GLOBAL ALLIANCES: Economy and power dynamics

THE international order is undergoing a profound transformation. Once defined by Cold War bipolarity — and later by a US-dominated unipolar moment — the global landscape today is increasingly multipolar, fragmented and competitive. The rise of rival power blocks, overlapping strategic partnerships and a resurgence of regionalism are reshaping global politics across military, economic, technological and ideological domains. Alliances such as NATO, BRICS, CRINK, AUKUS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the QUAD are not only shaping international norms but also challenging the authority of the United Nations and the very concept of multilateralism.

 

 

NATO: the traditional security powerhouse

FOUNDED in 1949 to deter the former Soviet aggression, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remains the most institutionalised and powerful military alliance in the world. As of 2025, its membership has expanded to 32 states, including three nuclear powers — the United States, United Kingdom and France — and it accounts for more than 55 per cent of global defence expenditures, largely driven by US spending.

 

 

NATO’s integrated command structure, advanced intelligence sharing, and readiness for expeditionary operations have made it a key actor in global security. Its missions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere reflect a broader reach beyond Euro-Atlantic boundaries. However, several interventions — such as Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011 — were conducted without full authorisation from the UN Security Council, raising questions about NATO’s commitment to international law and multilateral legitimacy. Critics argue NATO often practises ‘selective multilateralism,’ invoking legal norms only when aligned with strategic interests.

 

 

 

CRINK: the informal axis of alliance

 

 

The informal grouping of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — collectively dubbed ‘CRINK’ — is not a formal alliance, but rather a strategic alignment grounded in shared opposition to US hegemony and the liberal international order. Each member seeks to revise the global status quo in ways that expand its regional dominance and curtail western influence.

 

 

Militarily, CRINK states present formidable capabilities.

 

 

China maintains the world’s largest navy and is rapidly modernising its nuclear and conventional forces. Russia, though economically strained and isolated due to its war in Ukraine, retains one of the largest nuclear arsenals. Iran employs asymmetric strategies via regional proxies, while North Korea continues to expand its nuclear and cyber warfare capabilities despite international sanctions.

 

 

CRINK states specialise in ‘gray-zone’ tactics — cyberattacks, election meddling, disinformation campaigns and proxy wars — that allow them to project power and destabilise adversaries without triggering open conflict. Their cooperation includes military drills, technology transfers and diplomatic coordination, particularly in obstructing western-backed resolutions at the UN.

 

 

 

BRICS: economic sovereignty and southern solidarity

 

 

WHILE CRINK represents a geopolitical challenge, BRICS offers an economic and institutional alternative to western dominance. Originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS has recently expanded to include Egypt, Iran the UAE, Ethiopia, and other Global South nations. Collectively, the group represents over 45 per cent of the world’s population and around 30 per cent of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity).

 

 

BRICS advocates for a multipolar world order through financial reform and institutional pluralism. It seeks to reduce reliance on the US dollar, promote trade in local currencies and expand the role of the New Development Bank as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank. These efforts resonate across the Global South, where resentment towards western conditionality, debt traps and interventionist policies runs deep. Nonetheless, BRICS faces internal tensions — particularly between China and India — and its members vary significantly in political systems, strategic interests and foreign policy goals. As a result, BRICS functions more effectively as an economic bloc than as a coordinated geopolitical force.

 

 

 

Middle East realpolitik: bypassing global norms

 

 

THE Middle East remains one of the most volatile and legally ambiguous theatres of global conflict. The intensifying standoff between Israel, Iran and the United States provides a vivid example of the complexity shaping modern alliances. While the US–Israel alliance remains one of the most enduring in the world, it now draws Washington into increasingly precarious military and diplomatic confrontations with Iran — a state that is quietly bolstering its ties with Russia, China and other anti-western blocs. This triangular tension exposes the limits of traditional alliances in resolving modern conflicts. It also highlights how regional rivalries are enmeshed in global power contests, further blurring the lines between local disputes and systemic geopolitical fault lines. Countries like the United States, Iran and Israel frequently engage in military actions and covert operations that stretch or violate the UN Charter.

