The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
Russia and Eurasia Programme
English Summary
Chatham House presents its Russia and Eurasia Programme as a policy-impact platform focused on delivering rigorous analysis of Russia, Ukraine, and other post-Soviet states whose trajectories have sharply diverged. The core argument is that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally reshaped regional security and politics, making sovereignty and independence the essential analytical starting point for all countries in scope. Its reasoning is grounded in sustained research output, expert convenings, media engagement, and partnerships with academic and policy institutions to test and disseminate findings on war dynamics, domestic political change, and regional geopolitics. For policymakers and strategists, the implication is a need for differentiated country-specific approaches, long-term support for Ukrainian resilience and reconstruction, and continuous reassessment of Russia’s internal and external trajectory in a volatile regional environment.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所將其「俄羅斯與歐亞計畫」定位為一個以政策影響為導向的平台，旨在就俄羅斯、烏克蘭及其他後蘇聯國家提供嚴謹分析；這些國家的發展路徑已出現顯著分化。其核心論點指出，俄羅斯對烏克蘭的全面入侵已從根本上重塑區域安全與政治格局，因此，對於納入研究範圍的所有國家而言，主權與獨立應作為分析的首要起點。其論證基礎來自持續性的研究產出、專家會議、媒體互動，以及與學術和政策機構的合作，用以檢驗並傳播對戰爭動態、國內政治變遷與區域地緣政治的研究發現。對政策制定者與戰略規劃者而言，這意味著必須採取差異化且符合各國情境的政策路徑，長期支持烏克蘭的韌性與重建，並在高度波動的區域環境中持續重新評估俄羅斯的內外走向。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.