Zaher Baher

24/02/206

The third day of university student protests in Iran continues. The demonstrations began at Mashhad University and, by Monday, had spread to other campuses, including the all-women Al Zahra University. Protesters chanted anti-government slogans, and an Iranian flag was burned and torn. The demonstrations remained confined to university grounds and did not spill into the streets.

The most prominent slogans included “Death to the dictator,” “For every one killed, a thousand will rise,” and “The blood that has been shed will never be erased.” At the same time, the United States and Iran are engaged in talks aimed at easing the threat of war, even as both sides intensify their military preparations

Under these circumstances, people across the region are deeply anxious about the prospect of war, shaped by decades of lived experience with armed conflict. They understand that war offers nothing but hunger, deprivation, the loss of loved ones, and the devastation of land, nation, and environment.

They also recognize that wars justified in the name of “regime change” have rarely delivered freedom or stability. Instead, such interventions have often merely replaced one dictator with another, sometimes producing outcomes even more disastrous. This lesson has been painfully reinforced by their experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.

Another concern shared by leftist groups and some others centres on the perceived lack of viable alternatives following the collapse of Iran’s current regime. They argue that, in the absence of a genuine democratic option, the only scenario being promoted is the return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former king, facilitated by external intervention, particularly under the influence of Donald Trump.

In my view, concern about the possible return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former king, is understandable. Such an outcome would be deeply troubling, yet it would be no worse than the continued rule of the mullahs. This position does not imply a desire for war, nor does it signal support for a United States attack on Iran.

However, there is an uncomfortable reality that cannot be ignored. When a government relentlessly pursues authoritarian and fascistic policies and does not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people, overthrowing such a regime through demonstrations and peaceful protests alone becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Why is the return of the former king’s son not considered worse than the continuation of the current regime?

First, conditions in Iran have deteriorated drastically under the current rulers, worsening across nearly every sphere of life. Assassinations, killings, kidnappings, and the execution of innocent protesters, as well as anyone who dares to speak out, have become routine instruments of repression.

Women’s freedoms have been severely curtailed to the extent that many women no longer tolerate these restrictions and, in some cases, feel compelled to take to the streets themselves, even when broader solidarity in defence of their rights appears limited.

Second, the collapse of the regime would create a space to breathe freely, even if only for a limited period. A new government would be unlikely to achieve immediate or lasting stability, creating an opening for people to organize themselves across Iran. This moment could allow the formation of mass organizations, trade unions, and a wide range of anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and anti-war groups, as well as women’s unions and numerous initiatives focused on the environment, the economy, freedom, and human rights. Such movements could work collectively to combat poverty, discrimination, and inequality.

Public demonstrations, open debates, and seminars would represent further gains, alongside the revival of press freedom, writing, publishing houses, and the emergence of countless independent publications.

Third, the restoration of self-esteem and collective confidence would be a decisive gain. Rebuilding faith in one another and trust in people’s capacity to stand up for their rights would encourage collective action and the emergence of mass uprisings. Successfully toppling a 47-year-old regime in Iran would instill a powerful sense of empowerment. That experience would not fade easily and would serve as a lasting source of confidence if a new ruling authority attempted to follow the same repressive path as the one it replaced.

Fourth, the fall of the Iranian regime would also mean an end to its support for various Iranian-backed militant groups in neighbouring and Arab countries and a halt to the assassination of regime opponents both inside and outside Iran. Simultaneously, with the collapse of this Shiite stronghold, Saudi Arabia would no longer view it as a critical strategic or military asset. Consequently, the demand for weapons, ammunition, and other war materiel would diminish for both Saudi Arabia and Israel, potentially easing regional conflicts to some degree.

Fifth, the collapse of Iran would significantly undermine the Iraqi regime. It could create an opportunity for the Iraqi people to challenge or even topple their rulers, or at the very least weaken the regime to the point that it can no longer pursue its current policies.

Sixth, the situation in Turkey could become highly unstable. If Iran were able to strike significant damage against U.S. military bases in Turkey with its missiles, it could trigger widespread chaos, potentially sparking large-scale protests and demonstrations. Such unrest would not only impact the Turkish population but could also create opportunities for Kurdish communities, while simultaneously weakening the Turkish regime considerably.

