PICT2012 – Policy Memo concise Macquarie University

Assessment Overview

The policy memo is a concise 1,200 word (+/- 10%) written brief addressed to a high-level policymaker who is considering, but not committed to, the use of force in a particular situation to advance the government’s interests. The memo will identify and analyze the political and strategic factors that should inform the policy-maker’s decision and recommend a particular course of action.

Scenario 1: Taiwan – February 2026

It is early February 2026. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government led by President Lai Ching-te has been in power for just over two years. The Legislative Yuan (the parliament) continues to be controlled by a coalition of opposition parties - the KMT and the TPP – after voters returned all 24 KMT opposition party lawmakers to parliament in The Great Recall vote in August 2025. The recall election was called after a robust civil society campaign that accused the opposition of paralysing the President’s agenda on behalf of China, especially his attempts to increase defence spending from 2.45 to 3% of GDP.

Emboldened by the results of the recall election, supporters of the KMT started to hold regular protests against the DPP government’s continued legislative efforts to increase spending on defence and plans to make major purchases of US defence equipment and munitions. In September 2025, China’s Eastern Theatre Command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) carried out military drills code named Sharp Arrow – 2025, involving the army, navy, air force and rocket force. Exercise activity occurred in the Taiwan Strait and around Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and Dongyin Islands in order to “test the multi-domain coordination and joint strike capabilities of the theatre command’s troops”.

In late January 2026, Taiwanese and US intelligence agencies began to observe the movement and gathering of Chinese forces at multiple locations along China’s coast, particularly from the southeastern provinces of Fujian, Guangdong and Zhejiang which are proximate to the Taiwan Strait. Both the US and Taiwanese governments consulted one another, but no decisions were made to increase operational readiness, the consensus being that China was not militarily ready to conduct an invasion.

However, on 5 February Chinese forces conducted a surprise attack on Kinmen (Quemoy), Matsu and Wuqiu islands under the umbrella of air defences on the Chinese mainland and missile and antiaircraft-artillery forces used by invading units. After three days of fierce fighting, Taiwanese defence forces were overwhelmed suffering around 1,000 casualties and withdrew to the Penghu Islands and military positions on the main Island of Taiwan. Chinese forces take control of Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu islands deploying defensive weapons and landing 50,000 troops across the three Islands. US IMINT indicates key elements of a potential carrier battle group are forming in Chinese bases in Hainan Island, with military experts in the Pentagon estimating that it would be deployable in 10 days if Beijing chose to do so.

President Lai Ching-Te makes an impassioned address to his people to inspire them to unite and put aside their differences to defend Taiwan’s democracy, arguing China’s seizure of the islands is the first step in a full invasion. President Lai appeals to the international community, especially democracies – the US, Japan, South Korea and Australia and the EU - to condemn China’s actions and to come to Taiwan’s aid. In communications between President Lai and President Trump, Lai makes a direct request for US military intervention to re-take control of the islands.

China releases an official statement endorsed by President Xi with the following message:

“Our brothers and sisters in Kinmen, Matsui and Wuqiu have always expressed a desire to return to the homeland. We have heard their voices and welcome them with open arms. There is but One China and in time we will be whole once again. Those who stand in the way should remember that China will take every step to defend its interests and its people.”

Task:

You are the national security advisor to the US President. The President has asked you to write a policy brief giving advice on how he should respond to President Lai’s request. In your brief you will assess President Lai’s request and also put forward and assess one or two other alternative (i.e. different) courses of action. Your brief should end with a recommendation on what action the US President should take. 

You are not required to consider any party-political biases in giving your advice.

Scenario 2: Ukraine/Russia Scenario – May 2026

In July 2025, for the first time since taking office, US President Trump expressed that he was “very disappointed” in President Putin as the latter refused to agree to a ceasefire in its war on Ukraine. Under the threat of increased US sanctions, the Russian government agreed to a face-to-face meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Alaska on 15 August. There President Putin made a series of demands as his price of peace: that Ukraine cede control of the entire Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, agree to remain neutral, demobilise its military forces and for all Western sanctions on Russia to be lifted.

Ukraine and its European allies, who were not included in the Alaska summit, refused to accede to these conditions which they viewed as one-sided. In September 2025, Russia renewed bombing of Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure causing high civilian casualties. The US and its European allies then threatened to impose more severe sanctions, which the Russian government once again ignored.

