Axis of Upheaval

Last updated
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Axis of Upheaval (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea) AxisofUpheaval Map.png
  Axis of Upheaval (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea)

The Axis of Upheaval, also called the "New Axis of Evil", [1] the "deadly quartet", [2] or "CRINK", [3] [lower-alpha 1] is a term coined in 2024 by Center for a New American Security foreign policy analysts Richard Fontaine and Andrea Kendall-Taylor and used by many foreign policy analysts, [4] [5] [6] military officials, [2] [7] and international groups [8] to describe the growing Anti-Western collaboration between Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea beginning in the early 2020s. The loose alliance generally represented itself in diplomatic addresses and public statements as an "anti-hegemony" and "anti-imperialist" coalition with intentions to challenge what it deemed to be a Western-dominated global order in order to reshape international relations into a multipolar order according to their shared interests. While not a formal bloc, these nations have increasingly coordinated their economic, military, and diplomatic efforts, taking strong efforts in aiding each other to undermine Western influence. [4]

Contents

Term

The "Axis of Upheaval" as a term was coined in the April 2024 article " The Axis of Upheaval " written by foreign policy analysts Richard Fontaine and Andrea Kendall-Taylor for the Foreign Affairs magazine, as part of the Center for a New American Security United States-based national security think tank. [4] Fontaine picked the phrase due to it representing the group of nations' shared disdain for and desire to uproot Western influence and values without using language that was "too overbearing", such as with the "Axis of Evil" or "axis of autocracy". [2]

NATO policy planning head Benedetta Berti expressed that she preferred to use the phrase "strategic convergence" instead of "axis" when describing the coalition of nations. [2]

Background

The roots of cooperation among nations in the axis stretch back decades during the onset of the Cold War, based on the divide between the First World and Second World. The Soviet Union represented the lead superpower of the latter, providing assistance to and sharing communist, anti-Western philosophies with the People's Republic of China and North Korea. [4]

While these nations have generally remained on neutral or good terms since the break-up of the Soviet Union, their alliance intensified significantly following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Foreign policy analyst Andrea Kendall-Taylor stated that it seemed that Russian President Vladimir Putin misjudged the level of "extraordinary" Western coordination between the United States, Europe, and other West-friendly countries on economic sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. However, she expressed that the West's hardline and absolute response inadvertently served as a catalyst for Russia to accelerate pushing for closer economic and diplomatic ties with nations at odd with Western nations, due to it seemingly marking a "point of no return" for Russian–Western relations that increased Putin's determination to move past them. [4] [9]

Characteristics

While the Axis of Upheaval is not a formal union or alliance, it is generally united by a shared opposition to what it calls U.S. hegemony and the Western-led international order. The axis's countries have dramatically increased their economic and military cooperation while coordinating their diplomatic, information, and security efforts, operating as a loose coalition of like-minded states in resistance to economic or ideological pressure from Western nations. [4]

Anti-Western sentiment

The motivations driving the loose alliance are multi-faceted, but are primarily centered on a desire for greater regional influence and control away from Western powers' "imperialism". The axis members reject Western-defined universal values and the "championing of its brand of democracy as an attempt to undermine their legitimacy and foment domestic instability". They view U.S. presence in their regions of influence as a threat to their interests and sovereignty, stating that they should hold the right to instate democracy based on their own institutions and culture instead of being forcibly shaped by Western principles. Collectively, they represent themselves as anti-imperialists sharing the goal of creating a multipolar world order that diminishes U.S. global dominance, which includes resisting "external meddling in their internal affairs, the expansion of U.S. alliances, the stationing of American nuclear weapons abroad, and the use of coercive sanctions". [9]