 

 

Many countries in the Global South, including Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa, resist binary alignment. They engage with both western and eastern blocs while prioritising national interests. These nations are increasingly assertive in global forums — demanding reform of the UN Security Council, more equitable climate finance, and greater voice in trade negotiations. Gulf states, for example, balance US security ties with deepening energy and investment relations with China. India, a member of both BRICS and the Quad, exemplifies strategic autonomy — buying Russian oil, confronting China at its borders, and courting western capital and technology. This ‘non-aligned multipolarity’ signals a departure from the Cold War template.

 

 

The US, despite advocating a ‘rules-based international order,’ has led numerous military interventions without UN approval — from the 2003 Iraq invasion to drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Its assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020 further demonstrated the increasing normalisation of extrajudicial force outside formal wartime settings.

 

 

Israel similarly operates beyond international frameworks, citing national security and self-defence. Its airstrikes in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, as well as targeted assassinations of Iranian scientists, continue despite repeated UN resolutions and condemnation. US veto power at the Security Council often shields Israel from international consequences.

 

 

Iran, on the other hand, deploys its influence through proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shiite militias, while pursuing a controversial nuclear program and engaging in maritime and cyber sabotage. Though Tehran claims these actions are defensive, they frequently violate international agreements and exacerbate regional instability.

 

 

Emerging frontiers: technology and Africa

 

 

NEW domains of rivalry are emerging beyond conventional battlegrounds. Cyber warfare has become a key tool for both state and non-state actors. CRINK states are accused of deploying cyberattacks to disrupt infrastructure, steal intellectual property and influence elections. NATO members, too, are developing offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, with increased investments in AI, space defence, and autonomous weapons.

 

 

Africa has emerged as a strategic theatre for influence among major powers. China, through its Belt and Road Initiative, invests heavily in infrastructure, digital networks and logistics across the continent. Russia leverages private military contractors like the Wagner Group to back military juntas and extract mineral resources. The west remains engaged through aid and counterterrorism efforts, while BRICS countries court African partnerships to expand their geopolitical and economic reach.

 

 

 

New architectures: AUKUS, QUAD and SCO

SECURITY cooperation is becoming increasingly specialised and regional. AUKUS — an alliance among Australia, the UK and the US focuses on military technology transfers and countering Chinese maritime expansion, including the development of nuclear-powered submarines and AI-enabled defence systems.

 

 

QUAD, involving the US, India, Japan and Australia, promotes maritime security, infrastructure and supply chain resilience in the Indo-Pacific. Though less formal than NATO, QUAD reflects an evolving alignment of democratic Indo-Pacific powers. The SCO, dominated by China and Russia, includes both authoritarian and democratic states and seeks to promote regional security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation. However, diverging national interests and internal rivalries often limit their cohesion and strategic clarity.

 

 

 

Looking ahead: fragmentation or realignment?

GLOBAL alliances today operate with differing levels of institutional strength, legal legitimacy, and strategic coherence. NATO retains unrivalled military power but faces criticism for legal inconsistencies. CRINK offers a model of disruptive resistance to the west, albeit without formal integration. BRICS promotes economic sovereignty but is held back by internal contradictions. Meanwhile, the US, Israel and Iran pursue aggressive unilateralism that undermines multilateral institutions.

 

Several future scenarios could reshape the global order:

 

India may deepen ties with western alliances, distancing itself from China within BRICS.

 

BRICS could launch a digital currency, challenging the dollar’s dominance.

 

China and Russia might formalise a defence pact, solidifying a counter-NATO axis.

 

African and Latin American nations may increasingly align with non-western powers, seeking growth without political conditions.

 

In this increasingly multipolar environment, the balance has tilted away from international law and towards realpolitik. Global governance is losing traction, and power dynamics are defined more by coercion than by consensus. Until meaningful reform revitalises institutions like the UN, alliances — not law — will continue to shape the world’s trajectory and determine who has the power to shape its future.

 

 

Dr Abdullah A Dewan is a former physicist and nuclear engineer at BAEC and is professor emeritus of economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.