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.
Global cooperation on nuclear disarmament looks even further away
English Summary
The 2026 NPT Review Conference failed to reach consensus, marking the third consecutive unsuccessful outcome and signaling a significant deterioration in global efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Key evidence points to a fractured international environment, exacerbated by disputes over Iran, Ukraine, and North Korea, with the ‘P5’ states actively resisting commitments to disarmament. The expiration of New START without a replacement, coupled with accelerating nuclear build-ups by China and other nations, further weakened the NPT regime and the ‘grand bargain’ of non-proliferation in exchange for disarmament. Ultimately, the conference highlighted a shift towards bilateral leverage among major powers, diminishing the effectiveness of consensus-based multilateral processes.
中文摘要
2026年《不拡散條約》審查會議未能達成共識，標誌著第三次失敗結果，並預示著全球對核裁軍努力的顯著惡化。關鍵證據表明，國際環境呈現分裂，主要受到伊朗、烏克蘭和朝鮮等爭端加劇的影響，而‘五國’國家積極抵制裁軍承諾。新START條約到期且沒有替代方案，同時中國和其他國家的核武器擴張加速，進一步削弱了《不拡散條約》的效力以及非核裁軍換取裁軍的‘大交易’。最終，會議凸顯了主要大國之間雙邊權力提升的趨勢，削弱了以共識為基礎的多邊程序效力。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
The report argues that the rapid integration of AI creates novel and complex risks—such as deepfakes, misinformation, and intellectual property disputes—that do not fit within existing insurance lines, challenging the technology's overall insurability. Evidence shows that while lawsuits center on IP, the scope of harm is expanding into privacy and product liability, and insurers are responding unevenly with a mix of exclusions and limited coverage. Policymakers must therefore focus on managing systemic, correlated AI risks, including shared model dependencies and universal attacks, to prevent market failure and guide necessary regulatory oversight.
-
5.
The article argues that the U.S.-China relationship is structurally adversarial and cannot be resolved by high-level summits between leaders like Trump and Xi. Historically, breakthroughs required nuanced diplomacy and mutual trust, elements that are currently absent, as both leaders are ill-suited for the complex bargaining demanded by the rivalry. The analysis notes that China continues to assert its strategic independence, exemplified by its focus on partners like Russia, thereby limiting the efficacy of U.S. diplomatic efforts. Policymakers must temper expectations for a sudden breakthrough and prepare for a sustained, managed rivalry that addresses deep structural issues rather than relying on personal chemistry.