The China-Russia partnership is a highly consequential geopolitical alignment driven by a shared goal of countering U.S. hegemony and reshaping the international order into a multipolar system. While not a formal alliance, this relationship is strengthened by Russia's increasing economic reliance on China following Western sanctions, which allows Beijing to leverage its influence. Policymakers should note that while the partnership projects deep solidarity (as seen in high-level summits), it remains complex and limited by mutual mistrust and competing strategic interests. This enduring alignment poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests and requires continued diplomatic vigilance.
Cross-strait crossroads: Pathways for America’s Taiwan policy
English Summary
This Brookings-RAND joint initiative examines whether current U.S. policy toward Taiwan and cross-strait relations remains adequate amid a deteriorating security environment in the Taiwan Strait. Through a series of expert workshops, the project explores five distinct policy pathways: limiting U.S. commitments while boosting Taiwan's self-defense, calibrating diplomacy to stabilize cross-strait dynamics, pursuing a more active denial strategy, and shifting toward strategic clarity. The analysis weighs how each option would affect U.S. deterrence posture, Taiwan's domestic politics, Beijing's strategic calculus, and broader Indo-Pacific security. The initiative signals growing mainstream debate within the U.S. policy community about whether the longstanding framework of strategic ambiguity should be revised or replaced, with significant implications for alliance management and escalation risk in the region.
中文摘要
此布魯金斯學會與蘭德公司聯合研究計畫探討，在台灣海峽安全環境持續惡化之際，美國現行對台及兩岸關係政策是否仍足以因應當前局勢。該計畫透過一系列專家工作坊，評估五種不同的政策路徑：限縮美國承諾同時強化台灣自我防衛能力、校準外交手段以穩定兩岸動態、採取更積極的拒止戰略，以及轉向戰略清晰。分析權衡每一選項對美國嚇阻態勢、台灣內部政治、北京戰略考量及更廣泛印太安全的影響。該倡議反映出美國政策圈內部就長期以來的戰略模糊框架是否應予修正或取代，正展開日益主流化的辯論，對區域聯盟管理及升級風險具有重大意涵。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Chatham House analysis concludes that the UK's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will be viewed by NATO allies as a mixed bag, primarily due to its failure to commit to higher GDP spending targets. However, the plan signals critical strategic improvements by emphasizing novel technologies—such as autonomous systems and digital infrastructure—and enhancing readiness. Crucially, the DIP adopts an international focus through major collaborative programs (e.g., AUKUS, GCAP) and establishes a new National Armaments Director Group (NADG). This structural shift toward flexible, portfolio-based collaboration is strategically valuable for NATO allies seeking reliable partners as US conventional forces reduce their European presence.
-
3.
The article argues that the U.S., through recent policy signals—such as questioning NATO's value or sympathizing with great-power territorial claims—is inadvertently adopting the core tenets of non-alignment, prioritizing transactional national interests over binding alliances. Historically, while non-alignment allowed developing nations to gain benefits without commitment, the analysis notes that this approach lacks the deep trust and shared obligations necessary for robust security structures. The implication is critical: by undermining established alliances, the U.S. risks losing its greatest strategic asset—the network of mutual commitments—as allies actively seek alternative bilateral or regional defense pacts.
-
4.
The roundtable established that implementing generational bans represents a powerful, long-term strategy for tackling deeply entrenched public health crises like tobacco use. Using the UK’s permanent ban on selling cigarettes to those born after 2009 as key evidence, experts analyzed how such policies fundamentally alter market dynamics and consumer behavior over time. These lessons suggest that other nations facing persistent addiction challenges should consider adopting similar age-gating or generational restrictions to accelerate decline and set a precedent for future public health policy interventions.
-
5.
The CSIS analysis finds that the U.S. grid's regulatory framework for connecting large loads is severely fragmented and unprepared for the massive electricity demands posed by AI data centers. FERC has mandated significant reforms across six regional operators, requiring them to modernize interconnection studies, prevent cost-shifting, and establish clear tariffs for co-located generation. Evidence shows that most operators fall far short of these new standards, necessitating complex, multi-year policy adjustments rather than simple compliance. Policymakers must coordinate federal regulation (FERC) with state utilities to accelerate grid modernization, ensuring energy affordability while maintaining technological competitiveness.