Deniz Adalı

August 2025 – Kaldıraç Issue 289

When you put the question as in the title, “The Middle East: Division or revolution”, of course the answer will be revolution. But this is not just some kind of a brain gymnastics. It is not, because the war of partition in the Middle East is advancing at breakneck speed. The five imperialist powers of the world, especially the imperialist West (including Japan), have taken action immediately to redivide the world after the dissolution of the USSR. Germany, for example, has turned most of Eastern Europe into its market. Yugoslavia was partitioned between the USA and Germany, etc. I presume that this aspect of the issue, i.e. the war of redistribution, started between the USA, Germany, France, Britain and Japan is already known. For this reason, we will not dwell on the commercial and market wars, the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and most recently Syria, one by one.

The war was actually on the agenda because of the unraveling US hegemony.

We are in a period of ignorance, at least that is the case for some sections of the left and the “intellectuals” of our country. Therefore, we need to emphasize some points. I hope this will not disrupt the flow of the article much and we will not disturb the reader too badly.

US hegemony means the “new world order” established at the end of the Second World War, which began almost immediately after the First World War. It is known that when something is called new, it means that there was an old one. And the old one was the British hegemony. At the very end of the British hegemony, even before the end of the first world war, the October Revolution shook the entire capitalist world.

The “new world order”, which is the expression of US hegemony, means organizations and agencies such as the IMF, the World Bank, the agreement signed in Bretton Woods that registered the dominance of the dollar (if I am not mistaken, only 46 countries signed this agreement, this was how it initially developed), and of course NATO, the joint war organization of the imperialist world against the socialist world, especially against the workers’ movement in the capitalist countries where there is a possibility of revolution.

Now, once again, the “new world order” is on the agenda—or, as some statist and pro-NATO intellectuals call it, “the great reset.” In other words, it’s no longer possible to continue as before, because the USSR and the socialist system no longer exist.

Meaning, the new world order can frequently come back onto the agenda.

Moreover, today, unlike some of the Western imperialists who speak of “the great reset”, the “multipolar world” articulated by the China-Russia axis is also an alternative. For example, organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) can be seen as declarations that the unipolar world has come to an end. At the economic forum held in St. Petersburg—right during the period of Israel’s war against Iran—more than 100 countries participated, while there are around 200 countries in the world in total. In other words, more than half of the world, representing 70% of the global economy and 80% of the world’s population, took part in the Petersburg forum.

This means that those who call for “the great reset” are a different line and they want to replace the US hegemony with a different one (perhaps each of them wishes to establish their own hegemony). But in the meantime, a “multipolar world” is being shaped in the world.

Our pro-NATO and statist intellectuals refuse to accept the collapse of US hegemony. At this point their eyes are blind. They have become so rabbit-like under Washington’s spotlight that the idea of escape never crosses their minds—instead, all they can manage is to turn their allegiance to the US hegemony into a kind of prayer. Every $100 bill they get their hands on seems, to them, like proof of that hegemony. For the pro-NATO and statist intellectual, every dollar bill is, of course, the strongest evidence of the “free world,” of “civilization,” and of bringing “freedom” through massacres.

But everything has a lifespan. Of course, the US hegemony also has a lifespan and even its masters now acknowledge that the US hegemony is unraveling. They, not us, raise the question whether there is only one state in the USA. Looking at the past 30 years, one can clearly see this situation at nearly every level, with ample evidence—if one is willing to see it.

Germany and Japan were challenging this hegemony primarily in economic terms. Meanwhile, England and France, both alongside and independently of Germany and Japan, were also acting in ways that signaled the end of this hegemony. Since England and France were not among the defeated powers of World War II, they had greater room for military and political maneuver.

This is how it all began. The dissolution of the USSR accelerated this process.

In order to keep the West united under the umbrella of NATO and to maintain the old order, the US launched various searches for a “common enemy”. The actions of ISIS and Islamic radicalism in Europe, under the control of the US, were actually meant to ensure this unity. But it was not enough. “NATO is experiencing brain death,” he was, in a sense, acting too much like a Rothschild banker. He spoke out prematurely. And during the Biden administration, the U.S. made the entire West swallow those words. This is what “welcome America” really meant. That’s how Biden was welcomed at the NATO summit.

And with the war in Ukraine, the whole of Europe, most of all Germany, has recalled the US control and surrendered its will. Today the German economy is being massively destroyed.

Uniting under the U.S. umbrella against Russia and China and winning a war that would essentially colonize China and Russia, has been laid out as a strategic plan. This approach also allows them to push their internal contradictions into the background. This, of course, benefits the USA. The USA has managed—at least for now—to keep the war away from its own TERRİTORY, just as it did in the first two world wars, and has thus extended its own period of endurance. Europe has surrendered to US policies. England, in this regard, has certain peculiarities or a tradition of cunning political maneuvering.

The war in Syria was a new phase of the world war—or of the broader conflict.

The war in Ukraine is connected to this and the periods are close to each other. The Syrian war began in 2011, and Russia entered the field in 2012. In Ukraine, the Neo-Nazi coup took place in 2014, and the Neo-Nazi regime took control of the country. Donetsk and Lugansk were seen as important for turning Ukraine into a colony, and these two regions declared their independence. Finally, Russia launched an operation in Ukraine in 2022.

