By Eljanos Kasaj
The BRINK Quartet is a recent academic term used to denote a grouping of countries that represent a diverse geographic distribution, societal structures and political systems, yet strategically connected with each-other in a symbiotic relationship, which unlike classical politico-military alliances, represent a model of strategic coordination based on individual bilateral agreements or treaties (rather than multilateral ones) and the shared (geo) political views of their leaders, which are very similar to one another.
Comprising the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), the BRINK Quartet is today challenging the established international order since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the end of the Cold War, which they see it as unfair and exclusionary, characterizing it as a form of ” West neo-colonialism” that aggressively aims to maintain its hegemony through methods of indirect political intervention (West-founded NGO or Western-lobbing for political entities), economical pressure (through sanctions, tariffs, bans or embargo) and isolation from the international community (excluding from the international organizations bodies).
Based on these perceptions of geopolitical realities, the BRINK Quartet countries are presented as proponents of a classical worldview (regardless of the ideological differences among their political systems), based on the early XIX century post-Napoleonic conservative-reactionary ideas of the Concert of Nations and on the XX century post-Yalta Conference “division” (or “regionalization”) of spheres of influence, which they see it as the only way to ensure the political, economic and military stability of their countries, as well as to preserve the equilibrium between the Great Powers in the global political arena.
As of today, tensions between the Quartet and BRICS and the West (primarily the European Union and the United States) have escalated into dangerous direct and indirect armed conflicts, this global chaotic situation it seems to be benefiting another important international actor: the People’s Republic of China.
But before we examine how the “controlled conflict” between the countries of the BRINK Quartet and the West is today one of the most important tools in PRC quiet strategy to undermine the West’s political, economic and military monopoly, let us provide some specific details about the BRINK Quartet, which will later help us to subsequently analyze how Beijing has managed to turn them into a powerful (geo) political weapon, one that is achieving more satisfactory results than could ever have been achieved on the battlefield.
Five key commonalities that unite the BRINK Quartet countries
Regardless of their diverse geographic distribution, societal structures, political systems and state ideologies, the BRINK Quartet countries are united in a curious way by five key commonalities:
The first commonality uniting the countries of the BRINK Quartet is the respect for the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, while ideological uniformity is neither a prerequisite nor an obligation, which could possibly determine the relationships between them, thus framing cooperation are based on common practical interests;
A second common denominator, which we can categorize it as more technical then political, is that each of the political systems of the BRINK Quartet countries is centralized, statist and paternalist in typology- where every system aims to preserve the internal stability of its own country (especially in the case of fragile multinational states such as the Russian Federation or the Islamic Republic of Iran);
Meanwhile as we aforementioned at the beginning of our analyze, the BRINK Quartet countries share an official hostile stance towards Western global hegemony and Western-led values, which they regard as “foreign” and harmful to their countries and populations (based on the political, social and cultural chaos caused by their adoption – as in Russia’s case during the 1990s);
On the other hand, this hostile stance has also shaped the geo-political understanding of the BRINK Quartet countries, which consider themselves to be in ‘a permanent threat’ and in ‘a continuous war’ with the West-leaded alliances (as in the case of NATO/OTAN) and organizations (as in the case of European Union): Pyongyang has been the first who adopted this stance since the U.S.-led United Nations coalition intervention in the Korean War (1950–1953); Teheran since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, followed by U.S. Embassy Hostage Crisis (1979-1981) which led to first American sanctions against the new revolutionary government of Ruhollah Khomeini; Minsk since the imposition of the first Western sanctions (firstly mainly by EU) in 1996, following President Lukashenka amendments to the Constitution of Belarus; and Moscow since the diplomatic divergences that it had with the West on many security issues during the NATO expansion in the Central-East Europe in early 2000’ and especially after the Crimean crisis (2014) which saw the imposition of the first Western sanctions.
