Advertisement
.jpg?itok=DJ5XFWbm&v=1754450193)
Hao Nan
Hao Nan is a Susan Strange Associate Fellow with the Helsinki Geoeconomics Society, and a Nuclear Futures Fellow with Ploughshares Fund & Horizon 2045. He previously served in East Asian intergovernmental institutions, including the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (for China, Japan and South Korea) in Seoul and the Asean-China Centre in Beijing. His work focuses on economic security, nuclear security and East Asia–Middle East strategic dynamics.
Hao Nan is a Susan Strange Associate Fellow with the Helsinki Geoeconomics Society, and a Nuclear Futures Fellow with Ploughshares Fund & Horizon 2045. He previously served in East Asian intergovernmental institutions, including the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (for China, Japan and South Korea) in Seoul and the Asean-China Centre in Beijing. His work focuses on economic security, nuclear security and East Asia–Middle East strategic dynamics.
Languages Spoken:
English
As great-power bargaining between the US, China and Russia collides with three regional triangles, finding a balance will be key to managing competition.
Talk of a dollar collapse or ‘petroyuan’ order arriving amid the Iran war misses the mark. The larger shift is subtler and no less consequential.
States like China and Russia that can provide energy, industrial inputs, strategic reassurance or room for manoeuvre are gaining weight.
International law still exists, but it no longer reliably restrains actors as states increasingly act first and justify those deeds later.
Advertisement
To break the pattern of trade escalations with Beijing, Brussels must move beyond tariffs and invest in its own competitiveness.
For hubs of transit trade from Armenia to the UAE, economic self-interest is best served by having sanctions on Russia in place indefinitely.
Bogged down in Ukraine and wary of its reliance on Chinese imports, Moscow seeks to overcome the resource curse.
The peninsula is characterised by three overlapping triangles whose interaction will shape Northeast Asia’s future and broader strategic stability.
Trump’s attacks are driving what Brics was meant to do: encourage cooperation among non-Western powers and reduce dependence on the US.
The Trump administration’s unclear foreign policy aims are prompting US partners to look beyond security alignment with Washington alone.
The more Trump pushes for quick wins, the more other nations see that they might benefit from resisting, even as the US economy feels the pinch.
Lasting changes could arise from the Trump vs Xi diplomatic chess, EU’s emerging strategy and political flux in Seoul, Taiwan and Southeast Asia.
Beijing’s strategic instinct is against military involvement even as its peacekeeping is bound to the UN framework and thus subject to Russia’s veto.
By providing AI-powered products, infrastructure, governance tools and data-driven insights, China aims to reshape the global digital order.
Key differences in comprehensive strategic partnership treaties with Pyongyang and Tehran give insight into Moscow’s diplomatic strategy.
Iran’s economic vulnerabilities, the region’s changing dynamics and a new reform-minded administration present an opportunity for a new deal.
Signs of upheaval and uncertainty in Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines will be compounded as the US recalibrates its East Asia policy.
As US allies face mounting challenges and tensions rise with adversaries, Joe Biden and Donald Trump must work together to manage uncertainties.
The text of the treaty suggests the partnership will function more as a strategic hedge than a definitive bond.
No isolated act of aggression, the missile test was a calculated show of a strengthened alliance and a preview of mounting challenges.
More than a show of tech strength, it represents a shift in nuclear strategy and alliance stability that could redefine global security.
The US, China and Russia should work together to contain nuclear weapons proliferation and constrain regional deterrence efforts.
