Why countries like Russia and Iran are set to fail

President Trump is a man who likes to bet on a winner. And so, it was both unsurprising and correct that he not only reversed the Pentagon’s recent unilateral decision to halt military assistance to Ukraine but also announced additional lifesaving aid worth billions of dollars. Halting weapons shipments to Ukraine sent the wrong message to America’s allies and, most glaringly, tied the U.S. to Russia’s dead-end cause. In both Russia and Iran, the macro-level trends are ominous and, if they persist, the northern and the southern shores of the Caspian Sea will likely be flanked by decrepit and decaying regimes. Russia—like Iran—is a country that fails because it is structurally set up to fail.

Russian officials and their collaborationists struck an optimistic tone in the days following the brief Israel-Iran war, claiming victory was close at hand. This “optimism” is unsurprising; for decades, the Kremlin has enforced a culture of pollyannaish toadying and stifling omertà on any actor operating within the system. Russia may still achieve some of its goals in Ukraine, but the triumphant tone expressed by Kremlin propagandists obscures an important lesson of Israel’s 12-day war against Iran: Russia may well be an Iran-in-the-making.

Both Iran and Russia are politically isolated where it matters. Relations with major military and trading nations like the U.S., the EU, Japan, and South Korea range from frosty to openly hostile. Perhaps more importantly, both countries have cultivated the animosity and distrust of their closest neighbors. In Russia, this reality was exemplified recently by Azerbaijan’s detention of seven staffers from the Russian news agency ‘Sputnik”. Meanwhile, Moldova is taking further steps towards European integration, Armenia is turning its back on Russia’s regional security architecture, and the Baltics continue to serve as drivers of European skepticism towards Moscow. Israel’s bombardment of Iran’s nuclear and military sites was greeted with tepid public condemnation and raucous private celebration across the Gulf Arab states. The Qataris were especially infuriated by Iran’s decision to respond to President Trump’s bombardment of the Fordow nuclear site by attacking al-Udeid air force base.

Having proven themselves unreliable security partners, Iran and Russia’s diplomatic stock is unlikely to rise in the foreseeable future. Foreign leaders and businessmen may one day negotiate agreements with Russian counterparts, but Russia cannot be brought into the international fold in any structural sense. Every square mile of Ukrainian territory seized is paid for in Russian blood and in the ever expanding enmity of Russia’s neighbors.

Both Russia and Iran struggle under the weight of deep economic isolation, having earned the dubious honor of the first and second-most sanctioned country on earth respectively. Frozen out of foreign investment, including technology and human capital, complex systems and industries in Russia and Iran continue to break down. In Russia, international sanctions on the energy sector have made the refining industry particularly dangerous and toxic. In Iran, decades of economic stagnation have forced the country to rely on a fleet of aging aircraft and the worst airline safety record in the region. Sanctions relief alone will not cure the economic malaise afflicting them. Both produce little of value on the global markets beyond extractable resources that can be mined elsewhere. Both rank near the bottom on global indexes tracking levels of perceived corruption and rule of law.

Iran and Russia are both legacy powers that use a storied past to compensate for and distract from a failing present. When publicly challenged for their actions, they defend themselves by pointing to cultural achievements from centuries ago, be it the domes of St. Basil’s or the writings of Ferdowsi. When projecting power, they exploit institutional arrangements from decades ago, such as Russia’s UN Security Council seat or the National Iranian Oil Company’s market monopoly and infrastructure.

Finally, both Iran and Russia are staring down the precipice of a demographic crisis even as their leadership appeals to traditional family values. Experts estimate Iran’s Total Fertility Rate at 1.45, well below replacement levels and roughly comparable to that of Russia, where the birth rate has fallen at such a rapid clip that the Kremlin has recently moved to classify demographic statistics.

It would be too easy to portray Iran and Russia’s antagonists as the epitome of vigor and ascent. The reality is that Ukraine and Israel face very real vulnerabilities with no solutions immediately forthcoming. Israel remains locked in a bitter, seven-decade-long conflict with the Palestinians. After over 20 months of fighting in Gaza, Israel’s original war aim of completely destroying Hamas remains illusory, its international reputation is damaged, and its warmaking capacity is depleted. In Ukraine, Russia’s advance continues—however haltingly. Russian missiles find their targets in Ukrainian hospitals, schools, and power stations. If an unlikely ceasefire is reached, Ukraine’s budget will be burdened by expensive reconstruction projects, veteran reintegration strategies, and military reconstitution efforts.

Yet, amidst the gloom, both Ukraine and Israel have shown a level of dynamism and ingenuity their opponents lack. On the battlefield, both have employed creative solutions to challenge their adversaries who use quantity—in ballistic missiles and in human lives—when quality is out of reach.

Last month, Ukraine’s security services smuggled hundreds of drones deep into Russian territory, remotely released them from truck beds, and launched them against Russia’s strategic bombers and other aircraft. Some weeks later, the Israelis followed a similar playbook, deploying drones from covert military facilities they built inside Iran. Ukraine lacks a functional navy but still managed to eject the entire Russian fleet from the Black Sea through a clever use of sea drones. Even under bombardment, Ukrainians are pioneering new surgical techniques, inking deals with major American companies, and continuing to feed the world with their grain shipments.

President Trump placed his bet on Israel not for reasons of sentimentality or abstract principle but because, in the Jewish state, he saw a promising investment vehicle for his policies and ambitions. The President understood the war between Iran and Israel as between a sclerotic state at odds with its own people, exporting nothing but revolution on one side and a vibrant, Western-oriented, high-return partner on the other. America could sit on the sidelines or commit to victory. And so, President Trump quickly marginalized the neo-isolationist voices in his administration and aligned with Israel. A similar choice awaits him in Ukraine. As a businessman, he certainly knows that wise investment decisions are all about the fundamentals.