The war in Ukraine is a war between Russia and NATO, the United States, on Ukrainian territory. This can also be recognized by the peace negotiations. The US has been defeated in this war and wants to charge this defeat to Europe. Trump exists to cover this defeat.

Trump was nominated for the World Peace Prize by Netanyahu. He declared that he had come to establish peace. He talked about peace in Ukraine, first in 24-hour deadlines, then in 100 days. Now, a new extension of 50 days has been granted and the new 50-day “ultimatum” has not pleased the cocaine-loving EU leaders, who argue that the ultimatum is fine, but 50 days is too long. However, Ukraine is not taking a single step towards peace. Remember how Zelensky and Trump exchanged swear words in the White House. Each day Trump says something different. It is impossible to count how many times they said they cut military aid to Ukraine.

With Trump’s maneuvers, the US is buying time to reorganize and deploy US forces on the battlefield (which is the whole world). The fact that Russia and China do not want the war to spread due to their defensive position gives the US enough time.

These are the rehearsals for the Third World War. In a way, one can even conclude that this war, World War III, has begun. Yet this is not new. But if Russia and China were the other front of the war, they would be attacking during such a phase. On the contrary, it is these powers, the Chinese and Russian fronts, that do not want the war to turn into a world war.

For this reason, a war against Iran—connected to this front but with relatively weak ties—has been initiated. It is already being called the “12-day war.” Israel attacked Iran with the US support. However, the US was unable to maintain its initial stance of non-involvement. The US bombers openly entered the conflict, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities with prior warning. In other words, the US was clearly involved in the war and has allowed Iran the opportunity to strike back at its own bases.

So, has a “peace” emerged from this?

Of course not; it is a kind of pause, and this pause is proof that new steps toward war will soon follow.

We need to stop here.

It is not correct to talk about an “Israeli hegemony in the Middle East”. Yes, Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Yes, Israel has delivered effective strikes against Hezbollah. Yes, Israel has carried out effective attacks and assassinations against Iran. But it is not correct to call this “Israeli hegemony”. The influence of the Turkish state as well as Israel has increased. In reality, this is the emergence of US hegemony. The US has come a long way in the Middle East regarding its war plans. Syria has fallen and is being divided. This means new possibilities towards an attack on Iran, and we have seen the first one. This is US hegemony in reality.

But the war against Iran also requires a ground war. Preparations are now underway for this.

Some of what we can observe are as follows:

– The Pashinyan administration in Armenia has been taking steps towards severing ties with Russia. Most recently, the Armenian authorities have stated that “it is unthinkable for us to give any territory of our country to a third country”. However, the source of this demand is absent in the statement. In other words, which third country requested this land and how? We do not know the answer. Could it have been a demand from the USA? But this statement came up following the meeting between Pashinyan and Aliyev in Dubai. Did Aliyev make such an offer to Pashinyan? If so, who is this third country? Is the desire to distance from Russia so strong that it blinds them with an irresistible attraction?

Of course, the Armenian people will make their own choice. But it seems that the country is evolving into one of the new theaters of war. Today, the US has a great interest in turning a people, a country into a battlefield.

– At the same time, Aliyev met with Zelenski, the Sputnik office was raided in Baku, its employees were tortured, etc. These events came to light following Israel and the U.S. attack on Iran. This is clearly part of the search for ground forces. The meeting between Israel and HTS in Baku is also part of this. Aliyev must believe that Russia is losing. A threat and a carrot are deployed together—the threat must be clear, but is the carrot the proposal of “Greater Azerbaijan,” involving the lands in Iran where the Azerbaijani population lives? We don’t know. However, it is known that the Azerbaijani population in Iran is larger than in Azerbaijan itself. So, what kind of new balance will emerge from this?

– It is no secret that at least part of the Kurds are being asked to take part in the war against Iran. The Kurds are being told that either you face massacres like in Gaza or you say yes to US policies. Exactly how this is formulated, of course, we do not know. We will come back to this point.

– Turkey is being prepared as a ground force for a war against Iran. In this context, NATO is actively involved. The attacks against the CHP are part of this, as are the peace plans concerning the Kurdish issue. The U.S. has likely made an offer to the Turkish state promising “five in return for one” in exchange for going to war with Iran. Erdoğan’s remarks about Arabs, Turks, and Kurds living together as one nation and one ummah came right after U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Jeffry Barrack, spoke about reviving an Ottoman-like system. Is Turkey now considering a deal to annex Aleppo from Syria in return for military operations against Iran? Arabs, Kurds, and Turks are mentioned—but in the process, Circassians, Laz people, Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks have already been erased from the narrative.

Again, the replacement of the Communications Director is part of the war against Iran. Altun cannot go beyond applauding the Palace, but the new head will probably be more independent from the Palace and will be in charge of the psychological and ideological war against Iran. A comprehensive war psychology will be created against Iran. We will be witnessing all forms of this dark propaganda in the coming days.

What concerns us most is the situation of the Kurdish movement.

If the question is asked whether there should not be “peace”, let us say in advance that this would be an attempt to render the debate futile. Of course we are in favor of peace. But which peace? Let’s say, if peace in Gaza means the confinement of Palestinians in camps, as in Israel’s latest project, we are not in favor of that. Israel may call it peace and technically it may look like peace. But it is not peace. It means the confinement of the Palestinian people in a concentration camp. Captivity of any kind cannot be presented as peace.

We are not suggesting that peace between the Turkish state and the Kurds would be like this. In this regard, we rely on the will of the Kurds. But while discussing the matter, we do not recognize it affirmative to be questioned “are you not in favor of peace” each time a statement is made.

Asking, “If the state is also going to belong to the Kurds, why would Kurds shoot at it?” is a failure to understand what the state is. The state does not belong to the Turks, nor will it belong to both Turks and Kurds tomorrow. The state belongs to the ruling class. The ethnic identity of the capitalists is ultimately irrelevant. Take Cuba, for instance: those who led the revolution took up arms against the rulers. Yet that state was the “state of the Cuban people.”

May God protect our sanity.

The state is always and everywhere the state of the ruling class. And the other classes that seek to overthrow that state will fight against it—whether through armed or unarmed struggle. That is class warfare. A peace agreement that the Kurds make with the Turkish Republic does not eliminate the class nature of the state. A just peace for the Kurds means the recognition of Kurdish identity—and this, in fact, already occurred in practice in 1992. The formalization of this de facto recognition would be a major achievement. And that would be a victory not only for the Kurds but also for us, the revolutionaries. We, as revolutionaries in Turkey, see the issue this way. But no matter what, no matter how honorable a peace agreement may be, the state will not become the state of the Kurds—just as it was never been the state of the Turks. Wherever they are in the world, revolutionaries who prioritize the liberation of the working class cannot refrain from fighting the state simply because it is named after the people who live there. The French working class, when fighting the French state, knows that it is not their own state. That state is the state of the French bourgeoisie. Yet that state presents itself as the “state of the whole nation,” and the ruling class disguises its own interests as “national interests.” The ruling class does not express itself in national identities. Even among the British ruling elite, there are those who are not ethnically British. When we say “the state of capital,” this is exactly what we mean.

For precisely the same reason, it is a mistake to claim that Muslim peoples established Turkey. If one speaks of those who fought against the occupation, it must be all the peoples of Turkey, which includes non-Muslims as well. Moreover, from the very beginning, Turkey was established as an outpost against the USSR, and it has demonstrated this characteristic at every opportunity. The policy of extermination and denial and the establishment as an outpost against the Soviets are closely linked.

Let us return to our topic. Let’s look at the current situation of the Kurdish issue.

Barrack, the new US ambassador to Turkey, is also the special envoy for Syria. In other words, he can be called both the ambassador to Turkey and the ambassador to Syria.

He has said the following:

“The SDF will become reasonable or another alternative will be on the agenda.”

“We cannot babysit the SDF forever.”

“There is no support for a federal structure in Syria”

“We do not owe the SDF an independent special zone.”

“If you don’t need our help, let HTS-SDF clash with each other.”

“SDF means YPG, and YPG is an extension of PKK.”

Despite all this, the Pentagon has included $130 million for the SDF in its 2026 budget. Last year, it was 150 million dollars.

These words and what Erdogan refers to as ummah and nations go hand in hand. And this is the carrot offered to the Turkish state in exchange for the Iranian war.

Let there be no misunderstanding: what we are laying out here is the policy of the US and the Turkish state. This policy is a policy of war—both at home and abroad. It is the US and NATO that shape and define this war policy. The Palace Regime entered a new phase after the fraudulent 2023 elections, in which Erdoğan was declared president even though Kılıçdaroğlu received more votes. We emphasize two key points: First, the economy has been handed over to creditors—an international consortium—and Şimşek primarily serves as their bureaucrat. Second, a secret war cabinet has been formed. The identities of its ministers do not matter; what matters is that this secret war cabinet is effectively an extension of NATO. For this reason, the Kemalists who present themselves as opponents of the Palace have, along with their entire entourage, aligned themselves with it. In this sense, progress has been made in reinforcing the internal front. There is now no effective force within the Turkish state capable of opposing war plans against Iran, and the Kemalists are now also beginning to learn the language of ummahism. Individual voices may still be heard, of course, but they are decreasing in number and far from being a real force. Their alignment with the Palace means exactly that.

On this occasion, it must be repeated: if an anti-imperialist stance is not also anti-capitalist, it can never be consistent. Without a coherent anti-imperialism, speaking out against imperialism is merely talk—and ultimately meaningless. Whether it comes from an Islamic perspective or a Kemalist one, if it is not anti-capitalist, it cannot sustain a genuinely anti-imperialist line. Momentary enthusiasm and spontaneous actions may arise, but in the age we live in, these mean very little.

The line of “unity between communists and Kemalists” now stands face to face with the reality of the ummah. The Kemalists are lining up at the Palace’s skirts. The rightful place of true communists is directly opposed to this line.

