Illusion Of Alliances: Strategic Unity & Hidden Fragility.

The architecture of international relations is frequently interpreted through the seemingly reassuring, yet ultimately deceptive, lens of alliance formation. The signing of defence pacts is often perceived as a straightforward enhancement of national security. Within this paradigm, visible indicators such as formal treaties, joint military exercises, and shared defence obligations appear to guarantee strategic unity. However, this perspective succumbs to the “illusion of alliances.” Outward symbols of cooperation can obscure underlying structural vulnerabilities. Alliances are not static reservoirs of power; rather, they constitute dynamic and complex systems. Each commitment to deterrence may generate feedback mechanisms that inadvertently undermine the very security they are designed to reinforce.

The motives driving these coalitions also reveal their weaknesses. In the harsh international system, states join forces and pool military power to face threats. Symmetric alliances—with equal partners and shared burdens—are now rare. Most alliances today are asymmetric, based on a security-autonomy trade-off. A dominant power offers protection. This inherent power asymmetry produces significant internal challenges that threaten alliance cohesion, most notably through the persistent “alliance security dilemma.” Within such relationships, the junior partner is consistently preoccupied with the fear of abandonment—the concern that the dominant patron may renege on defence commitments or prioritise its own interests by negotiating with a mutual adversary. In response, weaker allies may overextend themselves in the patron’s peripheral conflicts or display unwavering loyalty to assert their indispensability. Conversely, the dominant power remains persistently wary of entrapment, wherein the junior partner’s provocative or reckless regional actions risk drawing the patron into an undesirable and costly conflict over issues of marginal strategic importance. This tactical contest inevitably generates a dangerous moral hazard that undermines the alliance’s structural integrity. Empowered by the extensive security guarantees of a superpower patron, a junior partner may act more aggressively in regional disputes than its independent capabilities would otherwise allow. Rather than providing stabilising deterrence, the alliance may inadvertently incentivise destabilising adventurism that could escalate into uncontrollable conflict. Additionally, alliances are persistently weakened by the “free-rider” problem, wherein smaller, militarily vulnerable states benefit from the public goods provided by the alliance while failing to contribute their proportionate share to collective defence. roblem, in which smaller, militarily vulnerable states consume the public goods provided by the alliance while failing to contribute their proportionate share to collective defence.

Historical evidence demonstrates that the tension between collective action and self-interest can fracture alliances. The Delian League of ancient Greece exemplifies this dynamic. Established in 478 BCE to defend against Persia, the League’s unity dissolved when Athens assumed control. Athens appropriated the shared treasury and relocated it to its own city, thereby reducing its allies’ independence and redirecting collective resources for its own benefit. The alliance subsequently transformed into an empire, compelling rebellious members such as Naxos and Thasos to submit. This case illustrates that collective security arrangements collapse when a single member prioritises its own objectives over the group's.

The rigid alliance networks of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries further illustrate the risks inherent in mutual defence arrangements. The inflexible ties of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance produced a chain-ganging effect, whereby the fall or defection of a major ally threatened to destabilise the entire balance of power. Consequently, each state was compelled to accommodate the fears and objectives of its partners. Efforts intended to deter war instead became mechanisms that translocalised disputes into global conflicts.

In the contemporary era, latent weaknesses within alliances are increasingly exposed as capabilities and dependencies evolve. When a weaker ally gains greater strength, it often seeks greater autonomy, potentially destabilising the alliance unless dependency persists. States that disregard the risks associated with the alliance security dilemma, entrapment, or their partners’ vulnerabilities often suffer adverse consequences from the very alliances upon which they depend.

The Structure of International Alignment

International alignment encompasses a wide range of institutional forms that states employ to navigate a complex and often dangerous global environment. At its core, an alliance refers to a formal or informal association of states established to threaten or use military force against external actors under specified conditions. Alliances constitute the primary institutional commitments for security cooperation, designed to enhance each member’s power, security, and influence. Within this category, pacts represent the most explicit, contractual expressions of security commitments, including mutual defence agreements and non-aggression treaties. For example, the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact enabled Stalin to temporarily acquire territory and avoid a two-front conflict by aligning with a significant threat, functioning as a calculated non-aggression pact rather than a mutual defence agreement. States also form coalitions, which are temporary, ad hoc arrangements created to address specific, immediate threats. The 1991 Gulf War coalition exemplifies this, as it was established to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait by leveraging NATO’s structures and incorporating external partners for a mission limited to the duration of the crisis. In contrast, blocs constitute a more expansive, rigid, and exclusive form of alignment, typically unified by a shared ideological foundation, as demonstrated by the division between the capitalist Western bloc (NATO) and the communist Eastern bloc (Warsaw Pact) during the Cold War.

Regardless of whether the arrangement is a bloc, pact, or coalition, the underlying motivation for alignment remains consistent. States do not align based on friendship or shared values; rather, they act out of fear and necessity within an anarchic international system. Each state prioritizes its own survival, and rhetoric concerning shared values often serves as a strategic façade. Winston Churchill encapsulated this pragmatism during World War II: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I should at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Both Churchill and Roosevelt allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany out of strategic necessity, not ideological affinity.

Alignments emerge from significant structural vulnerabilities and the dynamics of the security dilemma, in which one state’s defensive measures are perceived as threats by others, prompting states to seek external support to counterbalance perceived dangers. This balancing behavior is often influenced more by geographic proximity than by global power structures. For instance, Iraq’s 1972 alliance with the Soviet Union and its subsequent 1979 alignment with Saudi Arabia were strategic responses to the immediate threat from neighboring Iran, illustrating that regional actors frequently prioritize local survival over broader global considerations.

This analysis contends that alliances, pacts, blocs, and coalitions are fundamentally arrangements of power rather than enduring expressions of trust. These are calculated, transactional mechanisms through which states manage the distribution of capabilities to advance their national interests. The transactional character is most apparent in asymmetric alliances, which are prevalent globally. In such unequal arrangements, a dominant patron offers military protection while the weaker partner provides significant foreign-policy concessions or strategic basing rights. The post-Korean War alliance between the United States and South Korea exemplifies this dynamic; the alliance was established not due to South Korea’s military contribution, but because it advanced American strategic interests in regional stability, consequently reducing South Korea’s autonomy.

Because these alignments function as utilitarian instruments for aggregating capabilities, they are inherently fragile and characterized by deep-seated distrust. Allies must continually manage the tension of the alliance security dilemma, balancing the fear of abandonment during crises with the risk of entrapment in conflicts initiated by reckless partners. This tension is evident in historical and contemporary cases. For example, Britain’s 1902 alliance with Japan was intended not only to counter Russian expansion but also to restrain Japan from instigating conflict over Asian interests, illustrating that alliances can serve to control partners’ actions. Similarly, the 2021 mutual defence pact between France and Greece against Turkey demonstrates this fragility; France faces the risk of entrapment if Greek ultranationalists provoke a regional conflict over Cyprus, potentially forcing France to choose between engaging in a destructive war or abandoning its ally.

In conclusion, the structure of international alignment rests on profound distrust, as today’s essential partner may quickly become tomorrow’s significant liability. The Grand Alliance of World War II exemplifies this reality: the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union achieved remarkable strategic unity to defeat the Axis powers, yet their alliance, grounded in power rather than trust, dissolved into Cold War hostility once the common threat disappeared. What is often perceived as enduring strategic unity is, in fact, a temporary arrangement of power marked by inherent fragility.

Before The Modern Alliance

The belief that alliance politics originated with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia overlooks centuries of strategic precedent. Before the emergence of the modern nation-state, the imperative to balance against stronger adversaries shaped the survival strategies of ancient and medieval polities. Structural vulnerabilities in the pre-modern era compelled diverse entities to establish dynastic compacts, temporary wartime coalitions, and commercial leagues. These early alignments demonstrate that power aggregation, deterrence, and entrapment are enduring features of human geopolitical organisation rather than recent developments.

The ancient Greek world provides an early and illustrative example of alliance politics. In a landscape fragmented into numerous small polities, the Greeks developed advanced forms of cooperation, notably the symmachia (military alliance) and the koinon (federal League). These agreements were formalised through standardised oaths to “share the same friends and enemies” and to provide mutual military support “by land and by sea” for specified durations or “for all time.” The Delian League, founded in 478 BCE, exemplifies the transformation of a temporary wartime coalition into an imperial hierarchy. Initially established as an egalitarian alliance to expel the Persian Empire from the Aegean, the League soon came under the dominance of Athens. As the external threat diminished, Athens suppressed secession attempts by members such as Naxos and Thasos, replacing voluntary military contributions with compulsory financial tributes. This shift marked the emergence of the “Athenian Empire,” illustrating the persistent tendency of dominant allies to extract autonomy and resources from weaker partners. In contrast, the Peloponnesian League, while nominally an alliance of equals, included treaty provisions obligating members to “follow wherever the Spartans lead,” thereby serving as a clear instrument of Spartan hegemony.

