Category: Uncategorized

It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration announced the imposition of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on U.S. trading partners – thereby provoking a global trade war. But the development of the situation has greatly exceeded the expectations of the U.S.. Not only did the Chinese government take the lead in showing a clear attitude of being willing to respond to the U.S. “to the end” but the anti-bullying positions of the international community have become louder.

Due to a focus on this situation in which the U.S. is fighting indiscriminately, and China is responding to each move, the trend of China’s domestic public opinion is also changing. The views once put forward in some places of a “China must lose theory” and the “surrender at the speed of light theory” are disappearing. More and more people realize that China “knows what it is doing and it has cards to play in its hands”.

But at this time, however, new misconceptions have also appeared.

One is “quit while you are in the lead”, thinking that China’s “tough stance” will eventually be difficult to maintain. Now the Trump administration seems to be softening it is necessary to stop at the right moment, claim that a small loss is in fact a victory, and make concessions and compromises as soon as possible to reach an agreement to avoid entering a stage of a difficult strategic stalemate.

The other view is that “victory is in sight”. which, seeing the US’s chaotic actions and softened rhetoric, then thinks that “the U.S. is afraid”. This view optimistically predicts that the outcome of the trade war has already been decided and China will soon be able to achieve a complete victory.

So, why are these arguments wrong, and how can we rationally view this present round of Sino-US struggle?

The “Biography of Mao Zedong”, compiled by the Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, wrote: “The work ‘On Protracted War’ is full of dialectics and materialism and it has universal value in the methodology for analysing things.”

In May 1938, after defeat in the battle of Shanghai, the loss of Xuzhou, with Wuhan in a critical condition, Chinese society was in chaos and with loud discussion. At this critical moment, Comrade Mao Zedong calmly analysed the situation at home and abroad, and spent seven days and seven nights writing a speech “On Protracted War”. In this article, Comrade Mao Zedong did not use many obscure and difficult concepts to reason with. The whole article uses dialectical materialism and historical materialism to analyse the War of Resistance against Japan, and forcefully refutes various false arguments, clearing away confusions for the Chinese people to win the War of Resistance against Japan.

To understand the correct path it is necessary to first study history. Although today’s Sino-US struggle cannot be equated with the War of Resistance Against Japan in its character, the results of both are related to the direction of the country and the dignity of the nation. Amidst the chaotic clouds  it is a good idea to reread “On Protracted War” in order to understand the dialectical thought that “danger and opportunity coexist” as well as China’s strategic vision of why it will “secure a final victory”.

The Trump administration, which has existed for less than a hundred days, has unleashed a storm of tariffs. The aim was to secure a rapid victory, using huge pressure to force its opponents into defeat, and to reach rapid unequal deals in order to harvest the maximum benefits.

Facing this butchers knife, many countries have fantasized about ”feeding themselves to the wolves” in order to secure a moment of peace. But for China, it is simply unworkable to “ask for mercy”.

As the world’s second-largest economy China’s size cannot be concealed. even if  China lowers its posture, cold war thinking would still see it as an enemy to be eliminated. The Trump administration wields the stick of tariffs to try to extort and blackmail. Its overbearing and cruel methods are unprecedented. This is an extreme provocation against China’s national sovereignty and dignity. We have no room for concessions, let alone any reason to give in.

This round of U.S. tariffs covers more than 180 countries and regions around the world, which constitutes serious damage to the world trading system. As a responsible power, China resolutely opposes the US bullying tariff behaviour, not only in order to defend its own sovereignty, security and development interests, but also to defend multilateralism and justice in the world trading system.

Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and a famous American economist, once satirically wrote: “U.S. members of Congress rely on the money of the 1% for re-election, serve the 1%, and even rely on the 1% to reward them when they leave office.”

The various contradictions which have accumulated in American society today are ultimately caused by the deterioration of the capitalist system. As spokesperson for the interests of capital, the U.S. government is absolutely unable to “self-revolutionize” and solve the root causes of these conflicts. It has to utilise suppression, extortion, exploitation and other means to transfer its conflicts to the outside world. This means that whether it is a trade war, a tariff war, or some other war, what the U.S. resorts to is risky behaviour, a gambler mentality, with an attempt to divert attention from its own irreconcilable contradictions. It is destined to act against the trend of human history.

In contrast, today’s China, as an “enabling power”, has always adhered to the development concept of a community of human destiny. It firmly stands on the side of maintaining globalization and a normal trade order, advocates mutual benefits and a win-win situation, and opposes unilateralism.

At the same time, China’s development has never been the result of gifts from others. It is the result of hundreds of millions of people’s self-reliance and hard work. For more than 70 years since the establishment of New China, China has always broken through blockades and overcome attempts to suppress it and has accumulated a wealth of experience in these struggles. This determines that China’s “carrying through to the end” is not purely words but is in line with historical laws. It is just, progressive, and a just cause enjoys abundant support. “The times and the situation are on our side, and victory ultimately belongs to China.”

The people are the true creators of history. In “On Protracted War”, Comrade Mao Zedong summed it up as “the soldiers and the people are the foundation of victory.” In the contemporary context, this thought can be extended as “the whole people are united and concentrating on doing their work well”. That is, in the protracted struggle between China and the United States, the most critical issue is to achieve China’s own development, improvement, progress and growth.

From the perspective of national strategy, this can be seen in the proposing of a new development pattern with the large domestic economic cycle as the main force, and the mutual promotion of the domestic and international twin cycles; to propose the development of new quality productive forces, shaping the development of new kinetic energy and advantages for growth; to deeply promote the construction of a unified large market across the country. Regarding the long-term nature of the Sino-US competition the Party Central Committee has already predicted that it will take the initiative to lay out a plan for the competition of major powers. This is the root of our confidence in dealing with attempts to contain and suppress China.

From the perspective of industrial development, both the Trump and Biden administrations are addicted to imposing technological sanctions, but they in reality imprison themselves, and even give rise to what might be called China’s “crisis dividend”. In recent years, China has concentrated its most advanced resources to break through the technological “chokepoints” and accelerate the domestic progress of key link industries such as artificial intelligence, big data, integrated circuits, and new energy. These have grown rapidly, showing strong capabilities in the strategic mobilization of resources and concentrated breakthrough capabilities.

At the social level, having dealt with various shifts, Chinese people have become more and more aware that the words the “imperialists desire to destroy China never dies” is not a hollow phrase. Only by daring to fight, and being skilful at fighting, can we turn danger into opportunity and secure  safety. After the Trump administration launched this round of trade war, many patriotic stories have unfolded: such as e-commerce platforms helping companies reliant on foreign trade to shift to domestic sales, consumers strongly supporting domestic production, shareholders following the “national team” to protect the country, and students declaring “scientific research serves the country”. Mainstream public opinion is highly united and has shown a strong awareness of the historical situation. This national ability of self-awakening, self-regulation, self-pressure, and self-optimization is the core support for the ultimate victory in the protracted struggle. .

