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.
The new Eurasian chessboard: Power, connectivity and strategic resources
English Summary
Central Asia is identified as a critical geopolitical pivot point, sitting at the nexus of East-West connectivity, energy transition, and global order restructuring. The region's governments are increasingly asserting strategic independence from Moscow while maintaining non-alignment with the West, making it a key testing ground for new geopolitical dynamics. Consequently, the report stresses that external powers—including the EU, US, UK, and Türkiye—must enhance cooperation. This coordinated effort is crucial for supporting regional stability, mitigating great power competition, and effectively harnessing Central Asia's substantial growth potential.
中文摘要
中亞被認定為一個關鍵的地緣政治樞紐點，處於東西方互聯、能源轉型和全球秩序重組的交匯點。該地區的政府正日益從莫斯科主張戰略獨立，同時與西方保持不結盟立場，使其成為檢驗新地緣政治動態的關鍵場域。因此，報告強調，包括歐盟、美國、英國和土耳其在內的外部大國必須加強合作。這種協調的努力對於支持區域穩定、緩解大國競爭，以及有效發揮中亞巨大的增長潛力至關重要。
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.