The Axis of Totalitarianism Threatens a Disastrous World Order

Benito Mussolini, the then-dictator of Italy, coined the term totalitarianism in the early 1920s to describe his regime. It has become synonymous with a form of government wielding absolute control over society, seeking to regulate all aspects of public and private life. Totalitarian states concentrate power in a single entity and suppress dissent. These states maintain control through propaganda, surveillance, and state-sanctioned violence.
The term “axis of totalitarianism” captures the growing challenge posed by a collection of totalitarian states — Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia — whose alignment disrupts the democratic world order. Though not a formal alliance, these countries actively work to revise the US-led international order. Their strategic convergence extends beyond mere pronouncements, with coordinated actions demonstrating a concerted effort to erode the foundations of democratic systems. The axis further expands its reach by incorporating non-state actors — a myriad of terrorist groups, including various radical Islamic groups and Iran’s Axis of Resistance. Despite ideological and operational differences, these entities share a common antipathy towards democratic values and the Western order.
The axis doesn’t just criticize Western “decadence” — they actively propose an alternative global order. But beneath the surface lies a vision not of freedom, but of oppression. These regimes clamp down on individual liberties, ruthlessly crush dissent, and prioritize the rule of a select few elites over the rule of law. If the axis prevails, the world order fractures into competing spheres of influence, minority rights get trampled, and a far more chaotic and totalitarian order takes root.
The UN’s Achilles’ heel: How the axis powers support each other
The axis actively employs coordinated voting patterns within international organizations as a key strategy to weaken democratic values. This approach manifests in two primary tactics: synchronized voting blocs and mutual defense mechanisms. These tactics serve to shield the interests of both the Axis states themselves and their allies.
In the international arena, China and Russia have emerged as leading actors shielding themselves and their allies from human rights scrutiny. A prime example is their 2020 opposition to a UN resolution condemning North Korea’s abuses. The UN Commission of Inquiry documented horrific acts — arbitrary detention, torture, and executions — within North Korean prison camps. However, China and Russia’s votes thwarted the international community’s attempt at a unified stance against these atrocities.
Furthermore, in 2022, they actively opposed a UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Independent investigations and human rights reports documented systemic repression. This vote effectively shielded Beijing from condemnation, underscoring their commitment to mutual defense against human rights criticism.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle allows international intervention in mass atrocities. However, the axis consistently thwarts resolutions for R2P against authoritarian leaders. This undermines R2P, leaving civilians vulnerable to repressive regimes. In 2012, China and Russia wielded their veto power in the UN Security Council, blocking a resolution for sanctions against Syria’s violent suppression of protests. Ignited in 2011, the crackdown spiraled into a devastating civil war with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. China and Russia’s veto effectively crippled international action.
In 2011, Russia permitted the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya. China, however, took a more nuanced approach, abstaining from the vote. This abstention signaled a strategic maneuver, avoiding opposition while withholding endorsement of the intervention. The resolution aimed to prevent a massacre in Benghazi by forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. China’s abstention, alongside Russia’s reluctant agreement, reflected a cautious strategy. This allowed them to maintain diplomatic flexibility while conveying disapproval of interventions seen as threats to authoritarian regimes.
The axis coordinates across specialized agencies and international bodies, significantly impacting global governance. In 2021, China and Russia opposed an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution criticizing Iran’s nuclear inspection restrictions. These restrictions significantly impeded the international community’s ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and ensure its peaceful character. By opposing the resolution, China and Russia shielded Iran and weakened the non-proliferation regime, which relies on robust inspections to prevent nuclear proliferation.
In 2023, these countries all abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning North Korea’s latest ballistic missile test. Such tests violate existing UN resolutions and pose a threat to regional security. By abstaining from the vote, these countries signaled a tolerance for North Korea’s actions and undermined the effectiveness of the UN Security Council in deterring future tests.
The axis goes beyond voting patterns to actively defend each other’s actions on the international stage, using diplomatic and strategic means to counteract pressures from democratic nations. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, China demonstrably signaled its alignment by expressing ‘understanding’ of Russia’s actions. This stance solidified the burgeoning strategic partnership between the two nations.
China’s support for Russia continued through the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This included providing crucial diplomatic cover, such as calculated abstentions from critical UN votes condemning Russia’s aggression, prioritizing their alliance over international censure. Additionally, China offered rhetorical support throughout the lead-up to the invasion and since, blaming the United States and NATO for the war while refusing to assign any blame to Russia, and accusing the West of weaponizing supply chains and prolonging the conflict by providing Ukraine with arms..
