulated, Iran
would be compelled to negotiate
without a single shot fired.
As Fishman writes: “Trying to
navigate the global economy without
access to the dollar is like trying to
travel the world without a passport.
[…] The dollar’s importance in the
global economy gave the United
States a chokepoint of unparalleled
strategy value.”
Of course, enlisting the private sector
and other countries to support Levey’s
plan would be no simple task. From
this jumping-off point, Fishman’s
book begins in earnest — though not
in the way you might expect. His is no
cold financial analysis nor a whittling
down of the history to shape a clear
moral lesson. Instead, Fishman
chronicles the pivotal moments in this
new era of economic warfare — from
the Iranian sanctions to those
imposed on Russia for its invasion of
Crimea and the technological freezeout
of Huawei — by following the
public servants who built America’s
economic arsenal.
Yes, the odd graph makes an
appearance (you get the sense talking
with Fishman that he isn’t one to say
no to a curvaceous area chart). But it’s
the people behind the scenes who take
center stage. The book even features a
cast of characters that wouldn’t feel
out of place in the appendix of a
George R.R. Martin novel. It’s a
welcomed inclusion given how many
people come in and out of the various
stories.
Readers explore this history through
the eyes of people like Levey, David
Cohen, and Daleep Singh. Thanks to
Fishman’s thorough research and
personal interviews, readers
experience the dismay of an emerging
complication, the relief of a longdelayed
victory, or the frustration of a
thwarted plan. These details create
the atmosphere of a backroom
political thriller without tipping into
full-on drama. It remains a history
book to its core.
Through this narrative choice,
Fishman aims to demystify the
confusion surrounding our new age of
economic warfare for a wider
audience. A more traditional analysis
may give readers the knowledge to
pass a multiple-choice test on these
events. However, Fishman doesn’t
want his readers to merely know the
history of this new economic arsenal.
He wants them to understand the
people who built it and why they
made the decisions that led history to
play out as it did.
“It is very easy to go back and look at
something that happened 10 years ago
and say, “Oh, they were so stupid,’”
Fishman says. “But the key thing is
empathy. You want to understand
what people knew at the time and the
different competing pressures they
were under. I thought that was the
best way to tell the story in an
accurate and engaging way.”
A POOR STATESMAN
WHO BLAMES HIS
TOOLS
F
ishman is no polemicist,
though. His goal isn’t to paint
the U.S.’s economic arsenal as
the savior of the free world nor as the
smoking gun of an overreaching police
state. He treats them as policy tools,
pure and simple. Used wisely, they
can prevent conflict from escalating
into a war or humanitarian crisis.
Used carelessly, the same tools can
intensify international strife and
weaken the case for bargaining.
To help me better understand the
nuances, I asked Fishman what he
considers an effective sanction versus
an ineffective one. For him, the Iranian
sanctions (2005–15) demonstrate
economic warfare at its best. The goal
wasn’t “economic pain for pain’s sake”
but to target the precise pressure
points that would successfully
translate into diplomatic gains and
eased tension.
“By the time Iran held a presidential
election in 2013, their economy was
reeling from these sanctions, and they
effectively elected a president whose
platform was, ‘We need to get the
sanctions lifted.’ That led to [an
interim] deal in late 2013 to freeze
Iran’s nuclear program. This program,
which had been inexorably advancing

for almost a decade, is frozen without
military force or a single loss of life in
the United States.”
The Iran deal showed that sanctions
could work and work effectively,
ushering in what Fishman calls the
“new age of economic warfare.” Over
the last 25 years, each administration,
Democrat and Republican, has
roughly doubled the amount of
sanctions as its predecessor. And if the
first month of the second Trump
administration is any clue, it may be
more than double again by the time
the next administration rolls in.
“You got a situation where officials at
the Treasury or State Departments
could sign a few documents and
impose sanctions that were much
more dramatic and impactful than
when you used to park a ship outside
someone’s port,” Fishman says. “It
both supercharged the impact of
sanctions while lowering the barriers
to using them.”
Low barriers made applying unwise
sanctions, including those imposed
during the Venezuela crisis, easier.
These sanctions began through
congressional legislation during the
late Obama administration and
escalated during the early Trump
years. The goal seemed to be
repurposing the economic weapons
used successfully against Iran and
Russia to punish President Nicolás
Maduro for his corrupt regime and
violating human rights. To be sure,
Maduro is an authoritarian. He has
been accused of stealing elections,
committing crimes against humanity,
and pursuing policies that have
worsened the country’s already
fraught economic troubles. However,
sanctions have proven an ineffective
tool for initiating regime change. As
Fishman points out, leaders cut from
such a cloth “are not going to commit
political suicide to obtain sanctions
relief for their people.” Instead, most
of the blowback was felt by the very
people Maduro oppresses, which only
intensified the humanitarian crisis by
further impoverishing the general
population and arguably
strengthening Maduro’s dictatorial
grip.
“That’s when you run into real
problems with sanctions: economic
pain devoid of any realizable political
objective,” Fishman adds.
BIG STICK-AND-
CARROT IDEOLOGY
F
ishman’s other hope for the
book is to give readers the
knowledge necessary to
dispel their illusions and discuss these
issues reasonably. That’s important
because this new age of economic
warfare won’t end soon. It’s just
getting started, and as the last
American election cycle made clear,
things like sanctions, tariffs, and
export controls will be at the forefront
of foreign policy.