This pragmatic approach to power was not limited to Western antiquity. In the fourth century BCE, the Indian strategist Kautilya outlined the theoretical basis for alignment in the Arthashastra. He codified the spatial logic of alliances, advising that an immediate neighbour constitutes a natural enemy, while the state beyond that neighbour is a natural ally. This early formulation of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle demonstrates that the logic of balancing against local threats was recognised as a universal strategic imperative long before it was formally conceptualised in Europe.

With the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages, the character of alliances evolved to reflect the growing significance of commercial interests and religious identity. The Hanseatic League, which emerged in the late twelfth century, represented a significant departure from traditional territorial military alliances. As a decentralised, transnational network of merchant guilds and market towns across the Baltic and North Seas, the League was established to combat piracy, secure toll privileges, and protect trade routes from feudal exactions. Despite lacking centralised governance, a permanent treasury, or a standing army, the Hanseatic League operated as a major European power. United by commercial interests, a common language (Middle Low German), and extraterritorial trading posts known as Kontors, its members leveraged collective economic strength to impose trade embargoes, finance mercenary forces, and even wage war against monarchs, including the kings of Denmark. The League demonstrated that power could be organised around commercial necessity rather than state sovereignty. Concurrently, broader ideological alignments, such as “Christendom,” sought to unite politically fragmented European realms against external threats like the Ottoman Turks. However, as in modern alliances, internal power struggles—particularly between the spiritual authority of the Church (Sacerdotium) and the temporal authority of the Empire (Imperium)—frequently undermined this unity.

In the early modern period, European security arrangements were characterised by dynastic compacts and deliberate imperial balancing. Before the full emergence of the impersonal state, international alliances were often established through royal marriages and personal oaths among monarchs. When particular dynasties, such as the Habsburgs under Charles V and Philip II in the sixteenth century or Bourbon France under Louis XIV in the seventeenth century, appeared poised for continental dominance, rival powers instinctively formed external balancing coalitions. The Grand Alliance of 1689, which united the Holy Roman Empire, England, Spain, and the Dutch Republic against Louis XIV, exemplifies a strategic coalition of diverse and often antagonistic entities motivated by a shared concern over French expansion.

In conclusion, the pre-modern origins of alliance politics demonstrate that the mechanisms of global alignment are longstanding, pragmatic, and inherently unstable. The historical record—from the oaths of Greek city-states to the economic blockades of Baltic merchants and the dynastic marriages of European monarchs—indicates that forming alliances against stronger rivals is a fundamental survival strategy. These early agreements were not enduring expressions of trust but rather transactional arrangements that established the foundation for the modern international system.

The Age of Pacts & Blocs

With the decline of ad hoc dynastic coalitions and temporary wartime arrangements, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked the emergence of formal alliances. During this period, the architecture of international security developed into highly institutionalised, ideologically motivated, and globally integrated systems. Pacts and blocs transitioned from temporary alliances of convenience to enduring structural foundations of the international order, shaping the dynamics of both peace and conflict.

The first modern effort to institutionalise the balance of power arose after the Napoleonic Wars. In 1815, the victorious great powers—Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, later joined by France—established the Concert of Europe. Motivated by a shared fear of revolutionary upheaval and the desire to prevent another hegemonic power, the Concert represented an unprecedented diplomatic experiment. Instead of relying exclusively on military threats, the Concert operated as a “pact of restraint,” based on regular diplomatic conferences and soft balancing. The leaders acknowledged their mutual security interdependence and imposed limits on territorial ambitions, collectively managing crises to maintain the conservative status quo. For nearly fifty years, this institutional mechanism deterred direct great-power wars in Europe by prioritising mutual consultation over unilateral action.

As the nineteenth century advanced, the cooperative ethos of the Concert deteriorated, replaced by rigid and deeply institutionalised military coalitions. Driven by fears of encirclement and escalating imperial rivalries, Europe divided into two heavily armed blocs. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck initiated this network of alliances, culminating in the 1882 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. In response, Britain, France, and Russia gradually established the Triple Entente by 1907. Unlike the adaptable Concert, these alliances required explicit, contractual military commitments, thereby institutionalising the alliance security dilemma. Although designed to deter aggression through the aggregation of conventional forces, their inflexible structures eliminated diplomatic adaptability. The vulnerability of the balance of power to the defeat of a single ally compelled great powers to align their strategies with their partners’ anxieties, ultimately transforming a localised Balkan crisis in 1914 into a global conflict.

The devastation wrought by the First World War did not prevent the formation of even more perilous global alignments. By the late 1930s, alliances became overtly ideological, culminating in the Axis and Allied blocs of the Second World War. The Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—formalised their alliance through the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 and the Tripartite Pact of 1940. United by totalitarian ideologies and the pursuit of “proletarian imperialism,” the Axis sought to overturn the Western-dominated international system and establish self-sufficient resource empires. In response to this existential threat, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union established the Grand Alliance. Despite deep ideological divisions between Western capitalist democracies and Soviet Communism, this coalition achieved an unprecedented level of strategic unity and integrated military command, focused exclusively on securing the unconditional surrender of the Axis.

After the defeat of the Axis, the fragile trust within the Grand Alliance dissolved, initiating the Cold War. This period witnessed the creation of the most institutionalised and ideologically rigid blocs in history. In 1949, the United States and Western European countries founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Motivated by the imperative to contain Soviet expansion, NATO was grounded in shared commitments to liberal democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Its functional objective was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the United States in, and Germany down,” thereby enabling the reconstruction of West Germany without endangering its neighbours. Article 5 established collective defence, supported by a permanent and highly integrated military command structure, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).

In direct retaliation to West Germany’s integration into NATO in 1955, the Soviet Union orchestrated the Warsaw Pact, formalising its grip over Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Ostensibly a mirror image of NATO’s collective security guarantees, the Warsaw Pact functioned practically as an instrument of Soviet hegemony. It provided a multilateral legal facade that legitimised the continued presence of Soviet troops across Eastern Europe. Crucially, the Soviet Union used the pact’s integrated military structures to internalise its control, famously deploying Warsaw Pact forces to crush the Czechoslovakian reform movement during the 1968 Prague Spring, proving the alliance was designed as much for policing its own members as for defending against NATO.

As the world was divided into two nuclear-armed blocs, a third movement emerged to challenge the binary framework of the Cold War. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), originating from the 1955 Bandung Conference and formally established in Belgrade in 1961, was led by figures such as India’s Nehru, Yugoslavia’s Tito, and Egypt’s Nasser. Arising from the post-war decolonisation wave, NAM member states perceived superpower blocs as a new form of neo-colonialism. Their primary objectives were to safeguard national sovereignty and avoid entangling military alliances that risked nuclear conflict. Functioning as a global mechanism for soft balancing, NAM engaged international platforms such as the United Nations to promote disarmament, anti-racism, and a more equitable global economic system. By resisting incorporation into the Cold War’s formal alliance structures, the Non-Aligned Movement illustrated that global alignment could also take the form of a unified, institutionalised rejection of hegemonic dominance.

Why Alliances Are Formed

Understanding the architecture of global alignments requires analysis beyond formal treaties and diplomatic rhetoric, focusing instead on the underlying logic of state survival. In the anarchic system of international politics, the absence of a global authority to adjudicate disputes, regulate behavior, or guarantee territorial integrity compels states to operate within a perpetual self-help system in which force is the ultimate arbiter. The primary objective of every state is to ensure its survival, preserve sovereignty, and maintain political autonomy. Since survival is a prerequisite for achieving any other national objective, states continually assess the distribution of power and seek external mechanisms to mitigate vulnerabilities. Alliances, pacts, and coalitions are thus engineered as strategic instruments to navigate this challenging environment.

The primary motivation for states to form alliances is the necessity to balance against external threats. Balancing occurs when states combine their military and economic resources to counter a state or coalition whose superior power, offensive capabilities, or aggressive intentions present an existential danger. By aggregating capabilities, allies aim to alter the cost-benefit analysis of potential adversaries, thereby establishing a deterrent that renders aggression prohibitively costly. This logic underpins the formation of the Grand Alliance during World War II: despite significant ideological differences, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union united in response to the immediate threat posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Although some vulnerable states may choose to “bandwagon” by aligning with the source of danger to avoid attack or gain from conquest—as Finland did with the Soviet Union after military defeat—balancing remains the predominant geopolitical strategy.

