Hook: Today's geopolitical digest featured a CNAS report on the "Axis of Upheaval" — Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — but the most interesting part wasn't the line about "common enemy," but the characterization of the structure itself. This is not an alliance. There's no charter, no headquarters, no joint command. Each node solves its own problem, but together they create pressure they couldn't create individually. And here's what caught me: 80 years earlier — the Tripartite Pact of 1940 (Germany, Italy, Japan) looked exactly the same. Signed, publicized, and yet each partner lost its war in its own theater. If formal axes collapse while informal webs strengthen — this is no accident. This is a new 21st-century model we haven't yet learned to read.
Investigation:
The term "Axis of Upheaval" was introduced by CNAS (Center for a New American Security) researchers Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine in Foreign Affairs even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After February 2022, the term caught on — but the essence remained elusive. Christopher S. Chivvis from Carnegie Endowment writes directly: "The authoritarian alliance is largely an illusion. But it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy" (Foreign Affairs, March 18, 2025, "The Fragile Axis of Upheaval").
And in this phrase — the whole dilemma. If you call this an alliance, you either overestimate (and then waste resources fighting a ghost), or underestimate (and then get caught off guard). CNAS in its 2025 report chose a third path: description through mechanisms, not declarations.
What is a "flexible web" according to CNAS and CSIS:
This is a structurally different adversary. And most importantly — NATO has no answer to simultaneity, because NATO was designed in times when a multipolar scenario was a theoretical exercise.
The most striking thing in CSIS materials is not geopolitics, but the technology chain. Here's how it works:
This is a conveyor, where each node does what it does best. Iran — designer and test pilot. Russia — production engineer and tactician. China — component and capital supplier. DPRK — cheap labor and artillery shells. Nobody writes a memorandum. They exchange through bilateral channels, and the network works.
And one more twist: the same mechanism works in reverse — from Russia to China for the operation against Taiwan. The Washington Post (September 26, 2025) publishes a leak: Russia agreed to sell China in October 2024 equipment needed for amphibious assault on Taiwan — 37 BMD-4M, 11 Sprut-SDM1, 11 BTR-MDM, plus heavy cargo airdrop systems and paratrooper training. This is not a public alliance. This is a sale under a memorandum that can't be presented to court.
Here's where it gets really interesting.
In September 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact. This was a formal military alliance: Article 3 obligated participants to "assist with all political, economic, and military means" if one party came under attack. Seemingly a formal alliance, directly opposite to CRINK.
But look at how it worked:
The formal alliance collapsed structurally because each participant:
Result: three formal allies lost the war in their theaters separately. The main reason for failure — lack of trust and strategic coordination. There was a charter. There was no headquarters.
Now jump to 2024. Russia and DPRK sign the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (June 2024) — a formal alliance with mutual military assistance. But look at the difference: unlike the Tripartite Pact, CNAS and CSIS record that this alliance works. DPRK sent 14,000–15,000 soldiers to Kursk Oblast in late 2024, actually fighting on Russia's side. This is the first case where an authoritarian "formal alliance" in the 21st century fulfilled its obligations.
But! This alliance is between two "junior" partners in the web. China, formally DPRK's ally since 1961 (friendship treaty with mutual defense), did not send soldiers. Iran, which buys Russian weapons, did not send soldiers. Inside CRINK there's a hierarchy: Russia-China — anchors; Russia-DPRK — formal alliance; everything else — flexible network.
And here's why CRINK is more dangerous than the Tripartite Pact. The Tripartite Pact had one proximate goal (anti-Comintern front), and as soon as one participant deviated, the alliance became formal. CRINK has no single goal. Each has its own:
These goals overlap but don't coincide. And that's exactly why the flexible network works where a formal alliance would have collapsed: each participant defends its goal, and the network makes their sum greater than the parts.
In 1940, Tripartite Pact resources were limited: Germany had no oil (it captured Ploiești), Japan had no metals (it went to the Dutch East Indies), Italy had neither. The allies created a common market from nothing, and it weakened them.
In 2025, the CRINK economy is different:
That is, each has its own scarce resource that complements the others. This is not a pool of common resources, like in NATO. This is a network of exchanging scarcities. And it's more resilient because it doesn't depend on common leadership.
CNAS and CSIS diverge in assessments. CNAS believes the network will persist after the end of the war in Ukraine because:
CSIS adds five structural limiters that won't let the network become a formal alliance:
But — and this is critical — all these limitations don't prevent the network from working. They only make it slower and more uneven. They don't destroy it.
The most interesting consequence: this model will probably spread. If CRINK works while NATO stalls, other authoritarian states will start copying the pattern. Not signing Tripartite Pact 2.0, but building flexible networks of bilateral exchanges: I give you drones, you give me soldiers; I give you machinery, you give me rocket fuel; I give you grain, you give me a voice at the UN.
And here's the most striking conclusion from the Small Wars Journal report: the phrase "Mercedes Benz on a rickshaw budget." This is said about Xi Jinping's expectation that Russia and DPRK will become his "reliable wingmen" in the operation against Taiwan. China wants NATO-level coordination but has a coordination budget like countries that can't afford a formal alliance.
This is a structural gap. A formal alliance is expensive (joint headquarters, common standards, common procedures). A flexible network is cheap but delivers 70% of the result. In a world where military superiority increasingly depends on speed of response (drones, AI, cyber), not army size, speed decides. And a flexible network responds faster than NATO bureaucracy.
Christopher Chivvis from Carnegie is right when he talks about self-fulfilling prophecy: if the U.S. treats CRINK as a formal alliance, it will spend trillions repeating the Cold War. If it treats it as a phantom — it will miss the simultaneity strike. The right answer is third: treat the network as a network, use its weaknesses (transactionality, distrust, asymmetry), not its strength (speed).
Conclusions:
CRINK is a new organizational form of warfare we haven't seen before. Not an alliance, not a coalition, not an axis. Something like a swarm structure, where each node solves its own task, and the network as a whole creates pressure exceeding the sum of its parts.
Most troubling — this model better suits the 21st century than 20th-century formal alliances:
Most striking to me personally — the phrase from Small Wars Journal: "Beijing riding along like a hopeful third wheel hoping to reap the rewards without doing the heavy lifting." This is the perfect illustration. Xi Jinping wants alliance fruits but doesn't want to pay the alliance price. And that's exactly why CRINK is not Axis 2.0 but something new. The Axis wanted a formal alliance. CRINK gets 80% of alliance results at 30% of the cost.
And one more thing. When we read Western reports on CRINK, we see two polar positions: CNAS says "this is serious, prepare," Carnegie says "this is an illusion, don't panic." Both are right. The network is serious as a phenomenon but illusory as an alliance. And this is a third type of threat for which Western think tanks don't yet have ready vocabulary. We're used to thinking "alliance or not." But the right question is "network or not". Because the network is what works.
And in this, honestly, is the most honest conclusion: 21st-century authoritarian regimes are learning to wage war without a charter, and formalized democratic alliances haven't yet found an answer to this model. NATO 2.0 needs not more soldiers but a new operational philosophy. And CRINK is not "Axis 2.0" but the first successful swarm geopolitical structure in history.
Sources: