The Essence of the Myth
The myth of the “axis of good” is not an attempt to describe a real alliance of states, nor a concept of international relations. It is a tool for simplifying the world into a binary scheme convenient for domestic consumption. Within this scheme, there are no complex causes of economic failure, institutional decay, or social apathy — there is only “us,” allegedly standing on the side of good, and “them,” declared absolute evil.
The primary function of this construct is to eliminate accountability of the authorities to their own society. Any question about human rights, corruption, repression, or governance failure is shifted into the realm of “civilizational confrontation.” Political criticism is thus replaced with moral accusation, and dissent with betrayal.
An Old Technique in New Packaging
The rhetoric of a struggle between “light and darkness” is one of the most persistent tools of authoritarian propaganda. It was used by Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Baathist regimes in the Middle East. In every case, it served one purpose: to place power beyond rational and legal evaluation.
The modern version differs only in vocabulary. Instead of “enemies of the people” — “satanists”; instead of “bourgeois decay” — “liberal degeneration”; instead of a “besieged fortress” — a “multipolar world.” The essence remains unchanged: to abolish debate and normal politics, replacing them with mythology.
What Real Indices Show
If we move beyond propaganda claims and turn to internationally recognized indices, the picture becomes unequivocal. Countries included in the so-called “axis of good” demonstrate systematic similarity precisely where repression and the dismantling of rights are concerned:
- According to Freedom House, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are classified as “Not Free” states with minimal levels of political and civil liberties.
- The World Press Freedom Index records criminal prosecution of journalists, state censorship, and the absence of independent media in these countries.
- The UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korea qualifies the existence of political prison camps as crimes against humanity.
- In Iran, mass executions, including executions of juveniles, are documented by Amnesty International as grave violations of the ICCPR.
- In China, digital surveillance systems, mass internment of Uyghurs, and suppression of dissent are described in reports by Citizen Lab and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
- In Russia, political persecution, torture, liquidation of independent media, and killings of opposition figures are documented by OVD-Info and Human Rights Watch.
This similarity cannot be explained by “cultural specificity.” It has an institutional nature.
What Actually Unites Them
These states differ radically in language, religion, history, and economic structure. They share neither a single ideology nor a common development model. The only stable common element is the ruling elite’s fear of its own society.
This fear generates repression, and repression requires constant justification. An external enemy becomes a necessary condition for regime survival. Without it, censorship, political processes, and violence cannot be explained.
The Legal Dimension: What Propaganda Conceals
The myth of the “axis of good” functions as a form of legal camouflage. It is designed to obscure systemic violations of international law:
- Russia has violated the UN Charter (Article 2), the Budapest Memorandum, the Geneva Conventions, and jus ad bellum norms. Its aggression against Ukraine has been qualified in UN General Assembly resolutions.
- Iran systematically violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the right to a fair trial.
- North Korea disregards fundamental norms of international law, including the prohibition of forced labor and arbitrary detention.
- China violates obligations to protect minority rights and freedom of expression, as documented in reports by the UN OHCHR.
Ideological rhetoric replaces legal accountability with the myth of a “higher mission.”
“Western Satanism” — A Convenient and Dangerous Scarecrow
The narrative of a “satanic West” is neither religious critique nor cultural debate. It is a method of extreme demonization intended to place the opponent outside the realm of law and rational analysis. When an adversary is declared not merely mistaken or hostile, but ontologically evil, all norms — treaties, international law, humanitarian obligations — are declared secondary or entirely unnecessary.
Within this logic, there are no longer civilians, independent institutions, or universal rights. There are only “carriers of evil,” against whom anything becomes permissible: violence, collective punishment, destruction of infrastructure, deportations, repression. This is how moral rhetoric is used to abolish legal constraints.
Historically, similar techniques were employed by regimes seeking to legitimize arbitrariness — from the Nazi concept of a “racial enemy” to the Stalinist image of “enemies of the people.” The modern version differs only in terminology, but performs the same function: to destroy the very idea of universal law and replace it with the mythology of a “sacred struggle.”
Economic Reality Dismantles the “Axis” Myth
Once ideological rhetoric is set aside and economic data are examined, the concept of a unified “axis of good” begins to collapse. The states portrayed by propaganda as an alternative world order do not form a self-sufficient economic bloc or a closed system.
China remains critically dependent on US and EU markets as primary consumers of its goods. Russia built its budget for decades on resource exports to the so-called “hostile West” and still relies on Western financial and technological chains through intermediaries. Iran is integrated into global energy trade, while North Korea survives through shadow channels that exist only within the global system.
Thus, economic practice directly contradicts the propagandistic image of a “civilizational rupture.” Regimes that denounce the global order simultaneously depend on it. This once again underscores that what we are dealing with is not a real alternative, but a rhetorical construct for domestic use.
Why Authoritarian Regimes Need This Myth
The myth of the “axis of good” serves primarily an internal function. It allows authorities to shift social, economic, and legal problems from the sphere of responsibility into a narrative of “siege.” Any dissatisfaction is explained not by governance failures, but by the machinations of an external enemy.
Demands for fair elections, independent courts, freedom of speech, and human rights protection cease to be legitimate civic claims within this framework. They are declared part of a “hostile plan,” a tool to undermine stability and “spiritual foundations.” Repression, in turn, is presented not as a violation of law, but as a forced act of state self-defense.
In this way, mythology replaces politics, and fear replaces the social contract. This is not the language of international relations or ideology, but the language of suppression and control.
The Real Picture Without Propaganda Packaging
When ideological slogans are removed, it becomes clear that the so-called “axis of good” is not united by values, religion, or a shared vision of the future. What aligns is only the type of power and its toolkit: fear of society, suppression of dissent, censorship, destruction of independent institutions, and aggression as a means of consolidation.
Internal unfreedom is directly linked to external aggression. Regimes lacking internal legitimacy are compelled to constantly reaffirm it through the image of an external enemy and demonstrations of force. This is not a sign of strength, but a symptom of structural weakness.
Conclusion: An Alliance of Fear, Not Values
The “axis of good” is neither an ideological project nor an alternative world order. It is a situational alliance of regimes united by fear of losing power and the need to justify repression.
As long as the myth functions, it allows law to be replaced with propaganda and accountability with conspiracy. But its durability depends directly on isolating society from information. Wherever documents, data, international reports, and access to reality appear, this myth inevitably begins to collapse.
Key Sources and Materials
- Freedom House — Freedom in the World
- Reporters Without Borders — World Press Freedom Index
- UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights — reports on North Korea, Iran, and China
- Human Rights Watch — World Report
- Amnesty International — Annual Reports
- Citizen Lab — research on digital surveillance
- UN Charter and key international treaties
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025