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.
Global cooperation on nuclear disarmament looks even further away
English Summary
The 2026 NPT Review Conference failed to reach consensus, marking the third consecutive unsuccessful outcome and signaling a significant deterioration in global efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Key evidence points to a fractured international environment, exacerbated by disputes over Iran, Ukraine, and North Korea, with the ‘P5’ states actively resisting commitments to disarmament. The expiration of New START without a replacement, coupled with accelerating nuclear build-ups by China and other nations, further weakened the NPT regime and the ‘grand bargain’ of non-proliferation in exchange for disarmament. Ultimately, the conference highlighted a shift towards bilateral leverage among major powers, diminishing the effectiveness of consensus-based multilateral processes.
中文摘要
2026年《不拡散條約》審查會議未能達成共識，標誌著第三次失敗結果，並預示著全球對核裁軍努力的顯著惡化。關鍵證據表明，國際環境呈現分裂，主要受到伊朗、烏克蘭和朝鮮等爭端加劇的影響，而‘五國’國家積極抵制裁軍承諾。新START條約到期且沒有替代方案，同時中國和其他國家的核武器擴張加速，進一步削弱了《不拡散條約》的效力以及非核裁軍換取裁軍的‘大交易’。最終，會議凸顯了主要大國之間雙邊權力提升的趨勢，削弱了以共識為基礎的多邊程序效力。
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.
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.
-
4.
The analysis argues that NATO faces an existential crisis due to perceived U.S. decoupling and uneven European commitment to collective defense. Key evidence includes calls for higher defense spending, coupled with US reviews of troop presence in Europe and allied nations' struggle to independently fill critical strategic gaps (e.g., air defense). For the alliance to remain viable, the summit must establish a clear roadmap for burden-sharing and reaffirm the credibility of the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Failure to address these structural deficiencies risks reducing NATO to an ineffective 'zombie alliance.'
-
5.
Despite deep strategic competition and lack of mutual trust, US-China dialogue remains critical because both powers share a profound anxiety regarding AI's potential to destabilize national security and lead to unintended conflict. The analysis suggests that sustained engagement—particularly through Track II dialogues—is necessary to identify shared vulnerabilities, such as the use of AI in bio or cyber warfare by non-state actors. For policy, high-level talks must move beyond mere rhetoric, requiring meticulously aligned agendas to achieve concrete progress on global risks. Ultimately, dialogue is framed not as a path to trust, but as an essential mechanism driven by mutual interest for broader global stability.