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.
Russian Attitudes Are Shifting as the War’s Effects Come Home
English Summary
Russian public opinion is shifting toward a preference for ending the war, driven primarily by domestic economic and social costs rather than military shocks alone. Evidence suggests that declining living standards, wage stagnation, and tangible disruptions—such as fuel shortages from Ukrainian strikes on refineries—are eroding support more effectively than frontline fighting. This trend highlights a growing divergence between ideologically motivated 'hawks' and pragmatic 'loyalists,' who are increasingly willing to withdraw support when personal costs mount. For policy strategists, the key implication is that Russia’s internal stability hinges on its economic performance; sustained domestic hardship poses a greater threat to regime cohesion than external military pressure.
中文摘要
俄羅斯民意正轉向傾向結束戰爭，其主要驅動力是國內的經濟和社會成本，而非單純的軍事衝擊。證據顯示，生活水平下降、工資停滯以及實際的擾動——例如烏克蘭對煉油廠的襲擊導致的燃料短缺——正在侵蝕支持度，其效果甚至優於前線戰鬥。這一趨勢凸顯了「意識形態驅動的鷹派」與「務實的忠誠派」之間日益擴大的分歧；後者在個人成本累積時，越來越願意撤回支持。對於政策策略制定者而言，關鍵的啟示是：俄羅斯的內部穩定繫於其經濟表現；持續的國內困境對政權凝聚力的威脅，比外部軍事壓力更為巨大。
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.