Aleppo Falls: Alliances for WWIII

An update on the New Cold War.

Aleppo is currently being invaded by the “Syrian Rebels.” These are Sunni militias which seek to undermine Bashar al-Assad’s coalition of Christian, Shiite, and Alawite forces.

I doubt that Assad will step down in the next 30 days.

The fall of Assad in Syria would be disastrous for Iran and Russia. While I oppose Russian and Iranian influence, I also am a firm believer that nothing ever happens.

Syria is divided on sectarian lines. Even if Assad was to flee the country and abdicate, Christian, Alawite, and Shiite forces would be supported by Iran and Hezbollah. These three ethno-religious groups face genocide by Sunni forces. They will not surrender so easily.

Aleppo is within the zone of Sunni influence, as is Hama. Syria’s coastal cities, like Latakia and Tartus, are firmly within the control of the Alawites. Unless Turkey launches a full scale invasion to crush Alawite resistance, the Sunni militias will not be able to capture the coast. Furthermore, in the face of Turkish aggression, the Kurds have sought a closer alliance with the Alawites. Such a coalition will very easily survive 30 days of onslaught from Turkish-backed forces.

The above map consolidates Lebanon and Syria into one zone of conflict. The yellow area represents Kurdish control, which is opposed by Turkey, and allied to Assad. The red area represents the maximal possible extent of Turkish and Sunni expansion, barring a full-scale Turkish invasion. The blue area represents the parts of Syria under the control of Assad, as well as Lebanon, which is under the influence of Hezbollah. As Hezbollah achieves a ceasefire with Israel, it will turn its attention toward defending Shiite communities in Syria against Sunni forces. The Syrian rebels do not have the capacity to advance much further. The end result is a marginal victory for Turkish influence, but Assad will not fall.

The capture of Aleppo is not a good sign for the Russian-Iranian forces in Syria. This represents a continuation of Iranian failures in Lebanon. Rather than a gradual escalation in the Middle East headed toward WWIII, it seems that Israel’s enemies are being undermined, one-by-one, forced into humiliating ceasefires. Russia and Iran are on the retreat.

The Global Conflict

By WWIII, or the New Cold War, I am primarily referring to a conflict between two alliances:

• China, Russia, Iran

• NATO, Israel, Japan

These alliances are not always internally coherent.

Netanyahu is willing to promote neo-isolationism against Ukraine in order to separate Iran from Russia. Viktor Orban of Hungary has been notoriously close with Putin. As recently as 2022, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines was relatively friendly with China.

Trump has been accused of being sympathetic to Russia, but he armed Ukraine. Clinton was accused of greenlighting the sale of American uranium to Russia. Trump has been strong on China, but his newest ally, Elon Musk, has deep business ties to China and asserted China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.

Turkey, a key NATO ally, denounces Israel and sanctions it. A number of NATO states, like Iceland, Spain, Norway, and Sweden, have moved to recognize Palestine since 2010.

This incoherence is nothing new. Prior to the Second World War, American corporations were bankrolling Nazi Germany, while communists infiltrated the Roosevelt administration on behalf of Stalin. States are made up of factions which often remain flexible and ambiguous up until the point of no return.

During the Cold War, direct nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union never broke out. It is possible that the New Cold War will end in a similar anti-climax. However, the Soviet Union allowed autonomy to Soviet Socialist Republics which China does not. As a result, China does not have the option of a “velvet divorce” with separatist regions. Unlike the Soviet Union, China has conducted thorough ethnic colonization, which will make a breakup even more difficult.

When the Soviet Union transitioned from communism to liberalization, the military kept control of the state at all times. Outside of the conflict in Chechnya, the Russian military was not threatened from within. Russia was also relatively economically autarkic. While the breakup of the Soviet Union did lead to a severe economic depression, the Russian economy was eventually able to recover through liberalization and normalization with the west. In the wake of NATO sanctions on Russia, it has been able to fall back upon a growing Chinese economy for vital support.

On the other hand, if America or China were to disintegrate into a small series of successor states, there would be no “global economy” to fall back on. China and America are the global economy. Unlike the Soviet Union, neither economy is autarkic. While Soviet disintegration was a net positive for global economic growth, Chinese or American disintegration would end the world as we know it. The collapse of America or China is a higher stakes game with graver consequences. Every country in the world would be dramatically affected, and this makes the likelihood of internal violence much higher.

Nothing goes on forever. Either America and China will put aside their differences to fight a mutual enemy (as they did against the Soviets in 1972), or they will come to blows, or one of them will unilaterally collapse without a fight. There is no fourth option.