“This is how great powers compete
today,” Fishman says. “It’s not just the
United States using these tools; it’s
adversaries like China and Russia, and
our allies like Europe and Japan. It’s
paramount that we understand these
tools because they are only going to
become more important in the years
ahead.”
Looking toward those years, I asked
Fishman what might be in store as we
leave the kumbaya geopolitics of the
1990s behind us. He envisions two
potential scenarios.
In the first, the United States
strengthened its relationships with its
closest allies: Canada, Mexico, Japan,
and the European Union. Although
the world economy has become far
less globalized, integration remains
vital. This future requires tending
economic carrots to go along with our
sanction sticks, and on that front,
Fishman sees mixed signals.
The current Trump administration
has proposed creating a sovereign
wealth fundand supporting the
country’s International Development
Finance Corporation. However, the
same administration has paused
foreign aid and has gutted the Agency
for
International
Development (USAID). That’s
worrisome because not just economic
weapons win wars before they begin.
Disaster relief, development
assistance, trade agreements, and
environmental protections also help
keep other states from tipping toward
disaster while spreading diplomacy
and American soft power.
This is the very reason President John
F. Kennedy gave for creating USAID.
As he said in 1962: “The people who
are opposed to AID should realize that
this is a very powerful source of
strength for us. It permits us to exert
influence for the maintenance of
freedom. If we were not so heavily
involved, our voice would not speak
with such vigor. And as we do not
want to send American troops to a
great many areas where freedom may
be under attack, we send you.”
It’s the second scenario that keeps
Fishman up at night. Policymakers
continue to “shoot from the hip” and
use their economic arsenal to respond
haphazardly and shortsightedly to
crises without strategic planning. In
this future, mistakes will pile up,
tensions will escalate, and
competition will spill out from the
backrooms and spreadsheets.
“I worry about this not just for the
economic reasons, and I think there
would be significant inflation,
unemployment, and economic pain,”
Fishman says. “But I worry about it for
the broader geopolitical ramifications
because, as history has shown, if
states can’t secure markets and
resources through free trade, the
temptation of conquest and
imperialism will rise. I worry that
today’s economic wars could become
tomorrow’s shooting wars.”

Google is adding more AI
Overviews and a new ‘AI Mode’
to Search
Like it or not, AI Overviews are part of the future
of Google.
David Pierce – March 5, 2025
T
he AI-ification of Google
Search continues to
accelerate: the company
announced on Wednesday that it will
start showing AI Overviews for even
more kinds of queries, and that users
around the world, even those who are
logged out of Google, will start seeing
them too.
There’s an even more ambitious AI
search tool coming to Google, too. It’s
called AI Mode, and it brings a searchcentric
chatbot right to the core
Google experience. It is, more or less,
Google’s take on Perplexity
or ChatGPT Search. For now, AI
Mode is just a test — it’s only
available to users paying for Google
One AI Premium, and even they will
have to enable it in the Labs section of
Search.
The idea behind AI Mode is that a lot
of people searching Google would
actually prefer to have their results be
primarily AI-generated. If you switch
to AI Mode (it’s a tab in the search
page or the Google app, like Images or
News) and enter a query, you’ll get
back a generated answer, based on
everything in Google’s search index,
with a few supporting links
interspersed throughout. The user
experience feels a little like Gemini or
any other chatbot, but you’re
interacting with a Search-specific
model, which means it’s more able to
tap real-time data and interact
directly with the web.
A
I Mode is just the latest
signal of just how important
AI-generated content has
become to Google Search, and how
confident the company is becoming in
what its models can deliver despite its
well-documented issues with rock
eating and glue pizza. “What we’re
finding from people who are using AI
Overviews is that they’re really
bringing different
kinds of questions to Google,” says
Robby Stein, a VP of product on the
Search team. “They’re more complex
questions, that may have been a little
bit harder before.” Google is bringing
the Gemini 2.0 model to AI
Overviews, and Stein says that will
make Google more useful for
questions about math, coding, and
anything that requires more
sophisticated reasoning.
As Google moves ever deeper into AI
search, it seems to be running away
from linking to websites — and the
fundamental value trade it made with
the internet. Stein is adamant that’s
not the case. “We see that with AI
Overviews, people will get the
context, and they’ll click in. And when
they click in and go to websites, they’ll
stay longer on those websites. They’re
probably better customers of those
websites because they already have
context coming in.” He says he hopes
AI Overviews and AI Mode bring new
people to Google for new things,
rather than cannibalizing their
existing behavior.
Stein says that AI Mode isn’t a Trojan
horse for a complete search overhaul,
because people use Google for too
many things to replace it all with a
chatbot. But there’s no denying that
Google’s AI efforts are starting to
completely surround, and quickly
change, everything about what
happens when you Google.