The ‘nuclear umbrella’ is another identifying aspect of the BRINK Quartet countries and an important part of their political rhetoric; the Russian Federation today possesses the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the world, estimated between 5,450 to 5,580 nuclear warheads; the DPRK government continues aggressively to develop its nuclear capabilities (despite the international sanctions) and today possesses around 50 nuclear warheads; since June 2023 the Belarusian President Aliaksandr Lukashenka has agreed on deployment of ‘Oreshnik’ ballistic missiles and Russian tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory; meanwhile Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing an ambitious, albeit still embryonic, program for the potential development of a nuclear arsenal, which has had also the direct and indirect support from Moscow.
Satellite countries of the BRINK Quartet
The BRINK Quartet it structurally resembles a planetary system, where each of actors brings with it a group of satellite countries, which are also characterized by political systems similar to those of their political gravity centers and by diverse geographical distribution, and which serve not only as reliable allies, but also as a safety valve against the West’s diplomatic isolation efforts (as in the case of the punitive diplomatic isolation of Russia by the West following the outbreak of the armed conflict in Ukraine in February 2022), but also to maintain a politico-military presence in this key regions which have a special geostrategic and economic importance, especially on the trade routes and markets of goods.
The first cycle of these satellite countries include the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (or Burma), Central African Republic, the Alliance of African Sahel countries (composed of Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso), the State of Eritrea, the ‘socialist’ Republics of Cuba and Nicaragua, and lately also the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
The second cycle include the ‘black holes’ of post-Soviet Union space: Caucasian Republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (or Transnistria) in Moldova- all three of them share common stance on Russian financial assistance, the military presence of Russian troops in their territories (peacekeeper troops or military bases) and Moscow’s political support to preserve their de facto independence.
A third cycle composed of political-paramilitary organizations and Islamist groups located in Arab countries, indirectly or directly supported by Teheran government, include the Houthis (Ansar Allah Movement) which controls territories on Northwestern Highlands, Red Sea Coastline, Saada Province and the capital city of Sana’a in Yemen; Hezbollah (Allah Party) which controls territories on southern Lebanon, the eastern Bekaa Valley and partly in the capital city of Beirut; and Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) which has had the de facto control over the Gaza Strip since 2007.
These rings of satellite countries of the BRINK Quartet, besides their role as reliable allies, economic partners or a tool of military pressure, also serve as defensive rings intended to spread the conflict between the BRINK Quartet country and the West across multiple geographically dispersed fronts, which will force Western forces to spread themselves thin and prevent them from focusing on a war against just one BRINK-country, thereby protecting the core of this planetary system from direct confrontation.
The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the XXI century
Although, as we mentioned at the beginning of our analysis, the BRINK Quartet countries are not linked to one another by any pact, alliance or union of any kind, but primarily through individual bilateral agreements among them, this has not prevented their governments from advancing efforts to establish a unique international platform, which will aim to change the political landscape of Eurasia forever.
On 3 February 2026, the Belarusian state news agency BelTA reported that at premises of the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Minsk) and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Moscow) simultaneously, the representatives of the Republic of Belarus, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burma), and the Russian Federation, coauthored a statement titled “Towards a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the XXI century”, pledging an “inclusive consultative process” to develop the “The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the XXI century”.
The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the XXI century is an international document, firstly articulated as an idea at the First International Conference on Eurasian Security, held in Minsk in October 2023, and was later followed by the panel discussion held in the framework of the Second and the Third International Conferences on Eurasian Security, also held in Minsk in 2024 and 2025, which saw the emerging of the various project-plans on how this plan could be materialized. During this time, the Belarusian and Russian diplomatic delegations have organized jointly information briefings on various venues, including the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland (February 2025) and the headquarters of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing, People’s Republic of China (February 2025).
Meanwhile, according to the analyze presented by BelTA, the aim of the Eurasian Charter would be to support the creation of a stable architecture of security and cooperation across the Eurasian space, based on the principles of equality, indivisible security, and the independent, solidarity-based resolution of regional issues by Eurasian states without destructive external interference. On the other hand work on the charter is open and inclusive to all Eurasian partners, and it’s focused on strengthening cooperation in four key areas: security, economy, humanitarian agenda, and civilizational exchange.