Since I do not see a mutual enemy arising (sorry, India), I assume the only options are WWIII or unilateral collapse. Given those two options, I prefer the unilateral collapse of China. But we cannot dismiss the possibility of WWIII.

It is possible that WWIII is a “slow burn” with no nuclear weapons but numerous proxy wars. This sounds much more like a New Cold War than WWIII. In this article, I will detail each significant country’s allegiances and highlight possible zones of conflict.

Mexico

Mexico is a reluctant American ally. It condemned Russia, but also condemned EU shipments of weapons to Ukraine. Significant proportions of Mexico are controlled by drug cartels. It is not the most stable or reliable country in the world. At the same time, Mexico’s new Jewish president is ruling out membership in BRICS.

The Mexican constitution, like the Japanese constitution, limits the ability of the Mexican military to conduct operations overseas. That means Mexico will likely not join NATO any time soon. But its dependence on the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) means it is unlikely to rebel against American foreign policy abroad.

Rating: Weak NATO ally, but unlikely to join China-Russia.

Colombia

When war broke out between Russia and Ukraine, the president Duque called Colombia the “only NATO partner in Latin America.” As recently as 2022, America made use of seven different military bases in Colombia, and conducted joint military exercises.

The new president, Petro, has a more pacifistic stance toward Ukraine, and also criticizes Israel’s actions as genocide. In 2023, Petro signed 12 new agreements with China as part of a new “strategic partnership.” While Colombia has historically been a strong American ally and opponent of Venezuela, there is a possibility that, as trade with China grows, it could reduce its cooperation with NATO going forward.

Rating: Strong NATO ally, but moving toward China.

Brazil

Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, but Bolsonaro was considered a strong opponent of Venezuela and an ally of the United States and Israel. Under Lula, the picture has shifted back toward BRICS. Lula has constructed a peace plan for Ukraine with the backing of both China and Russia, and at the same time, it has accused Israel of genocide.

If Bolsonaro can mirror the success of Trump, and achieve a similar victory to Milei in Argentina, then it is possible that Brazil can be won over to the side of NATO. So long as Brazil does not emulate the authoritarianism of Cuba or Venezuela, NATO will always have the possibility to turn things around.

Rating: Weak BRICS ally, but able to move toward NATO.

Africa

Africa is largely controlled by the Wagner Group under the direction of Putin. The major exceptions to Wagner's influence are in Egypt, Kenya, Benin, Ivory Coast, and Ghana. As Africa grows in population, and its resources (like lithium and rare earth minerals) meet increasing demand, Africa will continue to feature a large amount of proxy conflict during a New Cold War. I will highlight a few of the countries which aren’t currently occupied by Wagner, and judge their relationship with Russia and China.

Ghana

English is an official language in Ghana, and Ghana has repeatedly sided with Ukraine and opposed Wagner forces in Africa. At the same time, Ghana is increasingly economically dominated by China. Given Africa’s weak track record of opposing coups, China has the option of toppling Ghana’s government and replacing it with something pro-Russian. However, so far, Ghana has stood out as a government labeled “democratic” by the west.

Rating: Strong NATO ally, but dominated economically by China.

Senegal

Senegal has a history of economic domination under Chinese merchants, who have faced violent crime and discrimination. Senegal refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, Senegal is receiving military aid from America. Senegal has pledged neutrality in the conflict.

Rating: Officially neutral, but dominated by China.

Benin

Benin’s president has stated that the employment of Wagner forces within Africa is sometimes acceptable, depending on the objective. Benin has also moved away from France and toward China.

Rating: No official Wagner forces, but dominated by China.

Ivory Coast

As recently as 2004, France destroyed the Air Force of Ivory Coast. In 2019, Macron visited the country to denounce colonization, and called for a restructuring of relations. In the last five years, China has invested in Ivory Coast, building stadiums, transportation infrastructure, and hydroelectric dams. Ukraine is attempting to counter this influence through trade agreements related to food security, and also possibly offering a military counter-balance to Wagner in Africa with Ukrainian troops abroad.

Rating: Chinese ally, but hesitant to accept Wagner troops.

Kenya

Kenya, like all other Africa countries, has received major loans from China. However, in Kenya, things haven’t proceeded very smoothly, and this has led to a backlash against China.

In 2024, Kenya became the first African country to win the designation of “major non-NATO ally.” Whether or not Barack Obama had any role to play in this development is not immediately apparent, but the coincidence is notable.

Until 2020, Kenya was on track in terms of GDP per capita with India. Kenya has access to Lake Victoria, which is the largest freshwater lake in Africa, as well as the Indian Ocean. In 2025, American plans to host its largest military exercise in AFRICOM with Kenya.

