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.
Europe is helping Ukraine resist a US push for peace at any price
English Summary
As the US scales back military support and pressures Ukraine for a quick peace settlement, European nations are stepping up to replace the US as Ukraine's primary donor and security guarantor. Kyiv faces significant domestic pressure against territorial concessions, while European allies are 'Trump-proofing' support through massive financial aid, new procurement mechanisms, and direct investment in Ukraine's defense industrial base. This strategic shift integrates Ukraine into Europe’s security architecture and leverages battlefield innovations, such as low-cost drone production, to sustain Ukraine's long-term defensive capabilities. Consequently, Europe's proactive role is essential for ensuring Ukraine can resist coercive diplomacy and negotiate from a position of strength.
中文摘要
隨著美國縮減軍事援助並向烏克蘭施壓以尋求快速和平解決方案，歐洲各國正挺身而出，取代美國成為烏克蘭的主要捐助者和安全保障者。基輔面臨著反對領土讓步的巨大國內壓力，而歐洲盟友則透過大規模財政援助、新的採購機制以及對烏克蘭國防工業基地的直接投資，為援助建立「川普防護」（Trump-proofing）。這項戰略轉變將烏克蘭納入歐洲的安全架構，並利用低成本無人機生產等戰場創新技術，以維持烏克蘭的長期防禦能力。因此，歐洲的積極角色對於確保烏克蘭能夠抵禦脅迫式外交，並在實力地位的基礎上進行談判至關重要。
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.