Category: Uncategorized

U.S. bombing of Iran, following on from and inseparably linked to the Israeli genocide in Gaza, openly shows to the world its future if the U.S. war drive is not defeated.

A crushing majority of world public opinion, as shown in repeated votes at the United Nations and opinion polls, opposes Israel’s genocide in Gaza. An Economist/YouGov opinion poll, whose sponsors cannot be accused of the slightest bias in favour of Iran, showed Americans opposed the U.S. launching a military attack on Iran by 60% to 16%.

But the U.S and Israel, totally isolated both internationally, and in terms of U.S. public opinion, decided they would attempt to rely on pure military power. It is the image of the future for the world portrayed in Orwell’s 1984: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

Needless to say, with this willingness to go against the overwhelming majority of world and even U.S. domestic opinion, the Trump administration was prepared to breach the U.S. constitution, which gives to the Congress the sole power to declare war, and to act in direct violation of international law – there has been no United Nations Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that allows the United States to attack Iran..

The U.S. attack is also based on straight forward and systematic lying and falsification. The U.S. claim that Iran s on the brink of producing nuclear weapons is shown to be false by both the International Atomic Energy Authority and US security agencies.

Therefore, the stakes in the outcome of this war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran could not be higher not only for the people of West Asia, Palestine, and Iran but for the world. If the U.S. and Israel succeeds in its genocide in Gaza, and it succeeds in its attack on Iran, a major state in the Global South and part of BRICS, the U.S. will be emboldened to extend its attacks to any country in the Global South and increasingly against major powers such as Russia and China. Every country pursuing a path of national independence and development will be under threat and the risk of a World War by a U.S. attack on a major power will be moved significantly closer.

But the U.S. and Israel cannot easily defeat Iran. The fascist genocidal attack of Israel in Gaza, which was solely made possible by the U.S., was carried out against a population of two million people. But Iran’s population is 90 million – for comparison Iraq’s was 45 million, and since the US could not subdue Iraq it is unlikely that it can subdue a population twice the size and one where invasion is impossible. The belief that the Iranian people, a country with a more than a 2,000 year civilisation, want a puppet regime installed by Israel and the U.S. is as far-fetched as the provenly false view that the people of Iraq, who did suffer invasion, wanted a U.S. puppet regime.

The World Values Survey shows us that Iranians respond clearly and in large numbers to the questions that reflect national pride: 83% said that they are proud of their country, and 72% said that they are ready to fight for their country. All evidence coming from Iran so far is that the country, whatever other differences may exist, is unifying around defence of Iran against the Israel/U.S. attack. Despite strict Israel censorship the images coming out Isreal show that Iran’s missiles are inflicting significant damage in that country.

The U.S. and Israel have the ability to impose suffering on the Iranian people and will not hesitate for a second to do so – as the U.S./Israel fascist genocide in Gaza already shows – and for which the entire world should, and most of it will, condemn U.S./Isreal actions. But that is a different issue to the ability to defeat Iran. There is, certainly, no possibility of the U.S./Israel imposing a rapid defeat on Iran and therefore a prolonged period of assault by the U.S. and Israel against Iran must be prepared for – whether or not any immediate ceasefire holds the U.S. and Israel will not abandon their strategic aggression against Iran.

Faced with this  it must be the task of the international anti-war movement, and in particular the anti-war movement in the U.S., to act to impose such political isolation and damage on the Trump administration that it is forced to stop this aggression and war.

This must be the top priority of the world to achieve human progress, not only in the interests of the Iranian and Palestinian people, but in humanity’s own self-interest if every country does not wish to have the jackboot of the U.S. and Israel descend upon themselves.

By Dae-Han Song

In his inaugural speech, South Korea’s recently elected President Lee Jae-myung declared that ‘no peace is too expensive; it is always better than war’. The words capture an idealism packaged in Lee’s pragmatism. Indeed, at a time when the US Cold War against China is turning Asia into a tinderbox, when global temperatures have exceeded a 1.5°C increase, and South Korea’s economy and society are reeling from martial law, peace is the only pragmatic way forward. As such, Lee’s hesitancy in attending the June NATO Summit was a welcome contrast to former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s enthusiastic participation.