The new moves that have emerged regarding the Kurdish issue were initiated by the state, as Öcalan stated. It would be more appropriate to refer to NATO. Öcalan is not mentioning NATO. But since they set this table, it is possible to assume that they will abide by some of their promises. Is it really “possible”?

The new moves that have emerged regarding the Kurdish issue were initiated by the state, as Öcalan stated. It would be more appropriate to refer to NATO. Öcalan is not mentioning NATO. But since they set this table, it is reasonable to assume that they will abide by some of their promises. Is it really “possible”? NATO policy, in this respect, is not and cannot be a guarantee. This is a stance that is far from understanding the ongoing struggle in the world.

Israel is in this alignment. It is not appropriate to talk about Israel without mentioning NATO and the US. Of course, Israel may take some actions. But Middle East policy is the policy of the US. Israel killing Öcalan is not a matter of discussion. Israel is not a power apart from NATO and the US. But of course, any attack against the leaders of the Kurdish movement is to be expected.

In his last message, Öcalan urged the PKK to take steps, regardless of who would take which step. Accordingly, on July 12, 30 PKK members burned their weapons in a large container. Besê Hozat, who was in charge of the group, said “this is a political action”. Besê Hozat is saying that now it is the turn of the Turkish state. They are waiting for legal or constitutional arrangements. The turn belongs to the Turkish state. Let it not be misunderstood, of course, if one of the two warring parties wants to negotiate with the other, the realization of this negotiation does not take the parties away from their positions. This is not an automatic process.

The burning of weapons is undoubtedly important in a symbolic sense. It is conceivable to interpret the burning as a sign of closing the chapter on this matter. While the weapons were being burned, the PKK expressed, “We would also like to engage in politics in Amed, Ankara and Istanbul”. Presumably they must be talking about legal politics, otherwise the PKK is already practicing politics in Amed, Istanbul and Ankara.

At the current stage of the process, there have been two steps from the state’s side; first, the mayor of Esenyurt was acquitted in one of the two cases against him, one of which was the allegation of being linked to a terrorist organization due to “urban reconciliation”. He could not get out of jail. The second is Erdoğan’s remarks. At the AK Party camp, Erdoğan signaled a “new state” and made an “opening” on the basis of the ummah and the nation. Although this second step seems to be related to the Kurds becoming part of the ummah, it is actually a different agenda. In that case, the process-related step taken by the state is actually very weak, almost non-existent.

Erdoğan even took the opportunity to include the DEM Party in the Cumhur Alliance (the alliance between the ruling AK Party and the MHP-Nationalist Movement Party). However, Buldan, the Deputy Parliament Speaker of the DEM Party, wasted no time to state that the alliance is only about the process.

It would be a grave mistake for the left, for revolutionaries to consider the matter as an electoral issue. There is no such case. Even within the constitutional debates, the main topic is not the elections. The policy of war at home and abroad must be understood accurately. If you treat the subject as an electoral issue, questions will immediately arise as to whether the DEM Party will cooperate with the Palace. However, this question has been asked many times and the practice of the Kurdish movement is beyond this.

Now, we will be watching the steps of the Turkish state. The idea is , if the state has set the table, it will take a step.

All these are signs that the US hegemony in the region is increasing after the Syrian war. For this hegemony, the US has assigned tasks to Israel and Turkey. And these tasks are related to the redistribution of the region.

Most likely, Trump’s “ultimatum” giving Russia 50 days over Ukraine is also connected to this process. It seems that something is being planned before the end of summer, at the beginning of autumn. This is their plan—but we’ve seen this before: first it was 24 hours, then it became 100 days. And whether Trump will announce a different timeline tomorrow, we simply don’t know.

The question is clear: the Middle East is once again being targeted for redivision. And this is nothing new. Today, with the war on Iran, this process is entering a new phase. Countries that share borders with Iran are also being drawn into this war effort. It’s not yet clear how Armenia and Azerbaijan will act, but it seems they are moving in that direction—or at least, that is their intention. After the Syria conflict, Iran has now been placed in the crosshairs. Turkey and Israel have already been tasked with roles in this regard. The Kurds are also being drawn into the war. The Barzani movement has long been ready for this. It’s not difficult to see that the SDF and the PKK are being pressured into it as well. And if we can see this, it would be foolish to assume that the Kurdish movement cannot. They too are aware of this process.

The redivision of the Middle East is the plan of NATO, the US and Britain. The design of the region by the imperialist powers does not contribute anything to any people, workers and laborers in the region. These plans are not made for the gains of workers, laborers and peoples. It has never been made in any period of history and it cannot be made today.

If that is the case, then the real issue is to create a socialist breakthrough within this war of redivision. The dynamics of a regional revolution—led by the working class across the entire region—are beginning to take shape. This is no longer just a distant possibility seen on the horizon. The current turmoil in the region could, in fact, evolve into a revolution—provided that revolutionary movements follow the correct line. This applies to every part of the region. The most developed working classes in our region are in Turkey, Iran, and Egypt. But it is not limited to these countries.