s
IPISI
ttttt
ttttttt
SssssssssSss
sssssssssssssssssssLss
ILL
6
è
è Bè
tè
è è
èèè
è
èèèi
èèèèè
è
èèèè
èèèèièè
èèèè
è
èèèèè
èè
èèè
aèèèèè
èèèèè
èèè
èèè
èèè
èièèè
èè
èèè
èèèè
èè
èè
èèèiè
Mèèèè
è
tè
èè
èèè
èè
Mèèèè
è
èè
èèèè
èèèè
èiè è è
èiè
aMèè
AMèA
è è i
è
èèèè
è
èèèèèè
èèè
è
èt
iPL
èèè
èè-iè
èè
è
èèèè
è
èèèè
èè
èè
tt
tè
èèèè
èiè
èèèè
è è
èèè
èMè
èèè
èè
èè
èèèM
èè
èèièè
èè è è è
è
ètè
èè
è
èè
èèèè
èè
èè
è èè
èèè
èè
è è è
èèèè
èèèI
ièèèè
è
èèè
èèè
èèèè
èèè
èè
èt
èèèè
èèè
èè
èèèèè
èèèè
èèè
èè
èèèèè
èè
è
èèè
èè
èèèè
èè è
èè
èè
èèèè
èèèèè
è
è
èMèè
è
ièt
èèè
èèèè
èè
ttt
èèèè
èè
èèèè
èè
èè èè è
èèè
èèèè
èèièè
èè
èèè
èèè
èè
èèM
è
ièèè
a
Mèèèèè
èèèè
è
è
èèè
èè
èèèè
èè
è A
èè è AM
èBè
èèèèè
èè-è
èètèè
èè
èèè
èèè
è
è
èèèiè
èèèèèè
èèè
èèèèèèè
Mèè
-èè
èèèèèè
èèè«èèè
aèèè
è
èèè
è
èèaèèè
èèèèè
èèè
èè
è è i
èèèè
ètè
èèèè
èAè
èèè
è
è
IFISILIP
LPISPPIP
tt
t
IP
«èè
è
è-èAè
èèaèè
èèèè
è
èèèèè
èèèèèè
èèèè
èèè-èè
èè
èèè
èèè
èèèèè
è
èèèè
;èèèèèè
è-èiè
èèèè
èèèèè
èèèèè
èèèè
èè
èèè
è
èè
èèè
èèè
èèèèè
è
è
BèBB
èèèèèè
èèèèè
èèèèèè
èèaè
èèè
aèè
èèèè
èèèè
èèèèAèè
èè
MMèèiè
èè
èèèèè
ièèèè
èèè
èèèAè
èè
èèèèè
èè
èBèè
aèèèèèè
èèè
èèè
B
èèè
Bèèèè
èè
èèè
èèèèè
è
èèè
èè
èè
èè
èèè
èèè
Mèèèèè
èè
èèèè
èèèè
è èè è
èè
èèè
èè
a
è è èè
Aèè
è
èèèè
èèèè
èèèè
è
èèè
èè
èè
è
èèè
è
èèèèè
èèèèè
èè
èè
èèèèè
èèèèèè
èè
Mèèè
è è è
èèè
èèèè
èè
è
èè
è
èèè
èèè
èèèè
èèAè
è èèè
èèèèè
èèèèè
è
èBèè
èèèèèè
èèèè
èèè
èèè
èèèèè
èèèèè
èè
è
IFISILIP

LI I
2
GHOOD
XDQ
WLOL
VFRD
GLGH
UWROD
RSHU
RQWD
HVD
UQL
UWLFH
ME
.LHY
RJD
GHQ
FRQ
SLH
ORJR
DWWL
LUFD
HDU
ORF
LWHQ
LDGL
DUQH
DUWL
ORH
LRQH
PHU
EEOL
XOOD
OHGu
HQ
XQWL
WUD
DGL
QYLR
NHH
LDWR
ncplnccGlih
moictcihcpihnlimc
inmcnlocOlccfaiplicpcilnifiglnclc
GficaltcOmoafccpmncgncmooncpiAigill
G
,1,2%58;(//(6
DUWHGuPDURO,
WDOLDVDUjDOSULPR
YHUWLFHGHOODFRD
OLLRQHGHLYROHQWH
URVLSHUO8FUDLQDODQFLDWDGD
(PPDQXHO0DFURQOODYLJL
OLDGHORQVLJOLRHXURSHRFRQ
YRFDWRLQULXQLRQHVWUDRUGLQD
ULDD%UXHOOHVLOSUHVLGHQWH
IUDQFHVHSDUODQGRDOODQDLR
QHDYHYDDQQXQFLDWRFKHSHU
ODSURVVLPDVHWWLPDQDDYUHEEH
ULXQLWRD3DULJLLFDSLGL6WDWR
PDJJLRUHGHL3DHVLFKHGHVLGH
UDQRDVVXPHUVLOHSURSULHUH
VSRQVDELOLWj
8QDFKLDPDWDFROOHWWLYDLQ
GLIHVDGHOO(XURSDGDFXLLRU
JLD0HORQLDYUHEEHSRWXWRVIL
ODUVLVHDYHVVHFRQIHUPDWRODOL
QHDGLFKLQHOJRYHUQRQRQYXR
OHVHQWLUHSDUODUHGLWUXSSHGLSD
FHLQ8FUDLQD0DODSUHPLHU
QRQORKDIDWWR)RQWLXIILFLDOL
GHOPLQLVWHURGHOODLIHVDFRQ
IHUPDQRDSFKHLOD
SRGL6WDWR0DJJLRUHLOJHQHUD
OH/XFLDQR3RUWRODQRVDUjQHOOD
FDSLWDOHIUDQFHVHSHUDIIURQWD
UHDVVLHPHDLFROOHJKLWXWWLLSRV
VLELOLVFHQDULVXOODFRVWUXLRQH
GLXQDUFKLWHWWXUDGLGHWHUUHQ
DHXURSHDFRPSUHVRLOGLVSLH
JDPHQWRGLIRUHPLOLWDULSHUJD