While the work to departmentalize the coordinated relations of the BRINK Quartet countries continues enthusiastically, it is expected to be finalized and signed at a high-level event, possibly at a future Eurasian Security Conference in Minsk this year, which would thus conclude as the materialization of one of the most important modern political structures across the territories of Eurasia since the formation of post-Soviet organizations such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union.
BRINK Quartet as icebreaker of West-leaded global order
The beginning of the coordinated bombings by the American and Israeli armies against civilian, governmental, infrastructural, economic and military targets in the Islamic Republic of Iran since 28 February 2026 (although Washington was at the time still holding constructive talks with Teheran in Switzerland to resolve their divergences diplomatically), as well as the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seems to have seriously undermined the confidence in the United States as a leading democracy and defender of international law, both domestically and internationally, as many citizens, world leaders and observer organizations have seen this as an unnecessary and illegitimate act of aggression against a sovereign state which has brought a new global energy crisis, further damaged the fragile regional stability, has led to thousands of humanitarian losses, and a revitalization of radical Islamist terrorist organizations or groups (such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or Houthis in Yemen), thus raising concerns about a possible escalation on a regional scale.
On the other hand, the Russo-Ukrainian armed conflict has also seen the largest political, military and economic mobilization of European Union countries (perhaps since the European Union Military Operation in Republic of Chad, in African continent, between 2008-2009), giving this conflict, seemingly isolated in the post-Soviet space, a universal (or continental) dimension, and shaping a protracted proxy war which today has officially been fought for more than four years-but, the failure to apply the same standard or unified harsh response to Israel, whose military actions in Gaza Strip against Palestinian civil population have been officially recognized by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry as a “genocide”, has undermined the European Union credibility in the eyes of international community (especially in the Arabo-Persian and Muslim world), which has seen this “asymmetrical response” as a piece of evidence that demonstrates an old-colonial, unequal view on human rights and international law.
All these chaotic and volatile developments have also led to a polarization of European and American societies, thereby turning the current geopolitical crisis into an internal political crisis that has divided society and fuelled harsh political rhetoric on the governmental elites.
Meanwhile, as the ongoing conflicts between the West and the BRINK Quartet continue to dangerously escalate, this has significantly affected the West’s international preception, with the European Union and the United States facing today a growing criticism for promoting an international order based on unilateral rules, while from some they are seen as actors who prioritize military force over dialogue (as in the case of the current U.S.-Iran war or the proxy war between EU and Russia), which, according to critics, undermines public trust and weakens global diplomatic structures.
China as gateway to escape from old (geo) political realities and as a new alternative
The escalation of conflicts between the West and the BRINK Quartet, accompanied by the hardening of political rhetoric from governing elites, radical politicization of societies, as well as the crisis of moral and civic values, has also led that more and more people, especially young people (Generation Z), to seek ways to escape from the gloomy reality and to look for countries which political system that offer an alternative to their origin countries old systems, which they see it as dysfunctional, rotten, corrupted and inefficient.
People’s Republic of China (or PRC), with its semi-mythical history stretching back thousands of years, its highly colourful and vibrant culture, its gigantic modern economy and its lightning-fast technological innovation, seems to have become the utopian paradise of the young people, but of course the perception of PRC as such differs according to political environment, economic landscape and cultural background of the admirers:
Within the BRINK Quartet countries, harsh Western sanctions and international isolation have reoriented their governments towards Chinese markets and China-led organizations, turning their economic, political, cultural and technological dependence on Beijing from what firstly used to be an asymmetrical ‘strategic partnership’ into a vital factor for them, consequently influencing the opinions of the citizens of this countries, who today view the People’s Republic of China in a very positive light, not only as a reliable economic partner and a friendly country, but also as an example of success on the modernization processes without the need of adaption of the Western models, but by incorporating old traditions and cultural heritage of their countries with the technological achievements and scientific partnership with other friendly countries which share the same values and goals.