A war of redivision is underway in our region, but at the same time, it is clear and undeniable that a revolution is also beginning to ferment.

Yes, socialist revolutions in our region may seem like a distant dream. This is because revolutionary movements and the organization of the working class in the region are currently weak. But life is always full of surprises. The laws of dialectics operate everywhere. In every country of the region, the struggle between the ruling class and the working class continues. Today, this struggle naturally combines both the fight against imperialism and the fight against domestic ruling elites. Without basing it on the liberation of the working class, it is not possible to drive imperialism out of any country or the region as a whole. Claiming that “our forces are weak” is no excuse—and even worse, it cannot be accepted as a strategy. If we fix our gaze only on the ongoing war—on the imperialist war of redivision—and look nowhere else, then of course we will see nothing but darkness. But even within this darkness, within this pool of blood, there is always ground for organizing the working class on a revolutionary path. It is clear that we do not know other countries well enough. But the working class taking power in Turkey would be a force capable of shifting all balances and calculations across the region.

We fix our eyes on the revolution, on the organization of the working class. The organization of the working class in our country, without departing from an international line, is the main issue today. If you look from this perspective—and if you truly take part in this struggle—it is also possible to see that the course of events does not necessarily cause us to dampen our spirits. It is essential to be able to recognize the positive aspects within the developments as well.

A revolution is developing in our country. Of course, the weakness of the forces and the lack of organization within the working class are facts. But the growing revolution is also a fact. Class struggle operates and will continue to operate according to its own laws. We revolutionaries are not spectators. We are the defined voice of the revolution that is in the making. Therefore, the lack of organization and the weakness we face belong to the present and revolutionary will must overcome and transcend this weakness.

Aysun Sadıkoğlu

July 2025 – Kaldıraç Issue 288

Our so-called educated ones love to be called “intellectuals” or “experts.” They know a lot and yet they are just as “ignorant” as they are knowledgeable. Such vast and deep ignorance can only be produced through education. That is their kind. Whenever a subject comes up and they claim to be “enlightening”, what actually begins is an effort to spread darkness. These are the ones who describe war as the hysteria of a single person or of certain individuals. War, they say, is “evil”, and evil men ignite it. That’s how they put it. In this way, war is presented to us as the work of “mad, deranged” men. This is the most effective way to protect the war barons; it absolves the system. They cover up the true functioning of the system with darkness. To say that these experts are simply “wrong” is not enough.

It is not merely wrong; but also a form of service to the war barons, deliberately designed to sow confusion.

And if war is portrayed in this way, then peace becomes the work of reasonable, sensible people.

Yet both war and peace have their own types. Isn’t that so? Are you familiar with imperialist wars of plunder? Of course you are. For example, the US waged a war of plunder in Iraq. The US and the West, through the hands of Israel, are waging a war of genocide and partition in Palestine. In Algeria, France waged a colonial war and of course those who fought against it organized a just war, a resistance, a war for freedom. Now, are the two sides of these wars the same? Of course not.

War has always emerged as the means by which the rulers impose their will. And every war waged against the rulers—despite all its shortcomings—has always been a just war. Does peace, for instance, mean the same thing for colonialist France in Algeria as it does for the resistance organization fighting against it? Of course not.

Since the birth of slave society—that is, since the emergence of classes, the rise of the state, and the appropriation of the means of production—the world has witnessed many bloody wars.

But the wars that are called “world wars” belong to capitalism, to the age of imperialism, to the world of the monopoly bourgeoisie. Capitalist imperialism emerged with the development of monopolization that began in the 1870s and the First World War followed in its wake. The First World War arose as a struggle among imperialist colonizers—who had already divided the world among themselves—for a new repartition of the world. The staging of events is another matter, but the war itself was one undertaken by the imperialist powers to redivide the world. The world had already been divided in terms of land and markets; thus, only a redivision was possible, and so it happened. The Second World War had a dual character. The Soviet Union, beginning with the October Revolution of 1917, had started to create a world outside of capitalism. For all monopolies, for all capital, this meant both a “loss of markets” and a threat to their future. For this reason, they wanted, on the one hand, to strangle the Soviet Union, while on the other hand, the imperialist West had launched once again into an internal struggle to redivide the world.

These two wars, known as “world wars,” belong to capitalism and its imperialist era. The West has tried every means to plunder Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa and has staged every kind of savagery. The history of England, France, the Netherlands, the United States and others is full of these plundering wars and atrocities. And they have always referred to it as “bringing civilization.” Those who declare themselves “civilized” have not hesitated to resort to every form of brutality. Wherever you look in the world, you see the traces of this bloody colonialism, which has persisted for generations and continues to this day.

And nowadays, we are living in the period of the Third World War. If someone comes forward and says, “it has not yet fully turned into a world war,” there is no harm in that—on the condition that the fact that this is indeed a world war is acknowledged. Some may also say that we are right on the eve of this war. These are points that can be debated today.

