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.
Why a ‘whole-of-society’ model is essential for Ukraine’s recovery
English Summary
The Chatham House article argues that Ukraine's post-war recovery necessitates adopting a 'whole-of-society' model, mirroring the nation’s wartime resilience. Key evidence shows that successful recovery cannot rely solely on state authorities but requires effective collaboration among local governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), the private sector, and international donors. The paper emphasizes that this inclusive approach is crucial for ensuring that reconstruction processes are comprehensive and sustainable. Policy-wise, this implies a strategic shift toward fostering deep public-private partnerships and institutionalizing collaborative mechanisms to maximize resource mobilization.
中文摘要
這篇來自 Chatham House 的文章論點指出，烏克蘭戰後復甦需要採納「全社會動員」模式，以呼應其在戰時展現的韌性。關鍵證據顯示，成功的重建不能僅依賴國家權威機構，更需地方政府、公民社會組織（CSOs）、私營部門以及國際捐助者之間進行有效的協作。該論文強調，這種包容性的方法對於確保重建過程的全面性和可持續性至關重要。從政策層面來看，這意味著必須戰略轉向，培育深度的公私夥伴關係，並制度化協作機制，以最大化資源動員。
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.
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 article argues that the planned US withdrawal of military assets from Europe, based on the premise that the continent must 'stand on its own feet,' is strategically flawed and dangerous. Key evidence includes detailed plans for slashing troops, aircraft, and command capabilities, occurring concurrently with Russia's escalation of hybrid and conventional warfare against NATO. The analysis warns that this withdrawal will leave Europe critically vulnerable and, more broadly, will undermine US global credibility, signaling to rivals that American commitments are unreliable in other theaters, including the Indo-Pacific.
-
5.
The article argues that the European Union's institutional rules, often criticized as slow and bureaucratic, are in fact its greatest strategic advantage in a volatile global environment. This stability is highlighted by contrasting the EU's rules-based, durable agreements with the unpredictable, executive-driven trade policies of major powers like the U.S. The EU's requirement for consensus and formal review ensures that its trade commitments are reliable and binding. Consequently, global partners are increasingly viewing the EU as a stable, predictable, and rules-based alternative for trade and investment, shifting away from the uncertainty created by unilateral geopolitical actions.