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.
The Hormuz inflation shock is only just beginning
English Summary
The analysis argues that the current global inflation surge is primarily driven by soaring energy prices, which are exacerbated by geopolitical instability in the Middle East, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz. Key evidence points to the dramatic rise in energy costs (e.g., Brent crude near $100), establishing energy inflation as the dominant driver of broader CPI, overriding concerns about demand-side factors. Consequently, central banks face significant policy challenges, as this energy shock will trigger 'second-round effects' (cost-push inflation) that cannot be easily mitigated through traditional monetary policy rate hikes.
中文摘要
本分析指出，當前的全球通膨飆升主要由能源價格飆升所驅動，而能源價格的飆升又因中東的地緣政治不穩定，特別是霍爾木茲海峽周邊的局勢而加劇。主要證據顯示，能源成本的急劇上升（例如布倫特原油接近100美元）確立了能源通膨是廣泛消費者物價指數（CPI）的主導驅動因素，壓過了對需求端因素的擔憂。因此，中央銀行面臨重大的政策挑戰，因為此能源衝擊將引發「第二輪效應」（成本推升型通膨），而這類效應無法透過傳統的貨幣政策升息來輕易緩解。
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.