When states aggregate their capabilities to deter threats, they inevitably encounter the profound friction of burden-sharing. Because collective security functions as a public good, alliances frequently suffer from the “free-rider” problem. Smaller or strategically insulated allies are heavily incentivised to consume the security provided by the coalition while failing to contribute their proportionate share of military expenditures, thereby diverting those resources to domestic priorities. If capability aggregation is the primary goal of an alliance, this raises a critical question: why do superpowers routinely forge pacts with minor states that add negligible military strength? The answer lies in the concept of the security-autonomy trade-off. In asymmetric alliances, a weaker partner receives a vital security umbrella, but in exchange, it must sacrifice a degree of its political independence. The dominant patron assumes the burden of defence not out of charity, but to extract crucial strategic access, such as military basing rights, regional influence, and vital foreign policy concessions. Through this exchange, the patron acquires the strategic depth necessary to project power globally, while the junior partner secures its physical survival. This logic explains the devolution of the ancient Delian League; Athens utilised the alliance to extract tribute and military access, effectively trading the collective security of its minor allies for the total erosion of their autonomy.

Threat perception is fundamentally spatial, making geography a critical factor in alliance formation. The capacity to project military force declines with distance, so proximate states pose greater dangers than distant ones. States are therefore more likely to seek allies to balance against nearby aggressors rather than distant global powers. This geographic logic explains why distant hegemons often become preferred security partners. For middle powers in Western Europe and Asia, the United States has historically served as an ideal ally: its substantial power deters local adversaries, while its geographic separation reduces the risk of territorial conquest. In contrast, the Soviet Union’s proximity to its Warsaw Pact neighbors fostered political isolation, as its military presence enforced compliance and transformed the alliance into a tool of imperial control. Additionally, geographic distance in asymmetric alliances acts as a buffer, reducing the weaker state's fear of entrapment and loss of autonomy, which contributes to the durability of such alliances.

Although alliances are initially formed in response to power dynamics, they are often solidified or undermined by ideology. The theory of ideological solidarity posits that states with similar domestic systems, political values, or cultural traits are naturally inclined to align. Shared ideologies foster mutual trust, as states are less likely to perceive culturally similar partners as threats. Aligning with ideologically compatible states also enhances domestic legitimacy, transforming pragmatic security arrangements into unified moral endeavors. For example, the Concert of Europe operated as a pact of restraint based on a shared conservative ideology aimed at suppressing revolutionary movements. Nevertheless, security imperatives generally outweigh ideological preferences, and alliances based solely on ideology rarely endure when survival is at risk. The nature of the ideology also influences alliance stability. Ideologies requiring hierarchical obedience to a single authority, such as international Communism or pan-Arabism, often generate internal conflict as factions vie for leadership. In contrast, alliances among liberal democracies tend to be more stable, as their legitimacy is rooted in internal democratic processes rather than external ideological dictates. Ultimately, ideology often serves to justify and reinforce alliances that are fundamentally shaped by the imperatives of deterrence, geography, and survival.

The Unequal Alliances

Diplomatic rhetoric regarding international alliances often emphasizes sovereign equality, mutual respect, and shared democratic or cultural values. However, beneath this rhetoric exists a hierarchical structure grounded in unequal need. In practice, alliances are seldom partnerships of equals; most are asymmetric arrangements where great powers dominate and smaller powers depend. Publicly celebrated strategic unity frequently masks a transactional “security-autonomy trade-off.” A dominant patron offers military protection to a vulnerable junior partner, who, in turn, relinquishes significant political independence by granting the hegemon strategic basing rights and foreign policy concessions.

This structural asymmetry generates persistent resentment on both sides of the alliance. For the stronger power, alliances often represent economic and military burdens. Since collective security operates as a public good, smaller allies are incentivized to “free-ride,” benefiting from the hegemon’s defense while minimizing their own military expenditures. The patron typically resents this unequal burden-sharing, perceiving smaller partners as opportunistic dependents. Conversely, junior partners resent their subordinate status and ongoing vulnerability to the patron’s influence over domestic and foreign affairs.

The cohesion of unequal alliances is frequently sustained not by genuine convergence of interests, but through coercion, economic dependence, and side payments. When a weaker state’s capabilities increase, it often seeks to end the alliance and regain autonomy. Great powers, however, use economic dependence to constrain their smaller allies. If a minor power relies extensively on its patron for trade or military aid, it becomes effectively trapped; breaking the alliance risks economic collapse. This dynamic was evident in the U.S.-Philippines alliance. In 1991, after the Philippines refused to ratify a new military bases agreement, the United States reduced military and economic aid by 60 percent, undermining the Philippines’ plans to modernize its armed forces. Similarly, during the 1991 Gulf War, wealthy Gulf States and the United States offered substantial financial incentives to secure the support of Egypt and Turkey, while imposing economic sanctions on Yemen and Jordan for their neutrality.

In its most extreme form, a great power may use the alliance structure as a tool of violent repression against its own partners. Powerful states often establish asymmetric alliances specifically to control weaker neighbors and prevent independent policy-making. The Soviet Union’s management of the Warsaw Pact exemplifies this dynamic. In 1968, the Soviet Union invaded its ally, Czechoslovakia, to suppress the Prague Spring’s political reforms. For Soviet leadership, the alliance provided a legal mechanism to legitimize military intervention and enforce ideological conformity, demonstrating that a junior partner’s greatest existential threat may originate from its own patron.

When the unequal need sustaining an alliance disappears, the resulting rupture reveals the expendability of the weaker state. Junior partners, aware of this vulnerability, are often preoccupied by the fear of abandonment. This fear is realized in ad hoc, non-institutionalized alliances formed for short-term tactical purposes. The recent U.S.-Kurdish alliance during the Syrian Civil War exemplifies this dynamic. The Syrian Kurds, a weak non-state actor facing existential threats, allied with the United States for survival. The United States, acting as a global hegemon, used the Kurds as a tactical proxy to achieve localized objectives without deploying significant ground forces. When the Kurds’ tactical value diminished and the geopolitical costs shifted, the United States withdrew, leaving its partner exposed to hostile forces. The Kurds subsequently declared that America had “stabbed us in the back”.

However, weak states are not entirely powerless; they often exploit the patron’s fear of “entrapment.” Protected by the security guarantees of a superpower, a small state may act as a “reckless driver,” adopting belligerent behavior toward local rivals and pursuing narrow national interests. This dynamic creates a significant moral hazard, as the junior ally may draw the superpower into an unwanted and costly conflict over strategically marginal territory.

Ultimately, unequal alliances exemplify the harsh dynamics of the international system. These structures enable great powers to extend their influence while compelling smaller powers to submit for survival. Diplomatic displays of shared values cannot obscure the underlying realities of coercion, economic manipulation, and asymmetry. The cohesion of such alliances is seldom based on genuine trust; instead, it is maintained by the pragmatic calculus of unequal need, where weaker states exchange sovereignty for the uncertain assurance of protection.

When Allies Diverge

The architecture of strategic alignment is inherently fragile; however, its dissolution is seldom marked by a sudden or dramatic collapse. Alliances often drift imperceptibly, much like tectonic plates, before a visible rupture occurs. Since pacts are formed in response to specific and temporary geopolitical pressures, they remain fundamentally susceptible to changes in the international environment. As the underlying rationale for a partnership evolves, the outward appearance of strategic unity may persist, concealing significant internal deterioration. The demise of an alliance is typically a gradual process, characterized by the erosion of trust, shifting circumstances, and diverging national interests.

The fading of a common enemy is the most significant catalyst for alliance decay. Most defensive pacts are held together by a mutual existential threat; once that threat is neutralized, the alliance loses its primary purpose. The Grand Alliance of World War II exemplifies this phenomenon. Formed out of necessity to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the coalition of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union represented a pragmatic, though temporary, collaboration. After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, the alliance began to unravel. The shared objective that had temporarily bridged deep ideological and imperial rivalries disappeared, and the partners quickly reverted to their roles as strategic competitors, setting the stage for the Cold War.

Even when alliances persist beyond the loss of their original adversary, they often weaken as threat perceptions diverge. In complex security environments, allies seldom share identical global interests. A threat perceived as existential by one state may be seen as a minor concern or even an economic opportunity by another. This divergence was particularly evident within NATO in the early 2000s. While the Soviet threat had unified members during the Cold War, the post-Cold War period exposed significant disagreements between the United States and its European allies regarding responses to new threats such as Islamic terrorism. For example, the United States considered Saddam Hussein’s Iraq an imminent danger requiring military intervention in 2003, whereas key European allies opposed the war. This diplomatic friction fractured the transatlantic consensus, demonstrating that when allies disagree on the nature or severity of a threat, coordinated responses falter and alliances begin to drift.

Economic tensions and evolving capabilities further undermine partnerships. Alliances frequently encounter disputes over burden-sharing, with dominant patrons resenting smaller allies for perceived 'free-riding' on security guarantees while prioritizing domestic agendas. As weaker allies achieve economic growth and increased capabilities, their willingness to accept external interference diminishes, prompting efforts to regain political autonomy previously exchanged for security. In 1991, the Philippines, having gained greater capacity, sought increased sovereignty and declined to ratify a new military bases agreement with the United States. In response, Washington reduced military and economic aid by 60 percent, significantly hindering the modernization of the Philippine armed forces and highlighting the coercive economic dynamics that often characterize unequal alliances.