North Korea aligned itself with Russia’s narrative, publicly assigning blame for the Ukraine crisis to the United States and NATO. Iran further bolstered Russia’s military capabilities by supplying them with critical equipment, including hundreds of drones used in the conflict. These coordinated actions by the axis highlight a concerning consolidation of authoritarian influence.
Non-state powers are the shadow bloc of the axis
The alliance bypasses state actors and actively extends its influence to support terrorist organizations and radical Islamic groups. Their support for these non-state actors strengthens their geopolitical position as they actively antagonize Western powers, particularly the United States and its allies.
Acting as a patron Iran lavish the Axis of Resistance. Iran exerts influence by supplying military aid, funding training, and implementing social programs. This bolsters the group’s skills and public support, solidifying their local dominance.
Hezbollah, a potent Lebanese Shia militia and political party, is a central figure in Iran’s proxy groups. Designated a terrorist organization, Hezbollah has a track record of launching attacks against both Israel and US targets throughout the region. In Iraq, Shia militias such as Kata’ib Hezbollah are accused of targeting US forces and destabilizing the fragile Iraqi government. Notably, Iran also offers support to Hamas, a Sunni Palestinian group classified as a terrorist organization. This incongruous move underscores Iran’s strategic pragmatism: they actively support any group that aligns with their broader regional goals, irrespective of sectarian affiliations.
China actively supports the Axis of Resistance through strategic economic and diplomatic channels, despite typically exercising greater restraint in direct involvement. This support is demonstrably provided through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has extended significant infrastructure investments to countries like Iran and Syria. These investments act as economic lifelines, helping to sustain both the regimes and their affiliated militant groups.
Moreover, Russia does not engage haphazardly with non-state actors. Rather, it cultivates relationships with them as strategic tools to achieve its geopolitical goals. This approach goes beyond simply siding with one party in a conflict. These groups come in different forms. Separatist movements and insurgents in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria challenge pro-Western governments and destabilize strategic regions. Additionally, Russia backs authoritarian regimes vital to its interests, like the Assad regime in Syria, which strengthens its Middle Eastern foothold and counters US influence. Their intervention, alongside the support by Iranian proxies, has bolstered the regime and allowed them to crack down on opposition groups.
Russia utilizes private military contractors (PMCs) like the Wagner Group. In Ukraine, Wagner mercenaries fought alongside Russian troops, bolstering their forces and undertaking covert operations. This enables Russia to achieve its objectives while maintaining plausible deniability. Known for widespread human rights abuses and operating with impunity, Wagner’s actions in Ukraine not only destabilized the region but also amplify their role as a psychological weapon, aligning with Russia’s covert objectives. This pattern extended to Africa and the Middle East, where Wagner operatives protected resource-rich territories for allied governments, quelled insurgencies, and countered Western influence. Their documented presence in Libya and the Central African Republic has been linked to both internal conflict and human rights abuses.
Furthermore, North Korea’s engagement in the arms trade transcends mere competition with South Korea. It constitutes a deliberate strategy to bolster anti-Western actors globally, operating clandestinely and circumventing sanctions. Though less conspicuous than Russia or Iran in the Middle East, North Korea has demonstrably provided weapons and expertise to militant groups in both that region and Africa. A prime illustration is North Korea’s supply of arms to the Syrian government during the civil war. This incident, alongside sales to Hamas and Hezbollah, exposes how North Korea’s opaque arms trade fuels conflict and strengthens those challenging Western influence.
Building an economic counterweight to the West
The Axis of Totalitarianism has established a robust anti-Western economic bloc, actively working to undermine Western dominance and create an alternative economic order. A key pillar is the BRICS economic bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Founded in 2009, BRICS provides a platform for these emerging economies to collaborate on economic issues and financial mechanisms outside the Western sphere. Despite diverse political and economic systems, China and Russia leverage BRICS to promote alternative financial frameworks, seeking to reduce reliance on the US dollar and diminish Western economic influence.
BRICS actively counters Western influence in development finance through the New Development Bank (NDB). Established in 2014 with a US$50 billion initial capital, the NDB directly finances infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS members and other emerging economies. This competes with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are criticized for prioritizing developed nations and strict loan conditions. Unlike these institutions, the NDB operates on a “one country, one vote” principle, ensuring greater representation for emerging economies in decision-making. The bank prioritizes projects aligned with BRICS’s development needs — clean energy, infrastructure, poverty reduction — and has approved over US$30 billion in loans by 2021.
BRICS further disrupts Western dominance in financial governance with the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), a US$100 billion mutual currency swap established in 2014 alongside the NDB. Directly challenging the IMF’s role as crisis lender, the CRA allows BRICS members to contribute to a pooled fund. During a liquidity crisis, a member can request a swap to bolster their foreign exchange reserves. It stabilizes their currency and avoids IMF austerity measures.