On the other hand, in the West, the People’s Republic of China is no longer seen as a big, bad wolf in the eyes of young people, who are today rediscovering the country through touchpoints of Chinese commercial culture, such as futuristic cities like Shanghai and Chongqing, the ugly-but-cute Labubu dolls, innovations on social media platforms like Tik Tok or Rednote, and most recently by Unitree G1 humanoid robots. This has also led to the emergence of a new viral popular phenomenon on social media, mainly Tik Tok, called “Chinamaxxing” or “becoming Chinese”, in which non-Chinese users, predominately young people, appropriate traditional Chinese wellness habits, aesthetics, fashion and daily lifestyle practices.
As a February 2026 survey conducted by French polling firm CSA Research, of 19,025 Europeans aged 18 to 35 revealed, around 82% of respondents held a positive view of China, while in United States over 40% of Americans aged 18-29 had a favorable opinion of China, according to a poll posted in Facebook by Global Times Post on December 2025.
Meanwhile globally, according to a study conducted by The University of Cambridge’s Center for the Future of Democracy, today around 6.3 miliard people living in 136 countries worldwide-mainly in Non-Aligned emerging economies and Global South-feel generally positive towards the People’s Republic of China, which is viewed as an alternative global power that respects the sovereignty of other countries and does not demand concessions in the core of their traditional political systems, or of their national traditions and customs.
Thanks to this generally positive public image internationally, Beijing is more confident as it leads efforts to create a multipolar world, but unlike the militarist strategy of BRINK Quartet countries, the Chinese strategy is based on deepening economic integration through regional trade alliances (such as the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), regional cooperation organizations (such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and key global infrastructure development strategy (through the Belt and Road Initiative).
This economic, cultural and political expansion of Beijing, which is filling the vacuum left in the international arena by key historical factors – such as the European Union, the United States or the Russian Federation – is turning the PRC into a political, economic, cultural and technological centre, thus paving the way for its proclamation as the new global superpower, thereby consequently leading to the establishment of a new global order.
Conclusions
The recent dynamic and dramatic geopolitical developments seem to represent the culmination of the processes establishing political, economic and military multipolarism, which also mark the end of the old unipolar world order, established chaotically after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union.
These transformative processes are currently unfolding on two fronts:
The first front is represented by the countries of the BRINK Quartet and their satellites, which see the use of force as the only efficient way to protect their geostrategic and national interests, as well as to achieve the formation of a new global order, the guarantee of which will be the military strength that these countries possess.
But, as the recent diplomatic initiative of the Eurasian Charter has shown, the prospect of institutionalizing BRINK, aim of which would be to lead to the creation of a stable architecture of security and cooperation across the vast Eurasian space, also appears to be viable.
The second front is represented by the People’s Republic of China, which is using trade framed within strategic initiatives (such as the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiative the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative or the Global Civilization Initiative) and regional organizations (such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), in order to dismantle the old order and create a new one based on an integrated global trade network with PRC at its centre.
This front seems to be gaining ground more and more each day, and at the same time it appears to represent the most practical and diplomatically flexible strategy, which is based on the simple fact that, thanks to Beijing’s Titoist policy, PRC today, just like SFR Yugoslavia during the Cold War, is the only global actor that has managed to benefit from the deepening crisis caused by the direct and indirect confrontation between the BRINK Quartet and the West.
Thus, as PRC is rapidly emerging as a global superpower, challenging Western dominance (especially American), it has managed to do so quietly and without sparking any direct conflict with the West, but by waging a proxy war through states with which Beijing today maintains a ‘controlled dependency’ relationship, which allows it to challenge Western hegemony, while keeping them under control. And which, ultimately, makes Beijing the sole victor, regardless of how the geopolitical situation on the battlefield ground or on the negotiating table will unfold.
About the author:
Eljanos Kasaj is a Albanian academic, currently studying at the Institute of Political Science and World Politics, specialising in Global Security, at the University of Wroclaw (Poland).
Bibliography:
https://www.38north.org/2026/02/north-korea-takes-its-place-at-eurasian-charter-table
https://en.people.cn/n3/2026/0205/c90000-20422862.html