Rating: America’s greatest ally in Africa. Thanks, Obama!

Egypt

Egypt is more appropriately grouped with other Middle Eastern countries, but it still has geographic ties to Africa due to the supply of the Nile through countries like Ethiopia and Sudan. Egypt is the largest and most powerful country in Africa, and receives more military aid from America than any country besides Israel.

Egypt is a majority Sunni county, and traditionally opposed to Iran. Egyptian trade through the Red Sea has suffered as a result of Iranian-backed Houthi piracy in the region.

Economically, Egypt has joined BRICS, and supported China’s actions in Hong Kong. China is helping Egypt build a new capital city to reduce congestion in Cairo. Egypt’s political instability includes discrimination against its Coptic Christian minority, and hostility toward Israel. If a war were to break out between Iran and Israel, the best that NATO could hope for would be restraint on the part of Egypt. Egypt cannot be counted on as a reliable ally, but only to restrain the radical populist elements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

This description of Egypt applies, to one degree or another, to all of the “gulf” countries of the Middle East. These are countries with popular hostility to Israel and America, but which are geopolitically arrayed against Iran. They are unable to defend Israel actively, but they are able to passively resist Iranian influence.

Rating: Politically paralyzed, economically cooperative with China.

Iraq

The American military still has 2,500 troops in Iraq as of 2024. Iraq is dependent on food imports from both Ukraine and Russia. Iraq defended China’s treatment of Uyghurs, its policy and Hong Kong, and in 2013, half of Iraqi oil was sold to the Chinese.

Iraq is a dysfunctional proxy of Iran. While the Iraqi government cooperates with Iran, the large Sunni minority is hostile to Iran. Additionally, Iran has a hostile relationship with the Kurds, who form a large minority both within Iraq as well as Iran.

If Iran was to engage in a full-scale war against Israel, it would need to move tanks directly through Iraq and Syria to reach the Golan Heights or Lebanon. Although the Iraqi government is largely sympathetic to Iran, internal divisions within Iraq, and the presence of American troops, would result in (at the minimum) guerrilla warfare against Iranian supply lines. While Iraq can be counted on to cooperate passively with Iran, it cannot be depended on as an active participant in a war against Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Rating: Weak and dysfunctional Iranian ally.

Turkey

Turkey is leading the fight against Assad, who is a key ally of both Iran and Russia. Turkey is a member of NATO, and historically, opposes Russia. Turkey fought against Russia in the Crimean War, then WWI, and was neutral in WWII, but supplied Germany with crucial cobalt.

Turkey has two primary concerns: Kurdish separatism, and Azeri unification. The Kurds are currently allied with Assad against Turkey, and so Turkey has an incentive to undermine Assad. To achieve Azeri unification, Turkey must overcome both Iranian and Russian influence.

Rating: NATO ally with an anti-Iranian and anti-Russian agenda.

Georgia

Georgia has a historically contentious relationship with Russia. Russian forces have supported the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia within sovereign Georgian territory. At the same time, without western backing or support, the Georgian government has drawn closer into Russia’s orbit. This has led to the outbreak of protests against Russia. It’s not clear whether popular dissatisfaction will change Georgia’s destiny as a tributary of Russia.

Rating: Moving toward Russia, against popular opposition.

Azerbaijan and Armenia

Azerbaijan is subject to three different axes of influence. It shares a mutually intelligible language and culture with Turkey; it shares a religious and ethnic kinship with Iranian Azerbaijan; and it shares historical military and economic ties with Russia.

Russia’s failure to defend Armenia in the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive eliminated some of the dissonance between Azerbaijan and Russia. As a result, Russia has offered to support Azerbaijan on the establishment of an Azeri-controlled Zangezur corridor.

The problem with the Zangezur Corridor for Iran is that it would entirely cut off Armenia from Iran. Iran has established a relationship with Armenia because it opposes Azeri ethnic separatism within Iran, and Azerbaijan is a close ally of Israel.

The Armenian-Azeri conflict is the weakest point in the Russian-Iranian alliance. Russia wants to maintain economic cooperation with Azerbaijan in the Baku oil fields. Russia refused to defend Armenia, despite being obligated to do so by the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Russia’s interest in courting Azerbaijan may also have to do with a desire to provide a counter balance to Turkey. Turkey's ultimate goal is a political union with Azerbaijan, which would give it access to the Caspian Sea and the Baku oil fields. In order to oppose Turkish influence, Russia is happy to appease Azerbaijan.

