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.
Saudi–UAE tensions: Yemen and regional implications
English Summary
The Chatham House event argues that late-2025 Saudi-UAE friction over Yemen reflects a deeper strategic split, not just a tactical disagreement in one conflict. The core evidence is their opposing local alignments: the UAE’s backing of the Southern Transitional Council and southern autonomy versus Saudi support for Yemen’s internationally recognized government and territorial unity. Saudi efforts to freeze front lines and push a political settlement, alongside the UAE’s announced full withdrawal, exposed incompatible views of Yemen’s future security and governance architecture. Strategically, this suggests Gulf coordination will be less automatic, and policymakers should treat Yemen as a test case for wider Riyadh-Abu Dhabi divergence in regional influence, security priorities, and economic statecraft.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）的一場活動指出，2025年末沙烏地阿拉伯與阿拉伯聯合大公國在葉門問題上的摩擦，反映的是更深層的戰略分歧，而不僅是單一衝突中的戰術歧見。核心證據在於雙方相對立的在地結盟：阿聯酋支持南方過渡委員會與南部自治，沙烏地則支持葉門獲國際承認的政府與領土統一。沙烏地試圖凍結前線並推動政治解決方案，加上阿聯酋宣布全面撤軍，進一步暴露雙方對葉門未來安全與治理架構的看法互不相容。從戰略層面看，這意味著海灣國家之間的協調將不再是自動形成；政策制定者應將葉門視為檢驗利雅德—阿布達比在區域影響力、安全優先序與經濟治國手段上更廣泛分歧的試金石。
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.
Myanmar has collapsed into Asia’s deadliest conflict, marked by massive economic collapse, widespread famine, and extreme brutality from the military junta. Despite this catastrophic humanitarian crisis, international actors—including major powers and regional blocs like ASEAN—are largely ignoring or withdrawing support for democratic forces. This neglect allows the junta to consolidate power, receiving critical military aid from authoritarian allies such as Russia and Belarus. Policy implications suggest that global indifference is enabling a failed state environment, making Myanmar a highly volatile flashpoint whose instability threatens broader Indo-Pacific security.