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.
Forward And Seaward Archipelagic Defence As A Military Strategy For The Philippines
English Summary
The paper argues that the Philippines’ shift to a Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept (CADC) marks a major strategic move from broad modernization toward a geography-centered military posture focused on dispersed basing, longer-range strike, and denial operations. It reasons that worsening threat perceptions of China, especially in maritime border areas and near Taiwan, are driving this transition, but also increasing risks of sharper confrontation and security-dilemma dynamics. The analysis highlights practical constraints, including inter-service rivalry, political vulnerability to Chinese influence operations, and policy ambiguity over foreign basing access, weapons deployments, and partner force integration. Strategically, it suggests Manila should codify clearer baseline defense policies, integrate alliances more explicitly, and refine CADC’s theory of victory so deterrence objectives translate into concrete theater-level outcomes rather than capability acquisition alone.
中文摘要
該論文主張，菲律賓轉向「全面群島防衛概念」（CADC），標誌其戰略重心由廣泛現代化，轉為以地理條件為核心的軍事態勢，聚焦分散基地部署、較長程打擊能力與拒止作戰。文中指出，對中國威脅感知的惡化——尤其在海上邊界地區與臺灣周邊——正推動此一轉型，但同時也提高了更尖銳對抗與安全困境動態的風險。分析並凸顯多項實務限制，包括軍種間競爭、政治上易受中國影響力作戰滲透，以及在外國基地使用權、武器部署與夥伴部隊整合等政策上的模糊性。就戰略層面而言，作者建議馬尼拉應將更清晰的基線防衛政策予以制度化、更明確地整合同盟關係，並精煉CADC的「勝利理論」，使嚇阻目標能轉化為具體的戰區層級成果，而非僅止於能力建置。
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.
Russia utilizes long-range missile and drone strikes as a sophisticated coercive strategy, concentrating attacks on critical geographical nodes—including energy grids, ports, industrial centers, and major urban areas—to impose cumulative costs. This campaign aims to degrade Ukraine's logistics, strain its infrastructure, and apply sustained psychological pressure rather than achieving rapid military victory. The analysis suggests that modern coercion leverages civilian vulnerability and systemic damage as primary tools of geopolitical leverage, weakening the adversary’s ability to govern or sustain resistance. Policymakers must recognize this shift toward using economic and infrastructural attrition to achieve strategic political outcomes.
-
5.
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.