On 10 November 2025, the United States and European allies carried through on their threats, imposing penalties on the major buyers of Russian oil. The US imposed an additional 15% tariff (on top of existing tariffs) on India and China as major buyers of Russian oil. The EU introduced a flexible cap on purchases of Russian oil that limited prices to 30?low global market averages. This slashed Moscow’s revenue on each exported barrel of oil. While both China and India protested US application of tariffs on their economies, by January 2026 each had halved their purchases of Russian oil. European supplies of military equipment and munitions began to steadily flow into Ukraine, with Russia unable to make territorial gains despite deploying greater numbers of troops. Large battlefield casualties forced Moscow to impose conscription on men of fighting age from major Russian cities including Moscow, including from the middle classes.

By March 2026, the effect of the sanctions regime began to hit the Russian people hard – inflation reached a high of 50 percent putting imported goods and many consumer staples out of reach for most, even the middle class. Public protests about the cost of living and conscription began in major Russian cities. Prominent Russian nationalists started to openly question whether continuing the war was in Russia’s interests pointing to the high political, economic and human costs of continuing the war and lack of battlefield success.

Western and Ukrainian intelligence begin pick up chatter about a possible military coup against President Putin. In early May, the highly respected commanding general of the Russian forces, Valery Gerasimov, was arrested and charged with treason. Reports emerged on the front lines of instances of ill-discipline and mutiny among Russian forces.

Acting on this information, Ukrainian forces decide to undertake an offensive along the front lines to the South and East. They make unexpected and rapid gains against Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine, with poor operational command being evident. The Ukrainian leadership is convinced that a military coup is underway in Moscow.

It is 20 May 2026. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has sent a request to President Trump. He asks for the urgent deployment of US and other NATO military forces (i.e. boots on the ground) to Ukraine to hold defensive positions along the previous line of control while Ukrainian forces advance. Zelensky expresses confidence in winning back control of Ukraine’s lost territory, entering Russia and pushing Ukrainian forces all the way to Moscow. Britain, France and some other European allies are willing to send troops to Ukraine for this purpose but will only do so if US forces are also deployed.

Task:

You are the national security advisor to US President Trump. The President has asked you to write a policy brief giving advice on how he should respond to President Zelensky’s request. In your brief you will assess President Zelensky’s request and put forward and assess one or two alternative (i.e. different) courses of action. Your brief should end with a recommendation on what action the US President should take.

You are not required to consider any party-political biases in giving your advice.

Brief of Assessment Requirements

Assessment type & length

• Write a concise policy memo (≈1,200 words ±10%) addressed to the U.S. President (high-level policymaker).

• Audience: senior political leader who is considering but not committed to the use of military force.

Purpose

• Identify and analyse the political and strategic factors that should inform the decision to use force (or not).

• Recommend a clear course of action and justify it, and assess one or two viable alternatives.

Scenarios

• Scenario A — Taiwan (February 2026): China has seized Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu; Taiwan requests U.S. military intervention to retake islands. The memo must evaluate Lai’s request, analyze political, military and alliance implications, and recommend a course of action (plus alternatives).

• Scenario B — Ukraine/Russia (May 2026): Ukraine requests deployment of U.S./NATO boots on the ground as it advances amid possible Russian coup and battlefield gains. The memo must assess Zelensky’s request, propose and evaluate alternatives, and recommend action.

Key content to cover 

1. One-paragraph problem statement / context (why this matters now).
2. Assessment of the request — military feasibility, intelligence quality, timing, risks.
3. Political & strategic factors — alliance politics, escalation risk, domestic politics (U.S. & partner states), legal considerations, economic and logistical costs, credibility/deterrence implications.
4. Options analysis — at least the requested option and one or two alternatives (e.g., deterrent posture, sanctions & diplomatic escalation, limited strike, defensive aid only, multilateral coalition vs unilateral action). For each option: benefits, risks, likely outcomes, exit conditions.
5. Recommendation — a single clear recommendation with a succinct justification and implementation priorities (readiness, messaging, coalition building, legal basis, escalation controls).
6. Concise annex or note (if space allows): key assumptions, critical uncertainties, and triggers for re-assessment.