The opposite of pragmatism, Yoon was driven by a deep idealism to turn South Korea into a ‘global pivotal state’ for the US, regardless of the damage to inter-Korean stability or to South Korea’s relationship with China, a strategic trading partner. Amidst the backdrop of the chorus of editorial voices (including the conservative Chosun newspaper) from Korea’s leading media pressuring him to attend, Lee has stated that he will likely attend the NATO Summit. Yet, attending NATO exacerbates the crises facing South Korea, the region, and the world. Lee’s pragmatic foreign policy must disengage from the US-led NATO expansion into Asia that enables the US to escalate military tensions and destabilise the Indo-Pacific (the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula).

An Atlantic offensive in the Pacific

Contrary to its original mandate, NATO has neither been about ‘collective defence’ nor about the ‘North Atlantic area’. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union (its ostensible justification for being), NATO has continued to exist, invading and waging war in Eastern Europe and West Asia to maintain its (especially that of the United States’) dominance under the rhetoric of ‘a rules-based order’. Then, starting in 2021, under the continuous urging of the US, overriding concerns about hurting ‘political and economic cooperation with Beijing’, NATO began framing China as presenting ‘systemic challenges to the rules-based international order’. Or to put it more directly, NATO feared that China challenged its ‘transatlantic values and interests’ around the world.

The heads of state of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea (collectively the Indo-Pacific 4) started attending the NATO summits in 2022. While NATO’s clause ten prevents non-European countries from joining its alliance, NATO’s expanded cooperation with these four US Indo-Pacific allies (on interoperability, joint war exercises, and ‘technological cooperation and pooling of R&D’) frees the US to intensify its Cold War against China. Furthermore, when NATO militaries make port calls and carry out exercises in the Indo-Pacific, they expand the US military footprint in the region while practising future concerted responses to a military contingency. Given the importance of military posture during peace in determining the outcome of conflicts, the entry of Atlantic elements into the Pacific is, in itself, aggressive. Ultimately, even if NATO does not intervene in a regional conflict, it can still do everything else to contribute to the US Cold War and arms race against China.

Rebalancing a lopsided foreign policy

As Lee enters office, he must extricate South Korea from former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s headlong rush into the US’s Cold War Against China. Not only did the Yoon administration enthusiastically participate in the NATO Summits starting in 2022, but it also rushed headlong to support US efforts to maintain its hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region in the Taiwan Strait, not least by entering into a trilateral security cooperation agreement with Japan and the United States.

It’s not yet clear how the Lee Administration will deal with Trump’s pressure to join its containment of China: after Lee won the election, the Trump administration acknowledged the elections as free and fair and then expressed concerns about Chinese influence, with little care to substantiate such claims. Within a Korean context, these claims are a nod to the far-right conspiracy theory that the 2020 National Assembly Elections involved Chinese interference, which Yoon used to justify calling martial law. The remarks were the diplomatic equivalent of warning shots from a gunboat against Lee’s intention to rebalance South Korea’s foreign policy by improving relations with China.

The Lee Administration faces many challenges. If Lee Jae-myung won with 49% of the vote, the pro-martial law conservative candidate nonetheless gained 41% of the vote. Thus, despite the great political mobilisations of the 2016 Candlelight Revolution and the 2024 Revolution of Lights, South Korea still struggles to break free from a Cold War framework that limits democracy to a contest between conservative parties.

South Korea’s inability to shake off this Cold War framework is partly due to the legacy of the Korean War (far-right conservative support is highest among those past 60), but it is also buttressed by the ongoing US military presence and Korea’s lack of wartime operational control of its own military. Established under US military occupation and developed under the US economic aegis, South Korea is constrained in its ability to chart an independent foreign policy based on its own national interests, such as achieving peace with North Korea. This constrains Lee’s ability to backtrack from many of Yoon’s commitments to the United States, such as the JAKUS trilateral security cooperation, intentionally designed to survive changes in administration.

Given the increasing pressure to attend NATO’s meeting, it’s likely Lee will attend. Lee’s initial reasoning that now is the time to focus on the recovery of Korea’s economy rather than on attending the NATO summit is pragmatic for Koreans. As a way of stepping out of the US-led war drive in the region, when we should be diffusing rather than exacerbating the world’s crises, it is also pragmatic for the world.

Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective and is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute. This article was produced by Globetrotter.

By Vijay Prashad

Israel’s attacks on Iran, backed by the US and EU, violate international law and aim to maintain regional dominance by undermining Iran’s sovereignty, despite Iran’s compliance with nuclear agreements.

Israel’s consistent attacks on Iran since 2023 have all been illegal, violations of the United Nations Charter (1945). Iran is a member state of the United Nations and is therefore a sovereign state in the international order. If Israel had a problem with Iran, there are many mechanisms mandated by international law that permit Israel to bring complaints against Iran.

