The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
Will Ukraine’s Wildberries attacks force Putin to the negotiating table?
English Summary
Ukraine's expanded attacks on critical Russian commercial assets, such as Wildberries, aim to generate severe economic pressure intended to force Russia into negotiations. While these strikes are causing massive financial disruption and forcing businesses to absorb conflict costs, the analysis suggests that Russian elites remain deeply dependent on, and fearful of, the Kremlin’s power, preventing a unified opposition. The primary finding is that the established rules governing state-business relations are breaking down, creating an environment defined by extreme uncertainty. For policy makers, this indicates that even if economic pressure mounts, Russia's internal political structure remains highly volatile, making any future business or diplomatic engagement extremely unpredictable.
中文摘要
烏克蘭擴大攻擊俄羅斯關鍵商業資產，例如Wildberries等目標，旨在施加嚴重的經濟壓力，迫使俄羅斯進入談判。儘管這些空襲造成了巨大的財政混亂，並迫使企業吸收衝突成本，但分析指出，俄羅斯精英階層仍深陷於對克里姆林宮權力的依賴與恐懼之中，阻礙了統一的反對勢力形成。主要發現是，既有的國家與商業關係規範正在瓦解，營造出一個極度不確定性的環境。對於政策制定者而言，這表明即使經濟壓力持續累積，俄羅斯內部的政治結構依然高度動盪，使得任何未來的商業或外交參與都極具不可預測性。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.