Yet we recognize that (1) this war is mainly between five imperialist powers. These five imperialist powers are the US, Germany, Japan, England and France. Powers such as Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and the like are also involved in this war. But essentially, the war is being organized by the desires of these five powers. (2) The decisive aspect of this war is the process of dismantling the hegemony of the United States, the hegemonic power of the system. Although this process has economic roots in the past, the anti-communist imperialist alliance against the USSR was secretly waging this war. The dissolution of the USSR brought this war to the surface in all its aspects. “The great reset” is actually the desire to rebuild the capitalist world economic system established after World War II under US hegemony and this desire has been voiced by England. More than 20 years have passed since then. (3) The US has military superiority over its rivals. For this reason, the US has engaged in military attacks and local wars. The invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq war, etc. are the result of this. However, these wars did not prevent the dissolution of US hegemony. On the contrary, despite some military successes, the dissolution of hegemony accelerated. Therefore, in order to keep its other imperialist allies under its hegemony, the US created specific enemies such as ISIS. It deployed gangs it had recruited for the “Green Belt” project, which had been put into action to encircle the USSR, as Islamic gangs. This is the Syrian war. And at this point, Russia stepped in. (4) When the USSR collapsed, Russia and China assumed that, as two major powers, they would join the G7 club. But that wasn’t the case. Rulers don’t want new partners at the table of power and that’s what they did. The Syrian war brought this process into sharp focus. Following their losses in the Syrian war, the US administration moved to declare Russia and China as enemies. Trump explicitly stated this in writing. This was during his first term. (5) During this phase, a profound economic crisis emerged in 2008. By the time the crisis hit, China had already begun penetrating into the global market with its own brands. Both Russia’s involvement in the Syrian war and China’s commencement of disrupting the system with its own brands further exacerbated the economic crisis. (6) The US and NATO, which instigated the war in Ukraine, sought a way to militarily crush Russia and separate China from Russia. This is how the war in Ukraine emerged. From the very beginning, the war in Ukraine has been a war waged by NATO, the Western imperialist front, against the Russian and Chinese front. (7) The US and NATO have been defeated in Ukraine. They certainly will not openly admit this. And at this point, the second Trump administration has introduced new policies to cover up this defeat and this time, to separate Russia from China. They call it “peace.” This is not peace. In this case, not everything called peace is peace.

The United States has subdued Europe’s two major powers, Germany and France, in the war in Ukraine. This is a gain for the US, in terms of managing to shift the war onto Europe and choosing Europe as the battlefield. Now, Europe itself is pro-war. The newly elected Pope, right upon taking office, expressed his astonishment: he could not help but say that the US wants peace, whereas Europe wants war.

The situation appears as follows: The US seems to desire peace in Ukraine. In contrast, England, France and Germany fully adopt a stance in favor of the continuation of the war, actively fueling it. In order to derail Russia’s controlled operations in Ukraine, all neo-Nazi groups and civilian attacks are being brought into play. This is what appears on the surface—but appearances conceal the truth to some extent. The reality is this: On behalf of the entire Western front, the US wants to leave the war against Russia to Europe, in order to confront China. Europe—above all England, France, and Germany—is all too eager to inflame this war. This is a kind of war addiction; they have no other choice. Looking at it from this angle, war is not the work of madmen but, on the contrary, an inseparable part of the imperialist system. That is to say, if one is to speak of peace, one must inevitably speak of the collapse and eradication of the capitalist–imperialist system and of the victory of the socialist revolution. To speak of peace in any other way is, if not self-deception, then an attempt to deceive the working class and the masses of laborers.

The collective West, the entire imperialist camp, seeks to gain time in Ukraine in order to reorganize its forces against Russia and China. They want Europe to take over the war against Russia, while the United States leads the war against China. Japan is eager to take part on both fronts. Trump has come to power to cover up the defeat suffered by the US and NATO in Ukraine and for a time he will play this role. Afterwards, they will once again intensify the war—whether with Trump or without him.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, war policies are being carried out through Israel and Turkey. Israel’s war against Palestine is not limited to Palestine alone. Behind Israel and Turkey stands NATO, which primarily aims to bring down Iran. To the advantage they have gained in Lebanon and Palestine, the advantage in Syria has now been added and they are moving to take control of the entire region. Syria is being rapidly divided and colonized. The departure of Assad should not prevent us from seeing the dark face of what has come in his place.

The Third World War—whether one says it has already begun or that it is in the process of beginning—is for now continuing through local and regional wars. Yet these regional wars always appear as parts of the global war and are experienced as such. Afghanistan was like this, as were Iraq, the war in Libya, the war in Syria and now the war in Ukraine. And each of them, increasingly, is approaching the scale of a world war. It seems that the war against Iran was to begin after Trump’s first 100 days in office. But China’s encirclement of Taiwan has postponed this war.

There are certain outcomes that emerge.

Firstly, the alliance between Russia and China is expanding. Organizations such as BRICS and the SCO, though primarily economic in nature, are in fact undermining US hegemony. They are putting the established monopolistic system under strain. And despite all the sanctions, this alliance—together with its surrounding partners—has proven to be resilient. Although they are not fundamentally opposed to the capitalist world system itself, they are nonetheless shaking the existing capitalist–imperialist order. It is no longer possible to speak of a unipolar hegemony in the world. Yet no new system has taken its place thus far. If a wave of socialist revolutions seizes the opportunity to shake the system to its core, there will be no need for a new capitalist world system to take root.

