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.
Deep Precision Strike Europes Quest For Long Range Missile Capabilities
English Summary
The paper argues that a growing number of European NATO members are rapidly pursuing deep precision strike (DPS) capabilities to address a worsening security environment and the post-INF gap in long-range conventional strike options. It finds broad strategic alignment among ELSA partners on deterrence and war-fighting utility, but highlights major national differences in doctrine, industrial capacity, technological baseline, and motivations—illustrated by France and the UK’s dual deterrence/war-fighting framing versus Germany and Poland’s stronger deterrence-by-punishment focus on Russia. Evidence centers on planned expansion from legacy air-launched systems to ground- and sea-launched cruise and ballistic missiles in the 1,000–2,000+ km range, alongside identified enablers such as ISR and kill-chain integration. Strategically, the paper suggests Europe faces difficult policy trade-offs over budgets, force mix, industrial autonomy versus urgent procurement, and unresolved risks around MTCR constraints, Russian reactions, and regional nuclear stability.
中文摘要
該論文主張，愈來愈多歐洲北約成員正迅速推進縱深精確打擊（DPS）能力，以因應惡化的安全環境，以及《中程核力量條約》（INF）終止後遠程常規打擊選項的缺口。研究發現，ELSA夥伴在嚇阻與作戰效用上具有廣泛戰略一致性，但也凸顯各國在作戰準則、產業能力、技術基線與政策動機上的重大差異；其中，法國與英國採取「雙重嚇阻／作戰」框架，而德國與波蘭則更強調針對俄羅斯的「懲罰性嚇阻」。證據重點在於，相關國家計畫由傳統空射系統擴展至射程約1,000至2,000公里以上的陸基與海基巡弋與彈道飛彈，並同步強化ISR與殺傷鏈整合等關鍵支撐能力。就戰略層面而言，論文指出歐洲將面臨艱難政策取捨，包括預算配置、兵力組合、產業自主與緊急採購之間的平衡，以及MTCR限制、俄方反應與區域核穩定性等尚未解決的風險。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
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.