Thus far, Israel has avoided these international forums because it is clear that it has no case against Iran. Allegations that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, which are constantly raised by the United States, the European Union, and Israel, have been fully investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and found to be unfounded. It is certainly true that Iran has a nuclear energy programme that is within the rules in place through the IAEA, and it is also true that Iran’s clerical establishment has a fatwa (religious edict) in place against the production of nuclear weapons. Despite the IAEA findings and the existence of this fatwa, the West – egged on by Israel – has accepted this irrational idea that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and that Iran is therefore a threat to the international order. Indeed, by its punctual and illegal attacks on Iran, it is Israel that is a threat to the international order.

Over the past decades, Iran has called for the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone, a strange idea coming from a country accused of wanting to build a nuclear weapon. But this idea of the nuclear free zone has been rejected by the West, largely to protect Israel, which has an illegal nuclear weapons programme. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear weapon, although it has never tested it openly nor acknowledged its existence. If Israel was so keen on eliminating any nuclear threat, it should have taken the offer for the creation of a nuclear-free zone heartily.

Neither the Europeans, who so often posture as defenders of international law, nor the United Nations leadership have publicly pushed Israel to adopt this idea because both recognize that this would require Israel, not Iran, to denuclearize. That this is an improbable situation has meant that there has been no movement from the West or from the international institutions to take this idea forward and build an international consensus to develop a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Israel does not want to build a nuclear-free zone in the region. What Israel wants is to be the sole nuclear power in the region, and therefore to be exactly what it is – namely, the largest United States military base in the world that happens to be the home to a large civilian population. Iran has no ambition to be a nuclear power. But it has an ambition to be a sovereign state that remains committed to justice for the Palestinians. Israel has no problem with the idea of sovereignty per se, but has a problem with any state in the region that commits itself to Palestinian emancipation. If Iran normalized relations with Israel and ceased its opposition to US dominion in the region, then it is likely that Israel would end its opposition to Iran.

Israel and the United States prepared the way

In January 2020, the United States conducted an illegal assassination at Iraq’s Baghdad Airport to kill General Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Soleimani, through the Quds Force, had produced for Iran an insurance policy against further Israeli attacks on the country. The Quds Force is responsible for Iranian military operations outside the boundaries of the country, including building what is called the “Axis of Resistance” that includes the various pro-Iranian governments and non-governmental military forces. These included: Hezbollah in Lebanon, various IRGC groups in Syria that worked with Syrian militia groups, the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, several Palestinian factions in Occupied Palestine, and the Ansar Allah government in Yemen. Without its own nuclear deterrent, Iran required some way to balance the military superiority of Israel and the United States. This deterrence was created by the “Axis of Resistance”, an insurance policy that allowed Iran to let Israel know that if Israel fired at Iran, these groups would rain missiles on Tel Aviv in retaliation.

The assassination of Soleimani began a determined new political and military campaign by the United States, Israel, and their European allies to weaken Iran. Israel and the United States began to punctually strike Iranian logistical bases in Syria and Iraq to weaken Iran’s forward posture and to demoralize the Syrian and Iraqi militia groups that operated against Israeli interests. Israel began to assassinate IRGC military officers in Syria, Iran, and Iraq, a campaign of murder that began to have an impact on the IRGC and the Quds Force.

Taking advantage of its genocidal war against the Palestinians in Gaza, Israel, with full support from the United States and Europe, began to damage the “Axis of Resistance”, Iran’s insurance policy. Israel took its war into Lebanon, with a ruthless bombing campaign that included the assassination of the Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024. This campaign, while it has not totally demolished Hezbollah, has certainly weakened it. Meanwhile, Israel began a regular bombing campaign against the Syrian military positions around Damascus and along the road to Idlib in the north. This bombing campaign, coordinated with the US military and with the US intelligence services, was designed to open the roadway for the entry of the former al-Qaeda fighters into Damascus and to overthrow the government of al-Assad on December 8, 2024. The fall of the al-Assad government dented Iran’s strength across the Levant region (from the Turkish border to the Occupied Palestinian Territory) as well as along the plains from southern Syria to the Iranian border. The consistent campaign by the United States to bomb Yemeni positions further resulted in the loss of Ansar Allah’s heavy equipment (including long-range missiles) that fundamentally threatened Israel.

