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.
Defending Ukraine’s Identity, and why it is key for durable peace
English Summary
The event argues that defending Ukraine’s cultural, linguistic, and religious sovereignty is essential to any durable peace, because identity policy is directly tied to state security. It cites post-2014 reforms such as de-communization laws, language requirements in public life, and the 2019 independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as evidence of Kyiv’s effort to reduce Russian imperial influence while maintaining private minority-language use. The discussion frames Russia’s full-scale war and negotiation demands (including restoring Russian influence networks and elevating Russian language status) as tools to weaken Ukrainian statehood from within. Strategically, it implies that peace terms must protect Ukraine’s control over domestic identity policy, while balancing EU-aligned minority-rights standards and prioritizing cultural heritage protection in recovery planning.
中文摘要
該活動主張，捍衛烏克蘭在文化、語言與宗教上的主權，是任何可持久和平的必要條件，因為身分認同政策與國家安全直接相連。活動並援引2014年後的改革作為證據，包括去共產化法律、公共生活中的語言規範，以及2019年烏克蘭東正教會獨立，顯示基輔在維持私人領域少數語言使用的同時，致力降低俄羅斯帝國影響。討論將俄羅斯的全面戰爭及其談判訴求（包括恢復俄羅斯影響力網絡與提升俄語地位）界定為從內部削弱烏克蘭國家性的工具。從戰略層面看，其意涵是和平條款必須保障烏克蘭對國內身分認同政策的主導權，同時兼顧與歐盟一致的少數權利標準，並在重建規劃中優先保護文化遺產。
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.