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.
Middle East and North Africa Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme argues that better policy on the region requires grounded, field-based analysis of often overlooked drivers of conflict, governance stress, and state–society change. It supports this approach through a research model combining field data collection, bilingual policy publications, convening with decision-makers across sectors, and direct briefings in MENA, the UK, and the US. The programme’s focus on geopolitical competition, transnational conflict dynamics, political-economic networks, and accountability is presented as the analytical basis for more realistic policy choices. For strategy, the implication is that governments and institutions should rely on locally informed, cross-regional, and cross-sector evidence to design interventions and partnerships that are politically feasible and context-specific.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）中東與北非計畫主張，若要制定更有效的區域政策，必須建立在扎根在地、以田野為基礎的分析之上，並重視那些常被忽略、卻驅動衝突、治理壓力與國家－社會變遷的關鍵因素。該計畫透過結合田野資料蒐集、雙語政策出版、與跨部門決策者之間的對話召集，以及在中東與北非、英國與美國的直接簡報，來支持此一研究取徑。其對地緣政治競爭、跨國衝突動態、政治經濟網絡與問責機制的關注，被定位為形成更務實政策選項的分析基礎。就策略層面而言，這意味著各國政府與機構應依賴具在地知識、跨區域與跨部門的證據，來設計在政治上可行且符合具體情境的介入措施與夥伴關係。
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.
Myanmar has collapsed into Asia’s deadliest conflict, marked by massive economic collapse, widespread famine, and extreme brutality from the military junta. Despite this catastrophic humanitarian crisis, international actors—including major powers and regional blocs like ASEAN—are largely ignoring or withdrawing support for democratic forces. This neglect allows the junta to consolidate power, receiving critical military aid from authoritarian allies such as Russia and Belarus. Policy implications suggest that global indifference is enabling a failed state environment, making Myanmar a highly volatile flashpoint whose instability threatens broader Indo-Pacific security.