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.
Avoiding a new nuclear arms race
English Summary
Despite rising global tensions and skepticism regarding formal arms control, the paper argues that avoiding a new nuclear arms race remains achievable. It analyzes the stability of four key nuclear relationships—including the US-Russia, US-China, and the N5 group—to assess the current risk landscape. The research provides concrete recommendations for states to manage these complex dynamics and prevent costly escalation. Ultimately, the findings emphasize that proactive diplomatic engagement is crucial to maintaining strategic stability, especially in the context of the NPT Review Conference.
中文摘要
儘管全球緊張局勢升溫，且對正式的軍備控制機制產生懷疑，本文仍論證避免新一輪核軍備競賽是可行的。研究分析了包括美俄、美中以及N5集團在內的四個關鍵核關係的穩定性，以評估當前的風險格局。本研究為各國提供了具體的建議，以管理這些複雜的動態，並預防成本高昂的升級。最終，研究結果強調，主動的外交參與對於維持戰略穩定至關重要，尤其是在《不擴散條約》審查會議的背景下。
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.
Russia utilizes long-range missile and drone strikes as a sophisticated coercive strategy, concentrating attacks on critical geographical nodes—including energy grids, ports, industrial centers, and major urban areas—to impose cumulative costs. This campaign aims to degrade Ukraine's logistics, strain its infrastructure, and apply sustained psychological pressure rather than achieving rapid military victory. The analysis suggests that modern coercion leverages civilian vulnerability and systemic damage as primary tools of geopolitical leverage, weakening the adversary’s ability to govern or sustain resistance. Policymakers must recognize this shift toward using economic and infrastructural attrition to achieve strategic political outcomes.