UDQWLUHXQWUDWWDWRGLSDFH/,WD
OLDVSLQJHSHUFKpTXDOVLDVLPLV
VLRQHDYYHQJDVRWWRORPEUHOOR
GHOO2QXFRQXQDULVROXLRQH
DORQVLJOLRGLVLFXUHDYRWDWD
DQFKHGDOOD5XVVLD
/HSHUSOHVVLWjFKH0HORQLKD
HVSUHVVRVXOWHPDQHLJLRUQL
VFRUVLUHVWDQRPDSLFKHDO
WURULIHULWHDWHPSLPRGLH
FRPHVHPSUHDOUXRORGDSUR
WDJRQLVWDFKH0DFURQVLqULWD
JOLDWRSUHQGHQGROLQLLDWLYDH
LPSULPHQGRTXHVWDDFFHOHUD
LRQHTXDQWRVSLHJDDOWHUPL
QHGHOOHXURVXPPLWD%UXHO
OHVSULPDGHOODFHQDFRQJOLDO
WULOHDGHU6LSDUODGLWUXSSH
HXURSHHQRQEHQLGHQWLILFDWH
XQDVROXLRQHFRPSOHVVD
8QDSDFHJLXVWDKDELVRJQRGL
JDUDQLHGLVLFXUHDFHUWHH
TXHVWHVLWURYDQRDOOLQWHUQR
GHOOD1DWR
0HORQLHVFOXGHFKHLQTXH
VWRTXDGURSRVVDQRHVVHUHLQ
YLDWLVROGDWLLWDOLDQLPDSUHFL
VDOWURGLVFRUVRVRQROHPLV
VLRQLGLSHDFHNHHSLQJDQFKH
VHQRQPLVHPEUDVLDODSURSR
VWDGLFXLVLVWDSDUODQGR,Q
UHDOWjLHULODXUFKLDFKHKDLO
VHFRQGRHVHUFLWRSHUJUDQGH
DDOOLQWHUQRGHOOD1DWRKDGD
WRGLVSRQLELOLWjDOOLQYLRGLVRO
GDWL VHFRQGR TXHVWH UHJROH
GLQJDJJLR
0HORQLLQVLVWHVXOODFRUQLFH
1DWRFRPHFRSHUWXUDQHFHVVD
ULDDGLIHVDGHOO8FUDLQDHGHL
FRQILQL HXURSHL (VWHQGHUH
ODUWLFRORD.LHYVHQDLOVXR
LQJUHVVRQHOOOOHDQDGDUHE
EHTXHOODJDUDQLDGLVLFXUHD
VWDELOHHGXUDWXUDFKHLRDXVSL
FR0DELVRJQHUjFRQYLQFHUH
RQDOGUXPSSHUFKpLOSUHVL
GHQWHDPHULFDQRDOPRPHQWR
QRQKDGDWRLOVXRYLDOLEHUDH
ESPPEJIE
VIMIV1ISMSM
VIWMIIVIWI1VS
L
Mfchihnlicfchi
gcflmicfcmnc
hihfmaoihi
OOKOLQLQLOSQR
GDDQLDOLDOULODGUVR
LDOLVLPDQRQULVD
SRUDUOLVOODVDOLQDIRU
PQ ULLD UVR LO
SLDQRGLULDUPRURSR
OODULQLRQRQLOSU
PLUVSDQRORDQKLO
SRURKV QRQLR &R
VDSUVLGQGO&RQVL
OLR URSROL DOUL
VSRQQLSURUVVLVLOD
VUDULDGLQDVVDGL
IDRVRORQQRRQGLL
VRDOOLOLRGLIRQGLGL
RVLRQSUOVSVPLOL
DULOUDGDOQGL
KLDUDLRQL GL SULQLSLR
VOODQVVLGLDQGDU
UVRQDGLIVDRPQ
0DDOGLOGOODSDURO
ORULQDPQRGOODIDPL
OLDVRLDOLVDULPDQGL
VRVDQLDODSSRLRDOOD
SURSRVD GL RQ GU
QULQRQSULPR
SDVVRLPSRUDQ
RQDDVRLQVGGL&RQ
VLOLRURSRLDSLGLR
UQRVRLDOLVLRDQRD
IDRUGOSLDQRODSUVL
GQ GOUSSRSDUOD
PQDUODVSDQROD
DULDUIDDSLUK
ODLDPQRVDUU
VSRQVDELOQRQGLRQ
UDSSRVLLRQKOLQLO
SR GOOD GODLRQ
GPDUOOVKDOL
IDULIULPQRGRUDQQR
IDUVQQDUDLRQ
k27
,,0
ODUWLFRORGHOUDWWDWRFKH
LPSRQHLOVRFFRUVRLPPHGLDWR
GHL3DHVLPHPEULLQFDVRGLDJ
JUHVVLRQHDOPRPHQWRYDOHVR
ORSHUFKLqJLjGHQWURLO3DWWR
DWODQWLFR
%UXHOOHV0HORQLVHPEUD
DYHUDEEDQGRQDWRLWRQLFDXWL
GHOOHXOWLPHVHWWLPDQHHPHUVL
GRSRODUULYRGLUXPSDOODD
VD%LDQFD3HUTXHVWRDEELD
PRFRPEDWWXWRGLFHXQDSUL
PDSHUVRQDSOXUDOHFKHULDOODF
FLDLGHVWLQLGL,WDOLD(XURSDH
8FUDLQD0DVWDQGRDIRQWLGL
SORPDWLFKH DYUHEEH DQFKH
VSLQWRSHUXQJHVWRDIDYRUHGHO
SUHVLGHQWH8VDFKLHGHQGRGL
LQVHULUHQHOOHFRQFOXVLRQLXQUL
FRQRVFLPHQWRGHLVXRLVIRUL
SHUODSDFHPDVHQDVXFFHV
VR/DOHDGHUUHDJLVFHHYRFDQ
GRRPRUUDTXDQGRSRLOH
FKLHGRQRGLFRPPHQWDUHOD
GLPLU3XWLQFKHLQPDWWLQDWD