Currently, economic interdependence with potential adversaries introduces significant challenges to alliance management. Many U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region rely heavily on China for trade and investment. This economic entanglement fosters reluctance to engage in traditional military balancing or posturing against Beijing. As a result, regional states often adopt cautious, hedging strategies that frustrate U.S. policymakers and undermine the alliance’s unified deterrent posture.

Alliances are also highly susceptible to domestic political dynamics and leadership changes within member states. International agreements are managed by leaders who must respond to domestic constituencies, electoral pressures, and concerns about regime survival. Leadership transitions can rapidly shift a state’s strategic orientation. For instance, the shift from pragmatic collaboration in the Grand Alliance to Cold War hostility was accelerated by the loss of conciliatory leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and the rise of more uncompromising figures like Harry Truman.

The Trump administration’s 'America First' policy illustrates how populist domestic shifts can strain established alliances. By framing alliances as transactional financial obligations and criticizing partners over defense cost-sharing, the administration generated widespread concerns about abandonment among traditional allies. This prompted countries such as Japan and South Korea to emphasize their own autonomy and question the reliability of their security guarantor. In democratic contexts, alliances may even dissolve if one partner becomes more electorally popular and demands renegotiation of terms that the other is unwilling to accept.

Alliances seldom collapse abruptly. They typically begin to drift due to leadership changes, evolving trade dependencies, disagreements over peripheral conflicts, or the disappearance of a common adversary. Although formal treaties and joint military exercises may persist temporarily, mutual reliance is gradually supplanted by suspicion, resentment, and diverging national interests. By the time a state formally withdraws from its commitments or abandons a partner during a crisis, the alliance’s foundation has often been deteriorating for years.

Betrayal, Abandonment, and The Fear Beneath Utility

Beneath the formalities of diplomatic summits, the rhetoric of shared values, and the spectacle of joint military exercises lies a volatile emotional logic that shapes alliance politics. In the anarchic environment of international relations, where no overarching authority enforces agreements or guarantees survival, states experience persistent anxiety. Even under explicit mutual defence treaties, national leaders remain preoccupied by the suspicion that partners may hesitate, defect, or betray them at critical moments. Historical evidence indicates that global events often hinge not on public declarations or battlefield victories, but on moments when trust collapses in private. Betrayal in security matters constitutes a profound trauma, disrupting expectations of mutual obligation and loyalty, and leaving enduring effects on national behavior. As survival remains paramount, alliances are inevitably marked by deep-seated paranoia, subjecting members to ongoing psychological tension.

This psychological tension is encapsulated in the concept known as the “alliance security dilemma.” After states overcome initial reluctance and align against a common threat, their strategic anxieties persist, evolving into a secondary dilemma regarding the extent of their commitment to new partners. Every decision within the alliance involves a difficult trade-off between abandonment and entrapment. These fears are inversely related, requiring a delicate balance. An unconditional commitment reduces the risk of abandonment but increases the likelihood of entrapment by encouraging reckless behavior from the ally. Conversely, ambiguous or hesitant support may restrain the partner but signals a lack of loyalty, heightening fears of abandonment.

For weaker or more dependent states, the fear of abandonment represents a significant concern. Abandonment is not limited to the formal termination of a treaty; it often appears in more subtle forms. An ally may hesitate during a crisis, fail to provide promised military or economic support, realign with an adversary, or offer only rhetorical backing when direct intervention is needed. The vulnerability of junior partners is exemplified by the United States’ withdrawal from northern Syria in 2019. The Syrian Kurds, a highly asymmetric non-state partner, had played a crucial role in dismantling the Islamic State, relying on a tenuous tactical relationship with Washington. When U.S. strategic priorities shifted, American forces withdrew, leaving the Kurds exposed to Turkish military action. The Kurds, perceiving their sacrifices as disregarded once their utility ended, publicly stated that America had “stabbed us in the back”.

While abandonment is the primary concern for weaker states, entrapment constitutes a significant fear for stronger powers. Major states worry that their extensive security commitments may embolden junior partners to provoke regional conflicts, assuming that the patron will be compelled to intervene. It is important to distinguish between “entanglement,” the accepted risk inherent in any defense pact, and “entrapment,” which arises when an ally pursues an offensive policy not specified or agreed upon in the alliance. This concern is evident in American policy debates. For example, there have been persistent fears that the Baltic states, due to historical grievances against Russia, might act provocatively and involve the United States in a major conflict over relatively minor territories. U.S. President Donald Trump articulated this entrapment anxiety, cautioning that the “very aggressive people” of Montenegro could potentially trigger “World War III”.

Given the intensity of entrapment fears, a state may be ethically and strategically justified in breaching collective defense obligations if it determines that its partner is exploiting the alliance. If an ally perceives a high risk of entrapment and the partner disregards diplomatic warnings, the patron may be compelled to withdraw support rather than become involved in an unwanted conflict. For instance, in a hypothetical scenario in the Eastern Mediterranean, if an ultranationalist Greek government were to provoke a naval conflict with Turkey over Cyprus, ignoring repeated French warnings to de-escalate, France would be justified in withholding support. By manipulating the defense pact to initiate an offensive war, the reckless ally violates the spirit of the treaty and temporarily forfeits its right to assistance.

This persistent atmosphere of suspicion has characterized even the most celebrated and successful coalitions in history. The Grand Alliance during the Second World War, often idealized as a model of strategic unity, was in fact marked by deep mistrust and competing interests. While British and American forces fought alongside the Soviets, Premier Joseph Stalin remained convinced that the Western democracies were intentionally delaying the cross-Channel invasion to weaken the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front. Simultaneously, Western leaders feared that Stalin might negotiate a separate peace with Hitler, recalling the precedent set by the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

This atmosphere of suspicion was not limited to the East-West divide; it also affected relations among Western democracies. In 1940, as the French army collapsed, France requested the full support of British fighter squadrons. Britain refused, prioritizing its own defense, which led to feelings of betrayal among the French, who accused Britain of sacrificing French interests. The British evacuation at Dunkirk further strained relations, with French soldiers expressing accusations of treachery. Subsequently, the Roosevelt administration maintained diplomatic recognition of the Vichy regime, marginalized Charles de Gaulle’s Free French forces, and denied them legitimacy. This policy generated significant hostility and resentment, illustrating that great powers often prioritize their own diplomatic leverage, even at the expense of alienating close ideological allies.

In conclusion, the emotional dynamics of alliances ensure that absolute certainty is unattainable in international politics. Treaties do not constitute unconditional commitments, and the anarchic nature of the international system means that “alliances are never absolutely firm, whatever the text of the written agreement”. Since the costs of fulfilling commitments can involve significant national sacrifice, states continually reassess and hedge their positions. Persistent suspicion regarding whether an ally will act in a crisis is an inherent aspect of a system in which each nation ultimately prioritizes its own survival.

Blocs After Cold War

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 represented a significant turning point in international relations, ending the rigid bipolarity characteristic of the Cold War era. With the decline of the ideological conflict between capitalism and Communism, the global alliance system experienced substantial structural change. The Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, which had been sustained by enforced cohesion and internal dissent, disintegrated in 1991, creating a power vacuum throughout Eastern Europe. In contrast, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) contradicted neorealist expectations of its irrelevance; rather than dissolving after the Soviet threat disappeared, NATO continued to exist and expanded its membership. From 1996 to 2009, twelve Central and Eastern European countries joined the alliance, and NATO redefined its mission from exclusive territorial defence to broader crisis management, conducting military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya.

As the post-Cold War period shifted from clear American unipolarity to a more complex and competitive multipolar system, the nature of international alignments also changed. Contemporary international politics are no longer characterized solely by permanent, exclusive military alliances. Instead, the current geopolitical environment features hedging strategies, minilateral groupings, and issue-based coalitions. States increasingly adopt flexible, ad hoc arrangements to address the weaponisation of global trade, protect critical supply chains, and counterbalance emerging powers, while avoiding the risks associated with binding military treaties.

Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS)

The concept of BRICS originated in financial markets rather than state diplomacy. Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill coined the acronym “BRIC” in 2001 to identify emerging economies with the potential to dominate the 21st century. Recognising their shared geopolitical grievances and economic potential, the respective governments formalised their ties and held their inaugural heads-of-state summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009. The bloc expanded to “BRICS” in 2010 with the inclusion of South Africa. Currently, the bloc represents approximately 40% of the world’s population and 23% to 30% of global GDP, providing it with significant leverage to influence the global economic order.

