In June 2024, Russia and North Korea drew concern from Western governments by signing a comprehensive strategic partnership amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
A month earlier, Chinese President Xi Jinping had visited Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Budapest to announce a comprehensive strategic partnership with Hungary, a European Union and NATO member state. And just the previous year, Vietnam elevated its ties with the United States to a comprehensive strategic partnership.
But while these phrases are often used in diplomacy, their meaning can vary.
Countries use terms like “strategic partnership” and “comprehensive partnership” to describe different types of diplomatic relations. While some may involve a formal treaty, these partnerships are often informal and broadly defined relationships that simply provide a general framework for bilateral cooperation.
A comprehensive partnership may signal a general intent to cooperate across a broad range of issues, while strategic partnerships may have a narrower but deeper focus on particular sectors such as trade, energy or counterterrorism. A comprehensive strategic partnership, then, implies both broad-based cooperation and a commitment to specific joint pursuits.
However, there is no universal international standard for how these terms are defined. That is for the individual countries to determine.
Vietnam, for example, uses all three categories to indicate different tiers of bilateral relations, with comprehensive strategic partnership being the highest. Yet the fact that Vietnam maintains this status with China despite their conflicts in the South China Sea — and with both the United States and Russia despite their current standoff over Ukraine — means there are limits to how far these partnerships can go without upsetting the diplomatic balance.
In the case of China and Hungary, the announcement mostly reiterated an already-existing economic relationship and a commitment to proceed with previously planned projects rather than introducing new initiatives.
Russia and North Korea’s partnership, on the other hand, involves a formal pact that includes guarantees of military assistance in case of attack, though some experts believe this still falls short of a direct military alliance.
Other countries may use similar terms without necessarily implying a tiered approach.
The United States has in the past announced strategic partnerships with countries such as India and Qatar. It also applies the term to NATO allies such as Romania, as well as other allies like Ukraine.
Partnerships can even extend to organizations beyond national governments. Beyond Vietnam, the United States has established a comprehensive strategic partnership with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — a regional grouping that also includes Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.
And Egypt recently issued a joint announcement of a “strategic and comprehensive partnership” with the European Union as they work to address migration.
In all cases, the terminology used to designate a partnership matters less than how each of the parties interprets it and what specific agreements, treaties and trade deals it entails. But although partnership announcements may be largely rhetorical, they remain important tools of diplomacy in a time of global upheaval and realignment.