DYHYDDVVLFXUDWRFKHOD5XV
VLDQRQDYUHEEHPDLULQXQFLD
WRDFLzFKHqQRVWUR0LULFRU
GDXQDFHOHEUHVHULHWHOHYLVL
YDOHSRSHD GHL FDPRUULVWL
FKHKDUHVRLPPRUWDOHODEDWWX
WDGHOFDSRVWLSLWH3LHWUR6DYD
VWDQR2UDFLULSUHQGLDPRWXW
WRTXHOORFKHqQRVWUR0HORQL
SRLFHUFDGLVPRUDUHHDJJLXQ
JHSLGLSORPDWLFDPHQWH5L
VSRQGHUHD3XWLQQRQVHU
YHPLVHPEUDQRSDUROHULYROWH
DXQSURSULRSXEEOLFR
XUDQWHLORQVLJOLRODSUH
PLHUKDPDQLIHVWDWRGHLGXEEL
VXOOD VRVWHQLELOLWj GL DOFXQL
VWUXPHQWLSUHYLVWLGDOSLDQRGL
ULDUPRSUHVHQWDWRGDOODSUHVL
GHQWHGHOODRPPLVVLRQHHXUR
SHD8UVXODYRQGHU/HHQ,Q
QDQLWXWWRQRQqFRQYLQWDGHO
WLWROR5HDUP(XURSH0LVR
QRSHUPHVVDGLVHJQDODUHFKHLO
FRQFHWWRGLGLIHVDqXQWDQWLQR
SLDPSLRGHOULDUPR1RQq
XQDSDURODDGDWWDHIRUVHFRVu
QRQVWLDPRGDQGRPHVVDJJL
FKLDULVVLPLSHULFLWWDGLQL0H
ORQLqFHUWDPHQWHSUHRFFXSDWD
GHOOLPSDWWRFKHOLQLLDWLYDHX
URSHDKDVXOORSLQLRQHSXEEOL
FDHWUDLSDUWLWL1RQVRORGLRS
SRVLLRQHLO06FRQWUDULRLO
3GVSDFFDWRPDFULWLFRYLVWR
FKH0DWWHR6DOYLQLQRQIDSDV
VDUH JLRUQR VHQD VFDJOLDUVL
FRQWURODSURSRVWDGLRQGHU
/HHQ3HUTXHVWRODOHDGHUDVVL
FXUDFKHO,WDOLDQRQGLURWWHUj
LIRQGLGLFRHVLRQHSHUODFTXL
VWRGLDUPLFRPHSUHYHGH
XQRGHLFDSLWROLGHOSLDQR8H
VXOODXPHQWRGLVSHVDSHUODGL
IHVD3URSRUUzDO3DUODPHQWR
GLFKLDULUORVLQGDVXELWR
6RQRULVRUVHFKHVWRULFDPHQ
WHO,WDOLDQRQqVWDWDLQJUDGR
GLLQYHVWLUHPDORVWHVVRLOJR
YHUQRUDFFRQWDODSUHPLHU
VL HUD LQLLDOPHQWH RSSRVWR
DOOLSRWHVLGLXQORURXWLOLR
OOD ILQHDEELDPR ULWHQXWR
JLXVWRFKHULPDQHVVHXQDFODX
VRODYRORQWDULDSHUL3DHVLSL
HVSRVWL
GHVVRODEDWWDJOLDSROLWLFD
GHOO,WDOLDVDUjTXHOODGHOGHEL
WR/RVFRUSRURGHOOHVSHVHGHO
ODLIHVDGDOFDOFRORGHILFLW3LO
SUHYLVWRGDLYLQFROLGHOQXRYR
3DWWRGLVWDELOLWjHXURSHRq
XQDFRQTXLVWDVSLHJD0HORQL
FKHDFFRJOLHIDYRUHYROPHQ
WHODSURSRVWDWHGHVFDGHOFDQ
FHOOLHUHLQSHFWRUH)ULHGULFK
0HUGLXQDUHYLVLRQHRUJDQL
FDGHO3DWWRFKHVLDOODUJKLDQ
FKHDGDOWURFRPHWXWWRTXHOOR
FKHULJXDUGDDXWRQRPLDVWUDWH
JLFDHFRPSHWLWLYLWj
SUHRFFXSDUHODSUHPLHUq
ODSDUWHGHOSLDQRGHLPL
OLDUGLGLHXURGLSUHVWLWLSUHYL
VWLVXPLOLDUGLGLILQDQLD
PHQWLWRWDOL3HUFKpqVuXQXO
WHULRUHSRVVLELOLWjGLDFFHGHUH
DOGHELWRPDSUHVHQWDFULWLFL
WjSHUFKpULVFKLDGLSURGXUUH
XQSUREOHPDGLUHSXWDLRQHH
VRVWHQLELOLWjSHUXQ3DHVHFR
PHO,WDOLDJLjSURIRQGDPHQWH
LQGHELWDWR/HSUHRFFXSDLRQL
GHOOHVHFXWLYRVRQRVWDWHUHVH
HVSOLFLWHGDOPLQLVWURGHOO(FR
QRPLD LDQFDUOR LRUJHWWL
FKHDOODSURVVLPDULXQLRQHGHL
PLQLVWULGHOO(FRILQVLSUHVHQWH
UjFRQXQDSURSRVWDDQWLFLSDWD
LHULGDOODSUHPLHUYHUHJD
UDQLHHXURSHHSHUIDYRULUHLQ
YHVWLPHQWLDQFKHSULYDWLLQDJ
JLXQWDDTXHOOLSXEEOLFL
L
k27
LUEERL0VVROLQL
SUPROUQLDOOD
VVLD
dhmngjcn

How young people can avoid
the financial pitfalls of
previous generations
A sabbatical instead of a down payment? It’s not as far-fetched as
you might think.