Comrade Mao Zedong once emphasized: “The Chinese people are ambitious and capable, and they will catch up with and surpass the world’s advanced level in the far from distant future.” Today’s China is step by step turning that into a reality.

“Each generation has its own war of Resistance” [against Japan] and “each generation has its own Battle of Triangle Hill” [a major victory by China over the U.S. during the Korean war], these are popular comments on China’s internet after the United States provoked the new round of trade wars. History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes. Today, revisiting “On Protracted War” is not only because it provides us with a clear framework for strategic understanding, but also because the methodological wisdom, dialectical materialism, and mass line thinking it contains offers great enlightenment for international struggles in the new era.

By always adhering to sober strategic judgment, scientific methods of thinking, and a firm will to act, we will definitely be able to successfully complete this “long march in the new era”.

The above article, analysing China’s response to the tariff war launched by the U.S., was originally published in Beijing Daily under the title “Today, it is necessary to reread ‘On Protracted War’”. It was also published online here in Chinese.

By Abdul Rahman

Speaking in an informal meeting of the UN Security Council on Wednesday, April 23 China’s permanent representative Fu Cong questioned the unilateralism pursued by the US in international trade claiming it “severely infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of all countries” and violates the rule based multilateral trading system.

Cong claimed a multilateral approach remains the only option for the advancement of all countries and affirmed “no country has the right to put itself above international law” and dictate terms to others. He offered Chinese cooperation in dealing with the situation to the countries which are willing to stand for free and fair international trade.

China’s reaction was a response to the “tariff war” unleashed by US President Donald Trump ever since he began his second term in January this year. Under the so-called reciprocal tariff regime, the US announced high tariffs against imports from most of the countries in the world.

The implementation of the “reciprocal tariffs” has been postponed for 90 days for all countries except China, whose exports to the US currently face a 145% tariff. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has offered bilateral negotiations to reach agreements with the countries that want to avoid the announced reciprocal tariffs.

In response to the steep tariff against its goods, China announced a 125% tariff on imports from the US. It also vowed to fight Trump’s strong arming tactics and has so far refused to sign a bilateral agreement. It has also called the arbitrary tariff hikes a violation of international trade laws and demanded the reversal of the policy.

Amid the flurry, China has proposed that countries make a coordinated response to Trump’s tariff war, citing that individual agreements may harm global trade.

Chinese Finance Minister Lan Fo’an and the Governor of China’s Central Bank (the People’s Bank of China) Pan Gongsheng reiterated their country’s position during the G20 finance minister’s meeting in Washington DC which concluded on Thursday, April 24.

Claiming that trade tensions, created by Trump’s arbitrary policies, “are disrupting global industrial and supply chains, undermining the momentum of global economic growth,” Pan claimed trade and tariff wars have no winners. He pushed for greater economic and financial coordination. Lan called for strengthening multilateral cooperation to face the difficult times ahead, Global Times reported on Friday.

No appeasing the bully

China said earlier this week that to “safeguard legitimate rights and interests” and to “defend fairness and justice” in international trade all the affected countries should coordinate their moves warning that dealing with it individually may lead to compromises harming the global trade as a whole.

The coordination of their moves is the way to deal with the “hegemonic politics” and “unilateral bullying” adopted by the US which attempts to deprive opportunities for development to a large number of countries across the globe, the spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Commerce said during a press conference on Monday.

Since Trump announced the reciprocal tariffs and their postponement, there has been a rush of affected countries seeking bilateral deals with the US as a way to avoid the high tariffs. Some of them are close neighbors of China such as Japan and South Korea. China cautioned these countries against the temptations to appease Trump’s hegemonic moves in their haste. It particularly warned against “selfish” compromises with the US which can harm third countries.

Various media reports have indicated that the Trump administration is pressuring countries seeking bilateral agreements with the US to reduce their trade ties with China and impose barriers.

China maintained that it respects every country’s right to safeguard its interests and negotiate deals with the US. However, it warned that such deals should not come at its own cost. It warned that if China’s interests are harmed, it can take reciprocal measures as “it is determined and capable of safeguarding its own rights and interests.”

“Sacrificing others’ interests to obtain so-called exemptions for temporary selfish gains is akin to negotiating with a tiger; it ultimately leads to failure for both the parties and harms everyone involved,” the Ministry of Commerce spokesperson said.

“Appeasement cannot bring peace, and compromise will not earn respect,” China warned, claiming that, “If international trade reverts to the ‘law of jungle’, all countries will become victims.”

China said it expects all countries to stand “on the side of fairness and justice, on the side of historical correctness” as no one is immune to “unilateralism and protectionism.”

The above article was previously published by Peoples Dispatch.

By Vijay Prashad

On April 22, 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its annual World Economic Outlook report, which has a quiet but decisive subtitle: A Critical Juncture and Policy Shifts. The report, once more a hefty piece of work by the IMF economists and their associates, rushes to make sense of the tariffs first threatened by US President Donald Trump and then delayed, and then, as if the flurry was not sufficient, retained and increased against China. The IMF attempts to make the case that through 2024, “global growth was stable” and that the current downgrade to global growth is largely a factor of the Trump tariff “uncertainty” and “unpredictability”.

The IMF releases this report during the annual week of meetings of the Fund and the World Bank. At the start of the meetings, IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva reflected on the situation in the global economy and claimed that the turbulence is largely due to “an erosion of trust”. No longer, she said, do countries trust each other as they once did, nor do they trust the international system. Apart from the reversal of the tariffs, the IMF says that what needs to be built once more is trust in international economic affairs.

Whispers in the corners of the IMF and World Bank meetings are all about the irrationality of the Trump administration, and – in particular – the unpredictability of Trump’s own statements. With the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) beside him, Trump told a press conference in the White House that Canada is not a real country but would be an excellent state within the United States. That sort of comment creates fodder for the hushed giggles at the edges of this meeting, when otherwise serious men and women in business suits maintain a rictus look of concern for high affairs of state.

Errors in judgment

One of the significant errors in the assessment by the IMF is that everything in the Western economies had begun to look stable last year. While it is true that the threat of the tariffs and then the anti-China tariffs themselves created “a major negative shock to growth”, it is not true that growth rates had been expected to reach new heights this year.

