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.
Contingent Capabilities Southeast Asias Emerging Anti Access Environment
English Summary
Maritime Southeast Asian states are exploring anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies to secure their interests during major power conflicts, yet their current development remains rudimentary and lacks systematic planning. The paper identifies a persistent disconnect between strategic policy debates concerning regional flashpoints and the actual implementation of military doctrine, posture, and asset acquisition. Diverse security priorities and internal institutional constraints, such as army dominance in policymaking, continue to hinder the realization of full A2/AD capabilities. Consequently, the future trajectory of these capabilities will determine how these nations manage regional contingencies and coordinate with security partners seeking closer interoperability.
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
Global tech governance is rapidly maturing, with nations implementing stringent regulations across AI, data privacy, and model risk management (e.g., India's mandated 'kill switches' and Singapore’s GenAI guidelines). Industrial policy remains a key focus, evidenced by South Korea's semiconductor special act and China's comprehensive plans for green energy infrastructure and data centers. These coordinated state efforts signal a trend toward highly regulated, nationalistic technological development, requiring policymakers to navigate complex regulatory fragmentation while securing critical supply chains and maintaining economic resilience.
-
5.
The analysis argues that NATO faces an existential crisis due to perceived U.S. decoupling and uneven European commitment to collective defense. Key evidence includes calls for higher defense spending, coupled with US reviews of troop presence in Europe and allied nations' struggle to independently fill critical strategic gaps (e.g., air defense). For the alliance to remain viable, the summit must establish a clear roadmap for burden-sharing and reaffirm the credibility of the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Failure to address these structural deficiencies risks reducing NATO to an ineffective 'zombie alliance.'