Tatiana walk-morris – March 4, 2025
U
ziel Gomez, 26, can relate
to his Gen Z clients who
are navigating adulthood
and personal finance for
the first time.
It’s no secret that young people have
faced a range of financial challenges
early in their lives and careers,
including the Covid-19 pandemic,
rapidly rising costs of living, and steep
tuition, says Gomez, founder of the
financial planning firm Primeros
Financial. Some of his Gen Z clients
ask him about how to help out their
parents financially. Looking ahead to
the future, Gomez knows he’ll face a
similar predicament.
“There’s some clients, they’re their
parents’ full retirement plan,” he says.
“Take me, for example, I’m my dad’s
retirement plan.”
That’s just one of the many scenarios
Gen Z-ers seek help navigating.
Young people are also wondering
about how to save for sabbaticals
before retirement, have enough in
their emergency funds, and discern
fact from fiction when evaluating
money management tips from social
media.
I spoke to three young financial
planners about the typical advice they
give Gen Z as they map out their
financial futures — and how it
remains the same and diverges from
the conventional wisdom given to the
generations that came before.
When young clients come to Naima
Bush, a financial guide at the
firm Fruitful, she asks them whether
they are building emergency savings, if
they are paying off credit card or other
high-interest debt, and if they’re
getting a company match on their
retirement savings account — three
perennially important priorities.
One of the primary tasks Bush assists
her clients with is getting out and
staying out of high-interest debt.
While many Gen Z-ers want to avoid
taking on student loan debt, it’s pretty
easy for them to accumulate debt in
other ways, such as buy now, pay later
apps, she says.
Beyond that, Bush works with her
Gen Z clients on their broader
financial goals and urges them to
interrogate where those aspirations
originated. A common one that she
broaches in her conversations is the
dream of home ownership, which
has become out of reach for many
young would-be buyers.
“Because buying a house is such a big
decision, [I ask] is this something that
you want to do because you really
want to plant roots somewhere, or is
this something that you want to do
just for the sake of ‘Everyone else is
doing it,’” Bush says. “Let’s figure out
something else that is really more in
line with your values.” Some clients
want to be able to sustain their
current lifestyle, while others want to
live overseas for a while, Bush, 33,
explains. Her entrepreneurial clients,
meanwhile, want her help with
mapping out how they can get their
business or side hustle off the ground.
RETHINKING
CAREERS AND
RETIREMENT
T
hough many Gen Z-ers
receive retirement benefits
through their jobs, the
concept of retirement will
likely look very different for them.
Nate Hoskin, founder and lead adviser
at Hoskin Capital, says relying on the
Social Security system or traditional
pensions no longer feels like a safe
option for his young clients.
In response to that uncertainty,
Hoskin, 26, says his clients are
working hard now to better achieve
stability in the future. That might
COMING UP WITH
FINANCIAL GOALS
THAT REFLECT YOUR
VALUES
O
f course, some of the advice
geared toward Gen Z
mirrors that of their
predecessors.

mean working on weekends or longer
hours, holding down a job as they
study for a degree, or delaying
milestones like buying a house, he
explains. Hoskin also provides
projections for how much they’ll need
to save to stay afloat in retirement
without Social Security, making any
of those payouts a nice bonus, he says.
Unlike many baby boomers, Gen Z-
ers don’t see themselves remaining
loyal to one company for decades and
retiring with a pension. As a result,
the generation is more inclined to job
hop until they find a role that’s more
rewarding or better aligns with their
passions, Bush says.
Bush, who works with clients earning
a range of incomes, says the key to
building the life you want is creating
the habit of saving, even if it’s just $5
or $10 per month. And as your income
increases, don’t drastically increase
your spending.
“You should be focusing instead on
saving more for future you,” Bush
says.
BE WARY OF FLASHY
FINANCIAL ADVICE
ON SOCIAL MEDIA
O
ne problem specific to Gen
Z is the firehose of financial
advice they are exposed to
through social media.
While hearing other people’s
experiences on TikTok and Instagram
can be helpful and occasionally
empowering, some of the advice out
there is downright misleading, Gomez
says.