Secondly, the war has engulfed Europe. The United States did not experience the first two world wars on its own soil and it does not wish to experience the third one there either. It seems to have made progress in this regard. Because its own hegemony is unraveling, the Third World War—which was ignited by the US itself—is also intended to be fought away from its own territory. Europe appears to have accepted the war on its own ground. So far, one of the losers of the war has been Europe—particularly France and Germany. England’s losses are not as significant; in fact, in the Middle East, for instance regarding Iraqi oil, it is possible to speak of certain gains. Moreover, in Central Asia, it is eager to fill the voids left by the United States.

England openly declares that it is fully prepared for war. They are announcing this outright. The Rothschild dynasty and the Rockefeller dynasty seem to have already made the decision for war on behalf of England and France. Rothschild’s banker Macron, even while being slapped by his wife, does not refrain from shouting war slogans. The cocaine “festivities” on the train are, in fact, a picture of the state they are in. But to look at these petty figures and conclude that war is the work of madmen who have lost their minds is to completely misunderstand the nature of war and of the capitalist system itself. War is demanded by international monopolies, by capital and they cannot live without it. It would be a mistake to see the war as a decision made by leaders like Trump, Macron, Merz or Starmer. War is the will of the imperialist system. On the contrary, it is international capital that finds such figures during times of war—leaders like those of the West mentioned above. Trump, in fact, is precisely the kind of character suited for this.

Germany has openly begun preparations for war. The German Chief of Defense Staff has pointed to the year 2029 (meaning that while England sees the war as imminent, Germany is planning for 2029). This implies that, even if one considers the Third World War to have already begun, a new phase lies ahead. A period is approaching in which each country will be clearly and directly involved in the war. And today, all European states are pro-war. Each of them, after their cocaine parties, howls for war as if competing with one another. These are representatives of international capital who are accustomed to howling. During times of war, rulers do not struggle to find such types of people cheaply for their purposes. And today, all European states and their rulers are pro-war.

Thirdly, the US and NATO have been defeated in Ukraine. To cover up this defeat, the US organized the Trump administration. He has been convicted in disgraceful cases. His erratic behavior fits the situation of the US perfectly. His strange statements are interpreted as signs of being “crazy” and unpredictable, dismissed with rhetoric like “he’s insane, whatever he says goes” In this way, the defeat in Ukraine can be concealed. On one hand, they speak of peace; on the next day, they do not hesitate to shout war slogans. In Ukraine, Zelensky is the figurehead, just as Trump is in the US. They are all cut from the same cloth.

The United States claims to want peace in Ukraine, but this process is not enough to expect a genuine peace there. They intend to use the Ukraine situation to stall Russia and China. During this period, they aim to reorganize their own forces for war. Meanwhile, against Russia, they want to deepen the conflict primarily through England and also through Germany and France. By leveraging the long historical relationship between Ukraine and the Russian people, new opportunities for attacks are being activated. While the US takes a stance in favor of peace, these attacks are intended to be corrosive for Russia. They do not want to accept a Russian victory in Ukraine. Their goal is to ensure that Russia eases up.

Amid this relaxation or chaos, they are quietly redesigning their forces worldwide for new attacks. It is possible that Trump will soon take steps in this regard. Trump is, in a sense, the result of a compromise within the US. At the core of this compromise is the need to cover up the defeat in Ukraine and to buy time for new plans. Whether Trump’s second term will last until its end remains debatable. We do not know if exposing Trump’s crimes would be enough to remove him, but the US is not stepping back from its war policies—and it will not do so.

Fourthly, it should be assumed that full preparations are being made for a war against China. It should be clear that this will not remain merely a commercial war. By leaving the conduct of the war in Ukraine to Europe, the US is seeking both to compensate for its losses and to create the conditions for preparing a war against China.

China’s ability to remain outside the war and avoid damage up to now seems likely to come to an end in the near future. The US will demonstrate its new aggression in this area. For these attacks, Japan will play a smaller role while South Korea, the Philippines and Australia will be brought into action.

Fifthly, the Middle East remains one of the regions where the war is most intense. Today, the advantages Israel has gained in Palestine and Lebanon, together with Turkey, seem sufficient for now to maintain the situation in the region on behalf of the US and NATO and to preserve the new status quo. England and France are attempting to play the United States’ role in the Middle East. However, it is known that both the plans for a war against Iran are ongoing, and the emergence of new attacks and conflicts on the peripheries of the Middle East is highly likely.

This means that the collective West, all imperialist powers, are preparing for a more comprehensive war. Certainly, their internal contradictions cannot be ignored. After all, the war is primarily among themselves. The war actually began as a war of division among five imperialist powers. But in the meantime, it is clear that they will seek opportunities to eliminate certain countries that are on the verge of breaking away from the capitalist system. In Africa and Latin America, they will certainly be looking for chances to attack countries showing tendencies to break from the system. From Burkina Faso to Venezuela, it should be assumed that they will ignite conflicts in many countries where the US and France are beginning to lose influence.

