The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
A Turning Point in Ukraine
English Summary
A CFR analysis suggests a "turning point" in the Ukraine conflict, driven by mounting costs for Russia and a growing realistic possibility of a ceasefire. Key evidence includes the passage of U.S. aid legislation and Zelenskyy’s call for direct negotiations, alongside a largely frozen front line and a significant decline in Russia’s offensive capabilities. Russia’s diminishing returns on manpower, coupled with Ukraine’s drone superiority and expanded long-range strike capabilities, are shifting the balance of power. Critically, Western support for Ukraine, particularly regarding ballistic missile defense systems, is constrained by production limitations and reliance on European purchases, raising concerns about Ukraine’s future defensive capacity and potentially increasing civilian casualties.
中文摘要
美國戰略與國際研究中心（CFR）的分析指出，烏克蘭衝突可能出現轉捩點，主要受到俄羅斯日益增加的成本壓力以及達成停火的可能性逐漸增加所驅動。關鍵證據包括美國援助法案的通過、澤倫斯基呼籲直接談判，以及戰線基本停滯和俄羅斯攻勢能力顯著下降等情況。俄羅斯在人力方面的回報率下降，加上烏克蘭在無人機方面的優勢以及擴展的遠程襲擊能力，正在改變權力平衡。更重要的是，西方的對烏克蘭支持，特別是在後裝備方面，受到生產限制和歐洲採購依賴的影響，這引發了對烏克蘭未來防禦能力的擔憂，並可能導致平民傷亡增加。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
3.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.
-
4.
The article argues that the planned US withdrawal of military assets from Europe, based on the premise that the continent must 'stand on its own feet,' is strategically flawed and dangerous. Key evidence includes detailed plans for slashing troops, aircraft, and command capabilities, occurring concurrently with Russia's escalation of hybrid and conventional warfare against NATO. The analysis warns that this withdrawal will leave Europe critically vulnerable and, more broadly, will undermine US global credibility, signaling to rivals that American commitments are unreliable in other theaters, including the Indo-Pacific.
-
5.
The article argues that the European Union's institutional rules, often criticized as slow and bureaucratic, are in fact its greatest strategic advantage in a volatile global environment. This stability is highlighted by contrasting the EU's rules-based, durable agreements with the unpredictable, executive-driven trade policies of major powers like the U.S. The EU's requirement for consensus and formal review ensures that its trade commitments are reliable and binding. Consequently, global partners are increasingly viewing the EU as a stable, predictable, and rules-based alternative for trade and investment, shifting away from the uncertainty created by unilateral geopolitical actions.