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.
Will the UK’s next prime minister finally have a ‘national conversation’ on defence?
English Summary
The Chatham House analysis argues that while the UK government plans a 'national conversation' on defense, this effort is critical for building public trust and securing political consent for increased military spending. Given rising hybrid threats—including disinformation and cyber-attacks—the UK faces a strategic challenge of low public confidence and fragmented societal resilience. To counter these risks, the report stresses that merely announcing investments is insufficient; a 'whole-of-government' approach must link defense policy with civic education and transparency. Ultimately, building trust through open dialogue about threats and society’s role is necessary to achieve national cohesion and justify higher levels of defense expenditure.
中文摘要
查塔姆館的分析指出，儘管英國政府計劃就國防議題進行「國家層面的對話」，但這項努力對於建立公眾信任和確保支持增加軍事開支的政治共識至關重要。鑑於假訊息和網路攻擊等日益增長的混合威脅，英國面臨著公眾信心低落和社會韌性分散的戰略挑戰。為應對這些風險，報告強調僅宣布投資是不夠的；必須採取「全政府層面」的方法，將國防政策與公民教育和透明度連結起來。最終，透過公開討論威脅和社會角色來建立信任，對於實現國家凝聚力並證明提高國防開支的合理性是必要的。
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.