By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his June 19th address, President Zelenskyy accused Russia of actively working to protect Iran’s nuclear program, viewing this as evidence of a dangerous alliance between aggressive regimes. He also announced a meeting focused on strengthening sanctions against Russia, tasking his government with developing new sanction strategies for international partners. Furthermore, Zelenskyy reiterated Ukraine’s readiness for high-level talks to achieve a genuine ceasefire and end the war, expressing hope for US involvement under President Trump’s leadership. He stressed the need for a multifaceted approach combining sanctions, diplomacy, and security measures.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s assertion that aggressive regimes must not be allowed to unite and become partners is a crucial observation in the current geopolitical landscape. The potential for alliances between authoritarian powers, like Russia and Iran, poses a significant threat to global stability and international norms. This partnership, already underway, represents a worrying trend of collaboration between nations willing to disregard international law and human rights in pursuit of their objectives.
The emergence of this axis is not merely a matter of ideological alignment; it’s a reflection of a shifting global economic order. The rise of China as an economic superpower provides an alternative trading partner for nations seeking to bypass Western sanctions and influence. This dynamic allows countries like Russia and Iran to maintain economic viability despite international pressure, weakening the impact of traditional tools of deterrence.
The complexities of this situation are amplified by the inherent challenges in preventing such alliances. Simple sanctions or military action are unlikely to be effective deterrents. Nations have a right to forge partnerships, and attempting to unilaterally prevent them risks escalating tensions and creating unintended consequences. International cooperation and diplomatic efforts are necessary to mitigate these risks, but the effectiveness of these tools is often hampered by competing national interests and political gridlock.
The issue is further complicated by the ambiguity of defining “aggressive regimes.” While some nations’ actions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, clearly meet this definition, the characterization of other actors is less straightforward. Different actors and nations have different perspectives on which nations and actions deserve condemnation. The same standards are not uniformly applied across the globe, which fosters inconsistent responses to aggression and undermines efforts to establish international norms.
The use of proxies further obscures the lines of responsibility and accountability. The support provided by Iran to Russia in the war in Ukraine, and the actions of Israel in Palestine, illustrate the complexities of determining responsibility for aggression when nations operate through proxies. This obfuscation makes the identification and deterrence of aggression more challenging.
Democratic systems also face inherent challenges in responding to international crises and establishing united fronts. The electorate’s focus often shifts to domestic issues, such as economic concerns and inflation, leading to public apathy or even opposition to interventions in foreign conflicts. This sentiment can be exploited by authoritarian regimes through propaganda and misinformation campaigns, which further erodes public support for international cooperation.
Dictatorships, conversely, enjoy a distinct advantage in this regard. Free from the constraints of public opinion or democratic processes, they can quickly and decisively commit resources to military build-ups and alliances without facing domestic opposition. This allows them to develop and maintain alliances more effectively than democracies often can.
The situation highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the international system. While the concerns about the Russia-Iran alliance are valid and deserve attention, addressing them effectively requires careful consideration of multiple factors, including the complex dynamics of economic interdependence, the challenges of defining and responding to aggression, and the contrasting political systems of democracies and dictatorships. Simply labeling certain regimes as “aggressive” while ignoring the actions of others is not a solution, but rather a simplification of a vastly intricate issue. A comprehensive approach is essential to navigate these challenges and foster greater international cooperation.