Furthermore, BRICS emphasizes South-South cooperation, a concept that promotes collaboration and knowledge exchange among developing countries, standing in contrast to the traditional North-South model where developed nations dictate terms to developing nations. The recent inclusion of new members under the BRICS+ banner suggests a potential expansion of the alliance’s influence and a further reshaping of the global economic landscape.
A long-term strategic goal for BRICS is the establishment of a common currency. This new currency could be a basket of currencies from member countries or a completely new unit. This offers several advantages to the bloc, including reduced transaction costs for intra-bloc trade and greater financial stability. Moreover, it signifies BRICS’ vision for a multipolar financial world order and weakens the grip of the US dollar on international trade.
Axis countries leverage bilateral trade agreements in local currencies. Russia and China spearhead this effort, conducting a growing share of their trade with each other directly in yuan and rubles. This cuts out the US dollar as a middleman and slashes transaction costs. China further expands its influence by establishing currency swap agreements with over 40 countries, facilitating trade settlements directly in yuan.
Axis countries are actively pursuing the diversification of currencies used for oil sales. In the face of extensive US sanctions, Iran has pivoted its oil trade, conducting a substantial portion of transactions with China in yuan, while the euro enjoys increasing use for trade with other partners. This two-pronged approach allows Iran to continue exporting oil even under the US sanctions. Axis countries are exploring similar currency diversification arrangements with other countries like India, which further marginalizes the role of the US dollar in global energy trade.
Axis countries are also actively developing alternative payment systems. China’s aims (CIPS) and Russia’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) aim to facilitate secure financial transactions between member countries and new partners, bypassing the US-controlled SWIFT system. Though still under development, these alternative systems have the potential to become a significant force in de-dollarization efforts in the long run.
Moreover, Russia has embarked on an aggressive strategy to increase its gold reserves, becoming one of the world’s largest holders of gold. This bolsters their economy by providing a valuable alternative store of wealth and shielding them from sanctions. Russia can leverage its substantial gold reserves to bolster the ruble’s value or facilitate international transactions.
China’s Silk Road fuels its global ambitions
Launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, the BRI has become a cornerstone of the Axis economic strategy. This ambitious infrastructure development project dwarfs any in history, with over US$4 trillion invested across more than 140 countries as of 2023. BRI creates a vast network transforming regional connectivity. High-speed rail lines crisscross participating nations, modern highways link economic hubs, and upgraded ports facilitate efficient trade. This comprehensive approach promises to reduce travel times and transportation costs for both goods and people.
The China-Europe Land Bridge, a key BRI corridor, dramatically cuts travel times for freight trains between China and Europe compared to traditional sea routes. The BRI further promotes energy security by constructing oil and gas pipelines. These pipelines directly transport resources from energy-rich regions to energy-hungry markets, reducing reliance on traditional suppliers. The Power of Siberia pipeline exemplifies this strategy, delivering natural gas from Russia to China and solidifying their energy partnership.
The BRI also actively fosters digital connectivity. It achieves this by developing fiber optic networks and advanced telecommunication infrastructure across participating countries. This strategy bridges the digital divide by deploying advanced infrastructure, boosting internet access for citizens, and facilitating communication across borders. In turn, it strengthens economic and social ties between BRI nations.
The large scale of investments undertaken by China creates economic dependence amongst recipient countries, particularly those with less developed economies. China seeks to advance its economic and political objectives by exploiting this dependence. BRI projects in key partner nations such as Iran provide China with a strategically important economic foothold in the Middle East, thereby offering it political leverage within the region. China employs a strategy of debt-trap diplomacy, whereby it leaves countries greatly in debt, potentially pressuring them to comply with its interests.
The axis powers’ pursuit of military might
The axis powers have been pursuing military modernization and strategic initiatives, ostensibly to augment their capabilities and potentially challenge the pre-eminent position of the United States and its allies.
Since the early 2000s, Russia has embarked on a determined course to revitalize its military, shedding the shadow of its Soviet-era predecessor. This modernization effort transcends mere equipment upgrades; it’s a strategic recalibration aimed at reclaiming Russia’s position as a major power player.
Russia prioritizes developing advanced air defense systems to revitalize its military. The S-400 Triumf system, nicknamed the “Growler” by NATO, possesses a demonstrably long-range, high-altitude interception capability, posing a significant threat to modern aircraft and missiles. Its successor, the S-500 Prometheus, promises even greater range and altitude coverage, rendering hypersonic weapons ineffective and solidifying Russia’s aerial defense.
