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.
Industrial Policies: Even Modest Intervention Creates Market Distortions
English Summary
The article argues that industrial policies, which involve government favoring specific sectors or technologies, inherently create market distortions regardless of how targeted the intervention is. The analysis cites historical examples—ranging from railroad grants and tariffs to modern acts like the CHIPS Act—to demonstrate patterns of corruption, cost overruns, and misallocation of capital. While proponents point to successful Asian economies, critics argue that government subsidies often fail to identify true growth sectors or overcome political pressures. Consequently, the piece advises caution, suggesting that the fundamental problem of officials lacking perfect market information means that even modest interventions risk undermining efficient resource allocation.
中文摘要
本文論述指出，產業政策（即政府偏袒特定部門或技術）無論針對多麼精確，本質上都會造成市場扭曲。分析引用了從鐵路補貼、關稅到《晶片法案》等現代立法等多個歷史案例，證明了貪腐、成本超支和資本錯配的模式。儘管支持者以亞洲經濟體的成功為例，但批評者反駁稱，政府補貼往往無法識別真正的成長產業或克服政治壓力。因此，文章建議保持謹慎態度，指出由於官員缺乏完美的市場資訊，即使是溫和的干預也存在損害高效資源配置的風險。
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 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.
-
5.
The article argues that while Ukraine's deep strikes and Russia's mounting economic instability create a window for peace talks, President Putin remains committed to maximalist demands and may escalate conflict through increased air assaults. Key evidence supporting this tension includes the strain on Russian energy infrastructure versus Moscow's refusal to negotiate in good faith, preferring instead to expand its claims. Consequently, the immediate strategic implication is that Washington must lead intensive diplomacy—a 'shuttle diplomacy'—to establish a framework agreement centered on a ceasefire along current lines and defining long-term European security arrangements.