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.
Saudi–UAE tensions: Yemen and regional implications
English Summary
The Chatham House event argues that late-2025 Saudi-UAE friction over Yemen reflects a deeper strategic split, not just a tactical disagreement in one conflict. The core evidence is their opposing local alignments: the UAE’s backing of the Southern Transitional Council and southern autonomy versus Saudi support for Yemen’s internationally recognized government and territorial unity. Saudi efforts to freeze front lines and push a political settlement, alongside the UAE’s announced full withdrawal, exposed incompatible views of Yemen’s future security and governance architecture. Strategically, this suggests Gulf coordination will be less automatic, and policymakers should treat Yemen as a test case for wider Riyadh-Abu Dhabi divergence in regional influence, security priorities, and economic statecraft.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）的一場活動指出，2025年末沙烏地阿拉伯與阿拉伯聯合大公國在葉門問題上的摩擦，反映的是更深層的戰略分歧，而不僅是單一衝突中的戰術歧見。核心證據在於雙方相對立的在地結盟：阿聯酋支持南方過渡委員會與南部自治，沙烏地則支持葉門獲國際承認的政府與領土統一。沙烏地試圖凍結前線並推動政治解決方案，加上阿聯酋宣布全面撤軍，進一步暴露雙方對葉門未來安全與治理架構的看法互不相容。從戰略層面看，這意味著海灣國家之間的協調將不再是自動形成；政策制定者應將葉門視為檢驗利雅德—阿布達比在區域影響力、安全優先序與經濟治國手段上更廣泛分歧的試金石。
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.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
4.
The article analyzes Finland's agreement to coordinate its conventional forces with French nuclear capabilities, clarifying that no nuclear weapons will be stationed in Finland. The author argues that increased communication between nuclear powers, rather than the deployment of weapons, is beneficial for reducing the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation, particularly near Russia. For Europe, the policy recommendation is a responsible middle course: strengthening non-nuclear military capabilities to deter Russia while simultaneously negotiating a stable system, such as non-aligned buffer states. This approach is presented as a diplomatic alternative to both aggressive military action and surrender.
-
5.
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.