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.
Yemen’s conflict: The Islah Party's evolving role, and vision for a post-war society
English Summary
Chatham House frames Yemen’s Islah Party as a durable, central political actor whose influence has persisted through the civil war and will likely matter in any post-war settlement. The event description highlights Islah’s institutional weight—one of Yemen’s largest parties, the second-largest parliamentary bloc, and a participant in the internationally recognized government—as evidence that it remains embedded in formal politics despite conflict fragmentation. It argues that understanding Islah’s ties with regional and international actors is essential to assessing its strategy, bargaining power, and approach to state restructuring. For policymakers, the implication is that viable peace and governance planning should treat Islah as a necessary stakeholder, while testing whether its stated vision can support an inclusive and sustainable political order.
中文摘要
英國皇家國際事務研究所（Chatham House）將葉門伊斯拉赫黨界定為一個具韌性且居於核心地位的政治行為者；其影響力在內戰期間持續存在，並很可能在任何戰後政治安排中發揮關鍵作用。該活動說明指出，伊斯拉赫黨的制度性分量——作為葉門最大政黨之一、國會第二大黨團，且為國際承認政府的參與者——顯示其儘管面對衝突碎片化，仍深嵌於正式政治體系。內容主張，要評估伊斯拉赫黨的戰略、談判籌碼與國家重組取向，必須理解其與區域及國際行為者的連結。對政策制定者而言，其含意在於：可行的和平與治理規劃應將伊斯拉赫黨視為必要利害關係人，同時檢驗其所宣示的願景是否足以支撐包容且可持續的政治秩序。
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.