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 Next Russia Threat
English Summary
While the war in Ukraine may reach an inflection point and Russian forces are struggling, the article argues that Russia remains the primary long-term threat to European security regardless of the conflict's outcome. This assessment is based on the fact that despite internal weaknesses—such as a stagnating economy and poor demographics—Russia retains the capability and vested interest in destabilizing Europe’s existing security architecture. Policymakers must therefore prepare for sustained, multi-faceted Russian pressure and potential military reconstitution efforts, rather than focusing solely on immediate battlefield victories or defeats.
中文摘要
儘管烏克蘭戰爭可能達到轉捩點，且俄羅斯軍隊正在掙扎，本文論述認為，無論衝突結果如何，俄羅斯仍是歐洲安全的首要長期威脅。此評估基於一個事實：儘管俄羅斯存在內部弱點（例如經濟停滯和人口結構不佳），但它仍保留著瓦解歐洲現有安全架構的能力和深層的既得利益。因此，政策制定者不應僅專注於眼前的戰場勝利或失敗，而必須為俄羅斯可能發起的、持續且多層面的壓力，以及潛在的軍事重整動員做好準備。
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.
The Brookings analysis highlights that while U.S. security assistance has increased significantly, its efficacy remains inconsistent, citing past failures in theaters like Mali alongside successes in Ukraine. The core argument is that the US must reform its approaches to maximize return on investment (ROI) and build genuinely effective partner forces. This strategic recalibration is critical for achieving central national security goals, especially within regions often deemed lower priority, such as Africa. Policy recommendations suggest moving toward more targeted, sustainable assistance models rather than broad military deployments.