The responsibility of anti-imperialist forces today is not only to expose NATO’s military strategy, but also to build a political alternative against the poverty, insecurity, and political decay imposed on societies by this strategy. Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK . Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su The world today stands upon multiple fronts of war and “frozen” lines of tension. Although these conflicts and crises occasionally become the center of our attention, these cycles of confrontation and instability are, in many ways, history itself unfolding.
The Russia–Ukraine war continues as the deadliest conflict on the European continent in decades. In the Middle East, imperialist aggression targeting Iran, alongside Zionist expansionist policies carried out in Gaza and Lebanon, continues to shape the regional landscape. In the Taiwan Strait, the possibility of a future military confrontation remains a constant point of discussion. On the Korean Peninsula, while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is portrayed as the source of “aggression,” the United States maintains a massive military presence in South Korea. Tensions continue in the South China Sea; Japan is undergoing a renewed rearmament process; Afghanistan remains shaped by the consequences of two decades of occupation and devastation; and new military calculations are emerging in the Arctic as melting ice opens new strategic routes. Fronts and connections In the Ukraine war, Russia describes NATO’s eastward expansion and the possibility of Ukraine’s integration into the alliance as an “existential threat.” This demonstrates that the war is not merely a border dispute between two countries, but also a response to the expansionary moves of the Atlantic system.
On the Iranian front, meanwhile, blockades, bombardments, and diplomatic negotiations operate simultaneously within the framework of US-led aggression involving Washington and Israel.
In Taiwan, US arms packages worth billions of dollars await approval, while American HIMARS systems are being integrated into military exercises. On the Korean front, the dominance of US–South Korean military and political coordination, rather than inter-Korean dialogue, reveals how pressure on the peninsula is largely shaped by external forces.
The common denominator among all these conflict zones is a system in which the United States is either directly involved or indirectly supporting one side. For decades, imperialism has presented this system to us under the concept of a “security architecture.” The New World Order All of these issues are directly interconnected. In other words, the United States and its primary military instrument, NATO, are either direct participants or supporters of these conflicts.
Global capitalism does not approach these crises as isolated events; rather, it maintains them through a network of relationships that connects them all. Therefore, our understanding of these crises must also be shaped by these connections.
The recent increase in US aggression is often explained solely through the personality of President Donald Trump. It is true that Trump has a distinctive and confrontational political style. However, the politics he represents shares many common points with previous administrations, just as much as it differs from them:
Maintaining military superiority, containing rival powers, forcing allies to increase military spending, and preserving global military deployment. The Trump Era: Break or continuity? Trump’s aggressive and often crude rhetoric does not represent a break from this continuity, but rather an intensified and reorganized expression of it.
Why does this approach pressure NATO allies to increase defense spending while simultaneously considering reductions in the allocation of aircraft, naval assets, and tanker capacity for Europe?
The answer lies in imperialism’s ability to update its methods according to changing strategic needs. The Trump administration simply expresses this restructuring in the most direct and uncompromising language.
Therefore, the tensions between the US and the EU at the level of ruling classes do not represent a fundamental rupture. Rather, imperialism is selecting new partners in Europe and redefining its relationships during the Trump era. This perspective will also be decisive in understanding NATO’s future strategies. Europe’s militarization: A new war economy Despite all internal contradictions within the Atlantic system, Europe’s militarization is not a side effect of these developments; it is an essential component of them.
NATO secured a commitment from its members at the 2025 Hague Summit to move toward defense and security spending levels reaching up to 5 percent of GDP by 2035, with at least 3.5 percent allocated directly to core defense capabilities.
The next summit will take place this summer, on July 7–8, 2026, in our country, in Ankara. As expected, the alliance will demand that members present a “clear and credible path” toward achieving the 5 percent target.
European governments are already restructuring their budgets. Britain is preparing to announce its defense plan before the Ankara summit; Germany is rapidly increasing military expenditure; and even EU budgets are expanding defense allocations while social and regional spending faces pressure.
In short, public resources are being redirected toward military structures under the name of “security.” The cost of rearmament: A bill paid by working people This is exactly where NATO’s underlying logic becomes visible: despite its internal contradictions, this military structure must continue under US leadership.
Because the interests of the military-industrial complex and imperial competition push the system toward more weapons, more deployments, and greater “bloc discipline.”
Calls for NATO members – from Europe to Canada – to increase their air and naval capabilities are not a strategy of sharing the burden, but rather a strategy of redistributing it.
The cost of this strategy will be paid directly by working people. This is one of the fundamental rules of the capitalist world system: increased military spending weakens public finances. In other words, while the war economy expands, the cost of living rises for ordinary people. Turkey’s new NATO role: Opportunity or dependency? The developments in Europe, especially along the continent’s Eastern and Northern flanks where a possible “Russian threat” is being emphasized, also carry important implications for Turkey.
Because this pressure mechanism implemented through NATO affects not only budgets but also political life. The erosion of the welfare state, the normalization of war, and the permanent state of alarm push large sections of society either toward political indifference or toward far-right movements that manipulate anti-systemic anger.
Across Europe, the anti-imperialist left – long suppressed, marginalized, weakened, and pushed away from political influence – faces the challenge of filling this vacuum. When it fails to do so, anti-establishment searches often flow into the channels of the far right.
Therefore, the responsibility of anti-imperialist forces today is not only to expose NATO’s military strategy, but also to build a political alternative against the poverty, insecurity, and political decay imposed on societies by this strategy.