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.
Perspectives on Ankara: The security and defence implications of the NATO summit
English Summary
The 2026 NATO Summit highlights that future alliance security requires not only increased burden sharing but also significantly stronger defense capabilities and closer public-private cooperation. The core finding is a shift in focus from mere spending commitments to practical implementation, industrial capacity, and overall resilience. Policy implications center on redesigning defense investment models, establishing mechanisms to ensure summit pledges translate into coordinated action, and accelerating the adoption of transformative technologies through robust public-private partnerships.
中文摘要
2026年北約峰會強調，未來的聯盟安全不僅需要增加負擔分攤，更要求大幅提升防衛能力並加強公私部門的合作。核心發現指出，焦點已從單純的開支承諾轉向實際執行、工業產能和整體韌性。政策意涵集中於重新設計國防投資模式、建立確保峰會承諾能夠轉化為協調行動的機制，以及透過穩健的公私夥伴關係加速採用變革性技術。
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 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.
-
5.
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.