Among the bad pieces of advice he’s
had to debunk are that it’s better
being an entrepreneur than having a
traditional 9-to-5 to build wealth and
that having a spending plan (meaning
budget) is limiting you, Gomez
says. Bush says Gen Z’s social media
savviness can help them find useful
tips, but it can also overwhelm them
with information that isn’t applicable
to their situation. “This can cause you
to have decision overload or decision
fatigue and information overload,”
Bush says.
The flood of information Gen Z
ingests through social media doesn’t
just make it harder to find good
advice; it also causes them to compare
themselves to others. Gomez says he’s
had to counsel his clients through
FOMO (fear of missing out) while
watching others make their own
money moves.
Some were interested, for instance, in
investing in cryptocurrency or
individual stocks that were going to
make it “to the moon” a few years ago.
Rather than following and trying to
beat the market, “investing should be
boring,” he says.
He has also had to field questions
about building passive income
investments — a frequent subject of
social media’s hustle aficionados.
“A lot of people try to find a lot of get
rich or get wealthy quick and easy
information that is available online,”
Gomez says. “Really, it’s about honing
down and controlling what you can
control and really focusing on your
career, saving what you can and
investing as well.”
CARING FOR LOVED
ONES
M
any young people are
already thinking about
how they want to
support their parents
financially in the future. Gomez
advises his clients to determine how
much help their families need and
how much they can realistically afford
to provide, whether that’s on a
monthly basis or for one-off
emergencies. They should also
consider the trade-offs of these
arrangements, Gomez says. Will it
affect their lifestyle? Will it impact
other goals, such as saving for a home,
retirement or other priorities?
Establishing boundaries is also
crucial. In addition to figuring out
how much support they can give,
Gomez recommends being clear about
whether the financial support is
strictly for essentials, such as housing,
medical expenses, and groceries, or if
it can be used for discretionary
expenses like travel, dining, or
entertainment.
TAKE THAT
VACATION
O
ne thing Gen Z-ers seem to
be clear on is that they
want to use their money to
embark on new experiences. Some
have plans to relocate and live abroad
for months at a time, Bush says.
Others want to make sure they have
money set aside for making
meaningful memories — like seeing
Beyoncé in concert whenever they
can.
Still, Hoskin has found that even his
high-earning Gen Z clients are
cautious with money — they pour
much of their income into emergency
funds, health savings accounts, and
retirement accounts, and are prudent
even with their discretionary
spending.
For those who make a healthy income
and are still concerned about the cost
of taking a vacation or spending $300
on a flight home to visit their parents,
Hoskin encourages them to go. That
hesitancy likely stems from Gen Z-ers
entering an unstable economy and
developing a survival mindset, he says.
They worry that if they part with their
money, it won’t replenish in the
future, he adds. Noticing a similar
pattern among his clients, Gomez
adds that his Gen Z clients, who often
are the first in their family to build
wealth, feel guilty about spending
when they feel that they should
instead save for the future or save for
their parents.
“Money isn’t all about just numbers
and optimization,” Hoskin says. “The
whole goal, the whole reason you’re
working so hard and you took this job,
is so you can do things like that and
hit all your goals.”

Commentary
CAN
UKRAINE-US
RELATIONS BE
REPAIRED?
After the
surreal
Oval
Office
brawl,
strenuous
efforts are
under way
to
try to
repair
some
of the
damage.
BY JAMIE DETTMER
IN KYIV
Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy veered dangerously offscript
last week, thanks, in large
part, to goading by U.S. Vice President
JD Vance.
In doing so, the Ukrainian leader
left the White House empty-handed
and U.S.-Ukrainian relations
in tatters — much to the delight of
MAGA loyalists, like former strategic
adviser Steve Bannon, who told
POLITICO it was the “perfect outcome,
and now we can wash our
hands of him.” Ukrainians, though,
were aghast at the spectacle, and
remain deeply upset by what they
see as Trump and Vance's failure
to understand that they are the
wronged party who have suffered
egregiously at the hands of a revanchist
Russia, even enduring documented
war crimes.
Counseled by his American
friends and advisers, as well as his
powerful chief of staff Andriy Yermak,
Zelenskyy had been careful to
avoid antagonizing America’s prickly
President Donald Trump since
his reelection. “Play along” was the
advice, and considering the bad
blood between Trump and Zelenskyy
going back to 2019 — when the
Ukrainian leader wouldn’t accede
to Trump’s demand for an investigation
into former U.S. President
Joe Biden’s son — following that ad-

March 6, 2025 Page 17
“It really was a battering
of one man by the leader
of a much bigger country —
one that was supposedly
a friend. It was bullying.
Zelenskyy came out quite
strong.”
UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION
LAWMAKER LESIA VASYLENKO.
vice was crucial.
Until Friday, the strategy was
clear: The Ukrainian leader needed
to be seen as constructive, leaving
Russian President Vladimir Putin
to exasperate Trump by being recalcitrant
and the first one to say
“nyet.”
Keeping to that was always going
to be tricky — although no one
could have predicted just how
spectacularly it was driven off a
cliff. Question is, can the damage
be undone?
Here in Kyiv, the surreal and
tempestuous Oval Office brawl is
largely being blamed on Vance — a
longtime critic of U.S. involvement
in Ukraine. He’s being accused of
purposefully setting out to provoke
Zelenskyy, possibly to sink a deal
that would allow the U.S. greater
access to Ukraine’s minerals.
