The Plain Truth is so Happy That You Have Been Enjoying Bob’s Broadcasts.
2000 years ago, a newscaster that we know of as Jesus Christ warned us about false Christianity. The warning was not against the devil but against false Christianity…about people who come in His name and deceive many.
This is Bloomberg Businessweek Daily, reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead. With insight into the people, companies, and forces shaping today’s complex economy, plus global business, finance, and technology news as it happens.
A story raised during Bloomberg’s editorial meeting quickly dominated discussion: authoritarian regimes that once relied on close ties to Moscow are discovering that Russian support may be far weaker than expected when it matters most.
One of the clearest examples is Venezuela. Officials there now reportedly believe their security relationship with Russia—and by extension Cuba—was largely symbolic. They point to the failure of Cuban and Russian intelligence agencies to protect President Nicolás Maduro when his position collapsed. The consequence has been a breakdown of trust among Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia, leaving Maduro’s successor, Delcy Rodríguez, with little choice but to accept U.S. offers of cooperation.
The episode raises broader questions. Is Russia being pushed into a corner? Are its alliances unraveling? And what does this say about the balance of global power?
To unpack these issues, Bloomberg welcomed Ed Price back to the program. Price is a non-resident senior fellow at New York University and a former British trade official. He joined the hosts in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers Studio.
Asked whether the events in Venezuela demonstrated the ineffectiveness of Russian and Chinese security partnerships—or simply the overwhelming dominance of U.S. firepower—Price argued the situation revealed something deeper.
He suggested that the United States and its allies are increasingly fighting conflicts now that, in earlier eras, might have waited until a formal global war. Actions such as strikes against Iran or direct intervention in Venezuela resemble moves that would normally occur only during a major war. That reality, he said, is morally uncomfortable for Western societies raised on narratives of Pearl Harbor and defensive wars.
Yet discomfort does not mean strategic failure. According to Price, Western leaders have concluded that open societies cannot effectively counter authoritarian disinformation campaigns through openness alone. The West, he argued, lost the first global information war—an undeclared conflict fought online over the past decade. Disinformation, conspiracy theories, and intellectual sabotage poisoned public discourse on both sides of the Atlantic.
As a result, the West is now shifting tactics. Tariffs and sanctions alone often fail. Hard power—military force, economic coercion, and strategic disruption—is increasingly being used to neutralize adversaries before conflicts escalate.
Price described this as a reconfiguration toward a war footing. Strategic trade is being severed. Germany is rearming. Israel has severely degraded Iran’s capabilities and those of its proxy forces. The West, he said, is making moves on the chessboard without waiting for its opponents.
Is that a good thing?
Price’s answer was blunt: it is good—until it isn’t.
Removing dictators can be morally justified. Maduro, he noted, ruled with his foot on the neck of the Venezuelan people. But repeated use of hard power carries long-term costs. It affects global trust in U.S. leadership and ultimately feeds back into financial markets, debt financing, and the sustainability of American military dominance.
The risk, Price warned, lies in how Russia and China respond. The United States can calibrate its actions carefully, but it cannot control how adversaries interpret them. The same event could deter China from acting against Taiwan—or convince Beijing that its strategic window is closing and action must come sooner.
History offers no certainty. Before World War I, symmetrical deterrence failed. Before World War II, appeasement failed. Analysts, Price admitted, do not know which path prevents conflict.
Turning to Iran, Price argued that U.S. action—if it comes—would likely be air-heavy rather than involving ground troops. He said striking Iranian nuclear capabilities years earlier would have avoided decades of instability and that any future intervention would require internal Iranian uprisings and viable leadership alternatives—conditions that are difficult to engineer from outside.
He also emphasized the central role of regional allies. Israel has already reshaped the strategic environment. Saudi Arabia, he said, would be the key partner in any broader realignment. Normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, if achieved, could define a new Middle East.
Asked about Greenland, Price was unequivocal. The United States should do nothing. Any attempt to assert control would rupture alliances with Europe at a moment when Germany and other allies are rearming and geopolitically significant.
The conversation then shifted to U.S. economic policy, where uncertainty remains high. The Supreme Court has once again delayed ruling on challenges to President Trump’s tariffs, prolonging uncertainty for global markets.
Morgan Stanley’s Matt Hornbach, managing director and global head of macro strategy, joined the program to discuss potential outcomes. He argued that extreme outcomes—either fully striking down the tariffs or fully endorsing them—are less likely than nuanced, middle-ground rulings. The Court could, for example, require congressional approval to extend emergency tariffs.
Hornbach noted that if refunds are required, the Treasury could manage the process through limited bill issuance. Any inflationary impact would likely be modest, as refunds would largely go to companies rather than households.
The discussion also touched on Federal Reserve independence. Hornbach stressed that the Fed is governed by a committee, not a single chair, and that markets themselves act as a check on political interference. Credibility, he said, remains the Fed’s most valuable asset.
Labor market dynamics were also examined with Karen Kimbrough, chief economist at LinkedIn. She described a labor market that is holding steady but sluggish. Hiring has picked up modestly, yet remains well below pre-pandemic levels. Competition for jobs is intense, with twice as many applicants per role compared to several years ago.
Kimbrough noted that artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape hiring patterns. While millions of new AI-related roles are emerging, they require specialized skills many workers do not yet possess. Mid-career workers, she said, are increasingly pivoting toward entrepreneurship, content creation, or skilled trades.
The program concluded with a discussion of political uncertainty in Washington. Mike Townsend of Charles Schwab noted that markets and corporate leaders are learning not to react to every presidential statement, instead focusing on policies that materially affect long-term planning—particularly Federal Reserve independence and tariff policy.
Despite daily volatility, Townsend argued that executives are becoming more adept at navigating uncertainty, choosing carefully when to engage and when to wait.
For now, the markets appear resilient. But as global power shifts, alliances strain, and economic policy remains in flux, the margin for error is narrowing.
Stay with us. You’re listening to Bloomberg Businessweek Daily.