Growth in the US has been significantly below its historic trend since the 2007-08 subprime mortgage crisis-induced financial crisis – indeed, US growth since then has been cumulatively lower than in the Great Depression. In the 17 years after the Great Crash of 1929, US annual GDP growth averaged 3.7%, whereas in the 17 years since the International Financial Crisis, US annual growth averaged only 2.0%.

In October 2024, the IMF projected that the United States would grow at 2.2%, and since reduced its forecast to 1.8%. Meanwhile, in October last year, it suggested a rate of 4.5% for China and 6.5% for India, far higher than for either the US projected rate or the advanced economy projections (1.8%). The Trump tariffs certainly compounded the problems for the US, but they are not the cause of the problem. Sluggish growth has been the situation for almost two decades.

On that sluggishness, the IMF’s new World Economic Outlook is remarkably bland. It suggests that the “core macroeconomic policy challenge” of the United States is its federal government debt. This debt, which is 36.2 trillion, is 124% of GDP. Ten global north countries are in the twenty countries with the highest debt-to-GDP ratios: Japan (266%), Greece (193%), Italy (151%), United States (124%), Portugal (122%), Spain (117%), France (112%), Belgium (111%), Canada (109%), and the United Kingdom (105%). Cutting the deficit might make good macroeconomic sense, but it does not by itself propose a way back to growth for the United States. Lower social welfare spending will further deplete private consumption. And Trump’s dream of revitalizing US manufacturing is not going to work merely through a reduced federal government deficit without a massive, massive release of resources for industrialization. Without an attack on living standards, this could only come from measures such as a reduction in excessive US military expenditure or reform of the country’s grotesquely inefficient private health system. These are policies Trump will not adopt.

In fact, the IMF gives notoriously poor advice to the Chinese government. It suggests that China should emulate the United States rather than the other way around. China, the IMF says, should “boost chronically low private consumption” and “dial back industrial policies and pervasive state involvement in industry”. In other words, abandon its long-term growth profile and become like the slow-growing United States!

In November 2024, the IMF released an interesting paper by its economists (Dirk Muir, Natalija Novta, and Anne Oeking) called “China’s Path to Sustainable and Balanced Growth”. The paper and the World Economic Outlook together make the case that China’s strong economic performance comes from its COVID stimulus, its high exports, a high domestic savings rate to finance public infrastructure, its banking system that directs liquidity to small and medium-sized enterprises to generate productive activity rather than property speculation, and an emphasis on high-quality productive forces. This is a fairly good summary of the structure of Chinese growth over the last period. But it is totally counter to the suggestions that the IMF then gives to China: which is to liquidate everything that allowed it to stave off the long term sluggishness of the advanced industrial countries (including to pressure the renminbi to appreciate, as the US would like so that its trade imbalance can be rectified by a foreign exchange shift rather than by greater productivity in the US itself).

The IMF is right. There is great uncertainty ahead. But there is also certainty in its own reports and in its charts. High domestic savings and better sovereignty of resources (including the financial system), alongside canalization of these finances to the productive sector (for infrastructure and industrialization), produce more stability in the long run than an excessive reliance on private financial markets and the whims of the billionaire class. But the IMF does not close its new report with that news. It prefers to look out of the window and see the storms in the Western skies rather than the calm in the East.

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.

By Wang Wen

Will there be a war between China and the United States? This question surged into popular discourse in early April, largely because China was the first country to impose strong retaliatory measures in response to Trump’s so-called “reciprocal tariff” policy.

Some now worry that the global atmosphere increasingly resembles the era of tariff wars that preceded World War II—prompting fears that economic conflict could escalate into military confrontation.

Which country might next go to war with the United States? Yemen? Iran? Perhaps a nation in Africa or Latin America? In my view, it most certainly won’t be China.

This is not because China is weak or unwilling. On the contrary, defending its national interests and dignity remains central to Beijing’s strategy in dealing with Trump’s economic provocations. On no issue will China simply yield to Donald Trump’s increasingly unrealistic demands.

Since Trump’s first term began eight years ago, China has grown acutely aware of what it sees as Washington’s hegemonic imperialism. Beijing has always preferred cooperation with the U.S., never desiring to cast it as an adversary. But if the U.S. is intent on launching a trade war, a tariff war, a tech war—or any other kind of confrontation—China is prepared to fight back.

China does not rule out cooperation with the U.S. when it is based on mutual respect and a shared interest in “win-win” outcomes. But it understands that meaningful cooperation cannot be passively pursued; it must be earned through sustained struggle.

In this latest round of tariff disputes, China’s retaliatory actions have been notably restrained, focused solely on trade. It does not want friction with the U.S. to spiral out of control. One telling sign of this is the silence of China’s top leadership—apart from statements issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce, no senior official has publicly commented on Trump’s tariff moves.

This reflects a posture of strategic calm. China’s leadership has maintained a tone of resilience and rationality, demonstrating the emotional steadiness and long-term foresight of a global power.

Few now remember that, just three days before his inauguration on January 20, Trump spoke by phone with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Xi emphasized that as two major powers with vastly different national conditions, it is inevitable that China and the U.S. will have disagreements. What matters, Xi argued, is that each side respects the other’s core interests and major concerns and finds constructive ways to resolve disputes. He also reiterated that the nature of China-U.S. economic ties lies in mutual benefit and “win-win” cooperation—warning that confrontation should not be the default path.

Indeed, China’s reluctance to enter into direct confrontation with the U.S. stems not from fear, but from deep confidence in its own growing power. It knows it would not be the loser in a conflict.

In the 1950s, China lacked an established navy and air force, and yet it fought the U.S. to a stalemate in the Korean War, forcing an American retreat to the 38th parallel. Today, the contrast is stark. China has three aircraft carriers deployed in the western Pacific and is poised to build more. It fields Dongfeng-31AG intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 12,000 kilometers, sixth-generation fighter jets, and accounts for over 70 percent of the world’s drone production. The idea of a U.S. military victory over China is increasingly unrealistic.

And the U.S. knows it. Think tanks like the RAND Corporation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have published simulations of possible war scenarios between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the South China Sea, or the Korean Peninsula. The conclusions are sobering: not only could the U.S. fail to win, but it could face a catastrophic defeat.

Still, why wouldn’t China, with all this power, strike first? The answer is plain: it won’t. Over the past four decades, China has never initiated conflict with the U.S. On issues ranging from Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong to the South China Sea, human rights, trade, and technology, it has consistently been Washington that has taken the first aggressive step.

Even now, in the face of what has become the world’s largest tariff war, China has shown that it can defend its interests without resorting to military means.

China’s export competitiveness remains formidable, especially in sectors such as lithium batteries and toys. Seven years ago, Trump’s initial tariffs raised the cost of Chinese goods by 20 percent. Yet, U.S. imports from China continued to rise.