Economic cooperation

Economic ties among the axis members have strengthened considerably since 2022. Following an early 2022 signing of a joint agreement between President of China Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin establishing a "'no-limits' partnership", China has become Russia's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching record levels in 2023 and 2024. In 2023, trade between Russia and China exceeded US$240 billion, with Russia replacing Saudi Arabia's petroleum trade as China’s largest petroleum source. Iran and Russia have agreed to conduct trade in each others' national currencies to reduce each others' dependency on the U.S. dollar in international transactions. China has also increased its purchases of Russian oil and natural gas, providing a crucial economic "lifeline" to Russia's oil industry and economy in the face of pressure generated by wide-sweeping Western sanctions. Many of these trade agreements, alternative networks, and transactions across shared borders appeared to be set in place specifically in order to circumvent Western sanctions and trade restrictions. [4] [9]

For Iran, exports from Russia increased by 27% from January to October 2022. [9]

Russia also defied United Nations Security Council sanctions by unfreezing North Korean assets worth several millions in USD. [4]

Military cooperation

Military collaboration has also intensified between the four states, with Iran providing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to Russia for use in Ukraine. From the beginning of Russia's invasion to the end of April 2024, Russia used ~3,700 drones designed by Iran in combat, and expressed plans to collaborate with Iran on constructing a Russian drone factory. Russia reciprocated the military assistance by granting Iran new air defense, intelligence and surveillance capabilities, modern aircraft, and cyber abilities. Russia has also provided Iran and Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah with more weapons, especially following the onset of the 2023 Israel–Hezbollah conflict. [4] [9]

While China has publicly avoided transferring weapons to Russia, it has exporting over US$300 million in dual-use items that can be used both by civilians and in the military if shipped components are put together or adapted for military use. Dual-use items exported to Russia from China include microchips, jamming equipment, telecommunications equipment, jet plane parts, sensors and radar, and machine tools, each of which helped to sustain its war effort and avert shortages caused by Western sanctions. [10] From 2018 to 2022, Russia supplied 83% of China’s military arms imports. China's exports to Russia contributed to half of its growing supply of computer microchips and components, reaching levels close to where they were prior to the invasion. [9]

North Korea has supplied Russia with roughly 2.5 million ammunition rounds and ballistic missiles. [4]

The four nations have also engaged in various kinds of joint military exercises, including naval exercises between China, Iran, and Russia in the Gulf of Oman over the past three years, and Russian-proposed naval exercises between it, North Korea, and China. [4]

Diplomatic cooperation

Diplomatic coordination among the axis members has become increasingly apparent, with each nation offering mutual support in international forums such as the United Nations. Russia and China have made efforts to legitimize Iran by including it in organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Their coordinated messaging on global issues frequently stood directly in opposition to Western and United States-led interpretations of world events, with a "shared purpose of overturning the principles, rules, and institutions that underlie the prevailing international system". [4]

Russia has defended Hezbollah and other proxies of Iran during UN Security Council debates. Likewise, China has publicly released statements and made stances during international debates blaming NATO interference in Ukraine for starting the war. In addition, Russia, Iran, and China used their state media and social media to support Hamas, to justify actions taken by them, and to criticize Israel and the US following the October 2023 attack for their hypocritical roles in mass civilian attacks and humanitarian crises in the Gaza Strip. [9]

Impact

The rapid development of the Axis of Upheaval worked to undermine the effectiveness of Western sanctions and export controls such as those against Russia, eroded U.S. military advantages in key regions including the Middle East, and presented increased challenges to international norms and institutions. Moreover, the axis's actions have emboldened other anti-Western states and actors, contributing to a more unstable global environment. [4]

Foreign policy analyst Andrea Kendall-Taylor believed that the resulting influence of the axis of nations is pushing transformation of the current "international system" into one characterized by two increasingly organized orders with opposing values and regional interests, a shift she predicted is likely to give rise to greater global instability and initiation of conflict. She noted several instances of increasing worldwide conflict related to the coalition's cooperation. These included increased regional conflicts such as Azerbaijan's renewed invasion and reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh, threats to Guyana from Venezuela, increasing tension between Kosovo and Serbia, and an increase in coups in several African nations including Niger and Burkina Faso. She predicted that opportunistic aggression, such as Russia attacking Europe while the United States is involved in a war against China, could be a future driver of worldwide conflict. [9]