Despite the desire of China, Russia, and the states aligned around them to prevent a world war, the conflict is developing and spreading. War is a necessity of the capitalist–imperialist system. The cause of the war lies directly with the imperialist West. This is a systemic issue. Imperialist domination cannot exist without war and without colonies. Questions raised during the Gorbachev era, such as whether imperialism can exist without war or colonies, have actually served—and continue to serve—the purpose of concealing the nature of imperialist domination.

This means that the war will not cease. The Third World War will expand further and spread—until the system is fundamentally shaken by a wave of socialist revolutions.

Amid all these clouds of war, in this sea of blood, a wave of revolution is also developing. Our focus must be directed there. Despite this objectivity, however, the revolutionary and socialist front remains weak.

Today, the working class of the world, the proletariat of the world, is largely unorganized. Most importantly, the world revolutionary movement lacks international organization. Of course, this must be examined concretely in each specific context. We are not pointing this out to deny the existence of more organized revolutionary forces. We know that in some areas revolutionary organizations are more advanced. But the world proletariat is, to a great extent, unorganized. This lack of organization belongs to today, not to tomorrow.

The subjective condition of the world revolutionary movement—its lack of revolutionary international organization and the weakness of the working class in different countries of the world—naturally also means serious subjective shortcomings in seizing the opportunities that arise in the name of revolution. Revolutionary movements that are organizationally weak within their own fields, in their own countries, inevitably fall short in developing healthy international relations as well. They are forced to observe the developing class struggles in other parts of the world from a considerable distance, mostly through the bourgeois press. This is the situation today. Reversing this process is, of course, only possible by building solid organization within your own area. While the collapse of capitalism is approaching objectively, subjectively the force that will consign capitalist domination to history is not yet on the stage. This is an objective reality for every revolutionary movement, regardless of its strength.

We are living through a period in which history is moving rapidly. We are witnessing extremely unusual and rare examples in a negative sense, and at the same time we are on the eve of the rise of a revolution that is fermenting. This means that, in a positive sense as well, examples rarely seen before will also emerge.

What will prevent war and establish peace in a genuine sense is a revolution carried out by the working class that shatters the machinery of the bourgeois state. This revolution is the socialist revolution. There is no transitional stage standing before it. Yes, the weakness of the world revolutionary movement indicates that the road ahead is long. It is well known that an unorganized working class cannot make a revolution. Revolution can only be achieved through the political leadership of the working class. And that means organization. Moreover, the revolutionary movements of the world remain quite distant from one another. This “distance” is also connected to a lack of trust between revolutionary movements. Yet all of these are not steady and immutable conditions in periods when history moves rapidly.

From this perspective, the task of every revolutionary movement, no matter how weak it may be, is to ensure the revolutionary organization of the working class, in order to fulfill its responsibilities where it stands. Only if it is organized can a revolutionary movement seize the opportunities that arise before it. Therefore, wherever they may be in the world, revolutionary movements are tasked with accelerating organization in their own domains and with patiently and persistently opening the paths for the proletariat’s revolutionary transformation. This, of course, also applies to our own country. To understand what is happening, it is indeed necessary to follow developments around the world—otherwise, it is possible to lose one’s way. But while doing so, one must never suspend organization, nor the task of raising the revolutionary line of the working class. What is decisive is not the war among imperialist powers. What is decisive—what will remain decisive tomorrow—is the class struggle unfolding in every country of the world.

In this historical moment, when the balance of power in the world is shifting and new equilibria have not yet been established, the opportunities that will arise before the revolutionary movement on a global scale are objectively increasing.

Everywhere in the world, the class struggle is on the rise. In this sense, it is also certain that we are still at the very beginning of the road. This class struggle will rise even further.

Every war, as is well known, is also a civil war. This civil war is unfolding in the imperialist countries of the world and will continue to do so. The developing class struggle will shake these countries in proportion to the organization of the working class. In every capitalist country in the world, the working class must know how to turn its weapons against its own rulers in war and develop this ability. For this reason, the anti-war actions developing today are very important. Of course, more will emerge. War will make its destruction and weight felt in every country. For this reason, the struggle against all forms of nationalism and racism is part of the struggle against bourgeois domination. The struggle of the working class is the only way to destroy this racism and nationalism. No one can advise us, the workers of the world, the youth of the world, to fight in the name of national interests, to surrender to various doses of nationalism.

No matter how it is viewed, the task of the revolutionary movement everywhere in the world and in our country is to mobilize the working class. The weakness of power is not decisive here. What is decisive is the desire and will in this regard.

Revolutionaries are not those who wait for the moment of revolution. Revolutionaries are those who, under all circumstances and conditions, prioritize developing the revolutionary line of the working class based on its ultimate interests. Revolution cannot be organized without fighting for it. Fighting for revolution is also fighting for the future of humanity, for the future of the planet.

The revolutionary struggle will develop at different speeds in each country and in each region. However, the revolutionary movement developing in each country will also condition the development of the revolutionary movement in other regions. Therefore, no matter how weak its organization may be, the revolutionary movement must be based on a solid and determined march forward.