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.
Europe Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Europe Programme argues that Europe needs practical, implementation-focused policy work to navigate a period of geopolitical and political disruption. Its reasoning is that combining EU, NATO, and country-level expertise can turn broad strategic goals into actionable recommendations, especially across its 2024–2027 priorities: the EU’s future, European security, and Europe’s global role. The programme also treats election outcomes and growing political fragmentation as cross-cutting forces that shape progress in all three areas. For policymakers, the implication is to pursue integrated strategies that link institutional reform, security planning, and external action while stress-testing decisions against domestic political volatility across Europe.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）歐洲計畫主張，歐洲在地緣政治與政治動盪加劇的時期，需要更務實、以執行為導向的政策工作。其論點在於，整合歐盟、北約與各國層級的專業能力，可將宏觀戰略目標轉化為可操作的政策建議，尤其是在其 2024–2027 年三項重點：歐盟的未來、歐洲安全，以及歐洲的全球角色。該計畫亦將選舉結果與日益嚴重的政治碎片化視為跨領域因素，認為其會共同塑造上述三大領域的進展。對決策者而言，意涵是應推動整合性策略，將制度改革、安全規劃與對外行動連結起來，並在全歐洲國內政治波動的情境下，持續對政策決策進行壓力測試。
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.