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.
The Eus Burgeoning Defence Role And Its Impact On Third Country Market Access
English Summary
IISS argues that the EU is becoming a much stronger regulator and financier of Europe’s defence market, even though NATO remains the main provider of military security. It points to a sharp rise in EU-level defence funding and instruments—from virtually no dedicated budget before 2014 to major 2021–27 allocations, a proposed 2028–34 expansion, and the €150bn SAFE mechanism adopted in 2025—along with stricter rules limiting non-EU participation. The paper also notes a countervailing trend: rapidly growing national defence budgets across Europe are likely to exceed EU funds, allowing member states to bypass some Commission frameworks. Strategically, third countries should expect reduced access in EU-governed segments but may still compete in nationally controlled procurement, while closer partners could secure selective, transactional access by aligning with EU industrial and political priorities.
中文摘要
IISS 主張，儘管 NATO 仍是軍事安全的主要提供者，歐盟正成為歐洲防務市場中更強勢的監管者與資金提供者。該文指出，歐盟層級的防務資金與工具大幅增加：2014 年前幾乎沒有專門預算，至 2021–2027 年已出現大規模配置，並提出 2028–2034 年進一步擴張，以及於 2025 年通過 1,500 億歐元的 SAFE 機制；同時，限制非歐盟參與的規則也趨於嚴格。論文亦提及一股制衡趨勢：歐洲各國防務預算快速成長，可能超過歐盟資金規模，使成員國得以繞過部分歐盟執委會框架。從戰略角度看，第三國應預期在由歐盟治理的領域中准入將降低，但在由各國主導的採購中仍可競爭；而較緊密的夥伴若能配合歐盟的產業與政治優先事項，則可能取得有選擇性、交易導向的准入。
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 article argues that while Ukraine's deep strikes and Russia's mounting economic instability create a window for peace talks, President Putin remains committed to maximalist demands and may escalate conflict through increased air assaults. Key evidence supporting this tension includes the strain on Russian energy infrastructure versus Moscow's refusal to negotiate in good faith, preferring instead to expand its claims. Consequently, the immediate strategic implication is that Washington must lead intensive diplomacy—a 'shuttle diplomacy'—to establish a framework agreement centered on a ceasefire along current lines and defining long-term European security arrangements.
-
5.
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.