According to U.S. Department of Commerce data, from January 2024 to January 2025, American exports to China dropped by $2.18 billion—an 18 percent decrease from $12.1 billion to $9.9 billion—while imports from China increased by $5.85 billion, or 16.3 percent, from $35.8 billion to $41.6 billion.

Even if tariffs were raised to 200 percent, the U.S. would still rely heavily on Chinese imports. Conversely, U.S. products such as soybeans and crude oil have limited appeal in the Chinese market. China’s retaliatory tariffs are forcing American exporters to seek new markets, with substantial losses likely for U.S. agriculture and energy sectors.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers are increasingly expanding their international operations. Trump’s tariffs have had the unintended effect of pushing China’s companies toward greater globalization. Until recently, many Chinese firms had minimal international presence. Now, they’re building a global footprint. In this light, Beijing sees Trump’s trade war not as a crisis but as an opportunity.

Over the past eight years, China has amassed substantial experience in navigating its relationship with the U.S. It has concluded that the best response to Trump lies in strengthening its own internal systems. Beijing continues to pursue domestic reforms, open its economy further to international investment, break through foreign technological blockades, and attract global capital. These efforts have made China one of the world’s premier investment destinations. In this broader contest with the U.S., Beijing believes that time is on its side.

A viral cartoon on Chinese social media perfectly captured this sentiment. It showed Trump dressed in the imperial robes of the Qing Dynasty’s Empress Dowager Cixi declaring war on the world. In 1900, Cixi, convinced of her empire’s invincibility, declared war on eight major powers—only to see the Qing Dynasty collapse shortly afterward.

To many in China, the cartoon draws a clear parallel. Trump, like Cixi, appears trapped in outdated assumptions of national supremacy, failing to grasp a shifting global reality. The decline of American manufacturing and relative influence, in the eyes of many Chinese observers, began with Trump.

This is precisely why Beijing sees no need to escalate tensions. But if Washington truly loses its composure and initiates war, the result would not resemble a rerun of the Korean War—it would be far worse.

This article was previous published here by International Policy Digest.

Dr. Wang Wen is the Dean of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University and Executive Director of the China-U.S. Research Center for People-to-People Exchange. A former journalist and op-ed editor at Global Times, he founded RDCY in 2013 after winning China’s prestigious News Award. He has taught at over 10 universities worldwide, is a member of the Valdai Discussion Club, and has conducted research in more than 100 countries. Dr. Wang has published over 50 books and 1,000 articles in outlets including People’s Daily and The New York Times, and advises key Chinese ministries.

Statement from the International Strategy Center in South Korea

On April 4th, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the National Assembly’s impeachment against President Yoon. Yoon Suk-yeol is now ex-President Yoon. As he delivered the verdict, the acting Chief Justice rebutted Yoon’s defense and upheld the charge of gravely violating the constitution through: his declaration of martial law; the first Military Command Decree; obstruction of the National Assembly by mobilizing the military and police; the warrantless search of the National Election Commission; and the order to arrest politicians, legal professionals, and journalists. Yet, if the verdict was delivered in the court, the fight was waged in the streets during the past 122 days.

Immediately after martial law was declared on December 3rd, people rose up to protect democracy, refusing to be pulled back into a past where dictators wrested power from the people by declaring martial law. Despite thousands being killed when martial law was last declared in 1980, when Yoon declared martial law on live television, ordinary people stopped their lives and rushed to protect the National Assembly. Anecdotes abound of delivery workers rushing over with helmets still on, or of people hopping on cabs even amidst unwinding for the night. Even as armored vehicles, helicopters, and armed commandos invaded the National Assembly, the protestors outside expanded. Their resistance against the mobilized soldiers and police allowed the National Assembly to revoke martial law and more importantly let Yoon know that people would not be intimidated. Night after night, people took to the streets peacefully but resolutely. Around the world, people sent messages of solidarity and held protests, letting not only Yoon know that they were watching, but also letting those braving the freezing cold know that they were not alone. 

That first weekend a million people enveloped the National Assembly only for the National Assembly to fail to achieve the quorum to impeach Yoon. Every night after that, people came out lighting the darkness with candles and K-pop glow sticks, christening the protests “the revolution of lights.” And so, the scales finally tipped in favor of impeachment in the National Assembly. Later, when Yoon resisted the investigation and the police’s timid efforts failed to arrest him, people camped out for days by his residence, through rain and snow, wrapped in aluminum heat blankets. And so, the public officials overcame their timidity and finally succeeded in arresting Yoon. For over 4 months, South Koreans spent their Saturdays in the streets demanding Yoon’s impeachment. Communities and movements—workers, the LGBTQ community, minorities, women, the disabled, farmers—flew their banners in solidarity. 

Yet, removing ex-President Yoon from office is just the beginning. The 2016 candlelight protests that overthrew ex-President Park Geun-hye showed us that cutting off the head is not enough. We must uproot its systemic corruption. Fortunately, during those 122 days, as Koreans suffered snow, rain, and cold, we also experienced the warmth of solidarity and power. 

We have climbed one peak. Now, we must address the crisis of representative democracy and guarantee the rights of workers and minorities. Looking at our next peak, we are invigorated by the belief that our struggle is not just our own: just as we have been inspired and shaped by struggles from across time and place, we know our struggles and victories can also contribute to other struggles around the world. Toojeng!

The above statement was published in Korean and English here on Istagram.

By Vijay Prashad

The whole thing is a fiasco. The theatrical drama in the White House’s Oval Office triggered a series of predictable responses around the world. Outrage at US President Donald Trump for his rudeness and ridicule for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were some of the reactions. Then, the failure of French President Emmanuel Macron to create a European agreement with the United Kingdom’s Keir Starmer and Zelenskyy revealed the absolute dead ends that confront this exhausted war in Ukraine. The question that these discussions provoke is simple: is there an exit for this war?

Permanent war

If the war aims of Zelenskyy and his European partners are to weaken Russia or to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin, then this war might either go on forever or accelerate into a dangerous nuclear scenario. Opinion polls in Russia show that Putin’s approval rating is now at 87%. Even with a mountain of salt, this is far higher than the approval rating in France for Macron. With Russia’s economy resilient during this war, it is unlikely that it will be further weakened with the continuation of hostilities. What the evidence shows, however, is that Europe’s economy is suffering from war inflation that has not been reduced. If this war is to continue, Macron said, then European states would have to increase their military spending to 3% or 3.5% of their GDP. This would further damage the living situation of most Europeans. Would young, working-class Europeans be willing to go and man the dangerous frontline in Ukraine on behalf of a war aim (weakening Russia) that is impossible? It is unlikely. (There is a separate cruelty of middle-class Ukrainians fleeing the country for Western Europe and then working-class Western Europeans being asked to come and defend that country for them).

