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.
Kazakhstan is rewriting its constitution. Is it an exercise in authoritarian modernisation?
English Summary
Kazakhstan is implementing sweeping constitutional amendments, including introducing a vice presidency and dissolving the upper house of parliament, which the government presents as modernization. However, critics argue these changes consolidate executive power and weaken existing checks and balances. The reforms raise critical questions about Kazakhstan's political trajectory, implications for presidential succession before the 2029 elections, the fate of Nazarbayev-era elites, and the country's relationship with Russia.
中文摘要
哈薩克正實施全面的憲法修正案，包括設立副總統職位和解散議會上院，政府將其宣傳為現代化進程。然而，批評者認為這些變革鞏固了行政權力，削弱了現有的制衡機制。這些改革引發了關於哈薩克政治走向、2029年選舉前總統繼任的影響、納扎爾巴耶夫時代精英的命運以及該國與俄羅斯關係的關鍵問題。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
Washington's increasing diplomatic and economic support for Morocco's claims over Western Sahara is significantly undermining regional peace efforts and exacerbating existing tensions. This alignment, which sidelines the UN's mandate (MINURSO) and solidifies a pro-Moroccan bloc, is evidenced by U.S. funding and political efforts to undermine the Polisario movement. Critically, this perceived bias is prompting regional rivals, particularly Algeria, to increase their own military and diplomatic involvement to counter the growing influence of the Morocco-Israel axis. Ultimately, the article warns that Washington's zero-sum approach of choosing sides, while aiming for stability, is likely to worsen the conflict outlook across the fragile North African continent.
-
4.
The core finding is that the stability and success of any political system depend less on its formal institutions and more on the moral sentiments and ethical character of its citizens. The analysis argues that ethics guides all human relationships, rendering clever institutional designs—such as the separation of powers—ineffective if the populace lacks a virtuous concern for the public good. Consequently, policy and strategic efforts must prioritize fostering ethical discourse and individual liberty (liberalism) rather than relying on state coercion or attempting to mandate equality of outcome. The implication is that structural reforms alone are insufficient; true progress requires cultivating a responsible, self-respecting citizenry.
-
5.
The article argues against the Department of Defense's push to increase and rely upon tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), asserting that they are not a viable solution for geopolitical dilemmas. Despite being framed as less destructive than strategic weapons, the author provides evidence that even small TNWs are devastating, capable of causing mass casualties and widespread contamination. Furthermore, the use of TNWs carries extreme risks of uncontrollable escalation, making them inherently destabilizing. Instead of expanding the arsenal, the U.S. should accept the limitations of military power, becoming more selective about its security commitments in regions like Europe and the Asia-Pacific.