The military aggression of Azerbaijan is worrying to Iran, whose president is Masoud Pezeshkian, an ethnic Azeri. The divide between Azeris and Turks is mostly religious: Azeris are Shiite, while Turks are Sunni. Iran wishes to diminish Azeri ethnic nationalism, and toward that end, seeks greater cooperation with Armenia. The establishment of a Zangezur Corridor, as supported by Putin, would undermine Iran's ability to play off Armenia against Azerbaijan. The disagreement between Russia and Iran on this matter is one of the weak spots in the Russian-Iranian alliance.

Rating Azerbaijan: Israeli ally, opponent of Iran, but moving toward Russia.

Rating Armenia: Iranian ally, but moving away from Russia.

India and Pakistan

In the same way that Sunni states in the Middle East are simultaneously opposed to both Iran and Israel, India is simultaneously opposed to both Chinese and American control. India’s main geopolitical enemy is Pakistan, which is supported militarily by both America and China.

America’s goal in providing foreign aid to Pakistan is to stabilize the central government and fight terrorism in the region. Unlike most Muslim countries, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If the Pakistani central government were to fall apart, these nuclear weapons could be sold to terrorists to use against American allies.

One of India’s most aggressive moves against NATO has been to conduct trade in Russian oil in national currencies, rather than dollars. On November 30th, Trump threatened to wage a trade war on BRICS (including India) if it cooperated in an attempt to construct a new “BRICS currency” separate from the dollar. Specifically, Trump called for 100% tariffs against any country seeking to escape trade in dollars.

The reaction of India will be crucial. Will it bow to pressure, and seek to appease Trump? Will it react with hostility, and forge a closer relationship with China? Or will it continue an awkward balance, neither embracing America nor China?

In any case, India does not have the military capacity to project power abroad. India is poorer than the Ivory Coast, Angola, and Iraq. It is only slightly wealthier than Papua New Guinea and the Congo. It struggles with Muslim terrorism, crime, corruption, and supplying basic electricity, running water, and sewage treatment to its rural areas. India is in no position to amplify or aid NATO in military matters. At best, India’s growing GDP can be an economic asset to NATO. But India’s internal paralysis means that, whether it fully allies with NATO, or with China, or with neither power, it will not be able to contribute significantly to any conflict abroad. The focus of the Indian military is maintaining stability at home.

Pakistan, however, is even poorer than India, falling even below Haiti in poverty. The GDP growth of Pakistan began to halt in 2019, and it has still not recovered economically. The name “Pakistan” is derived from an acronym Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. These groups only have unity insofar as they are all Muslim. Pakistan has been internally divided between supporters of Al Qaeda and a moderate faction. Due to Pakistan’s lack of economic and political unity, it has little military role to play in a New Cold War. Its usefulness to China is to act as a geographic bridge to the Indian Ocean, the resources of Afghanistan, and ultimately Iran.

India rating: opponent of China, but friend of Russia.

Pakistan rating: dysfunctional ally of China, but geographically important.

The Pacific Wall

The Pacific Wall refers to the island nations which surround China and prevent its free access to the ocean. These include Korean, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

The first four have taken a generally pro-NATO stance. The latter three have increasingly drifted toward China.

Map of Chinese Malaysians. Chinese are concentrated in the Malay peninsula, which is key for Chinese shipping.

Despite making up only 22.4% of the population, of the 50 richest Malaysians, 86% are ethnically Chinese. Malaysia has resisted becoming a proxy of China, but China does not need Malaysia to become a full ally. It only needs Malaysia to allow for Chinese shipping through the Malacca Strait.

The other country which controls the Malacca Strait is Singapore. Singapore is 75.9% Chinese, but has come out strongly against Russia. In the event of a war between east and west, Singapore would serve as a key military base for NATO to close the Malacca Strait.

But despite opposing Russia, Singapore has also cooperated with China in military exercises. In this respect, Singapore is opposite to India, which supports Russia, but opposes China. It’s not clear that this strategy will be sustainable in the long-term as Russian and Chinese cooperation expands and deepens.

Rating Singapore: condemned Russia, but cooperative with China.

Conclusion.

There are, broadly speaking, five fronts for the New Cold War:

1. American;

2. European;

3. Middle Eastern;

4. African;

5. Chinese.

While China does have growing relationships with Brazil and Venezuela, any attempt on the part of these countries to disrupt trade through the Panama canal would be met with overwhelming force. Bolsonaro and Milei have proven that political strategies can undermine China's presence in South America. Chinese investment in South America will struggle to overcome the historical precedent of the Monroe Doctrine. As America becomes more Hispanic, cultural ties between America and South America will grow, making Chinese infiltration more difficult.