BRICS was established as a strategic counterweight to Western economic dominance, specifically addressing unequal representation within Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The bloc advocates for a multipolar world order, South-South cooperation, and de-dollarisation, aiming to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and circumvent Western financial sanctions. The most tangible outcome of this cooperation is the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in 2014, which were endowed with an initial $100 billion capital pool to finance infrastructure projects and provide emergency liquidity to developing nations without Western political conditionalities.

The original and expanded members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, with a major 2024 expansion integrating Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) into the framework.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

The SCO officially emerged on June 15, 2001, in Shanghai, replacing its predecessor, the “Shanghai Five,” which was initially formed in 1996 to resolve border disputes and demilitarise boundaries following the Soviet collapse. Driven by the Sino-Russian strategic partnership, the SCO was designed to steer the Eurasian landmass away from American unipolarity.

The SCO functions as the primary political, economic, and security organisation in Eurasia. Its core security objective is to combat what it defines as the “three evil forces”: terrorism, separatism, and extremism. To this end, it established a permanent Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) in Tashkent, coordinates intelligence sharing, and conducts regular joint military exercises known as “Peace Missions.” Economically, the SCO seeks to integrate transport logistics and establish an Energy Club to harmonise the policies of major energy exporters and importers within the bloc. While Western analysts often characterise the SCO as an “Asian NATO” intended to expel American military influence from Central Asia, the organisation denies pursuing a formal military alliance and instead promotes the “Shanghai Spirit” of non-alignment, mutual trust, and non-interference.

The founding members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The organisation expanded significantly, adding India (2017), Pakistan (2017), Iran (2022/2023), and Belarus (2024).

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)

The origins of the Quad can be traced to the ad hoc “Tsunami Core Group,” an emergency coalition formed to coordinate disaster relief following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Recognising the strategic value of this democratic alignment, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe advocated for its formalisation in 2007 as “Quad 1.0.” However, the initial dialogue collapsed in 2008 when Australia, under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, withdrew in response to diplomatic and economic pressure from Beijing. In 2017, concerns over China’s maritime expansion and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) led to the revival of the grouping as “Quad 2.0,” which was subsequently elevated to leader-level summits in 2021.

The Quad does not constitute a formal military alliance, as it lacks a mutual defense treaty or integrated command structure. Instead, it serves as a leading “minilateral” grouping intended to balance Chinese influence and promote a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific.” Through collaborative defense rather than collective defense, Quad members pool diplomatic and economic resources. The group conducts advanced joint naval exercises (the Malabar exercises), coordinates technology and cybersecurity standards, establishes resilient supply chains independent of China, and participates in regional vaccine diplomacy and climate initiatives.

The Quad consists of four major Indo-Pacific democracies: The United States, India, Japan, and Australia.

The Arab League

Established in 1945, the League of Arab States was founded as the primary institutional guardian of the Arab sovereign state system. For decades, the organisation was defined by a strict, almost paralysing adherence to the principles of Westphalian sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of its members. However, the 2011 Arab uprisings triggered an unprecedented transformation in the League’s operating norms.

Initially established to promote regional security and resolve inter-Arab disputes peacefully, the Arab League shifted its approach after 2011, moving away from strict defence of state sovereignty. As traditional Arab powers such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria were weakened by domestic turmoil, the regional power vacuum was filled by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. The GCC influenced the League’s agenda, using the organisation to legitimise interventionist policies. The Arab League endorsed regime change by suspending Libya’s membership, recognising rebel authorities, and formally requesting a UN Security Council no-fly zone, which provided legal justification for NATO’s subsequent military intervention. Similarly, the League suspended Syria, imposed sanctions, and authorised member states to supply military arms to Syrian opposition forces. In contrast, the League supported counter-revolutionary military interventions led by Saudi-GCC forces in Bahrain and Yemen, indicating that the League now functions primarily as an instrument of Gulf influence rather than as a protector of sovereign equality.

The Arab League comprises 22 members. The founding states include Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. The broader membership includes Libya, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, Djibouti, Comoros, Oman, and Kuwait.

OPEC and OPEC+

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in September 1960 at the Baghdad Conference. It was created to reclaim sovereignty over domestic natural resources and break the pricing monopoly of the “Seven Sisters”—the dominant Western multinational oil companies of the era. OPEC rose to massive geopolitical prominence during the 1970s by utilising the oil weapon, but faced severe market share losses in the 1980s. By 2014, a massive surge in U.S. shale oil production and softening global demand caused crude prices to collapse by 52%. Realising that OPEC alone could no longer stabilise the market, the cartel initiated a historic “Declaration of Cooperation” in December 2016, aligning with major non-OPEC producers to form OPEC+.

OPEC’s primary mandate is to coordinate petroleum policies among member states to secure stable income for producers, minimise price fluctuations, and ensure a consistent supply of petroleum to consuming nations. This is accomplished through collective production quotas and management of spare oil capacity. The expanded OPEC+ framework functions as a broader market-stabilisation coalition. By leveraging the combined output of 60% of the world’s crude oil, OPEC+ implemented voluntary production adjustments, reducing millions of barrels per day from the market to halt the price collapse caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This intervention reduced market volatility by half compared to previous decades.

OPEC currently comprises 13 member states. Its founders are Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Additional current members include Algeria, Angola, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Libya, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates (Recently withdrawn) (Qatar, Indonesia, and Ecuador were members but have since withdrawn or suspended membership).

OPEC+ expands this framework by integrating 10 allied non-OPEC producing nations: Russia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, South Sudan, and Sudan.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

The concept of the Arab regional system has historically been centred in Cairo, which served as the diplomatic heart of the Middle East for much of the twentieth century. However, the 2011 Arab uprisings triggered an unprecedented geopolitical shift, drastically weakening traditional Arab powerhouses like Egypt, Iraq, and Syria due to domestic turmoil and sectarian conflict. This created a severe regional power vacuum that was rapidly filled by the wealthy, monarchical states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which were the least affected by the popular uprisings. This transition gave rise to the “Gulf Moment” in Arab regional politics, in which the GCC—led by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar—assumed the undisputed leadership of the Arab regional order.

Initially established to promote economic integration and regional security, the GCC shifted toward interventionist policies after 2011 to secure its strategic interests and maintain regime stability. Utilising its significant financial resources, media influence, and military capabilities, the GCC leveraged the Arab League's institutional framework to legitimise its regional power projection.

The bloc adopted a dual-pronged strategy. It supported foreign military intervention to enforce regime change in states led by regional rivals, advocating for a UN no-fly zone in Libya and increasing military involvement in the Syrian conflict. By presenting itself as supportive of democratic aspirations abroad, the GCC addressed domestic concerns. Simultaneously, the bloc initiated counter-revolutionary military interventions to suppress reform movements in Bahrain and Yemen, using the Arab League’s endorsement to protect established monarchical structures. As a result, the GCC evolved from a collaborative sub-regional council into an interventionist bloc shaping the geopolitical and security landscape of the Arab world.

The GCC comprises six countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

ASEAN was created in 1967 during a period of immense geopolitical volatility in Asia. Its original mandate was fundamentally defensive: to contain the spread of Communism across Southeast Asia and provide mutual protection for its member states during the Cold War. However, as the Cold War concluded, ASEAN radically transformed its identity, evolving from an anti-communist bulwark into the primary engine for economic, social, and cultural integration in the Asia-Pacific region.

Today, ASEAN operates as the fulcrum of Southeast Asian diplomacy, deeply committed to regional peace, economic resilience, and the rule of law under the framework of the United Nations Charter. A defining pillar of the bloc is the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which sets out strict provisions for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Notably, ASEAN is not a formal military alliance; if a state resorts to force, the bloc has no collective security or mutual defence mechanism. Instead, it harmonises policies across diverse sectors, including agriculture, trade, environmental protection, and energy.

To navigate the complex security dynamics of the 21st century, ASEAN expanded its architecture by establishing the ADMM-Plus (ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus) in 2006. This mechanism integrates key dialogue partners—including the United States, China, India, Japan, Australia, and Russia—to strengthen trust through joint military exercises, defence capacity building, and information exchange. Furthermore, ASEAN is the strategic anchor for external powers’ Indo-Pacific strategies, such as India’s “Act East Policy”. In the face of great-power rivalry and territorial disputes in the South China Sea, ASEAN collectively advocates for freedom of navigation, non-militarisation, and a strictly rules-based approach to conflict resolution.

The ten member states of ASEAN are Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, a massive security vacuum emerged in Eurasia. In 2002, the Russian Federation spearheaded the consolidation of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) into Eurasia’s predominant political-military bloc. Designed by Moscow to maintain its traditional sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space, the CSTO was explicitly structured to serve as a geopolitical alternative to NATO’s expanding reach.

Theoretically, the CSTO embodies the principles of collective security. Article 2 of its founding Accord stipulates that a hazard to the safety, territorial integrity, or independence of one member state requires immediate mutual support, including military assistance, from all other members. The organisation maintains an integrated security system that includes the Collective Peacekeeping Forces, common air defence systems, intelligence sharing, and the operation of joint military bases.

