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.
Asia-Pacific Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Asia-Pacific Programme positions itself as an interdisciplinary policy platform providing objective analysis on major issues across South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific. Its core approach combines independent research, regional partnerships, and direct engagement with decision-makers to shape practical and constructive policy outcomes. The programme supports its analysis through expert roundtables, webinars, conferences, and publications, while also advising private-sector and multilateral stakeholders. Strategically, this model implies that effective policy toward Asia-Pacific dynamics requires cross-sector evidence, sustained regional collaboration, and proactive dialogue between analysts and policymakers.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）的亞太計畫將自身定位為跨學科政策平台，針對南亞、東南亞、東亞與太平洋地區重大議題提供客觀分析。其核心方法結合獨立研究、區域夥伴合作，以及與決策者的直接互動，以推動務實且具建設性的政策成果。該計畫透過專家圓桌會議、網路研討會、國際會議與出版品支撐其分析，並同時為私部門與多邊利害關係方提供政策諮詢。從策略層面觀之，此模式意味著，若要有效應對亞太動態，政策制定必須仰賴跨部門證據、持續性的區域協作，以及分析人員與政策制定者之間的前瞻性對話。
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.
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.
-
5.
The Brookings analysis finds that EdTech scaling efforts in South and Southeast Asia often fail because decision-making prioritizes immediate motivation and feasibility over long-term sustainability and evidence, risking increased educational inequity. The core recommendation is for policymakers to shift focus from adopting specific products to defining clear learning purposes and measuring impact rigorously. To ensure lasting improvements, strategies must include strengthening local institutional capacity through teacher training, designing innovations for low-resource settings, and ensuring contextual relevance across the system. Ultimately, sustainable EdTech adoption requires a commitment to evidence-based policy that prioritizes equity alongside technological access.