/nginx/o/2016/04/26/5307387t1h0e20.jpg)
:format(webp)/nginx/o/2025/06/17/16931072t1h9f84.jpg)
- Authoritarian countries also need allies.
- However, mutual alliance agreements are rather detrimental to them.
- The strategies of Iran and Russia diverge.
In every protracted armed conflict, the question that ultimately becomes central is which warring side is more likely to exhaust the other: that is, which ultimately has the upper hand in terms of demographic resources, military-industrial potential, and allied relations, historian and columnist Mart Kuldkepp writes.
Now that Russia's war against Ukraine is in its third year, it is essential for the Russian Federation to give the impression that it is dominant in all these areas and that victory is therefore inevitable sooner or later. There is no doubt that Russia has a larger population (although the actual numbers are probably inflated in official statistics), but Ukraine is catching up quite quickly in terms of the military industry, and as far as alliances are concerned, the support of democratic countries that value international law is naturally held by the victim of aggression, not the aggressor. At least so far, countries that think this way have also included the United States.
Russia does not lack allies, however, and in recent years the Russia-Iran-North Korea-China axis has even been portrayed as a kind of strategic alliance, the goal of which is to undermine and destroy the liberal world order and especially Western hegemony. In Ukraine, North Korean soldiers are also fighting on the Russian side, Iranian drones are flying over Ukrainian cities, and without China's tacit support, continuing the war would probably be entirely impossible for Russia.
In fact, the current situation is a good lesson in why authoritarian states should rather avoid alliances with each other.
What is striking about such alliances is, firstly, their mutual transactional nature – each side needs something specific from the other, not general promises – and, secondly, the declarative nature with which this transactional nature is attempted to be concealed. Currently, the Iranian–Russian Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed in Moscow on January 17 of this year, is attracting a lot of attention, which, among other things, stipulated that if one side becomes a victim of aggression, the other side must not support the aggressor. Thus, Russia is seemingly on Iran’s side in the current Iran-Israel war, although in reality the Russian side is unable to do anything to help its ally other than make ridiculous statements calling on other countries to adhere to the UN Charter – in a situation where Russia itself has been blatantly and systematically violating this Charter for years.
In fact, the current situation is a good lesson in why authoritarian states should rather avoid alliances with each other. Namely, these commitments to Iran run counter to an even more important strategy for Russia: developing warm relations with US President Donald Trump, who is expected to impose peace on Ukraine on terms that are favorable to Russia. However, Trump has transformed overnight from a peace dove into a warmonger who is demanding unconditional capitulation from Iran and advocating US intervention on the side of Israel. In the name of continued American friendship, Russia could and certainly will sacrifice Iran, but this will probably not go unnoticed by Russia's other allies – including China, which has signed a similar strategic partnership agreement with Russia.