A permanent war will lead to unnecessary loss of life in Ukraine and to a permanent economic crisis in Europe. It is also unlikely because the United States will not financially and militarily back such a war indefinitely, resulting in the collapse of any long-term European commitment to Ukraine.

The Korean solution

If neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to move to a ceasefire and then a negotiated settlement (which would include security guarantees for all sides), then there is the possibility that the current frontline that stretches from northern to eastern Ukraine will become a permanent Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Ukraine would thereby be divided indefinitely with an immense waste of social wealth to maintain a perpetual frontline. This is the most likely scenario, although it might not be palatable for Europeans to have a Korea within their continent.

The South Korean military maintains 600,000 troops along the 38th Parallel, alongside almost 30,000 US troops. Much the same is the situation in the north. Billions of dollars are spent annually on surveillance and logistics for over 900 square miles of territory that is not available for economic use. Europe would have to underwrite this Korean solution for Ukraine for eternity (just as the United States provides guarantees and funds to South Korea, and China does the same for North Korea).

A security consortium

The Helsinki Process that emerged to bring the US and USSR into negotiations in 1975 and that formed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has played almost no role for peace in the war on Ukraine.

The only interlocutors that have been given permission to speak about the war in Ukraine on behalf of Zelenskyy have been the United States, the Western European leaders, the leaders of the European Union (EU), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Leaders from Europe’s east – apart from those who are integrated into the NATO-EU – have been either silent or told that their opinions do not matter. But it is these eastern European countries that share with Ukraine the fact of having a border with Russia, and it is these countries that most need to form a security consortium that includes Russia and provides mutual guarantees. Those countries that directly share a border with Russia’s west are – from north to south – Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (Lithuania and Poland share a border with the Kaliningrad Oblast, which is a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea). Three of them (Finland, Estonia, and Latvia) are members of NATO and of the EU, while one of them (Norway) is a NATO member but not in the EU.

Would it be possible for these eight countries to call a conference with Russia on the broader issues of security rather than the narrow issue of Ukraine? That three countries that border Russia are already NATO members (one of them, Norway, was a founding member in 1949) suggests that the problems in Ukraine are separate from NATO membership itself. Rather, they stem from anxiety about a border line created in a hurry when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 (this impacts Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, but not Norway and Finland, which were not part of the Soviet Union).

In the early 1980s, former Swedish Prime Minister Olao Palme chaired the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, whose 1982 report Common Security: A Program for Disarmament made the case that ‘The task of diplomacy is to limit, split, and subdivide conflicts, not to generalize and aggregate them’. In other words, all conflicts cannot be settled at the same time. A ceasefire is good in itself; the issues to resolve need to be separated, and those that are easier dealt with first to build confidence. To bundle all issues into one problem makes a dispute intractable.

The countries that border each other, including those that border Russia to its south and east, must live next to each other. They cannot lift themselves out of their geography and go elsewhere. Ukraine cannot be relocated to France. It must remain beside Russia. In that case, these countries need to find a way to build trust.

To begin with, the assertion that one cannot trust a neighbor is the worst way to build confidence between the peoples of neighboring countries. Neither the EU nor NATO (without full US military backing) can subordinate Russia and force it to bow before Ukraine. A British cabinet minister said last year that his country would last only six months in a full-scale war with Russia. Meanwhile, a Kiel Institute for the World Economy report suggests that Germany is spending its money buying weapons but does not have a standing army capable of self-defense, let alone winning an offensive war against Russia. Europe, without the United States, is a shadow.

It would behoove all parties if a country that borders Russia calls for such a security consortium to be built and if it is able to get guarantees from NATO not to expand further eastward and from Russia to draw back its military from the border regions. There are long relations among these countries, with families on both sides of the border. Any lessened tension in general is good for humanity, and if such a maneuver will lead to peace in Ukraine, that would be far better than a permanent scar on this part of the European continent.

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 and No Cold War.

By Peter Mertens

What US President Donald Trump did on February 28 to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy typically happens behind closed doors. Now, in Trump’s words, it was “great television.” This is how the US has treated countries in the Global South for years: as neo-colonies expected to meekly say “Thank you” for imposed agreements that plunder their resources. It’s no different from how Trump speaks about Panama, Greenland, or Gaza, complete with repulsive AI animations. The US sees the world as a giant globe of resources that belong to it. This has a name: imperialism. It never truly left; it has simply returned naked and unashamed, trampling the last remaining counterforce that once restrained it—international law.

Domestically, Trump does the same. He seeks to revive the 19th-century capitalism of the “robber barons,” a capitalism without counterweights: no unions, no labor protections, and absolute power to make decisions affecting millions, up to and including deportation. To win this war, he has enlisted Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team.

Zelenskyy’s calm and controlled demeanor in the face of the world’s most powerful president commanded respect, particularly among Global South nations all too familiar with US bullying. But this brings us no closer to peace. “The unwinnable war,” I wrote in Mutiny, “has already fed tens of thousands of young men into the meat grinder at the dawn of their lives.” On the eve of the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting, a deal seemed imminent through which Trump would shift the cost of war to Europe while the US would receive control over Ukraine’s resource-and-mineral extraction via a new fund. This laid bare that this dirty war was never about values—only geostrategic interests and control over resources and fertile land. The question is: Why did the deal collapse at the last minute?

One possibility is that the US aims to further weaken Zelenskyy’s position, humiliate him, and ultimately push for regime change. This has been the hallmark of US foreign policy for decades: orchestrating regime changes whenever and wherever US interests are deemed unserved. This was the fate of Manuel Noriega in Panama and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. One day, a trusted ally; the next, overthrown. Former US diplomat Jeffrey Sachs reminded me last week of an alleged Henry Kissinger quote: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

Even one of the United States’ strongest allies, the European Union, is learning this. In September 2023, I wrote in Mutiny that Europe is losing the continent precisely because it blindly follows Washington. “It’s a kind of Stockholm syndrome,” I told Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever in Parliament last week. “The more the US humiliates Europe, the tighter Europe clings to Uncle Sam’s coattails.” Our Defense Minister, Theo Francken, insists on maintaining privileged ties with Washington at all costs, claims inspiration from the US “social model,” finds it normal for Trump to attempt to annex Greenland, and happily wants to order more unaffordable F-35 fighter jets from the US.

