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.
War in Ukraine
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Russia’s invasion is not only devastating Ukraine physically but also accelerating a deeper political transition away from entrenched old-rule networks and vested interests. Its reasoning is that Ukraine was already under internal pressure for reform, and wartime mobilization has intensified public demand for new rules and empowered a newer generation of policymakers. The analysis also stresses that sustained external backing for Ukraine’s defense is structurally shaping the country’s postwar trajectory, making a return to prewar political equilibrium unlikely. Policy-wise, partners should pair military support with long-term institution-building and governance reform assistance to lock in a more resilient Ukrainian state.
中文摘要
研究所指出，俄羅斯的入侵不僅在物理層面重創烏克蘭，也正在加速其更深層的政治轉型，使其逐步脫離根深蒂固的舊體制網絡與既得利益結構。其論證認為，烏克蘭原本即承受內部改革壓力，而戰時動員進一步強化了社會對新規則的需求，並賦權給新一代政策制定者。該分析亦強調，國際社會持續支持烏克蘭防衛，正從結構上塑造其戰後發展路徑，使其回到戰前政治均衡的可能性降低。就政策而言，夥伴國應將軍事援助與長期制度建設及治理改革支持相結合，以鞏固更具韌性的烏克蘭國家體制。
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.
The Brookings analysis highlights that while U.S. security assistance has increased significantly, its efficacy remains inconsistent, citing past failures in theaters like Mali alongside successes in Ukraine. The core argument is that the US must reform its approaches to maximize return on investment (ROI) and build genuinely effective partner forces. This strategic recalibration is critical for achieving central national security goals, especially within regions often deemed lower priority, such as Africa. Policy recommendations suggest moving toward more targeted, sustainable assistance models rather than broad military deployments.