What this meant was that by early 2025, the Iranian insurance policy against Israel had collapsed. Israel began its march to war, suggesting an attack on Iran was imminent. Such an attack, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows, would help him in a domestic political fight with the ultra-orthodox parties over the question of a military exemption for their communities; this will prevent his government from falling. Cynical Netanyahu is using genocide and the possibility of a horrendous war with Iran for narrow political ends. But that is not what is motivating this attack. What is motivating this attack is that Israel smells an opportunity to try to overthrow the Iranian government by force.

Iran returned to the negotiations brokered by the IAEA to prevent such an attack. Its leadership knew full well that nothing would stop a scofflaw such as Israel from bombing Iran. And nothing did. Not even the fact that Iran is still at the negotiation table. Israel has taken advantage of Iran’s momentary weakness to strike. And that strike might escalate further.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle (with Noam Chomsky), Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism, and (also with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Next week, on 24 and 25 June, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) will meet in The Hague for its annual summit – the first since Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency.

Established by the US to confront the USSR, control Germany and hold the balance of power in Europe – according to the CIA – since the fall of the USSR, NATO has been systematically widening its mandate and ambitions far beyond the North Atlantic.

As the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in March, when visited Trump in the Oval Office, he was eager to ‘work together to ensure that [the NATO summit] will be a splash, a real success projecting American power on the world stage’.

Trump’s US is determined that the European NATO states step up their engagement with the US war drive, support the US-led cold war, and increase military preparations and spending for US-led hot wars.

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, No Cold War and the Zetkin Forum for Social Research have produced a valuable dossier: NATO: The Most Dangerous Organisation on Earth, which can be read and downloaded from here.

By Biljana Vankovska

As NATO’s next summit looms – against the backdrop of an escalating proxy war in Ukraine and a genocidal horror in Gaza – the sane and moral world must roar in defiance, shattering ideological shackles. NATO is a zombie alliance, lurching forward despite its irrelevance, its fangs dripping with the blood of nations it claims to protect. In Ukraine, NATO’s members pour fuel on the inferno, championing escalation over peace. The United States, its puppet-master, plays a vile charade – preaching peace while strong-arming allies to bankroll its war machine. Trump’s $175 billion Golden Dome, a space-based missile defence boondoggle, is a reckless gambit that threatens global annihilation.

Without US muscle, NATO is a toothless fraud. Its true mission – past and present – is not defence but terror-mongering, fabricating enemies to feed the ravenous military-industrial complex. This hydra now entwines media, academia, and Hollywood, peddling war as entertainment. NATO is a global arms bazaar, hawking obsolete weapons and testing new ones on the corpses of the vulnerable. Its mantras – ‘peace through strength’, ‘path to peace with more weapons’ – is Orwellian poison, weaponising language to silence dissent. Those who dare question this madness are smeared as traitors to peace.

The Hague summit will churn out its tired script: skyrocketing military budgets – now potentially 5% of GDP – siphoning resources from health care, education, and the poor. Russia and China will be vilified as existential threats to justify this plunder. NATO flouts the UN Charter and its own founding charter, leaving a trail of ravaged nations and dead civilians. Its cheerleaders – think tanks, the media, and warmonger officials – demand a ‘stronger, fairer and more lethal NATO’, lusting for hypersonic weapons, preemptive strikes, and space militarisation. This is not defence; it’s domination on steroids.

The 1999 bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a turning point in NATO’s history. Launched without UN Security Council approval, it was a brazenly illegal assault, justified by a sham ‘humanitarian’ pretext. No legal basis existed; NATO’s actions mocked Articles 51 and 2(4) of the UN Charter, setting a blueprint for lawless militarism dressed in moral drag. Article 2(4) enshrines the principle of state sovereignty and prohibits unilateral use of force. Article 51, which governs the right to self-defence, provides the only explicit exception to this rule, allowing military force solely in response to an armed attack. Since NATO’s intervention was neither authorised by the UN Security Council nor conducted in self-defence, it constituted a breach of both provisions of the UN Charter.

Its 50th anniversary was celebrated with bombs on a sovereign state that did not threaten NATO whatsoever. It was the promotion of the ‘out-of-area’ doctrine – something that would prove very useful in the forthcoming interventions in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The 1999 bombing campaign wasn’t about human rights protection – it was imperial border-carving, birthing client states like Kosovo and outposts like Camp Bondsteel, the United States’ Balkan fortress. The Kosovo conflict was complex, its suffering real, but NATO’s illegal intervention unleashed chaos, unaccountable for war crimes like depleted uranium, civilian infrastructure strikes and a significant number of ‘collateral deaths’. It gave the hegemon a blank check to redraw maps and shatter states. It de facto opened the Pandora’s box for any other great power.