Analysis

American diplomat and historian Philip Zelikow stated that the Axis of Upheaval represented the third time in recent history that the United States faced a "purposeful set of powerful adversaries in a rapidly changing and militarized period of history, short of all-out war." The prior instances included the Axis Powers of Italy, Germany, and Japan from 1937-1941, and the beginning of the Cold War against the Soviet Union and China from 1948-1962. He analyzed that the leaders of the current Axis of Upheaval share characteristics with leaders of these earlier periods such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong; viewing themselves as historical figures operating in isolated environments separate from dissenting views and pressures. He stated that this isolation shared by the four nations' leaders can lead to decisions that may seem irrational to outside observers, with autocratic state propaganda further censoring dissenting viewpoints while characterizing other international orders as existential threats to them and their culture that requires conflict and sacrifice to repel. [6]

Zelikow predicted that these conditions could lead to an "exceptionally volatile, dynamic and unstable period of world history" over the next two to three years, with the possibility of either wider war or an uneasy, unstable peace. He analyzed that while the United States, Europe, and its allies may be better positioned for long-term strategic competition in general, they could struggle to face more short to medium term conflicts due to an overextension of resources and public attention to different international conflicts, difficulty in analyzing and predicting axis members' actions, and overconfidence due to historical success over past antagonistic alliances in WWII and the Cold War. [6]

Challenges

Despite their growing cooperation, historical distrust from prior events exist, such as the Soviet Union's 1941 invasion of Iran, China's apprehension to North Korea's militant aggression, and a border dispute between Russia and China that ended in 2004. Current competing interests between the nations include disputes between Russia and China over control in Central Asia and competition between Iran and Russia for Asian oil markets. Furthermore, the axis does not seem to have a coherent positive vision for a new global order, and its members remain economically interdependent with the West to varying degrees, making direct opposition to ultimatums issued more difficult to justify. [4]

Despite this, political scientist Hal Brands remarked that their alliance forged from their mutual disdain for the "existing order" resembled many of history's "most destructive alliances", which were made from rough agreements to band together against a greater opposing order or alliance with "little coordination and even less affection". [4]

Western response

In response to this emerging threat, Western nations, led by the United States, have increased their focus on countering the collective challenge posed by the axis, which involved efforts to strengthen existing alliances and partnerships. In 2024, NATO reaffirmed its security commitments in unstable regions such as in Southeast Asia, and called for increased defense spending and diplomatic engagement to match increased cooperation from potentially destabilizing unions. [4]

Foreign policy analyst Andrea Kendall-Taylor argued that defeating Russia in Ukraine would be crucial to weakening the axis's ability to cause destabilization. She also believed that the US should not de-prioritize Russian aggression towards Ukraine and Europe while primarily focusing on China's South China Sea dispute due to both conflicts being connected by the axis. She stated that Europe needed to develop a stronger military and push for a greater emphasis on foreign policy so that the U.S. could address different global conflicts evenly without its resources and attention being stretched too thin. [9] General Sir Roly Walker corroborated these statements, stating that the United Kingdom needed to "double the lethality of its army" in three years to prepare for conflict with nations of the Axis of Upheaval. [7]

The Biden administration received strong criticism from progressive Democrats and worldwide pro-Palestinian groups and governments for delivering Israel large weapon shipments and for strongly supporting the Israeli government in international decisions during Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip. This U.S. response towards Israeli actions in Gaza was seen by Russia, China, and Iran as a blatant contradiction of Western vows towards using its power to promote human rights and international order, prompting closer ties to axis countries from other alienated nations. [1]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ An acronym for China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea [3]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign relations of Russia</span>

The foreign relations of the Russian Federation is the policy arm of the government of Russia which guides its interactions with other nations, their citizens, and foreign organizations. This article covers the foreign policy of the Russian Federation since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991. At present, Russia has no diplomatic relations with Ukraine due to its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Other than Ukraine, Russia also has no diplomatic relations with Georgia, Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia or Solomon Islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axis of evil</span> American term for "sponsors of terrorism"

