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.
How middle powers can weather US and Chinese AI dominance
English Summary
Chatham House argues that middle powers can retain meaningful agency in an AI system dominated by the US and China by pursuing "sovereign AI" strategies tailored to national interests. The paper identifies four practical pathways: specialize in a strategic segment of the AI supply chain, align with one superpower, pool sovereignty through partnerships with peers, or hedge by combining capabilities from multiple providers. Its reasoning is that full technological independence is unrealistic, but selective control over how AI is adopted and governed is still achievable. For policymakers, the priority is to choose and sequence these strategies based on domestic strengths and risk tolerance so AI deployment serves national and public-interest goals despite structural dependence on US and Chinese ecosystems.
中文摘要
研究所指出，在由美國與中國主導的人工智慧體系中，中等強國若推動符合本國利益的「主權AI」策略，仍可維持具實質意義的行動自主性。該報告提出四條務實路徑：在AI供應鏈的戰略環節中專業化、與其中一個超級強權對齊、透過與同儕國家合作來匯聚主權，或透過整合多個供應方能力進行避險。其核心論點是，全面技術自主並不現實，但對AI採用與治理方式的選擇性控制仍可達成。對決策者而言，首要任務是依據國內優勢與風險承受度，選擇並安排這些策略的推進順序，從而在結構上依賴美中生態系的情況下，仍使AI部署服務國家與公共利益目標。
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 CSIS analysis finds that the U.S. grid's regulatory framework for connecting large loads is severely fragmented and unprepared for the massive electricity demands posed by AI data centers. FERC has mandated significant reforms across six regional operators, requiring them to modernize interconnection studies, prevent cost-shifting, and establish clear tariffs for co-located generation. Evidence shows that most operators fall far short of these new standards, necessitating complex, multi-year policy adjustments rather than simple compliance. Policymakers must coordinate federal regulation (FERC) with state utilities to accelerate grid modernization, ensuring energy affordability while maintaining technological competitiveness.
-
5.
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.