Format & style

• Direct, executive style: headings, short paragraphs, clear recommendations.
• Strict word limit prioritize clarity, tradeoffs and actionability over background detail.
• Cite or indicate key sources/assumptions succinctly if necessary (not a long literature review).

How the Academic Mentor Guided the Student — Step-by-Step

1. Clarify the task & audience (scoping)

• Mentor reviewed the memo brief and stressed the audience (President): no academic framing, no long history focus on decisions, options and consequences.

• Agreed on which scenario to tackle (student may choose one scenario per submission); set the 1,200-word target and a strict outline.

2. Rapid contextual analysis & issue framing

• Mentor coached the student to write a one-sentence problem statement: who, what, where, why now.

• Mapped key actors (domestic, regional, international), immediate timelines (days/weeks), and the decision the President must make.

3. Identify analytic axes (what to evaluate)

• Together they built a checklist: military feasibility, coalition willingness, escalation ladder, legal authority, domestic political constraints, economic leverage, intelligence confidence, humanitarian considerations, exit strategy.

• Mentor stressed weighing probabilities and consequences, not just preferences.

4. Evidence & assumptions gathering

• Mentor guided the student to select a few high-quality, directly relevant facts to support arguments (force dispositions, casualty estimates, alliance statements, sanctions effects) and to list critical uncertainties that could change the recommendation.

• Emphasis on marking assumptions (e.g., intelligence reliability, PRC/Russian willingness to escalate).

5. Options development and trade-off analysis

• Mentor helped draft 2–3 clearly distinct options (e.g., full military intervention; calibrated deterrent posture + sanctions; diplomatic/multilateral response with defensive assistance).

• For each option, the student produced 2–3 bullet points: likely outcome, principal risks (escalation, credibility, cost), and key prerequisites/mitigations.

6. Recommendation & implementation priorities

• Mentor insisted the recommendation be actionable: immediate steps (readiness posture, diplomatic outreach, legal justification), midterm actions (coalition building, rules-of-engagement), and monitoring triggers for escalation or withdrawal.

• They created a short list of “first 72-hour actions” to show operational thinking.

7. Editing to the memo format & word limit

• Mentor led iterative cuts: remove background, keep only decision-relevant facts, convert analysis into policyable language.

• Performed readability pass: headings, strong opening, a one-line recommended action, clear alternatives, and a one-line closing rationale.

8. Quality control & risk checks

• Final checklist: audience focus, explicit assumptions, escalation controls, legal basis, coalition feasibility, and contingency triggers.
• Mentor reviewed for unclear language, policy practicality, and consistency; ensured the memo contained no partisan language.

Outcome Achieved & Learning Objectives Covered

Outcome

• Student produced a tight, policy-grade 1,200-word memo that: (a) stated the decision problem succinctly, (b) assessed the request and key strategic factors, (c) presented 2–3 viable options with tradeoffs, and (d) closed with a single actionable recommendation plus immediate implementation steps and escalation controls.

Core learning objectives realized

1. Decision-focused analysis: Translate complex geopolitical/military facts into policy choices.
2. Options generation & trade-off thinking: Craft and weigh realistic alternatives for senior decision makers.
3. Audience-tailored communication: Write concise, actionable recommendations for a non-technical, high-level reader.
4. Risk & escalation management: Identify escalation pathways, legal constraints and coalition dynamics.
5. Evidence-based judgement under uncertainty: Make transparent assumptions and note critical uncertainties that require contingency planning.
6. Professional presentation & discipline: Meet strict word limits while preserving analytic rigor and operational utility.

Get the Right Help for Your Assignment

Looking for guidance on how to structure and approach your assignment? You can download the available sample solution to see how experts tackle similar tasks. This will give you valuable insights into formatting, research depth, and writing style.

Important Note: The sample is provided strictly for reference purposes only. Submitting it directly as your own work may result in plagiarism issues and academic penalties.

If you need a fresh, 100% plagiarism-free assignment solution, our team of professional academic writers is here to help. By ordering a custom-written solution, you’ll benefit from:

• Expertly researched and well-structured content tailored to your topic.
• Original work with a plagiarism report for complete peace of mind.
• On-time delivery to meet your deadlines.
• Reliable academic support to boost your grades and confidence.

Take control of your academic success today.

Download Sample Solution     Order Fresh Assignment