Here, we have been referring to the increasing levels of contention between the so-called alliance of autocrats and the alliance of democracies as the initiation of World War III. The grouping of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea is combating the alliance of US and its various allies in NATO and the EU along with a few Eastern countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. This conflict is occurring on military, economic, political, and moral battlefields. It is not clear who is winning at this point, and even less clear where the future might take us. But history informs us that the side that underestimates the capabilities of its adversary or fails to even recognize its intentions is at a severe disadvantage.
Western news and opinion media have begun to awaken to the realization that world events are rapidly moving in dangerous directions. A Foreign Affairs article by Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine, The Axis of Upheaval, provides an example of current discourse. It provides this lede.
“How America’s Adversaries Are Uniting to Overturn the Global Order”
“The growing cooperation among China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia is fueled by their shared opposition to the Western-dominated global order, an antagonism rooted in their belief that that system does not accord them the status or freedom of action they deserve. Each country claims a sphere of influence: China’s ‘core interests,’ which extend to Taiwan and the South China Sea; Iran’s ‘axis of resistance,’ the set of proxy groups that give Tehran leverage in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere; North Korea’s claim to the entire Korean Peninsula; and Russia’s ‘near abroad,’ which for the Kremlin includes, at a minimum, the countries that composed its historic empire. All four countries see the United States as the primary obstacle to establishing these spheres of influence, and they want Washington’s presence in their respective regions reduced.”
The authors dismiss the idea that the four autocratic nations should be considered an alliance and then proceed to list multiple examples of the autocratic group performing as if it were an alliance. Perhaps they believe an alliance exists only after communicating a mutually signed document revealing its intentions.
“The group is not an exclusive bloc and certainly not an alliance. It is, instead, a collection of dissatisfied states converging on a shared purpose of overturning the principles, rules, and institutions that underlie the prevailing international system.”
The fact that the countries were collaborating on a shared agenda became unavoidable when Russia invaded Ukraine. The potential consequences of the collaboration became frightening as Iranian-backed groups attacked Israel. Initiating a third concurrent conflict might leave the US-backed international system overextended and ineffective.
“Collaboration among axis members is not new. China and Russia have been strengthening their partnership since the end of the Cold War—a trend that accelerated rapidly after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. China’s share of Russian external trade doubled from ten to 20 percent between 2013 and 2021, and between 2018 and 2022 Russia supplied a combined total of 83 percent of China’s arms imports. Russian technology has helped the Chinese military enhance its air defense, antiship, and submarine capabilities, making China a more formidable force in a potential naval conflict. Beijing and Moscow have also expressed a shared vision. In early 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping signed a joint manifesto pledging a ‘no limits’ partnership between their two countries and calling for ‘international relations of a new type’—in other words, a multipolar system that is no longer dominated by the United States.”
“Iran has strengthened its ties with other axis members as well. Iran and Russia worked together to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power after the onset of civil war in 2011. Joining Russia’s efforts, which include major energy agreements with Iran to shield Tehran from the effects of U.S. sanctions, China has purchased large quantities of Iranian oil since 2020. North Korea, for its part, has counted China as its primary ally and trade partner for decades, and North Korea and Russia have maintained warm, if not particularly substantive, ties. Iran has purchased North Korean missiles since the 1980s, and more recently, North Korea is thought to have supplied weapons to Iranian proxy groups, including Hezbollah and possibly Hamas.”
“But the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 hastened the convergence among these four countries in ways that transcend their historical ties. Moscow has been among Tehran’s top suppliers of weapons over the past two decades and is now its largest source of foreign investment; Russian exports to Iran rose by 27 percent in the first ten months of 2022. Over the past two years, according to the White House, Russia has been sharing more intelligence with and providing more weapons to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies, and Moscow has defended those proxies in debates at the UN Security Council. Last year, Russia displaced Saudi Arabia as China’s largest source of crude oil and trade between the two countries topped $240 billion, a record high. Moscow has also released millions of dollars in North Korean assets that previously sat frozen in Russian banks in compliance with Security Council sanctions. China, Iran, and Russia have held joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman three years in a row, most recently in March 2024. Russia has also proposed trilateral naval drills with China and North Korea.”
The authors correctly argue that the four autocratic allies form an organization designed to be disruptive worldwide, whether politically, economically, or militarily. They are geographically contiguous, allowing transfer of resources with little interference from other nations, an advantage that Russia has taken advantage of in its aggression against Europe. Russia is wealthy in raw materials, China is dominant in fabricating products, North Korea and Iran both have demonstrated a willingness to cause conflict and regional instability to support the group’s initiatives. Russia is actively switching to a wartime economy and bolstering its military resources as if in preparation far a wider war. China is pleased to demonstrate its offensive military might whenever the opportunity presents itself. Several important nations such as Turkey, India, and Brazil, are important in world affairs but have not chosen sides.
Biden has referred to the present situation as an historical “inflection” point. The authors refer to it as a “generational challenge.” How should the alliance of democracies respond to this situation?
“Their combined economic and military capacity, together with their determination to change the way the world has worked since the end of the Cold War, make for a dangerous mix. This is a group bent on upheaval, and the United States and its partners must treat the axis as the generational challenge it is. They must reinforce the foundations of the international order and push back against those who act most vigorously to undermine it. It is likely impossible to arrest the emergence of this new axis, but keeping it from upending the current system is an achievable goal.”
Saving Ukraine from Russian domination is the most important task facing the alliance of democracies. It would demonstrate that democracy remains a viable form of government, as opposed to Putin’s contention that fascism is the natural form of governance
“Confronting the axis will be expensive. A new strategy will require the United States to bolster its spending on defense, foreign aid, diplomacy, and strategic communications. Washington must direct aid to the frontlines of conflict between the axis and the West—including assistance to Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine, all of which face encroachment by axis members. Revisionists are emboldened by the sense that political divisions at home or exhaustion with international engagement will keep the United States on the sidelines of this competition; a comprehensive, well-resourced U.S. strategy with bipartisan support would help counter that impression. The alternative—a reduction in the U.S. global presence—would leave the fate of crucial regions in the hands not of friendly local powers but of axis members seeking to impose their revisionist and illiberal preferences.”
In spite of little supporting evidence, the authors claim the democracies have the advantage in this conflict.
“The West has everything it needs to triumph in this contest. Its combined economy is far larger, its militaries are significantly more powerful, its geography is more advantageous, its values are more attractive, and its democratic system is more stable. The United States and its partners should be confident in their own strengths, even as they appreciate the scale of effort necessary to compete with this budding anti-Western coalition. The new axis has already changed the picture of geopolitics—but Washington and its partners can still prevent the world of upheaval the axis hopes to usher in.”
All the points the authors make in the above paragraph
are debatable. Let us hope they are
correct.
