executive summary: This article examines how Russia's pursuit of closer security ties with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) in the name of enhancing its strategic depth in Eurasia affects the Northeast Asian security environment. main argument Much analysis of current DPRK-Russia security relations focuses on the supposed transactional nature of the relationship. However, Russia's pursuit of strategic depth on its Pacific periphery in part animates its security cooperation with North Korea. Strengthening DPRK security ties allows Russia to undermine U.S. influence on Russia's Asian flank. This pursuit of enhanced strategic depth on the fault line between Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific (which geostrategic thinker Nicholas Spykman labeled "the rimlands") means that Russia's pursuit of continental security will have spillover effects in the Northeast Asian vector of the Indo-Pacific. policy implications • Russia's mutual defense treaty with the DPRK has allowed Russia to break out of its secondary role in Northeast Asian security, positioning it as a veritable security actor in this Indo-Pacific subregion. • As the U.S. places less emphasis on European defense and more on the Indo-Pacific, Russia's own security interests in Northeast Asia mean that Washington will likely face the specter of at least limited U.S.-Russia great-power rivalry in the Northeast Asia subregion. • DPRK-Russia security ties could force policymakers in Washington and Seoul to expand the scope of the U.S. alliance with South Korea to include Russia in strategic planning. • Viewing Russia's relationship with North Korea with a sense of strategic longevity, rather than as merely transactional, will help the U.S. and its Northeast Asian allies better understand the nature of the relationship and the extent to which Russia would provide security assistance to North Korea as part of Russia's own interests in Northeast Asia.
executive summary: This essay examines the U.S.-China trade war in 2025 as a possible turning point in the U.S.-China competition, arguing that the trade war created new power dynamics around a supply chain race that centers on leveraging chokepoints in critical minerals and advanced technologies. main argument The 2025 trade war fundamentally altered U.S.-China strategic competition. What began as a tariff dispute rapidly evolved into a supply chain war in which both sides sought to exploit single-source chokepoint vulnerabilities. These events revealed asymmetrical advantages and vulnerabilities on both sides: China holds a commanding advantage in critical minerals and magnets (and possibly other sectors) that are essential to U.S. defense and civilian industries, while the U.S. retains leverage through its dominance in advanced semiconductors and global financial networks. The result is a new bilateral dynamic best described as a race, with each side scrambling to reduce its own exposure while accumulating leverage over the other. A fragile stability has emerged from this mutual economic disruption, but it rests on shifting political calculations rather than structural interdependence, and the underlying competition continues to intensify across economic, technological, and geopolitical arenas. policy implications • U.S. policymakers will be constrained in their trade negotiations with China given its leverage and confidence that arise from its dominance of critical mineral supply chains. The U.S. should also recognize that its national security export controls are now a core bargaining chip in economic negotiations with China, which has advantages and limitations. • U.S. policymakers must accelerate their efforts to reduce these vulnerabilities, including through supply chain diversification, enhanced coordination with allies on export controls and investment screening, and expanded domestic investments. Effective U.S. competition will require unprecedented coordination among government agencies and the private sector, as well as a credible, long-term commitment to building resilient supply chains in semiconductors, critical minerals, and other strategic sectors. • The current period of stability in U.S.-China relations should not be mistaken for a durable equilibrium. The U.S.-China framework reached in Busan in October 2025 rests on time-limited agreements and the personal diplomacy of two leaders, not structural constraints.
executive summary: This article explores the impact of militarization in India-controlled Kashmir on security in the region and assesses the implications of stop-and-frisk practices for Kashmiri youths' attitudes toward violence and nonviolence. main argument Militarization, particularly through practices like stop and frisk, can be counterproductive to peace and security by increasing support for violent resistance and diminishing the perceived legitimacy of nonviolent alternatives. The case of Indian-administered Kashmir—one of the most densely militarized regions in the world—shows that sustained military presence and everyday encounters with armed forces can deepen alienation rather than pacify dissent. Original survey and interview data collected in Srinagar suggests that these interactions not only may fail to suppress defiance but may actively legitimize violence as a more effective strategy for resistance. Ultimately, there is evidence that militarization, instead of bringing stability, can perpetuate a cycle of repression and backlash, fueling the very unrest it aims to quell. policy implications • Excessive reliance on practices such as stop and frisk in contested regions can backfire; security forces should adopt community-based approaches that build trust rather than fuel resentment. • Policies should promote political dialogue and nonmilitarized forms of conflict resolution, particularly with populations most affected by state repression. • Programs that support education, employment, and civic participation among youth can serve as alternatives to radicalization and help de-escalate conflict over time. • Achieving sustainable peace in Kashmir requires policy efforts that address actors whose entrenched interests hinder reform.
