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 risks of Trump’s peace plan: Two Gazas and an annexed West Bank
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Trump’s Gaza peace framework could entrench Palestinian fragmentation rather than resolve the conflict, resulting in a depoliticized enclave and a permanently weakened statehood project. It contends that UNSCR 2803 places decision-making in externally controlled bodies with minimal Palestinian authority, while treating statehood as conditional and deferring meaningful political integration of Gaza and the West Bank until at least December 31, 2027. The analysis further cites the Kushner-led redevelopment approach and reconstruction sequencing in Israeli-controlled areas as likely to create “two Gazas,” alongside accelerating de facto West Bank annexation through Israeli policy measures. The policy implication is that Arab and European governments should not back implementation unconditionally, but instead push for binding safeguards linking Gaza and the West Bank, rights-based UN parameters, and credible consequences for annexation.
中文摘要
研究所認為，川普的加薩和平框架可能鞏固巴勒斯坦的碎片化，而非化解衝突，最終形成去政治化的飛地，並使建國計畫長期弱化。其主張，聯合國安理會第2803號決議（UNSCR 2803）把決策權置於受外部控制的機構之中，巴勒斯坦當局權限極其有限；同時將建國視為附帶條件的目標，並把加薩與約旦河西岸的實質政治整合延後至至少2027年12月31日。該分析進一步指出，由庫許納主導的重建開發思路，以及在以色列控制區域內安排的重建先後次序，可能導致「兩個加薩」的局面；此外，以色列的政策措施也在加速約旦河西岸事實上的併吞。其政策意涵是：阿拉伯與歐洲各國政府不應無條件支持該框架的落實，而應推動具約束力的保障機制，把加薩與西岸連結起來，納入以權利為基礎的聯合國參數，並對併吞行為設定可信且可執行的後果。
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.
Myanmar has collapsed into Asia’s deadliest conflict, marked by massive economic collapse, widespread famine, and extreme brutality from the military junta. Despite this catastrophic humanitarian crisis, international actors—including major powers and regional blocs like ASEAN—are largely ignoring or withdrawing support for democratic forces. This neglect allows the junta to consolidate power, receiving critical military aid from authoritarian allies such as Russia and Belarus. Policy implications suggest that global indifference is enabling a failed state environment, making Myanmar a highly volatile flashpoint whose instability threatens broader Indo-Pacific security.