In the European theater, Russia has an economy the size of Italy. Its population is shrinking and aging, and being replaced with non-white immigrants. In this sense, Europe and Russia share many of the same problems. Most independent observers in 2022 believed that Russia could capture Kiev. The Russian failure was unexpected and led to renewed optimism for regime change in Russia, which almost came with the Wagner Group Rebellion.

Due to Chinese economic support, Russia has been sufficiently supplied to win a war of attrition against Ukraine. The Chinese never feared NATO retaliation over the bombing of Ukrainian cities. Ukraine, by contrast, has been hamstrung by fears that full support of Ukraine will lead to Russian nuclear retaliation. Additionally, Netanyahu has sought to make a deal with Russia, so that Iran can be completely isolated and marginalized.

In the Middle Eastern theater, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have failed along similar lines as Russia. The Israeli Pager Attack demonstrated the incompetence of Iran and its proxies. Now, Assad is threatened by a renewed attack on Aleppo, supported by Turkey. If a deal can be made involving Russia and Israel, it is possible that Iran can be totally isolated. At that point, Iran will no longer be able to support any of its proxies in Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen. Its economy might even crash below that of Iraq. This would lead to widespread unrest, and the Iranian state would be threatened with regime change.

The most important country in Africa is Egypt, although it clusters more with the Middle East than Subsahara. Egypt's water supply is still determined by Uganda, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

Most African countries are poorer than India and Pakistan, and they do not have the ability to project power outwardly, or contribute in any meaningful sense to a global military conflict. The biggest contribution of African countries will be resources. Over the last two years, the Wagner Group has increased its presence all across Africa.

At present, NATO lacks the ruthless mercenary forces necessary to counter Russia. In the event of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine could continue the war by other means by deploying special forces to Africa. By deploying only 5,000 troops to Africa, Ukraine could plausibly defeat Wagner and conquer the continent for NATO. The Azov Battalion could reform and attract international participation from far right groups throughout Europe and America, who would be opposed to a “brother war” against Russia, but endorse mercenary activities in Africa. Erik Prince, for example, has called for greater western mercenary activity in Africa.

So while Africa is almost entirely controlled by Russia or China at present, this could change overnight if Ukrainian forces are freed up for redeployment in a new theater.

Finally, the Chinese theater will be determined by naval power. Historically, Japan and America have been the two supreme naval powers in the Pacific. China, so far, has not demonstrated regional superiority. The growth of the Chinese navy is dependent on Chinese economic growth, which has slowed since 2021.

Source: economicstrategygroup.org/publication/figure-3-annual-economic-growth-rate-of-us-and-china-1980-2026/

While American economic growth has remained steady since 1980, Chinese economic growth has slowed, and the gap between the two countries has narrowed. There is also systematic evidence that China is misreporting its growth in order to incentivize greater foreign investment. This is a Ponzi strategy, but it will eventually run out.

Source: x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1846268481765101991

Even if China is able to build up its naval capacity to overcome both Japan and the United States, this will only secure its access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The dream of Chinese naval capacity is to integrate Taiwan and Singapore into a “One Country, Three Systems” alliance. This would be a dramatic achievement, but it would not guarantee Chinese offensive capacities in America, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. Once China leaves the safety of the Pacific Wall, NATO piracy would destroy Chinese international trade and implode the Chinese economy.

Realizing its naval inferiority, the best military strategy for China is to continue funding Russia in the hopes that it can pressure Europe to abandon America. The efforts of neo-isolationists in France, Germany, Austria, and Hungary seek to undermine the European Union and the NATO alliance. If Germany betrays America and rebuilds Nordstream, its economy will improve, at least in the short term. China is hoping to use a series of carrots (trade and access to Russian oil) and sticks (the threat of Russian attack) to tear apart the NATO alliance.

Part of this strategy includes exacerbating and encouraging open borders policies to fuel the rise of the far right. Europeans are not xenophobic against Vietnamese, Korean, or Japanese immigrants. They are concerned with Islamic aggression, grooming gangs, terrorist attacks, and sexual assaults. This is not an economic or racial issue, but a cultural and religious one.

In this area, as in many others, it is the left (academia, celebrities, institutions) which is needed to grant moral permissibility and initiate genuine change. Keir Starmer’s denunciation of the “open borders experiment” provides a good starting point for a genuine change in rhetoric and policy. If the European left can steal the thunder of the far right, it will neutralize opposition to NATO and halt the advances of Chinese propaganda. The NATO alliance will gain greater political legitimacy and find less opposition from patriotic and nationalist forces.