Seventh, the collapse of the Iranian regime could improve conditions not only for Kurds and other ethnic groups within Iran but also for the Kurdistan Region in Iraq. At the very least, the threat of bombings and assassinations targeting opponents of the mullahs would disappear in this part of Kurdistan. Simultaneously, there is a possibility that a new regime would retract from the incursions and abuses previously carried out in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Eighth, the fall of the current religious regime could permanently prevent the re-establishment of a theocratic government in Iran, given the bloody legacy and the profound suffering it has inflicted on Iranian citizens over the past 47 years of its rule.

In my view, the developments outlined above would significantly advance the struggle of Iran’s workers and oppressed, laying the groundwork for a social revolution and helping to eradicate oppression, hunger, and social injustice. They would also provide a crucial opportunity for libertarians and anarchists to forge connections, support one another, and build networks that strengthen self-organization and coordination of their activities.

All of these represent significant milestones and powerful momentum for the growth of the anarchist movement.

Zaher Baher

28/01/2026

The attack by the new Syrian Arab Army, with the support of Turkish forces, on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the seizure of areas under their control caused many killings of SDF members and civilians as well. For the Syrian Arab Army, killing was not enough; they also mutilated the bodies.

In this attack, the remaining ISIS groups within the Syrian army reached a point where they captured SDF fighters, whether alive or dead, and treated them in a barbaric way. On several occasions, the body of a young female fighter in Aleppo, in the Kurdish neighbourhoods of Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah, was thrown from the third floor of a building. Another young male fighter was killed, after which his body was burned and the ashes were spread everywhere. In another incident, when they killed a young female fighter, they cut her beautiful hair and took it with them. These are only a few examples among many, and videos of these acts have been widely published on social media.

These brutal attacks by ISIS on the Kurdish people in Rojava and its forces, the SDF, on the one hand created a great deal of frustration among Kurds and demonstrated a form of Kurdish unity both abroad and in Kurdistan. At the same time, they created a wave of racism and chauvinism. Similarly, many journalists, intellectuals, and members and supporters of the PKK began to use and repeat racist concepts in their writing and in posts on Facebook. These include the following racist concepts: State of Turks, government of Turks, police of Turks, members of the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) of Turks, and gendarmerie of Turks.

All of the above concepts are racist, and many of those who use them are unaware of this or do not know the Kurdish language well. There is undoubtedly a very small minority who understand their meaning very well and use them according to their own interpretation.

In January 2016, I wrote a 12-page article about this racist language and the mistakes of the PKK. I also explained that this language is the language of the PKK, not of Rojava. The media in Rojava of Kurdistan does not speak, write, or promote these racist forms of language.

We also know that PKK leaders know very little, or nothing at all, about the Sorani Kurdish dialect. However, writers, intellectuals, and many Sorani dialect speakers and Facebook users may know the meaning of these concepts, yet they still use them, perhaps because PKK leaders or PKK media use this language and they follow them.

Why is the use of these concepts racist?

First, according to a former MP of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), the proportion of Turks in Turkey is 7 percent. This figure may be incorrect, as some people estimate it to be between 40 and 50 percent. In any case, we know the history of Turkish society since the beginning of the Turkish state. Therefore, the state is not only the Turkish people or a state of Turks; in fact, it is a state of everyone who lives in Turkey. Many of these minorities voted for this government and helped create it.

Second, the majority of DEM Party members in parliament and government are Kurds, not Turks. If they are nothing and not part of parliament, then what are they doing there?

Third, we know that many people in high government positions are Kurds, such as Hakan Fidan, the forging secretary of Turkey. The official spokesman of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Ömer Çelik, is also Kurdish, along with many others whom I do not need to name here. Erdoğan himself is not a Turk. Not only that, but none of the other three candidates who ran for president alongside Erdoğan were Turks.

Fourth, Turkish citizens of any nationality or minority, including Kurds, must perform compulsory military service. They are also employed in sensitive departments such as the police and intelligence agencies, or in service sectors like the courts, education, health, and sports. Many Kurds are among them. So, whether you like it or not, they serve the Turkish state.

Fifth: How do you know that the policeman, soldier, or member of MIT who was killed is a Turk? Have you seen their identity? Do you know their background? Have you looked into their life history?

Sixth: Are you not the ones who say that there are 20 million Kurds in Turkey? What about these 20 million, let us say 14 million of them still live in Turkey? Where do they get their money from, and to whom do they pay taxes? Who do they benefit from? From whom do they receive passports and identity cards? Whom do they serve as police, soldiers, or spies? Of course, they serve the state, and the state supports them in return.