In May 2000, during a lecture at the George C. Marshall Center marking the first anniversary of NATO’s intervention, I issued a Cassandra-like warning: that Macedonia – my country – would soon be drawn into military conflict as a result of the spillover effect. Nine months later, that prediction became reality. NATO, alongside the EU, imposed a logic of ethnic partition, echoing the blueprint used in Bosnia. To this day, the Balkans suffocate under the legacy of NATO’s so-called ‘military humanism’ (to borrow Chomsky’s phrase). The EU’s state-building medicines did the rest. The entire region still resembles a powder keg. Ironically, in 2018, Macedonia – renamed North Macedonia – surrendered its constitutional identity in exchange for NATO membership, seduced by hollow promises of peace, prosperity, and security. Instead, the country finds itself entangled in the Ukraine quagmire, expected to allocate up to 5% of its GDP to armaments, while more than a third of its population languishes in poverty.

NATO’s economic and social toll is catastrophic. Its demand for ever-higher military budgets – 2% of GDP, now 3.5%, or 5% – is a death sentence for social welfare. Hospitals crumble, schools decay, and citizens are crushed under austerity while NATO’s warlords feast on our taxes. Anti-NATO circles rightly decry this economic vampirism, but their calls for budget restraint or austerity tweaks are band-aids on a terminal disease. These palliative measures leave the beast intact, free to drain nations dry. The real cure is radical: disband NATO entirely and embrace a multilateralism based on the UN Charter principle: peace by peaceful means. Anything less is complicity in its crimes.

Peace movements will protest the summit in The Hague and elsewhere, but NATO’s elite, barricaded behind security cordons, will sneer, as will their media lapdogs. NATO’s complicity in Gaza’s genocide and Ukraine’s catastrophe will be buried. The ruling class, deaf to public outcry, thrives on our practicality and civility. Peace activism must be a relentless, daily rebellion, not summit-pageantry. The warmongers rule our nations, funded by our labour and taxes, making this fight local, too. In my country, Macedonia, the Levica (Left) party demands the country’s withdrawal from NATO. My 2024 presidential programme proposed a simple, defiant act: a letter to the US State Department to exit the alliance and embrace neutral status instead.

In a fractured, multipolar world, where Trump’s erratic reign has shattered order, NATO and the EU are fusing into a militarised monolith. The EU’s ReArm initiative erases their boundaries. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about survival. Like the child in Andersen’s tale, we must scream the truth: NATO is a naked destroyer, perpetuating violence (physical, structural, and cultural) while gutting the UN system and imperilling global peace.

Disband it. Leave it. Choose military neutrality and work for a shared future for humanity. Nothing less will do.

No to NATO. Yes to Peace.

The above article was produced by Globetrotter. Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective.

By John Ross

As Europe approaches NATO’s 24–26 June summit in The Hague, its 750 million people face a decisive strategic choice that will affect their lives for years to come – and one with far wider global impact.

The policies implemented in Europe in recent years have been disastrous socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Europe is experiencing worsening social conditions, its largest war since 1945 in Ukraine, and the biggest rise of far-right authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic forces since the Nazis in the 1930s.

The proposals to the NATO summit would worsen that situation. The key question is therefore whether Europe will continue down this destructive, disastrous path or adopt policies that offer a way out.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed to the 32 NATO members that ‘the NATO summit… aim for 3.5% hard military spending by 2032’ – a 75% increase from the previous 2.0% of GDP target.

Trump calls for even higher military expenditure of 5% of GDP. Rutte opened the door to this by supporting a commitment to ‘1.5% related spending, such as infrastructure, cybersecurity, and things like that. Also achievable by 2032’. The 3.5% plus 1.5% adds up to Trump’s 5%.

The social and political consequences of such a course are already clear. Europe’s economies are nearly stagnant, with the EU’s annual per capita GDP growth averaging less than 1% from 2007 to 2024. The IMF, somewhat optimistically, projects an increase to only 1.3% by 2030. With rising inequality and reductions in social spending due to austerity policies, hundreds of millions of people in Europe have already experienced stagnant or declining living standards. Diverting more resources into military spending, already being accompanied by social spending cuts to finance it, will worsen that situation further.

The political consequences are also clear. Far right and neo-fascist forces, exploiting the worsening conditions, which are actually caused by austerity measures and increased military spending, by demagogically blaming immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, will gain further strength.

