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.
Asia After America
English Summary
The article critiques the long-standing U.S. strategic commitment, known as the 'pivot to Asia,' arguing that the initial premise—that rebalancing resources was the sole way to prevent Chinese dominance—has failed. It traces the bipartisan assumption since 2011 that the U.S. must focus on the Asia-Pacific to counter Beijing's rise. The piece implies that the current strategic framework is insufficient, suggesting that the U.S. must fundamentally reassess its approach to the region. Policy implications suggest a need to move beyond the original 'pivot' narrative to craft a more adaptable and effective long-term strategy.
中文摘要
本文批判了美國長期奉行的戰略承諾，即所謂的「轉向亞洲」（pivot to Asia）。文章指出，最初假設——即重新平衡資源是阻止中國主導地位的唯一途徑——已經證明失敗。它追溯了自 2011 年以來，兩黨共識中一直存在的假設，即美國必須將重點放在亞太地區，以應對北京的崛起。本文暗示，現行的戰略框架已經不足夠，並建議美國必須從根本上重新評估其對該地區的方法。從政策層面來看，這意味著必須超越最初的「轉向」敘事，才能制定出更具適應性和有效性的長期戰略。
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 roundtable established that implementing generational bans represents a powerful, long-term strategy for tackling deeply entrenched public health crises like tobacco use. Using the UK’s permanent ban on selling cigarettes to those born after 2009 as key evidence, experts analyzed how such policies fundamentally alter market dynamics and consumer behavior over time. These lessons suggest that other nations facing persistent addiction challenges should consider adopting similar age-gating or generational restrictions to accelerate decline and set a precedent for future public health policy interventions.
-
5.
The CSIS analysis finds that the U.S. grid's regulatory framework for connecting large loads is severely fragmented and unprepared for the massive electricity demands posed by AI data centers. FERC has mandated significant reforms across six regional operators, requiring them to modernize interconnection studies, prevent cost-shifting, and establish clear tariffs for co-located generation. Evidence shows that most operators fall far short of these new standards, necessitating complex, multi-year policy adjustments rather than simple compliance. Policymakers must coordinate federal regulation (FERC) with state utilities to accelerate grid modernization, ensuring energy affordability while maintaining technological competitiveness.