A Republican foreign policy expert,
who spoke to POLITICO on
condition of anonymity in order
to speak freely, sees it the same
way: Vance wanted to kill the mineral
deal, recognizing “it would
strengthen the pro-Ukraine lobby
in the administration. Zelenskyy
just took the bait.”
However, the Republican expert
also noted the Ukrainian leader
was at fault for not solely focusing
on the deal. “Zelenskyy failed
before Friday to recognize the significance
of the minerals deal ... It’s
important not because of the minerals
— it’s all about giving Trump a
political win,” he said.
White House officials have since
publicly insisted there was no
scheme to ambush Zelenskyy or
derail the minerals deal. Quite the
reverse. They argue both Trump
and Vance were frustrated by Zelenskyy
questioning the point of
negotiating with Putin, and felt he
was trying to wreck U.S.-Russia
talks — a point Secretary of State
Marco Rubio emphasized in an interview
on Sunday.
Following the incident, strenuous
efforts are under way to try
to repair some of the damage and
get Zelenskyy and Trump on the
phone to attempt to salvage the
relationship. European leaders are
also urging and seeking to engineer
a call between the pair, during
which the Ukrainian president
would express regret for how the
meeting unfolded — but fall short
of an apology.
“The trip to Washington, Mr.
Zelensky’s first since President
Trump was sworn into office, was
always going to be a difficult mission,”
wrote Chatham House’s Jonathan
Eyal. However, there were
still hopes that all might turn out
well, with prospects brightening
after earlier trips by France’s Emmanuel
Macron and Britain's Keir
Starmer. Surely, they had managed
to pave the way.
“Diplomats assumed that his
American host would be less prickly
when President Zelensky [sic]
made the same journey to Washington,”
Eyal said. And Trump telling
journalists he couldn’t recall
describing Zelenskyy as a “dictator”
was another hopeful sign.
Still, there were worries before
Zelenskyy even landed in Washington:
For one, continuing fallout
from an early February encounter
between him and U.S. Treasury
Secretary Scott Bessent appeared
to be rankling Trump, who publicly
complained that Zelenskyy had disrespected
Bessent by lecturing him
on the futility of negotiating with
Putin. Moreover, MAGA’s political
outriders have been making waves
with a hue and cry about continued
U.S. involvement in Ukraine
and want all aid stopped completely.
Speaking to a group of Republican
and Democratic lawmakers
in Washington before his sit-down
with Trump and Vance, the Ukrainian
leader had made clear he
would press Trump to agree to
security guarantees for a postwar
Ukraine, but was cautioned by Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham,
among others, to tread carefully
and avoid focusing on disagreements.
In short, give Trump the
win.
Yermak also urged Zelenskyy to
stay rigidly focused on the minerals
deal — security guarantees could
follow later. But irked by Vance,
Zelenskyy strayed off course, leading
to what Ukrainian opposition
lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko
described in one simple word: "catastrophe."
Watching the events unfold from
afar, Russian opposition leader
Mikhail Khodorkovsky — who
knows a thing or two about sitting
across the room from a strongman
— was also dismayed: “I understand
President Zelenskyy’s pain
— his frustration at being powerless
against a superior aggressor.
But business teaches a harsh
lesson: Your problems are your
problems. If you want a counterpart
to engage, forget about your
own troubles and focus on theirs
… And not as you see them, but as
they do. Show them that you’re the
solution to their problems,” he told
POLITICO.
“President Zelenskyy failed in
this. He spoke about justice and
Europe, publicly, ignoring how
Trump’s electorate perceives the
situation. I hope the American
president has the wisdom and ability
to respond to events with clarity
and pragmatism,” he added.
Despite the uncertainty, however,
the Ukrainian leader is getting
broad support at home for standing
his ground. Even lawmakers
who’ve been highly critical of his
leadership are publicly rallying
around him — although privately
Jamie Dettmer
is opinion editor
at POLITICO
Europe.
ILLUSTRATION BY
BRIAN STAUFFER
FOR POLITICO
SAUL LOEB/AFP
VIA GETTY IMAGES
some say he failed to adjust his
language to the new U.S. administration.
But all see him as faithfully
reflecting Ukrainian public opinion,
passionately advocating for
their brutally assaulted nation and
expressing the alarm felt across the
country over the possibility of a
ceasefire that leaves them vulnerable
to repeated acts of Russian
aggression.
“It really was a battering of one
man by the leader of a much bigger
country — one that was supposedly
a friend. It was bullying,” said
opposition lawmaker Lesia Vasylenko.
“Zelenskyy came out quite
strong.”
Lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi
bewailed the incident. “The meeting
between Zelenskyy and Trump
should not have failed. We are
committed to cooperation with
America and hope that emotions
will subside, allowing the dialogue
to return to a constructive course.
Ukrainians, more than anyone else,
want peace. We are ready for negotiations,
but they must come from
a position of strength, not capitulation,”
he told POLITICO.
The big question is whether the
damage is irreparable. Some on the
Ukrainian side are pinning their
hopes on Trump’s subsequent reaction
as he headed for his Florida
resort. “He was not foaming at the
mouth. And I've had some folks in
the administration pointing that
out to me. Trump’s feeling seems
to be that Zelenskyy is not in a
favorable psychological state because
of the stress of the last three
years,” the Republican foreign
policy expert told POLITICO.
“I can tell you this, though,
without the minerals agreement,
there's no way in hell Trump will,
or can, go to Congress to ask for
more money for Ukraine. That’s
what this was all about. And without
it, there's a probability of zero.”