How many shocks does Europe need for it to grow up? The German recession post-sanctions wasn’t enough. Elon Musk’s meddling in election campaigns? Not enough. Humiliation by US Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Munich? Still not enough. Trump’s new tariff war? Even less. Today, Europe’s establishment panics again, charging off like a wild horse escaping a barn—more weapons, more war, preparing for World War III! Europe must not become a clone of the US. It does not need a domestic Trump. Instead, it must dare to chart a new course.

Meanwhile, the EU’s Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas insists in statements on prolonging the dirty war in Ukraine, feeding it with weapons and young men and women. Kallas lacks the democratic legitimacy to engage in such incendiary talk. Europe needs fewer warmongers like Kallas and more maturity to truly change course and unite with Global South nations like Brazil and China, which have long pursued negotiated solutions.

As I wrote in Mutiny, this war has always been Janus-faced. On one side is the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the flouting of international law through Russian aggression. Global South nations understand this. On the other is a US-Russia proxy war on Ukraine’s soil, where tens of thousands of young people are cannon fodder for geostrategic conflict. Washington now shamelessly admits this was a proxy war fueled by the US. Trump, however, claims it was the “wrong” proxy war—that Russia isn’t the US’s real adversary, and all efforts must shift to the coming war his administration is preparing against China. This is solely because Washington sees its economic and technological hegemony challenged by China.

The latest fashionable sophistry is that “if you want peace, prepare for war”. It sounds catchy but is catastrophic. History shows that when economies gear for war and minds are primed for conflict, war draws closer. Step by step, hysteria replaces sober analysis. More politicians chirp about war; fewer dare speak of peace. Thinking stops, diplomatic solutions are dismissed, and global peace is gambled away. Europe has no future as a war continent. Militarization will gut its manufacturing industry, and permanent tension with eastern neighbors won’t inch us closer to peace.

“My experience teaches that you must talk to the other side. You can’t say, ‘We won’t talk—we know what they think.’ Diplomacy is essential, especially in tense moments,” Jeffrey Sachs told me.

Europe must find its own path. Russia isn’t moving; you can’t erase it from the map. Instead of sinking deeper into the vortex of hysteria and platitudes, Europe must develop mature diplomacy – one that charts an independent course with a vision for its manufacturing sector, respect for international law, and pragmatic relations with all economic giants: the US, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa.

Peter Mertens is General Secretary of the PVDA-PTB (Workers’ Party of Belgium) and a member of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives. His latest book, from LeftWord Books (India), is Mutiny: How Our World is Tilting (2024).

This article was produced by Globetrotter and previously published here by Peoples Dispatch.

By Wang Wen

The following article by Wang Wen was originally published in Australia and then republished in 13 languages including Chinese, Arabic, English, Indonesian, Japanese, Malay, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Russian. Wang Wen is Executive Dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, Executive Director of the China-US Humanities Exchange Research Center, and an influential writer on foreign affairs in China. It therefore represents an important analysis of the new Trump presidency from a Chinese perspective.

Donald Trump’s second term may not be all bad for all nations, including and especially China. For many Chinese internet users, Trump’s policies have unwittingly strengthened their country. This is why he has earned the popular nickname “Chuan Jianguo,” which means “Make China Great.”

Trump’s first term made at least three notable contributions to China’s rise.

First his presidency shattered the image of the US as a paragon of democracy for many Chinese, revealing political chaos and deep societal divisions. For decades some Chinese idealised the United States as a “beautiful country”: the literal translation of the Chinese name for the US. However, Trump’s actions provided what some describe as a “political lesson,” reshaping perceptions and fostering greater appreciation for China’s stability and governance.

Second, Trump helped accelerate China’s push toward technological independence. Over 20 years ago, the Chinese government began promoting innovation in science and technology, though many believed there were no borders in this field.

It wasn’t until events like the 2018 arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou and the crackdown on Chinese tech firms that the country fully committed to innovation. By 2024, China had achieved significant strides in tech independence, including breakthroughs in semiconductor manufacturing. This shift was underscored by record-high chip exports in 2024, which surpassed $159 billion, doubling 2018 figures.

Third, Trump’s tariffs and trade restrictions pushed China to strengthen its ties with the non-Western world. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, China deepened its relationships with Global South nations. Between 2018 and 2024, trade with these nations grew by over 40 percent, while China’s reliance on the US for trade fell from 17 to 11 percent.

Trump’s trade war with China has driven a rapid restructuring of global trade, leading more Chinese to recognise that the world is far larger than the United States.

Looking back, the combined experience of Trump’s first term and Biden’s policies to contain China over eight years has strengthened the country in the medium term.

From a long-term perspective, China has gained a strategic psychological advantage in dealing with Trump 2.0.

China’s media and think tanks have responded to the possibility of Trump’s return with relative calm compared to the growing anxiety in Europe and Canada. Beijing seems confident, having already weathered trade wars and technological blockades during Trump’s first term.

China won’t actively provoke Trump 2.0, but if aggressive US policies like trade wars or technology restrictions persist, China will respond with calculated countermeasures ‒ and ultimately, become even stronger.

On January 7, 2025, both China and the US experienced natural disasters. A 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck Dingri county in Tibet, while a major wildfire broke out in Los Angeles.

In Tibet, Chinese authorities swiftly transitioned from emergency response to recovery, relocating 50,000 residents within a day. Meanwhile, the wildfire in Los Angeles raged for over 10 days, worsened by political infighting and mismanagement. This stark contrast highlights the differences in governance and crisis management between the two nations.

China’s rapid response to the earthquake, efficiently moving from rescue to resettlement, stands in sharp contrast to the prolonged crisis in Los Angeles, where political leaders traded blame while the fire caused damage surpassing the 9/11 attacks. These contrasting responses underscore the weaknesses in US crisis management and governance.

While much of the non-Western world remains relatively at ease, Trump-style neo-fascism is provoking panic across the Atlantic, particularly in Europe and Canada. Questions now surface at the highest levels of international diplomacy: Will Denmark lose Greenland? Will NATO lose US military support? Will Canada become the 51st state? These once-crazy notions are now openly discussed.

For many in China, the global impact of Trump 2.0 is unlikely to surpass that of Trump 1.0.

In fact, in 2025, many in non-Western countries believe Trump 2.0 will focus mainly on domestic affairs while occasionally stirring up trouble among Western allies. Non-Western observers know full well that Trump 2.0 will not end the Russia-Ukraine conflict in one day. He will not resolve the Palestinian-Israeli dispute anytime soon. He will not prevent China’s long-term trade growth with 60 percent tariffs. He will not, and cannot, curb China’s continued rise.

Trump 2.0 will likely continue withdrawing from international agreements, including climate accords and the WTO. The result? The gradual disintegration of US global hegemony. If this trend continues, Trump 2.0 could push the US into regional power status, embracing isolationism.

