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.
Why Putin Still Prefers War
English Summary
The article argues that Vladimir Putin's preference for conflict is a calculated strategic choice rather than an unavoidable geopolitical fate. It likely draws on historical diplomatic failures, contrasting periods of détente with current aggressive actions to demonstrate that confrontation is a policy decision. The analysis suggests that Russia views military conflict as a primary tool for achieving core national objectives, making purely diplomatic solutions insufficient. Policymakers must therefore adjust strategies to account for this deep-seated preference for confrontation, requiring robust deterrence and structural containment measures.
中文摘要
本文論述普京偏好衝突的傾向，並非不可避免的地緣政治宿命，而是一種經過計算的戰略選擇。分析可能援引歷史外交失敗的案例，將過去的緊張緩和時期與當前的侵略行動進行對比，以證明對抗本身就是一種政策決策。該分析指出，俄羅斯將軍事衝突視為實現核心國家目標的主要工具，使得純粹的外交解決方案顯得不足。因此，政策制定者必須調整戰略，以應對這種根深蒂固的對抗偏好，這要求實施強固的威懾和結構性的遏制措施。
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 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.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.