The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
The Inertia of Russia’s War
English Summary
The Foreign Affairs article argues that Russia’s war in Ukraine has created a ‘inertia’ driven by deeply embedded domestic incentives, making a swift end to the conflict highly unlikely and potentially dangerous for President Putin. Over four years, Russia’s economy and society have reorganized around war, fostering a self-sustaining institutional and economic order dependent on military spending and a thriving shadow economy. Despite wartime economic gains, inequality remains high, and the benefits of increased military spending are unevenly distributed, primarily accruing to a small segment of the population. Any attempt to end the war without addressing these entrenched dynamics risks triggering economic dislocation, social upheaval, and a political reckoning the regime is ill-equipped to handle, effectively trapping Russia in a ‘war trap’.
中文摘要
《外交事務》的文章認為，俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭造成了一種由根深蒂固的國內動機所驅動的『慣性』，使得衝突迅速結束的可能性極低，並且對普京總統構成潛在危險。在過去四年中，俄羅斯經濟和社會已經重新組織，圍繞戰爭展開，構建了一個依賴軍事開支和蓬勃發展的影子經濟的自我延展制度體系。儘管在戰爭期間經濟有所增長，但貧富差距仍然很高，增加的軍事開支的利益也並非均勻地分配，主要流向人口中極少數的群體。如果沒有解決這些根深蒂固的動態，試圖結束戰爭的任何舉措都可能引發經濟動蕩、社會動員以及該政權無法應付的政治 reckoning，從而使俄羅斯陷入『戰爭陷阱』。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.