Moreover, Russia pushes development of stealth technology for its fighter jets. The Su-57 Felon, a fifth-generation fighter, integrates radar-absorbent materials and a unique design to minimize its radar signature. Still under testing, the Su-57 signifies Russia’s ambition to challenge US F-35 dominance and other advanced stealth fighters.
Russia boasts the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, a cornerstone of its national security strategy. However, modernization goes beyond quantity. Russia develops new delivery systems, including next-generation intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and Yasen-M class submarines, to guarantee their nuclear deterrent remains effective against evolving missile defenses.
China’s military modernization program is the most concerning aspect of the Axis’s growing power. Aiming to transform the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a world-class force by 2049, China heavily invests in cutting-edge tech, including J-20 fighter jets that rival US capabilities and threaten air dominance. Their rapidly expanding aircraft carrier fleet, with modern escorts, signals global power projection and a challenge to naval supremacy.
Hypersonic missiles with their extreme speed and maneuverability raise concerns about potential first-strike capabilities and complicate regional deterrence. Investments in space and cyberwarfare capabilities further strengthen China’s military. The BeiDou system lessens reliance on GPS, while advancements in cyberwarfare raise the specter of disruptive attacks on critical global infrastructure. China plans to double its nuclear arsenal by 2030, marking a significant shift from its minimum deterrence posture. These advancements not only bolster China’s military but also serve as a blueprint for its Axis partners.
Iran’s military power prioritizes an asymmetric defense strategy. This strategy centers on a demonstrably advanced and expanding missile arsenal, wielded as a deterrent against regional rivals possessing superior conventional military capabilities. Furthermore, Iran maintains a robust naval presence in the Persian Gulf, spearheaded by the well-equipped and highly motivated Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy. These fast attack boats and advanced mine warfare capabilities pose threats to commercial shipping, disrupting critical energy supplies.
Iran’s true power projection, however, extends beyond its own military. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) utilizes a network of well-funded and highly trained proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, with approximately 20,000 – 50,000 fighters, and various Shia militias in Iraq, collectively numbering around 120,000 fighters, to exert influence across the Middle East. This network includes groups such as Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (10,000 fighters), Kata’ib Hezbollah (7,000 – 10,000 fighters), and the Badr Organization (18,000 – 22,000 fighters). Additionally, the IRGC supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen, with an estimated 20,000 – 30,000 fighters, and has influence over Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, together comprising 20,000 – 40,000 fighters. These proxies act as a force multiplier, allowing Iran to project power and sow discord in strategic regions without directly committing its own troops.
Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5+1) in 2015. It aimed to restrict Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, Iran’s ongoing nuclear activities now surpass the JCPOA’s limitations, raising concerns about weapons development and a disregard for international agreements. This defiance erodes trust and threatens the fragile nuclear non-proliferation framework. The JCPOA’s uncertain future creates a pathway for Iran to weaponize its program, destabilizing the Middle East and triggering a regional nuclear arms race. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, citing concerns about its effectiveness and Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Shifting focus to East Asia, North Korea’s military strategy focuses on a different kind of power — deterrence through a potent nuclear arsenal. Despite its economic woes, North Korea maintains a large and well-equipped standing army, particularly in its artillery forces positioned along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) bordering South Korea. This massive concentration of artillery poses a constant threat to South Korean civilians and military installations. Notably, Russia and North Korea signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement following President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Pyongyang in June 2024. The agreement reportedly includes a mutual defense pact, raising concerns about a potential new nuclear axis forming in opposition to the West.
North Korea’s most concerning development is a two-pronged approach: advancing ballistic missiles and developing cyberwarfare. They’ve miniaturized nuclear warheads for long-range missiles capable of striking South Korea, Japan, and the US mainland. These advancements solidify their de facto nuclear state status and heighten the risk of accidental or deliberate attacks. Additionally, North Korea’s cyberattacks target critical infrastructure and financial institutions, posing a significant threat to regional stability and the global economy.
Conclusion
The rise of the axis, united by their authoritarian ideology and opposition to democracy, disrupts the existing world order. This emerging multipolarity isn’t just about power being distributed; it’s a clash of values that breeds a future rife with ideological confrontations. Anti-Western sentiment acts as the ideological glue that binds these actors, both state and non-state, and manifests in a variety of ways, from overt military alliances to covert support networks.
The axis countries frame their struggle as resistance against perceived Western imperialism. This narrative resonates with local populations through appeals to nationalism and religion. Iranian leaders like Ayatollah Khamenei and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah demonize the West, particularly the US, as the Great Satan. Similar narratives echo from President Putin, who portrays NATO as a threat, and North Korean propaganda, which depicts the US as an aggressor. China criticizes Western interference and yearns for a multipolar world order free from Western dominance.