The phrase "axis of evil" was first used by U.S. President George W. Bush and originally referred to Iran, Ba'athist Iraq, and North Korea. It was used in Bush's State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, less than five months after the September 11 attacks and almost a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and often repeated throughout his presidency. He used it to describe foreign governments that, during his administration, allegedly sponsored terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States sanctions</span> Trade restrictions levied by the United States government

United States sanctions are financial and trade restrictions imposed against individuals, entities, and jurisdictions whose actions contradict U.S. foreign policy or national security goals. Financial sanctions are primarily administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), while export controls are primarily administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–Russia relations</span> Bilateral relations

Relations between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Persian Empire (Iran) officially commenced in 1521, with the Safavids in power. Past and present contact between Russia and Iran have long been complicatedly multi-faceted; often wavering between collaboration and rivalry. The two nations have a long history of geographic, economic, and socio-political interaction. Mutual relations have often been turbulent, and dormant at other times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russia–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

Russia and the United States maintain one of the most important, critical, and strategic foreign relations in the world. Both nations have shared interests in nuclear safety and security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and space exploration. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations became very tense after the United States imposed sanctions against Russia. Russia placed the United States on a list of "unfriendly countries", along with South Korea, Taiwan, European Union members, NATO members, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Micronesia, Japan and Ukraine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brazil–Russia relations</span> Bilateral relations

Brazil–Russia relations have seen significant improvement in recent years, characterized by increased commercial trades and cooperation in military and technology segments. The two countries maintain important partnerships in areas such as space, military technologies, and telecommunications.

Swiss neutrality is one of the main principles of Switzerland's foreign policy which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed conflicts between other states. This policy is self-imposed and designed to ensure external security and promote peace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Azerbaijan–Russia relations</span> Bilateral relations

Russia and Azerbaijan are de facto and de jure allies in many different aspects, including military. Bilateral relations exist between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. The Embassy of Azerbaijan is located in Moscow, Russia. The Embassy of Russia is located in Baku, Azerbaijan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russia–NATO relations</span> Bilateral relations

Relations between the NATO military alliance and the Russian Federation were established in 1991 within the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and on 27 May 1997, the NATO–Russia Founding Act (NRFA) was signed at the 1997 Paris NATO Summit in France, enabling the creation of the NATO–Russia Permanent Joint Council (NRPJC). Through the early part of 2010s NATO and Russia signed several additional agreements on cooperation. The NRPJC was replaced in 2002 by the NATO-Russia Council (NRC), which was established in an effort to partner on security issues and joint projects together.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">China–Russia relations</span> Bilateral relations

China and Russia established diplomatic relations after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign relations of NATO</span> Overview of multilateral relations

NATO maintains foreign relations with many non-member countries across the globe. NATO runs a number of programs which provide a framework for the partnerships between itself and these non-member nations, typically based on that country's location. These include the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russo-Ukrainian War</span> Armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine since 2014

The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War began in February 2014. Following Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and supported pro-Russian separatists fighting the Ukrainian military in the Donbas War. These first eight years of conflict also included naval incidents and cyberwarfare. In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and began occupying more of the country, starting the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–Ukraine relations</span> Bilateral relations

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Ukraine established formal diplomatic relations on 22 January 1992. Iran recognized Ukraine as an independent sovereign state on 25 December 1991, four months after the Ukrainian SSR issued the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine amidst the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Iran has an embassy in Ukraine's Kyiv, and Ukraine has an embassy in Iran's Tehran. The two countries enjoyed a generally cordial relationship with each other until January 2020, when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing all of the 176 civilians onboard.

The foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration emphasizes the repair of the United States' alliances, which Biden argues were damaged during the Trump administration. The administration's goal is to restore the United States to a "position of trusted leadership" among global democracies in order to address challenges posed by Russia and China. Both Biden and his Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have repeatedly emphasized that no other world power should be able to surpass the United States, either militarily or economically. Biden's foreign policy has been described as having ideological underpinnings in mid-twentieth century liberal internationalism, American exceptionalism, and pragmatism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government and intergovernmental reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine</span>

The Russian invasion of Ukraine received widespread international condemnation, leading to new sanctions being imposed on Russia, which triggered a Russian financial crisis. Reactions among governments have most often been negative, with criticism and condemnation, particularly in Europe, the Americas, and Southeast Asia.

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, China's position has been ambivalent. On one hand, it has blamed enlargement of NATO, which Russia has stated as a reason for starting the war. On the other hand, it has stressed respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. China has not condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has abstained during United Nations votes on the war in Ukraine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russo-Ukrainian War and Arctic geopolitics</span> Geopolitical consequences of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2014

The Russo-Ukrainian War has had significant geopolitical consequences in the Arctic region, including on the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum focused on Arctic issues that was founded in 1996 by eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States of America. While the Ottawa Declaration establishing the Council states that it must be a space for dialogue and cooperation that does not deal with matters regarding military security, the ongoing war has impacted the workings of the organization and relationships between its countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Fontaine</span> American international relations scholar

Richard Fontaine is an American foreign policy analyst currently serving as CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 Washington summit</span> NATO diplomatic conference in Washington, DC

The 2024 Washington summit was the 33rd summit of the heads of state and government of the thirty-two members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), their partner countries and the European Union (EU), which took place in Washington, D.C., United States, on 9–11 July 2024. The summit commemorates the landmark 75th anniversary of NATO, which was founded on 4 April 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, DC. The summit was also the fourth NATO summit to be held in the United States following the 1978 Washington summit, 1999 Washington summit and 2012 Chicago summit. It also marks the first summit since Sweden acceded to NATO and the last for Jens Stoltenberg as Secretary General.

The NATO Washington Summit Declaration is a statement approved by all 32 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that was issued on 10 July 2024 by the national leaders that participated in the NATO 2024 Washington summit in Washington, D.C. in the United States. The declaration made frequent references to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, specifically dedicating six paragraphs assuring assistance to Ukraine for defense and security against Russia's impact on European stability. The Declaration was notable for its overt use of strong language condemning China's support of Russia during its invasion, referring to it as a "decisive enabler" of Russia's war crimes and breaches of international law by strengthening their mutual economic trade and political partnership. It also included several means of support and coordination with different NATO facilities and initiatives to promote Ukraine's security on its "irreversible path" to integration with European and Western nations, including eventual NATO accession.

References

  1. 1 2 Brennan, David (2024-04-20). "'New Axis of Evil' conflicts threaten US upheaval on eve of election". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Sabbagh, Dan (2024-07-30). "'Axis of upheaval' adds urgency to review of UK defence spending". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  3. 1 2 Iran International Newsroom (November 21, 2023). "World Figures Convene in Canada To Address Threats Posed By CRINK". Iran International . Retrieved August 4, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kendall-Taylor, Andrea; Fontaine, Richard (2024-04-23). "The Axis of Upheaval". Foreign Affairs. Vol. 103, no. 3. ISSN   0015-7120 . Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  5. ↑ Geri, Maurizio (2024-07-12). "NATO-EU failing energy strategy against the 'Axis of Upheaval' turns on a DIME". Friends of Europe. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  6. 1 2 3 Glosserman, Brad (2024-05-28). "Echoes of 1962, the Berlin crisis and a world teetering on war". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  7. 1 2 Sabbagh, Dan (2024-07-23). "Army chief says UK must double its lethality or be prepared for war in 2027". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  8. ↑ "NATO Public Forum: The Axis of Upheaval featuring CSIS's Jon B. Alterman". Center for Strategic and International Studies . 2024-07-23.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Kendall-Taylor, Andrea (2024-05-29). "The Axis of Upheaval: How the Convergence of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea Will Challenge the US and Europe". ICDS. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  10. ↑ Sher, Nathaniel (6 May 2024). "Behind the Scenes: China's Increasing Role in Russia's Defense Industry". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.