In practice, the CSTO’s effectiveness is limited by structural constraints. With the exception of Russia, member states are primarily landlocked and possess limited capabilities for self-defense, resulting in significant dependence on Russian support. The bloc has often failed to implement its mutual defense principles during crises, particularly when confronted with internal disputes among members, such as those in the Caucasus. Scholars contend that the CSTO functions less as a traditional defense alliance and more as a mechanism for regime preservation, as post-Soviet leaders have used it to restrict political opposition, strengthen state security apparatuses, and limit democratic development. This was evident when the CSTO deployed forces to Kazakhstan to suppress domestic protests rather than respond to external threats.

The CSTO comprises six post-Soviet republics: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

The Group of Twenty (G20)

The G20 was initially conceived in 1999 following the devastating Asian financial crisis, functioning merely as an informal gathering for finance ministers and central bank governors to discuss macroeconomic stability. However, the catastrophic global financial collapse following the 2008 fall of Lehman Brothers exposed the severe limitations of the G8. Amid a massive geopolitical shift that acknowledged the vital role of emerging markets, the G20 was elevated to a leaders-level summit and swiftly declared itself the “premier forum for international economic cooperation”.

Unlike traditional military blocs, the G20 acts as the ultimate steering committee for global governance and economic stabilisation. It bridges the gap between advanced Western economies and the Global South, aiming to manage the eastward and southward shift of the global economic centre of gravity. The G20 champions global developmental liberalism, working in deep institutional tandem with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the OECD to secure open markets, international trade, and equitable growth.

To foster inclusive policymaking, the G20 has established a highly sophisticated ecosystem of “engagement groups” representing civil society stakeholders. These include Business 20 (B20), Youth 20 (Y20), Labour 20 (L20), Think Tank 20 (T20), Women 20 (W20), and Science 20 (S20). While their recommendations are non-binding, they heavily influence summit negotiations. Because the G20 lacks a formal, legally binding charter, its flexible structure allows it to adapt to crises and reduce negotiation costs, making it arguably the most effective multilateral vehicle for addressing 21st-century challenges such as climate change, pandemic prevention, and reform of the international financial architecture.

The G20 comprises the world’s largest advanced and emerging economies, bridging the G7 and BRICS blocs. Its membership includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. It also regularly integrates permanent guest invitees such as the African Union and ASEAN.

GUAM (Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development)

Following the end of the Cold War, the fragmentation of the Soviet space resulted in profound geopolitical fault lines. To counter the overwhelming influence of the Russian Federation and its CSTO military apparatus, a coalition of four Western-leaning post-Soviet states established GUAM.

While GUAM is not a formally codified collective security organisation with integrated military command structures, it functions in practice as an opposing political bloc to Russian hegemony in Eurasia. The defining characteristic of GUAM is its members’ shared struggles with territorial integrity, as all four nations have faced devastating conflicts with Russia or Russian-backed proxy forces on their sovereign soil. Georgia has fought bitter wars over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; Ukraine has been locked in an existential conflict with Russia since the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the subsequent invasion; and Moldova continues to grapple with the frozen conflict in Transnistria. GUAM serves as a vital diplomatic forum for these states to coordinate their integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, promote democratic development, and collectively resist Moscow’s attempts to forcefully reintegrate them into a Eurasian sphere of influence.

The four member states are Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova.

The Fragility Behind Alliances

The established architecture of global security, exemplified by institutions such as NATO, the Quad, and BRICS, projects an illusion of permanence. These geopolitical structures are often perceived as enduring entities, representing the triumph of shared values and mutual trust. However, the history of international relations demonstrates that the foundations of such alignments are inherently fragile. Viewing alliances as permanent unions of nations misinterprets the fundamental dynamics of the international system. In an anarchic global environment lacking a supreme governing authority, states operate in a self-help system where survival is paramount. As a result, alliances are not monuments to lasting solidarity but rather temporary, utilitarian arrangements constructed to address immediate insecurities.

Within the strategic calculations of geopolitics, enduring friendship between states does not exist. Each nation, irrespective of regime type, ideological rhetoric, or historical ties, ultimately pursues its own national interests. The rhetoric of shared democratic values or anti-imperial solidarity often serves as a strategic façade for underlying necessity. States do not combine resources and military capabilities out of altruism; rather, they cooperate because the risks of isolation in the face of existential threats outweigh the costs of collaboration. When a major power provides security guarantees to a weaker state, it does so to secure strategic advantages such as basing rights, geopolitical influence, and policy concessions, rather than out of benevolence. Every treaty represents a transaction, and every defense pact constitutes a calculated bargain. Winston Churchill encapsulated this pragmatic approach by stating that if Hitler invaded Hell, he would make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

Because alliances are formed out of fear and self-interest, their cohesion depends almost entirely on the external pressures that created them. When a significant and immediate threat exists, alliances appear unified. The Grand Alliance during World War II exemplifies this phenomenon. Despite profound ideological differences, the United States and Great Britain cooperated with the Soviet Union due to the existential threat posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This external pressure compelled these otherwise incompatible states to form a unified bloc. However, even at the height of cooperation, mutual suspicion persisted. Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin feared Western delay in opening a second front, while Western leaders worried Stalin might negotiate separately with Hitler. Once the Axis threat was eliminated, the alliance quickly disintegrated, giving way to the prolonged hostility of the Cold War. Thus, alliance solidarity is real but strictly conditional, shaped by timing and necessity rather than intrinsic trust.

Even in the absence of a disappearing common enemy, alliances inherently contain factors that may lead to their dissolution. They are subject to the persistent 'alliance security dilemma,' which refers to the tension between the fear of abandonment and the fear of entrapment. Regardless of the explicit terms of mutual defense treaties, national leaders often suspect that allies may hesitate or defect during crises. Weaker partners remain vigilant for signs of betrayal, aware of their potential expendability. This vulnerability was evident when the United States withdrew from northern Syria in 2019, leaving its Kurdish partners exposed once their strategic utility diminished. Conversely, major powers fear moral hazard, concerned that security guarantees may embolden junior partners to act recklessly and potentially involve the patron in unwanted conflicts. This mutual suspicion ensures that alliances remain unsettled, characterized by hedging, secret agreements, and cautious distancing.

Additionally, the foundations of alliances are subject to continual change. Economic development, technological progress, and demographic trends consistently reshape the global distribution of power. As weaker allies gain strength, their willingness to accept external interference declines, prompting efforts to regain political autonomy previously relinquished for security. For example, the Philippines expelled American military bases in 1991 to assert sovereignty, and the Warsaw Pact collapsed as the Soviet Union's influence waned. In the current era, rigid alliance blocs are increasingly replaced by flexible minilateral arrangements and hedging strategies, as states navigate between major powers such as the United States and China, avoiding permanent alignment. The international system is dynamic, requiring states to continually reassess their strategic interests. An alliance that once served national interests may later become a constraint.

Treaties may be revoked, joint commands dissolved, and former partners can rapidly become adversaries. The current diplomatic architecture, including defense pacts, minilateral dialogues, and economic coalitions, represents only a temporary configuration reflecting the present distribution of power and prevailing security concerns. The notion of a fixed international order based on enduring solidarity is misleading. The geopolitical landscape is subject to continual change, and alliances are never final. They are temporary arrangements shaped by fear, necessity, and timing, appearing stable under pressure but shifting as circumstances evolve.

References

20 Political betrayals that changed history. (2026, February 9). HistorySnob. https://www.historysnob.com/war-and-historical-events/20-political-betrayals-that-changed-history

African Union, & Kingah, S. S. (2013). Introduction: History of the African Union.

Age-Almusaf Sowe, M. L. & African Development University (ADU). (n.d.). THE FAILURES AND THE SUCCESSES OF THE AFRICAN UNION: THE STATE OF AFRICAN LEADERSHIP, THE CONTINENT, AND THE PEOPLE. African Development University (ADU).

Almutairi, H., Pierru, A., Smith, J. L., King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), & Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX. (2023). Oil market stabilization: The performance of OPEC and its allies. The Energy Journal, 44(6), 2. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.44.6.halm

Andrea, A. (2020). The complexity of alliance formation: variations in state responses in the Middle East to the First Gulf War. In A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MA MODERN MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES.

Anten, L., Briscoe, I., Mezzera, M., & Clingendael Institute. (2012). The Political Economy of State-building in Situations of Fragility and Conflict: from Analysis to Strategy. Clingendael Institute. https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2016-02/20120100_cru_political_economy.pdf

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). (n.d.). Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). https://drishtiias.com/printpdf/association-of-southeast-asian-nations-asean

Ban, K. (2021). Alliance Vulnerability and its Remedies: Tracing the Abandonment of Kurds and South Korea Under the Trump Administration. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 19(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.167

Bhattacharya, S., Ray, J. K., Shakti Sinha, Bhavneet Kaur Sachdev, & Arkadyuti Seth. (2021). ASEAN a Major Success of Asian Nation and it’s Impact on the Economic Development of Asia. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 10(12).

