Russia–Iran–China Alliance Signals Deep Shift in Global Power

Headlines across Washington warn of an emerging “Axis of Upheaval.” Yet this framing misleads: the alliance in question isn’t built on mutual trust or common ideologies. Rather, it’s a fragile partnership among isolated powers seeking to navigate a U.S.-dominated international order that has increasingly marginalized them.

Recent months have witnessed Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea strengthening their connections. These nations are exchanging military hardware, aligning their diplomatic strategies, engaging in combined military drills, and offering mutual support in international forums. Such developments, particularly amid the prolonged Ukraine conflict and escalating East Asian tensions, have fueled concerns about a coordinated anti-Western coalition. However, characterizing this arrangement as a cohesive alliance distorts the underlying dynamics. These nations operate without ideological consensus. Instead of building an alternative world order, they are responding pragmatically to what they perceive as an aggressive and meddling Western framework. Their collaboration stems from familiar resentments rather than unified aspirations.

Understanding this distinction matters enormously. Portraying these relationships as a durable and monolithic axis overstates their solidarity and risks misleading strategic decision-making. This tactical maneuvering is instead a defensive response to what these governments view as suffocating Western dominance and systematic exclusion. Policymakers who grasp this reality can craft more nuanced approaches that acknowledge the conditional nature of these partnerships.

 Survival Above All

The conduct of these nations aligns perfectly with realism, an international relations theory that asserts states prioritize survival in an anarchic (ungoverned) global system. Scholar Kenneth Waltz has observed that “in anarchy, security is the highest end.” Without global governance, nations must depend on themselves for protection, prompting them to forge tactical partnerships that counter threats, driven not by shared beliefs or affinity, but by strategic necessity.

Take Russia. Even under wartime conditions and economic sanctions, it maintains significant military capabilities while weaponizing energy supplies as diplomatic tools. Iran, cornered by isolation and penalties, extends its reach through asymmetric warfare tactics and ideological networks. China, commanding the world’s second-largest economy, provides capital, technological resources, and an authoritarian development blueprint. North Korea maintains its unpredictability with its nuclear capabilities and dispatch of troops to Russia. These nations have forged a pragmatic partnership motivated by collective necessity rather than ideological alignment.

John Mearsheimer, a prominent realist, emphasizes the competitive dynamics among major powers, observing that “The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business.” Great powers pursue maximum security and influence, often at the expense of their rivals. Today’s complexity stems from the ideological dimensions of this emerging coalition. These governments repudiate the liberal democratic principles that support the existing global framework, viewing it simultaneously as both threatening and dysfunctional. Their partnership represents both an ideological challenge and a strategic calculation.

Although ideological themes such as state sovereignty, rejection of liberalism, and control over consensus do inform their discourse, these regimes remain cautious of overcommitment. The convergence reflects overlapping authoritarian instincts rather than a unified doctrine. As a number of analysts observe, deep ideological cohesion is absent, and relationships remain conditional, asymmetric, and rooted in strategic pragmatism.

 Dependent Authoritarian Convergence

This partnership is most accurately characterized as “dependent authoritarian convergence.” It transcends mere survival tactics to construct interconnected frameworks of economic dependence, military synchronization, and technological collaboration.

Iran’s drone technology has bolstered Russia’s military operations in Ukraine despite international sanctions. China’s commercial relationships and financial investments offer crucial support to both Russia and Iran, while advancing alternatives to American-controlled monetary systems, including the digital yuan. These developments represent progress toward an alternative, rules-based framework that contests the Western-dominated system across both economic and political dimensions.

Unlike historical alliances forged under pressure, this convergence is gradually developing parallel mechanisms, such as digital currencies, drone supply chains, and cross-border surveillance tools, that may evolve beyond short-term cooperation. However, these systems remain emergent and far from fully institutionalized.

Historical precedent suggests that pressure-forged alliances often dissolve once immediate threats subside. The 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact crumbled within two years. Throughout the Cold War, China and the USSR initially partnered before evolving into fierce adversaries. However, today’s authoritarian convergence operates differently. Its economic connections, technological fusion, and shared anti-liberal worldview indicate a more substantial, enduring basis. Modern technology enables unprecedented coordination and surveillance capabilities that weren’t available to earlier authoritarian partnerships. The digital infrastructure connecting these nations creates dependencies that extend far beyond traditional military or diplomatic cooperation. Additionally, the global interconnectedness of today’s world means that their alternative systems can potentially scale up and attract other nations in ways that isolated Cold War blocs could not achieve.

Why This Matters for the Future of the Global Order

Western policymakers should stop treating these relationships as temporary marriages of convenience. They represent intentional system-building efforts designed to challenge fundamental assumptions about how global governance should operate, from alternative payment systems to competing international law frameworks.

Although realism explains the balancing and power projection mechanics, it doesn’t fully capture the ideology fueling this convergence. The authoritarian model offers a compelling alternative narrative: economic growth without political liberalization, stability through control rather than consensus, and sovereignty over universal human rights. The West faces two intertwined risks: escalating military conflict and the normalization of authoritarian governance as a globally viable model. Many developing nations observe this authoritarian convergence not with alarm, but with interest, seeing potential pathways to development that don’t require Western-style democratization.

Can liberal democracy compete in a world where repression, surveillance, and state capitalism are efficiently networked? Is the United States still capable of leading a coherent counter-coalition? Or is the liberal international order quietly yielding to a new reality emerging from the East? The window for effective response may be narrowing as these authoritarian partnerships deepen and institutionalize their cooperation.

The future of global governance hinges on how effectively democratic states comprehend and respond to this authoritarian convergence. Misreading it as mere opportunism could push these powers closer together. Conversely, engaging in underlying ideological and structural shifts could open new avenues for diplomacy and competition.

The global order is not collapsing overnight, but it is being quietly and steadily reshaped. The question is whether liberal democracy can adapt quickly enough to preserve its relevance, or whether the world is now seeing the rise of a distinctly different, more authoritarian era. The technological dependencies and parallel institutions these nations are constructing, from alternative payment systems to coordinated surveillance networks, represent infrastructure that could outlast any individual crisis or leadership change.

Unlike the ideologically hollow alliances of the past, this convergence offers developing nations a coherent alternative development model that doesn’t require democratic liberalization. The realist logic driving these partnerships ensures they will persist as long as Western dominance continues, but their institutional depth suggests they may endure even if geopolitical pressures ease. Democratic states must recognize that they are not merely competing against rival powers, but against an emerging system that challenges the fundamental assumptions underlying the liberal international order. The window for shaping this transformation is narrowing as these authoritarian partnerships move from tactical cooperation to structural interdependence. What’s forming isn’t an alliance of trust, it’s an axis of necessity, built on grievance, survival, and the cracks in the liberal order.

 

* Ameer Al-Auqaili is a PhD candidate at Wayne State University.

 

Source: https://fpif.org/russia-iran-china-alliance-signals-deep-shift-in-global-power/