Regardless of the scope of Trump’s impact ‒ whether through trade wars, technological conflicts, or treaty withdrawals ‒ China is well-prepared for the worst. As it has done in the past, China has the ability to turn challenges into opportunities.

By 2028 the Chinese will be more confident than ever in saying: “Thank you Trump.”

US President Donald Trump called Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and told him that his government is committed to a peace process in Ukraine. As part of the deal, Trump’s administration made it clear that sections of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea would remain in Russian hands. Speaking at the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Trump’s Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said that it was ‘unrealistic’ to assume that Ukraine would return to its pre-2014 borders, which means that Crimea would not be part of any negotiations with Russia. NATO membership for Ukraine, he said, was not going to be possible as far as the United States was concerned. The United States, Hegseth told NATO, was not ‘primarily focused’ on European security, but on putting its own national interests first and foremost. The best that the European leaders at NATO could do was to demand that Ukraine have a seat at the talks, but there was very little said against the US pressure that Russia be given concessions to come to the table. Ukraine and Europe can have their say, Hegseth said, but Trump would set the agenda. ‘What he decides to allow and not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, of President Trump’, Hegseth said with characteristic midwestern swagger. The cowboys, he said with his body language, are back in charge.

While Hegseth was in Brussels, Trump was in Washington, DC with his close ally Elon Musk. Both are on a rampage to cut government spending. Over the past five decades, the US government has already shrunk, particularly when it comes to social welfare provision. What remains are areas that have been jealously guarded by the large corporations, such as the arms industry. It had always seemed as if this industry was inviolate and that cuts in military spending in the United States would be impossible to sustain. But the arms industry can rest easy (except Lockheed Martin, which might lose its subsidy for the F-35 fighter jet); Musk and his team are not going to cut military contracts but go after the military and civilian employees. During his confirmation hearing, Hegseth told the Senators that during World War II the United States had seven four-star generals and now it has forty-four of them. ‘There is an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. We do not need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more war fighters empowered at the bottom’. He said that the ‘fat can be cut, so [the US military] can go toward lethality’.

There is a fundamental misreading of these moves by the Trump administration. They are sometimes seen as the idiosyncratic flailing of a far-right president who is committed to putting ‘America First’ and so is unwilling to pursue expensive wars that are not in its interest. But this is a short-sighted and erroneous assessment of Trump’s phone call with Putin on Ukraine and approach to the US military. Rather than see this as an isolationist manoeuvre, it is important to understand that Trump is attempting to pursue a Reverse Kissinger Strategy, namely, to befriend Russia to isolate China.

Trump understands that Russia is not an existential threat to the United States. The US government does not fear Russian energy sales to Europe, since these primary commodity sales do not pretend to undermine the overall US control of the global economy. However, China’s rapid development of technology and science as well as of the new productive forces genuinely poses a threat to US domination of the key sectors of the global economy. It is the US perceived ‘threat’ from China that motivates Trump’s approach to alliances and enemies.

Kissinger’s strategy: Befriend China to Isolate Russia.

Henry Kissinger (1923-2023) was one of the most influential US foreign policy bureaucrats. During the presidency of Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1974, Kissinger essentially ran the foreign policy of the United States. Both Nixon and Kissinger closely followed the dispute between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). When Nixon became president, the USSR-PRC border dispute around Zhenbao Island almost escalated with a potential Soviet nuclear strike against Beijing. Kissinger had recognised that this dispute was of great value to the United States since it prevented the two large Eurasian countries from building an essential union against the Atlantic alliance encapsulated by NATO. If Russia and China had come together, Kissinger wrote, then they would be able to undermine the foundation of Western power in the world. To prevent that alliance was essential and to use the Sino-Soviet dispute to build a deep wedge between the two countries was the essence of Kissinger’s policy. Rapprochement with China also allowed the US to attempt to close the logistical supply line for the Vietnamese national liberation forces in their war against US aggression.

It was for that reason that Kissinger began secret talks through Pakistan with the Chinese government in 1970, made a secret trip to Beijing in 1971, and thereby opened the door for Nixon to visit China the following year. In his secret verbal report to the White House staff after his visit to China, Kissinger made the following important comment: ‘The Chinese were extremely serious people. They don’t wish us well. We have no illusions on that score. But in terms of our overall situation, with Soviet pressure and with the situation in Southeast Asia, it is in our interest to bring the Chinese in’. Nixon’s epochal visit to China was entirely driven by US interests to divide Russia and China so that the US could establish its power around the Asian continent.

Long after the USSR collapsed, Kissinger continued to make the case that the United States should befriend China, isolate Russia, and subordinate Europe to continue its long-term dominion. That is the underlying argument in Kissinger’s 600-page epic, On China (2011).

Trump’s Reversal: Befriend Russia to Isolate China.

With the fall of the USSR, the United States establishment developed a strategy to befriend both Russia and China, but more Russia. It was thought amongst the foreign policy elite that Russia’s subordination to the United States – under Boris Yeltsin’s presidency from 1991 to 1999 – was total and that the Russians would become a minor player on the Eurasian continent. Russia’s entry into the G7 in 1998 was the pinnacle of that subservience. The return of Christianity in public in Russia as well as the promotion of Russia’s Europe-facing culture suggested that Russia had embraced its Western heritage and moved away from either sovereignty or from Asia, and therefore China. In 1993, US President Bill Clinton phoned Yeltsin and said, ‘I want you to know that we’re in this with you for the long haul’.

A far-right wing section of the US establishment identified two elements in the late 2000s. First, that Chinese technological development of their productive forces seriously threatened the intellectual property domination by US firms. Second, that Russia’s new nationalism had been premised both on sovereignty (identified by the emergence of Putin’s patriotic parties) and on white supremacy and Russian Orthodoxy (such as anchored by the theories of Alexandr Dugin). There is an entire bloc in the US far right that sees in Russian patriotic nationalism its own ideology, and it sees in Chinese Communism its adversary.

Even in his first term, Trump sought to befriend Russia to isolate China and subordinate Europe. This reversal of Kissinger’s strategy is not progressive, but similarly reactionary and dangerous. The unifying goal is to ensure the supremacy of the United States with the same strategy of division with the actors reversed. Trump was then accused of being a beneficiary of Russian interference.

What the United States is now doing is to attempt  to break the relation established between China and Russia since 2007, when Putin made his official break from the United States at the Munich Security Conference. Good cooperation between China and Russia has moved swiftly and the two countries have a security agreement underneath the transfer of goods and services in roubles and renminbi. Breaking up this relation will not be easy but it is now the strategy Trump has decided to attempt to carry out.