Bilotta, N., Botti, F., Berger, A., Brandi, C., Twomey, P., Subacchi, P., Charter, M., & Cheng, I. (2021). GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AT a TURNING POINT. In E. Greco, F. Botti, N. Bilotta, & L. Kamel (Eds.), IAI Research Studies (Vol. 5). Edizioni Nuova Cultura. https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iairs_5.pdf

Bordo, M. D., & James, H. (2000). THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: ITS PRESENT ROLE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (By National Bureau of Economic Research; Working Paper 7724). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7724/w7724.pdf

Bouverie, T. (n.d.). Allies at War: The politics of defeating Hitler.

Byron, Lord. (n.d.). The Vienna Settlement and the Concert of Europe 1814-1832.

Cammack, P. (2011). The G20, the crisis, and the rise of global developmental liberalism. Third World Quarterly, 33(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2012.628110

Cary, N. D. (2007). Germany and the axis powers: From coalition to collapse. Central European History, 40(1), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008938907000465

Chadhar, N. (n.d.). The Concert of Europe.

Cheshire, G. & igloobooks. (2017). WORLD WAR II: THE DEFINING MOMENTS OF THE WAR THAT SHAPED THE 20TH CENTURY. Igloo Books Ltd.

Christoff-Kurapovna, M. (2024, February 3). The Hanseatic League: an “Empire” of commerce. Mises Institute. https://mises.org/mises-wire/hanseatic-league-empire-commerce

Chung, J. & The Korean Association of International Studies. (2016). Capability change, economic dependence and alliance termination. The Korean Journal of International Studies, Vol.14(No.2), 209–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2016.08.14.2.209

Cloutier, M., Dacos, M., & Comité pour la science ouverte. (2023). Report of the G7 Open Science - Research on Research Sub-Working Group. In HAL Authorization (pp. 1–59). https://hal-lara.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-04415049v1

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. (n.d.). CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. In Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/CWC/CWC_en.pdf

Cooper, A. F., & Legler, T. (2001). The OAS Democratic Solidarity Paradigm: Questions of collective and National leadership. Latin American Politics and Society, 43(1), 103–126. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1531-426X%28200121%2943%3A1%3C103%3ATODSPQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Crump, L. C. & Utrecht University. (2014). The Warsaw Pact Reconsidered. Inquiries into the Evolution of an Underestimated Alliance, 1960-1969 [Utrecht University]. http://hdl.handle.net/1874/288605

Czechoslovakia: A Country Study. (n.d.). The Warsaw Pact. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/Czechoslovakia%20Study_5.pdf

Daniel Fiott, Christian Kaunert, Bruno Lété, Alexander Mattelaer, Hanna Smith, Simon J. Smith, Bart M.J. Szewczyk, Ori Wertman, & Katharine A.M. Wright. (2019). THE EU AND NATO: the essential partners. In G. Lindstrom & T. Tardy (Eds.), EU Institute for Security Studies. EU Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/EU%20and%20NATO.pdf

De Leonardis, M. (2022). NATO in the Post-Cold War era. In Security, conflict and cooperation in the contemporary world. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06063-2

De Silva, S. (n.d.). Quad 1.0 to Quad 2.0: Destined to “Dissipate like Sea Foam?” In YONSEI JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES [Journal-article]. https://theyonseijournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/YJIS-2022-spring_summer-online-Quad-1.0-to-Quad-2.0.pdf

Delian League | History | Research Starters | EBSCO Research. (n.d.). EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/delian-league

DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES: HISTORY. (1918). THE FIRST WORLD WAR 1914-1918. In INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2167/2 [Book].

Dirk Hünniger. (2015). European History. In en.wikibooks.org.

Enuka, C. (2020). The Commonwealth of Nations in the International System: An Examination of Roles. Port Harcourt Journal of History & Diplomatic Studies, 7(2), 587–590. https://phjhds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/32-The-Commonwealth-of-Nations-in-the-International-System-An-Examination-of-Roles.pdf

Eyo, I. A., Ph. D., & Akpan, E. B., LLM. (2021). The European Union: An analysis of its organs, successes and failures. In International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS): Vol. Volume V (Issue Issue IX, pp. 103–104). https://www.rsisinternational.org

Fenton, D. M. (2006). SEATO and the Defence of Southeast Asia 1955-1965 [Thesis]. In Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNSW@ADFA.

Ferhad, S. & Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, International Balkan University. (2021). EXPLORING THE ROLE OF THE IMF IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS. In Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, International Balkan University (p. 24) [Journal-article].

g7plus. (2026, February 10). The future of “Fragile States,” in the “New Cold War” G7plus. https://www.g7plus.org/the-future-of-fragile-states-in-the-new-cold-war/

Gabriel, J. P. N., Mandelbaum, H. G., & Carvalho, C. E. (2020). The Quad: One More ‘Minilateral’ Initiative, not an Embryonic Military Alliance in the Indo-Pacific Region. In Rev. Carta Inter. (Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp. 52–82) [Journal-article]. https://doi.org/10.21530/ci.v15n2.2020.1014

Gautam, A. (2014). Alliance politics in a unipolar world. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 35–41. https://www.iosrjournals.org

Hedinger, D. & Historisches Seminar der LMU, Abteilung Neueste Geschichte und Zeitgeschichte. (2017). The imperial nexus: the Second World War and the Axis in global perspective. Journal of Global History, 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022817000043

Huasheng, Z. & Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. (2006). The Shanghai Cooperation Organization at 5: Achievements and Challenges Ahead. In C. Weili (Ed.), & C. Len (Trans.), China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly (Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 105–123) [Journal-article].

Humanity, V. O. (2025, February 4). A new Cold war? the emergence of new global competitors. Vision of Humanity. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-new-cold-war-emergence-of-global-competitors/

Imai, K., & Snyder, G. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. In World Politics (Vols. 4–4).

Ivanova, R. Y. (2025). International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its role in currency and credit relations: a focus on Ukraine. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 3(87), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.87.3.2

Javaid, F. & Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). (2017). Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Central Asian Region: Opportunities and challenges. In EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH, EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH: Vol. IV (Issue 12) [Journal-article].

Johnson, S. (2019). Neorealism and the Organization of American States (OAS): An examination of CARICOM rationality toward Venezuela and the United States. SAGE Open, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019887950

Jones, B. D., Stedman, S. J., & American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2017). Civil Wars & the Post–Cold War International Order. Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00457

Kabir, M. (2019). The role of side payments in the formation of asymmetric alliances: forging the US–Pakistan alliance. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 6(2), 162–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797019842430

Kabir, M. S. (2017). Asymmetric alliances and side payments: alliance politics between unequal powers. In City University of New York (CUNY), CUNY Academic Works, & CUNY Graduate Center, Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects [Thesis]. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1892

Kapitonenko, M. (2022). International Relations Theory (First). Routledge. https://lccn.loc.gov/2021039814

Keep, J., Heslop, D., & UNSW, School of Population Health. (2023). The war on the OPCW. In Global Biosecurity (Vol. 5, Issue 1, p. CBRNE Perspectives and Analysis).

Kutllovci, S., & Çeku, O. (2024). NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO) AND ITS ROLE FOR SECURITY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 7(3), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-7.3-a000308

Lal, B. S. (2023). Demographic and Socio-Economic Development — Evidence from G7 Countries. Studies in Social Science & Humanities, 2(8), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.56397/sssh.2023.08.03

LE GOURIELLEC, S. (2015). The strategic threat of weak states: when reality calls theory into question. In Note De Recherche Stratégique (Issue n°18, p. 1) [Research note]. IRSEM.

Leeds, B., Ritter, J., Mitchell, S., & Long, A. (2002). Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944. International Interactions, 28–28, 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653

Leimgruber, M., & Schmelzer, M. (n.d.). The historical transformations of the OECD. In The Elgar companion to the OECD.

Leite, A. C. C., & Xing, L. (2018). China and Brazil at BRICS: “Same bed, different dreams?” In Aalborg University Press & Aalborg University University of International Relations, JOURNAL OF CHINA AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS [Journal-article]. Aalborg University Press.

Leoni, Z., & Tzinieris, S. (2024). The return of geopolitical blocs. Survival, 66–66(2), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2024.2332056

Lukin, A., Novikov, D., Puzanova, O., & Yenikeyeff, S. (2025). The Shanghai Cooperation Organization amidst the Rising International Tensions. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 16(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/18793665251357320

Lumi, M. R. (2013). THE ANALYSIS CAUSES DEFEAT OF AXIS POWERS IN WORLD WAR II 1939-1945 (By Encup Suprihatin S.Pd., Tedi Turmudi, M.Pd., Encup Suprihatin, S.Pd., Tedi Turmudi, M.Pd., Encup Suprihatin, S.Pd., Encup Suprihatin, S.Pd., Marjuni, M.SI, & Sugandi, S.Pd.I).

