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.
How corruption threatens war effort in Ukraine, and what is the remedy?
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Ukraine’s latest high-level corruption scandal is not only a governance crisis but a direct wartime vulnerability because it can erode domestic legitimacy and external financial support. The case centers on NABU’s alleged exposure of a graft scheme at state-owned Energoatom with potential losses of about $100 million, followed by sanctions steps, ministerial resignations, and allegations involving figures close to President Zelenskyy. The reasoning is that with Ukraine needing roughly $60 billion in external financing in 2026–2027, donor confidence depends on credible enforcement, not just exposure of wrongdoing. Strategically, the brief implies Kyiv and partners should prioritize prosecutorial follow-through, judicial independence, tighter anti-illicit-finance controls, and coordinated messaging to limit Kremlin exploitation of corruption narratives.
中文摘要
英國皇家國際事務研究所（Chatham House）指出，烏克蘭近期高層貪腐醜聞不僅是治理危機，更是直接的戰時脆弱點，因其可能削弱國內正當性與外部財政支持。該案聚焦於烏克蘭國家反貪局（NABU）據稱揭露國有企業 Energoatom 的一項貪污方案，潛在損失約為1億美元；其後又出現制裁措施、部長辭職，以及涉及與總統澤連斯基關係密切人士的指控。其論點在於，鑑於烏克蘭於2026至2027年約需600億美元外部融資，捐助方信心取決於可信且可執行的執法作為，而不僅是揭露不法。從戰略層面看，該簡報意涵基輔及其夥伴應優先推進檢控後續、維護司法獨立、強化反非法資金流動管制，並協調對外訊息，以降低克里姆林宮利用貪腐敘事進行操作的空間。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
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.