It is worth remembering Kissinger’s assessment of the Chinese leadership in 1971: ‘Their interest is 100 percent political…..Remember, these are men of ideological purity. Chou En-lai joined the Communist Party in France in 1920, long before there was a Chinese Communist Party. This generation didn’t fight for 50 years and go on the Long March for trade’. This view captures not only Zhou En-lai and Mao Zedong, but also Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. They too have been steeled in a struggle against the United States over the course of the past decade. It is unlikely that a few baubles will attract Putin to adopt Trump’s reverse Kissinger strategy.

The New Cold War is rapidly heating up, with severe consequences for people around the world. Our series, Briefings, provides the key facts on these matters of global concern.

From the beginning of the Ukraine war in 2022, countries in the Global South – which contains the overwhelming majority of the world’s population – have opposed US policy towards that conflict. A recent survey found that only two Global South countries have actually implemented US sanctions against Russia over the war, and India increased its oil imports from Russia tenfold during the war’s first year. Global South leaders, such as South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, stated that the US policy of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into Eastern Europe lay behind the war.

But, until recently, support for the war seemed firm in the US and among its European allies. This is now changing significantly. Media speculation has focused on Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that he could end the war within 24 hours, but much more substantial is evidence of a sharp change in popular attitudes to the war. This provides the basis for hopes to permanently end the war.

The Necessity to Restore Economic Links Across Europe

The first pressure changing the situation is economic. On 1 January 2025, for example, a five-year gas transit agreement between Russia and Ukraine expired, ceasing Russian gas exports to Europe via Ukraine entirely and ensuring that the Ukrainian government will shut the pipelines across its territory. The US’s gradual success in achieving its decades-long objective of cutting the direct export of Russian gas to Europe has reduced the living standard of Europe’s population due to soaring energy prices and has simultaneously dealt a huge blow to Europe’s economy. Price shocks from the war spread out to affect many developing economies as well.

US liquid gas exports, on which Europe is now reliant, are on average 30–40% more expensive than Russian gas. Moreover, this Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is mostly sourced via the devastating fracking method and transported to Europe in an equally ecologically unfriendly way, on huge LNG carrier tankers.

The tremendous economic damage done to Europe has now created increasing opposition to the war, not least among the working class and households at large. More and more people have come to understand that they pay twice for the war in Ukraine: their taxes underwrite the enormous war and militarisation efforts, and at the same time they bear the brunt of the concomitant rising energy prices and imposed austerity measures.

In Germany, the leadership of Christian Democratic, Conservative, Social Democratic, and other ‘centrist’ parties implemented such US-enforced policies, thereby deeply damaging their own economies and societies. This sort of complicity has defined the approach in most European countries until recently and has continued despite the immense unpopularity it created for their own parties. The overwhelming majority of governing parties in Europe are now deeply unpopular, and there has been a sharp rise of xenophobic and overtly neofascist/fascist forces. In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, there is a sharp rise of support for parties opposing the war. Lately, an increasing number of politicians have openly stated that it is vital for Europe’s economy to break with this disastrous US policy and resume direct supply of gas from Russia, as well as to reinstate normal trade and investment relations with the Global South and BRICS countries, particularly China. Former Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine summarised this sentiment by saying there should simply be a phone call to Russia to restore the gas supply.

NATO Cannot Win the War in Ukraine

The second factor changing public opinion is that the US and NATO are suffering setbacks in the Ukraine war.

NATO’s expansion into Ukraine is, of course, not the only example of US-supported aggression in the present world situation. Notably, in Gaza, Israel and the US are able to carry out unbridled military massacres, atrocities, and genocidal policies against the Palestinian people and other countries in the region. In Europe, however, the US and its allies are confronting Russia, which has the most powerful army on the continent and nuclear forces essentially equal to those of the US. The latter appears incapable of winning this proxy war; only direct intervention by NATO military forces, risking global nuclear war, would turn this around.

The dragging on of the Ukraine war, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of victims –including thousands of children – and widespread devastation, has led to a sharp change in public opinion. In Ukraine, polls now show that 52% of the population supports the position that ‘Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible’. Only 38% support the view that ‘Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war’.

In Romania’s first-round presidential elections in November, after Diana Șoșoacă, a candidate opposed to the war, was banned from the election, Călin Georgescu, who also opposes the war, came in first place. Romanian authorities, with US support, responded by cancelling the election.

In December 2024, a YouGov survey of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Denmark showed a sharp increase in support for a negotiated settlement. In four of these countries – Germany, France, Spain, and Italy – the position to ‘encourage a negotiated end to fighting, even if Russia still has control of some parts of Ukraine’ had more support than the view to ‘support Ukraine until Russia withdraws, even if this means the war lasts longer’.

In the US, only 23% of the population thought ‘supporting Ukraine’ should be a US foreign policy priority.

The Situation in Ukraine

Re-establishing normal, mutually beneficial economic ties across Europe is necessary for the region’s economy but is only a first step in bringing an end to the disastrous Ukraine war that US imperialism has imposed on Europe.

NATO’s expansion effort is interrelated with the situation within Ukraine, which has a very large Russian-speaking minority (around 30% of the population) that is a majority in the East and Southeast of the state. Experiences in countries such as Canada and Belgium confirm that bilingual states can only be held together by strict guarantees of linguistic and other rights of the different communities and avoiding policies which are totally unacceptable to either.

Nonetheless, from the 2014 Maidan coup onwards, the Kyiv government, supported by the US, has set out to suppress the rights of the Russian-speaking minority. As the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, which cannot at all be accused of being pro-Russian, stated, ‘the current Law on National Minorities is far from providing adequate guarantees for the protection of minorities… many other provisions which restrict the use of minority languages have already been in force since 16 July 2019’.

Both the attempt to oppress the Russian-speaking population and the question of NATO membership for Ukraine are two issues that must be resolved in order to bring a permanent end to the war.

The Conditions for an End to the War in Ukraine

Europe should undertake honest, serious efforts to bring the Ukraine war to an end. Building on public opinion that is longing for peace and progress and on a peace movement with a strong working-class component, European social and political forces must promote the following steps to end the war in Ukraine:

1. Opening peace negotiations without preconditions.
2. Calling for a ceasefire.
3. Opposition to NATO membership of Ukraine.
4. Recognition of language rights across Ukraine and the rights, including self-determination, of the Russian speaking majority in the East and Southeast of Ukraine.
5. End of involvement by NATO countries in the Ukraine war, including a halt to all arms sales and withdrawal of all military personnel and trainers from Ukraine – the money saved to be used for strengthening social spending and public services.

It will take a significant period for Europe, and the world, to recover from the disastrous effects of US policy in the region. Permanently halting the war in Ukraine is an indispensable first step.