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.
Syria and the Levant
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Assad’s abrupt fall in December 2024 revealed Syria’s state fragility, the limited capacity of Iran and Russia to sustain him, and the strategic failure of past Western policy. It reasons that Syria’s transition will be shaped by neighboring states—especially Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon—which see both security risks and geopolitical openings as a new government seeks reconstruction support. The analysis highlights Lebanon’s governance stress from Hezbollah’s weakening after conflict with Israel, and Jordan’s added vulnerability as U.S. policy under President Donald Trump may intensify West Bank dynamics. Policy strategy should therefore prioritize a genuinely Syrian-led political transition, disciplined regional burden-sharing, and early safeguards against spillover instability in Lebanon and Jordan while avoiding prior external policy mistakes.
中文摘要
研究所指出，阿塞德政權於2024年12月的突然垮台，暴露出敘利亞國家體制的脆弱性、伊朗與俄羅斯維持其統治能力的有限性，以及過去西方政策的戰略失敗。該文認為，敘利亞的轉型將由周邊國家塑造，尤其是土耳其、約旦、以色列與黎巴嫩；在新政府尋求重建支持之際，這些國家同時看到安全風險與地緣政治機會。分析強調，黎巴嫩在真主黨與以色列衝突後勢力走弱，致使其治理壓力加劇；同時，隨著美國總統唐納·川普政府的政策可能加劇西岸局勢，約旦的脆弱性也進一步上升。因此，政策策略應優先推動真正由敘利亞主導的政治轉型、推進有紀律的區域責任分擔，並及早建立防範機制，以遏止不穩定外溢至黎巴嫩與約旦，同時避免重蹈過去外部政策的覆轍。
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 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.
-
5.
Russia utilizes long-range missile and drone strikes as a sophisticated coercive strategy, concentrating attacks on critical geographical nodes—including energy grids, ports, industrial centers, and major urban areas—to impose cumulative costs. This campaign aims to degrade Ukraine's logistics, strain its infrastructure, and apply sustained psychological pressure rather than achieving rapid military victory. The analysis suggests that modern coercion leverages civilian vulnerability and systemic damage as primary tools of geopolitical leverage, weakening the adversary’s ability to govern or sustain resistance. Policymakers must recognize this shift toward using economic and infrastructural attrition to achieve strategic political outcomes.