CLYDE KULL ⟩ Rush to establish defense pacts has historically been a bad omen

Clyde Kull. Photo: Eero Vabamägi

• The outbreak of major wars has often been preceded by steps towards the consolidation of alliances.
• Both World War I and World War II began with a series of smaller regional conflicts.

The world is entering an unpredictable era where the consolidation of rival alliances seems to be accelerating. On June 19, Russia and North Korea signed a mutual defense pact in Pyongyang, which Russian President Putin described as «setting great goals and benchmarks for deepening Russia-Korea relations in the long term,» Ambassador Clyde Kull writes.

The agreement indicates that the two countries are ready to deepen their relations beyond the supply of missiles, which North Korea has already provided to Russia for attacking Ukraine.

The signing of the Russia-North Korea pact was preceded by a meeting between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping just a month earlier, where the two leaders reaffirmed the «no limits» friendship between their countries, calling for a «new era» in which, according to Xi, they value and advance their hard-earned partnership.

In addition, talks have started on the preparation of a military agreement between Russia and Iran, which, according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko, could be signed in the near future. Iran is already supplying Russia with drones for the war in Ukraine, and a formal security agreement between them could give that relationship an even bigger boost.

As Russia is building a network of alliances with autocratic countries, Western countries – particularly members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will be holding their annual summit in two weeks' time – are themselves strengthening as an alliance. Last week, it was reported that 23 of the 32 NATO members now exceed the alliance's goal of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Recently, NATO grew by two new members, Finland and Sweden, and confirmed its intention to admit Ukraine, which has been a central bone of contention between Russia and the West and one of the pretexts for the Russian aggression.

It would not be wrong to draw parallels with the diplomatic situation in Europe on the eve of World War I, when France complemented its alliance with Russia by concluding an agreement (Entente Cordiale) with Britain.

Such developments are a cause for concern and cannot be ignored. Historian William Langer noted long ago that the outbreak of major wars has often been preceded by steps towards the formation and consolidation of alliances. These constitute an «insurance policy» by which countries seek to secure resources and shape their diplomatic relations in the event of conflict. Additionally, scholars of international relations have found that alliances are a necessary condition for the outbreak of wider wars and for the transformation of regionally limited bilateral wars, such as Russia's aggression against Ukraine, into larger multilateral conflicts.

It would not be wrong to draw parallels with the diplomatic situation in Europe on the eve of World War I, when France complemented its alliance with Russia by concluding an agreement (Entente Cordiale) with Britain. Thus was born an alliance of military cooperation – Triple Entente – against imperial Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy. A similar role was played by the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on the eve of World War II, the defense pact between Britain and Poland, the so-called Axis Pact between Nazi Germany and Italy, which later onboarded Japan, and the re-endorsement of alliance ties between France and Britain.

True, there are several arguments according to which the current situation is not comparable with the situation back then, at least not so serious. But these arguments have their deficiencies, which reduce their persuasiveness.

The first of these cites the stability of the Cold War era, based on military deterrence and the stalemate between the two opposing blocs of allies – the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact on one side and the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the other. This counterargument is not very reassuring, however, because it is extremely difficult to assess whether and when deterrence will work. Moreover, even if deterrence worked during the Cold War, such a comparison is of little value today. Today's global order is more akin to the pre-World War I multipolar state of play – with the United States, Russia and China all competing for influence and control in their own regions and globally – than to the clear bilateralism that existed during the Cold War.

World wars don't burst out of a vacuum. They are preceded by the accelerating process of formation and consolidation of alliances, which we see now.

The second counterargument points to the apparent weakness of the agreement between North Korea and Russia. Based on the text as it has become known, the main provision of the treaty is rather vague, stating that if one of the signatories is attacked or finds itself in a «state of war», the other party will use "all available means to provide military and other assistance" in a manner consistent with the laws of each country. But ambiguity is commonplace in the texts of alliance treaties, including the NATO Treaty.

The third counterargument emphasizes that, despite some claims to the contrary, Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have not yet come together as an «axis of authoritarianism». Far from being bound by a comprehensive multilateral agreement comparable to NATO's, they are bound by a number of bilateral agreements with Russia at the core. In addition, there is no guarantee that Russia and Iran will eventually reach an agreement.

However, the developments to date indicate that China, North Korea and Iran are willing to support the country that Western nations have tried to relegate to a pariah since the comprehensive aggression against Ukraine began. And although they, together, may not constitute an «axis of authoritarianism», all four have very clearly expressed their discontent with the US-led global order.

The great powers are taking these steps as a response to the horrors that are already taking place, rather than as a premonition of future horrors.

Thus, these recent developments are at least evidence of an accelerating global trend in which countries «choose sides».

The final counterargument could turn comparisons with the situation before World Wars I and II on their head, arguing that the consolidation of alliances is taking place in a world that is already at war, not on the eve of war. In other words, the great powers are taking these steps as a response to the horrors that are already taking place, rather than as a premonition of future horrors.

However, it must be remembered that multilateral wars do not just happen by themselves. Both World War I and World War II began with a series of smaller regional conflicts that eventually escalated into larger wars, with this escalation facilitated by alliance ties between countries.

At last year's celebration of NATO's 75th anniversary, it was emphasized that NATO is more important than ever. This statement could be generalized to say that one of the oldest forms of diplomacy – the policy of alliances – is today as important, if not more so, than ever since the end of the Cold War and perhaps even since the end of World War II. However, how these alliances will precisely shape future events remains unclear. And this indeed is a cause for concern.