The disastrous consequences for traditional left-wing and progressive parties supporting or enacting these rearmament and austerity policies, even before their support for the new NATO rearmament policies, are already known in major European countries. The SPD in Germany in 2025 saw its vote drop to 16%, the lowest since 1887. In the last elections at which they stood independently, the French Socialist Party gained only 6%. In Britain, the Labour Party, which already received one of its lowest votes since the 1930s at the last election, is now in the polls behind the far-right Reform Party.

In contrast, left-wing parties that have opposed austerity and NATO policies – La France Insoumise in France, Die Linke in Germany, the Belgian Workers Party – have maintained or significantly increased their support.

This disastrous collapse suffered by traditional left-wing parties that have supported war and austerity is extremely dangerous in the context of the rise of far-right parties across Europe.

The reason for the collapsing support for such parties is obvious. Such policies attack the population’s living standards. If parties claiming to be on the left continue to support austerity and rearmament, this trend of decline will just continue.

The only way out of this situation for both Europe’s population and the left is a complete policy reversal to one that prioritises social progress and economic development.

Following the end of the Cold War, Europe should have focused on fostering economic cooperation and minimising military tensions and expenditures. This would have created a balanced economic area, equivalent to the US, with a strong potential for growth by combining Western Europe’s manufacturing and services with Russia’s energy and raw materials. What was possible was shown in Asia by ASEAN, which, in a continent that had suffered the worst conflicts of the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, became the world’s most rapidly growing economic region through a concentration on economic development and the absence of military blocs.

But, because an economically cooperating Europe could have been a successful competitor to the United States, US administrations pursued a path to prevent it – primarily through NATO’s eastward expansion, which was carried out in direct violation of US promises to then-Soviet Premier Gorbachev that NATO would not advance ‘an inch’ eastward after Germany’s reunification. Instead, in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, new countries were added to NATO, and the door was deliberately left open to admitting Ukraine, known to be a red line for Russia due to Ukraine’s proximity to Russia and its position as a historical route for invasion.

Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe opposed this, led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be ‘the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era’. But their warnings were ignored, with results culminating in the Ukraine war.

Now NATO demands rearmament and cuts in social protection to finance this war.

NATO forces simultaneously expanded outside Europe to participate in wars in the Global South, Afghanistan and Libya, set up numerous organisations and initiatives to prepare intervention in the Global South – such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Strategic Direction-South HUB, the Liaison Office in Addis Ababa – and has begun to expand into the Pacific – with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea attending every NATO summit since 2022. Such NATO expansion would involve Europe in even more conflicts and more calls for military expenditure.

What is required is the complete opposite – priority to social progress and investment for economic growth. Both require more spending and are therefore directly contrary to a military build-up.

Europe’s need for social spending is obvious. But Europe’s investment, the key to economic growth, has also collapsed. In the EU, investment, once depreciation (the wearing out of existing means of production) is taken into account, has halved from 7.4% of GDP in 2007 to only 3.5% on the latest data. International comparisons show this is enough only to generate 1% annual economic growth.

Additionally, the US is now pressing for further policies harmful to Europe and its people. The US has already enormously damaged Europe by its conscious policy of cutting off Western Europe’s source of cheap energy from Russia, achieved via the Ukraine war and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, which anyone who looks seriously at the matter knows was carried out by the US.

The Wall Street Journal now reports the US is seeking a ‘commitment from EU leaders to place new tariffs on Chinese industries’ – which would inevitably lead to equivalent retaliation by China, damaging Europe’s economy.

Simultaneously, the US proposes tariffs against Europe’s exports, followed by the imposition of an international trading system, replacing the extremely imperfect WTO with an even worse system in which the US unilaterally decides tariffs and rules!

Europe’s people have already suffered huge blows to their living standards because of US policy. They cannot afford more. On the contrary, Europe should, simultaneously with rejecting increases in military spending and social cuts to finance it, be seeking to regain access to cheap energy from Russia and expanding trade with China as part of a policy of economic recovery.

Faced with the disastrous proposals to the NATO summit, the left across Europe has begun to coordinate activity against increases in military spending through establishing Stop ReArm Europe. It is vital that all forces across the continent opposed to NATO’s policy further strengthen activity and cooperation.

The above article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War. John Ross is a senior fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He is also a member of the international No Cold War campaign organising committee. His writing on the Chinese and US economies and geopolitics has been published widely online and he is the author of two books published in China, Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy and The Great Chess Game. His most recent book is China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices. He was previously director of economic policy for the mayor of London.