Majhi, B. & Department of Political Science, Kazi Nazrul University. (2024). Changes in international relations after the Cold War.

Makengo, B. M., Makino Nobuaki, Georges Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, & Vittorio Emanuele Orlando. (n.d.). VERSAILLES TREATY AND STRUGGLE OF ALLIED POWERS’ INTERESTS: a paradoxical choice for lasting peace.

Maradana, R. P., Pradhan, R. P., Dash, S., Gaurav, K., Jayakumar, M., & Chatterjee, D. (2017). Does innovation promote economic growth? Evidence from European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0061-9

Maral, M. (2024). Research performance of higher education in OECD countries: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach. SAGE Open, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241257753

Mohammed, K. (2024). The Arab League and the nationalism dilemma. RAIS Conference Proceedings, 305–306. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14542253

Nazer, Y. F., Pescatori, A., International Monetary Fund, & Spilimbergo, A. (2022). OPEC and the oil market. In IMF Working Paper [Report].

Niemack, A., & Lange, D. M. (Eds.). (2025). BRICS ACADEMIC REVIEW. JSTOR.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, Čižik, T., & Novák, P. (n.d.). NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

Nurhayati, D., Ahzab, M. S., & Sudarwati, N. (2025). The role of BRICS countries in global cooperation and contribution to world economic stability. Digital Innovation, 2(4), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.61132/digitalinnovation.v2i4.542

Nuruzzaman, M. & Department of Political Science, Okanagan College. (2008). ‘Failed and Fragile States’ in International Relations: Revisiting issues and rethinking options. In Paper Prepared for Presentation at the International Relations Workshop on “Failed and Fragile States: Conceptual, Research, and Policy Challenges” at the Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) Annual Conference at the University of British Columbia. https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/Nuruzzaman.pdf

Ofori, F. N. K. (2021). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an obsolete security institution or a group of Self-Seeking elitists: Re-thinking reform. International Affairs and Global Strategy. https://doi.org/10.7176/iags/91-04

Onea, T. A. (2024). How to entrap your protector: Reassessing entrapment in light of the Crimean War crisis. Review of International Studies, 51(4), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210524000731

P210/3. (n.d.). EUROPEAN HISTORY 1789 - 1970. In EUROPEAN HISTORY (pp. 1–3).

Paul, T. V. (2018). Restraining great powers (IDS Infotech Ltd., Ed.; pp. vii–x). Yale University Press.

Paul, T. V., Wirtz, J. J., & Fortmann, M. (Eds.). (2004). Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st century. Stanford University Press.

Paul, V. (2021). THE ROLE OF QUAD IN THE GEOSTRATEGIC DYNAMICS OF INDO-PACIFIC. In POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN STRATEGIC AND DEFENCE STUDIES. National Defence University of Malaysia.

Pressman, J. (2008). Warring friends [Book]. In R. J. Art, R. Jervis, & S. M. Walt (Eds.), Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Cornell University Press. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu

R Mital, A. (2016). Non-aligned movement and its relevance today. In SGRR. (PG.) College, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research (Vol. 2, Issue 7, pp. 22–27). https://ris.org.in/sites/default/files/Mittal-2016-Non-Aligned%20Movement-min.pdf

Radwan, N. (n.d.). The future of the Non-Aligned movement.

Rao, B. V. (2014). History of Modern Europe (AD 1789-2013) (Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition). STERLING PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED.

Roubini, N. (2023). Fault Lines - How financial collapse could reshape the world. In Introduction: Fault Lines in the Global Order.

Roy Choudhury, S. (2021). QUAD: ORIGIN AND EVOLVING DYNAMICS. In Journal of Global Strategic Studies, Journal of Global Strategic Studies (Vol. 01, Issue 02, pp. 6–9).

Rubin, D. (2026). High, dry and allied: the ethics of breaching the collective defence duty [Research article]. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies. https://doi.org/10.51870/GHWJ8135

Schmitt, O., Lindelauf, S., Reynolds, J., Antonopoulos, A., Kınacı, M., Archer, M., Wences, I., Hanssen, T.-E., Amizic, S., Cummings, A., Slembeck, C., Wedin, A., Almaz, M., Thartori, K., Storm, H., Rubsamen, T., & Hall, C. (2025). The emergence of military alliances in the 21st century. OPEN.

Schroeder, P. (1994). Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory. In International Security (Vol. 1, pp. 108–148). http://www.jstor.com/stable/2539150

Scott, T. C., & Askerov, A. (n.d.). A Post-Mortem of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). In FIGURE 1 : Map of CSTO Member States [Journal-article].

Selim, G. M. (2023). The Arab League and the crisis of Westphalian sovereignty in the Arab world after 2011. Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World, 17(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1386/jciaw_00107_1

Senior, C., Sahlberg, P., & Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia. (2025). The evolution of the OECD’s position on equity in global education. In International Journal of Educational Development (Vol. 114, p. 103241) [Journal-article]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103241

Shibin, S., Goyal, H., Khatri, V., Kumar, A., & The Author(s). (2022). Geo-Political relevance of Post-Cold war developments [Research Article]. International Journal of Politics, Law, and Management, 04, 19. https://ijplm.com/

Shiraev, E., & Zubok, V. M. (2015). International Relations (By Library of Congress). Oxford University Press. http://www.oup.com

Sifsan, A. (2025). Non-Aligned Movement: historical visions and contemporary relevance.

Silberman, Z. M. (2014). NATO’S POST-COLD WAR EFFECTIVENESS: HOW NATO PRESERVED STABILITY AND SECURITY IN THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD THROUGH ITS CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS. In Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins University.

Simma, B. (1999). NATO, the UN and the use of force: legal aspects. In EJIL (Vols. 10–10, pp. 1–22).

Snyder, G. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. In World Politics (Vol. 04, pp. 461–495). http://journals.cambridge.org/

Snyder, G., J. (1997). Alliance theory [Book]. Unknown.

Szydełko, A. (2011). NATO’s Cooperation with Others: A Comprehensive Challenge. In The Quarterly Journal (Vol. 43, pp. 44–45).

The Congress of Vienna. (1815). The Congress of Vienna / Concert of Europe 1815 [Book].

The OPEC evolution and beyond the ‘Global oil policies.’ (2023). In International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 950–952) [Journal-article]. IJRAR. https://www.ijrar.org

The People’s Republic of Albania, The People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Hungarian People’s Republic, German Democratic Republic, Polish People’s Republic, Rumanian People’s Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, & Czechoslovak Republic. (1955). TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, CO-OPERATION AND MUTUAL ASSISTANCE. In The Warsaw Pact. https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1955Warsaw_Pact.pdf

Theressa, T. D., Suwito, Yanto, S., & Defense Economic/Defence Management, Indonesia Defence Univercity. (2024). ASEAN’s role in enhancing regional security and economic stability through defense cooperation. In International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS) (Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 1508–1517). https://ijhess.com/index.php/ijhess/

Tieku, T. K. & Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. (2019). The African Union: successes and failures. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics [Journal-article]. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.703

Trapp, R., & Tabassi, L. (2002). The first OPCW Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 5, 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1389135900001173

Triple Entente. (1907). Triple entente. In World War I [Informal military alliance].

Ugwukah, A. C. (2014). The relevance of the Commonwealth of Nations in today’s world. Historical Research Letter, Vol 9, 18–19.

VASILIEVICH KOSTIUK, R., PETROVNA KATKOVA, E., St. Petersburg State University, & St. Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI.” (n.d.). THE COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY ORGANIZATION (CSTO). JSTOR.

Wagner, N. (1978). The origins and aims of NATO. In Scientia Militaria, South African Journal of Military Studies (Vols. 8–8, Issue 4). http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za

Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. In International Security (Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp. 3–43). The MIT Press. https://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/walt%201985.pdf

Walt, S. M., & Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances (R. J. Art & R. Jervis, Eds.). Cornell University Press.

Waltz, K. N. & University of California, Berkeley. (1979). Theory of international politics. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/486328/mod_resource/content/0/Kenneth%20N.%20Waltz%20Theory%20of%20International%20Politics%20Addison-Wesley%20series%20in%20political%20science%20%20%20%201979.pdf

Waltz, K., Sadeghi, A., & Aslım, Asst. Prof. Dr. İ. (2017). Anarchic orders and balances of power. In European University of Lefke, POL501 Theories of IR.

Yucel, B. C., Aslanoglu, V., & Middle East Technical University, Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department. (2020). Turkey IV. Scientific and Technical Petroleum Congress Chamber of Petroleum Engineers proceeding 18-20 November 2020, TURKEY.