The Western Pacific remains a highly active theater defined by sustained U.S.-led military exercises and escalating great power competition. Key evidence includes continuous joint operations, such as RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii and the deployment of CSGs into the South China Sea, juxtaposed with increased naval activity from both China (PLAN task groups) and Russia near Japan's critical straits. These movements underscore a strategic push by non-allied powers to assert presence and challenge regional norms. Policy implications dictate that allied nations must maintain robust multilateral cooperation and interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation and manage escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
Xi and Trump won’t discuss China’s growing nuclear arsenal
English Summary
The upcoming summit between Xi and Trump is unlikely to result in direct discussions or agreements regarding China's growing nuclear arsenal or US missile defense projects. Instead, the analysis suggests that strategic stability can be advanced by focusing on shared threat assessments in emerging domains, such as artificial intelligence and outer space. Progress can be made by establishing dialogue on AI risks in escalation and reaffirming commitments to keep AI out of nuclear launch decisions. This shift allows the superpowers to build confidence and manage strategic tensions without confronting immediate nuclear limits, thereby providing a pathway for dialogue.
中文摘要
預計的習川峰會不太可能就中國日益擴大的核武庫或美國的導彈防禦計畫進行直接討論或達成協議。相反地，分析指出，可透過關注人工智慧和外太空等新興領域的共同威脅評估來推進戰略穩定性。透過建立關於AI在升級風險的對話，並重申將AI排除在核發射決策之外的承諾，可以取得進展。這種轉變使超級大國能在不直接面對核武限制的情況下，建立互信並管理戰略緊張局勢，從而為對話提供了途徑。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
-
3.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
4.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.