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.
Traders, Speculators, and Captains of Industry: How Capitalist Legitimacy Shaped Foreign Investment Policy in India
English Summary
The analysis argues that India's foreign investment policy is not driven by a single ideology but by a selective assessment of 'capitalist legitimacy.' New Delhi distinguishes between suspect speculative capital (viewed as unethical market manipulation) and desirable industrial capital (linked to innovation and production). This selective approach explains how the state has historically fostered productive investment while maintaining regulatory controls against financial speculation. The key implication for policy is the structural paradox: the continued dominance of speculative capital suggests a significant gap between the state's normative economic goals and the actual functioning of the Indian economy.
中文摘要
本分析指出，印度外國投資政策並非由單一意識形態驅動，而是基於對「資本主義合法性」的選擇性評估。新德里區分了可疑的投機資本（被視為不道德的市場操縱）和可取的產業資本（與創新和生產掛鉤）。這種選擇性方法解釋了國家如何歷史性地扶持了生產性投資，同時對金融投機保持了監管控制。對政策的關鍵啟示是結構性悖論：投機資本的持續主導，暗示了國家規範經濟目標與印度經濟實際運作之間存在重大落差。
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.
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.
-
5.
The Brookings analysis finds that EdTech scaling efforts in South and Southeast Asia often fail because decision-making prioritizes immediate motivation and feasibility over long-term sustainability and evidence, risking increased educational inequity. The core recommendation is for policymakers to shift focus from adopting specific products to defining clear learning purposes and measuring impact rigorously. To ensure lasting improvements, strategies must include strengthening local institutional capacity through teacher training, designing innovations for low-resource settings, and ensuring contextual relevance across the system. Ultimately, sustainable EdTech adoption requires a commitment to evidence-based policy that prioritizes equity alongside technological access.