executive summary: This article analyzes how Vietnam uses multidirectionalism as its de facto defense diplomacy strategy to balance between great powers, protect its national interests and sovereignty, and adhere to international law in an increasingly complex and competitive geopolitical environment. main argument As a small state in a region characterized by power asymmetry and strategic rivalry, Vietnam's security strategy involves developing credible defense capabilities and maintaining a nonaligned and multidirectional posture. Rooted in Hanoi's Four No's policy, a diversified framework of defense partnerships, and active engagement in multilateral defense mechanisms, this approach enhances strategic autonomy, deters unilateral coercion, and promotes a stable security environment without formal alliances. By prioritizing peace and cooperation, along with adherence to international law, Vietnam aims to mitigate external threats, particularly in sensitive areas such as the South China Sea. As such, Vietnam exemplifies how multidirectionalism can serve as a crucial instrument for the defense strategies of small and medium-sized states navigating contemporary security challenges. policy implications • Vietnam's multidirectional defense diplomacy requires balanced cooperation with major powers, including the U.S., China, Russia, India, and Japan, to avoid entanglement in strategic rivalries. Flexibility, noninterference, and respect for differences guide this approach and should align defense policy closely with diplomatic messaging and confidence-building measures. • Vietnam should strengthen multilateral engagement to reduce dependence on any single partner by upholding international law, exercising leadership in ASEAN-led mechanisms, and contributing to UN peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. By skillfully leveraging international norms and institutions, Vietnam can counter coercion and mobilize broader support for its national interests. • Clear communication of Vietnam's defense policy is essential to prevent the risk of misperception. This can be achieved through defense white papers, sustained public diplomacy, participation in regional and global forums, and consistent reaffirmation of the Four No's policy. • Defense-sector reform and capacity building should be advanced by enhancing joint operational capabilities and professional military education to strengthen strategic analysis and anticipatory capacity.
executive summary: This essay examines South Korea's evolving sovereign artificial intelligence (AI) strategy and assesses how it seeks to balance technological autonomy with technological cooperation with the U.S. main argument The Lee Jae-myung administration's pursuit of sovereign AI reflects an effort to secure national control over critical technologies—semiconductors, data infrastructure, foundation models, and defense AI. But unlike China's indigenous innovation strategy that pursues autonomy through isolation, South Korea seeks technological resilience through trusted interdependence. By evaluating South Korea's development and strategies in AI and related technologies through an own-cooperate-access framework, we can see that Seoul's approach represents a distinct form of "cooperative sovereignty" that can be compatible with its U.S. alliance partner. South Korea excels in memory semiconductors and foundry capacity but lags in AI accelerators, cloud infrastructure, and defense AI. Cooperation on R&D, supply chains, and the establishment of shared governance norms through mechanisms within the U.S.-led alliance architecture can reinforce democratic values and regional stability. policy implications • If South Korea strengthens its ownership of core technologies, such as AI chips, sovereign cloud infrastructure, and large language models, then it will reduce the country's exposure to supply chain coercion and enhance its strategic autonomy. • If South Korea and the U.S. institutionalize joint R&D under the Critical and Emerging Technologies Dialogue and reciprocal procurement agreements, then both countries can expand their markets while reinforcing allied technological leadership. • By integrating civil-society and private-sector voices into its AI governance framework, Seoul can prevent state overreach and maintain transparency consistent with democratic norms. • If South Korea balances domestic resilience with alliance cooperation, then its approach to sovereign AI could serve as a model for other middle powers navigating great-power technological competition.