So, as Kurds, you are part of these people and part of this establishment. Turks, Azeris, Arabs, and others living in Turkey have participated in and stabilized the government and the state. Therefore, it is not only Turks who are doing their duty, but every citizen in Turkey, all the communities that make up the Turkish nation. In other words, all support the Turkish state.

Seventh: When you call it the “state of Turks,” you are rejecting everyone from other ethnicities who serve in different parts of this state in Turkey, including yourself, as a Kurdish person. You deny your own existence there. How can there be a land without a nation, when we know that part of Turkey is called Kurdistan? If you believe that the government or state in Turkey is only the state of Turks, and that you are not part of this establishment or society in Turkey and do not belong to it, then why do you fight against it for your rights?

Eighth: If your answer to these points is that the Kurds have been made Turks there, then you are confirming and recognizing the constitution of the Turkish state, which says that there are no Kurds there.

Nine: What remains to be said is that most of us know the state is a tool of class and serves the ruling capitalist class and the elite, including Kurds. The state protects their interests and, at the same time, acts as an institution to suppress its opponents.

Of course, there are other points, but these are the main ones for me. Please stop using racist language. Learn Kurdish before you write articles, publish statements, or become a journalist. Otherwise, you are only sowing the seeds of racism, just as racist Turks and racist Arabs do against you.

Zaher Baher

22/01/2026

Rojava, Syria, and neighbouring countries are going through a very complicated situation. It is very difficult for us to fully understand what is happening at the moment. What we know so far is that there is a hidden agenda involving Israel and the United States. The players in the region, including Turkey, the Syrian government, and IS, are taking part in a bloody game, and the blood is flowing from the body of Rojava.

We all know what happened and each of us may have our own prediction about this bloody game. I will only address the points I have observed here.

First, the wave of racism:

 A widespread wave of racism and nationalism has spread across protests, demonstrations, media, and social media among Kurdish people. This wave is mainly driven by Iraqi Kurds, especially those in the Kurdish diaspora, many of whom are sitting behind computers and promoting extreme nationalism.

This is clearly evident in the areas I mentioned above. Dozens of videos are being shared on Facebook and WhatsApp showing how people in Rojava and their fighters are treated after being captured by the Syrian government army. These videos come from people in Gaza and from other chauvinist Arab groups and IS elements within the Syrian army. There are also many other videos that support Rojava and praise its fighters among Arabs and Turks, but they are rarely seen and are not widely circulated.

What is happening is very dangerous. These racist tendencies are not present among Kurdish people in Rojava or in Kurdistan in Turkey, and if they do exist, they are very rare. Such so-called activities do nothing but fuel the fire of a Kurdish-Arab war.

Second, the call for the removal of Tom Barrack:

 Many people believe that what has happened in Rojava and Syria is the result of the policies of the US envoy Tom Barrack himself. They think that replacing him with someone else would change the situation in the interest of the Kurds. It is true that Tom Barrack is of Lebanese Arab descent and may have some inclination toward Arabs on minor issues, but he represents the policy of the US administration in Syria. He only implements US policies and cannot go against them. The proof of this is the presence of senior US military commanders and senior CIA intelligence officials in the region. If Tom Barrack were to reverse US policy, they would not remain silent.

Another piece of evidence is the prisons of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which were holding large numbers of IS prisoners and their families. When these prisons were attacked by the Syrian government army while being guarded by the SDF, the SDF informed US forces and warned them about how dangerous the situation could become if IS prisoners were released. However, the US forces did nothing. This raises the question of why they allowed the Syrian army to attack and break the prisons, leading to the release of IS prisoners.

Third: Trump is a businessman, not a politician:

 Many Kurdish intellectuals and social media users say that Trump is a businessman, not a politician, when discussing his attitude toward Rojava and the Kurdish people. These people have little knowledge of politics or economics. They do not understand that politics is a reflection of the economy and serves economic interests, as if former US presidents were not connected to major businessmen and giant corporations.

Political administration is nothing but the protector of the economy and economic hegemony. The power and dominance of any country depend on its economic strength. For this reason, government policies, education programs, and various plans and efforts are aimed at economic growth, and even the army serves this purpose. Trump is both a politician and a major businessman. His political decisions reflect economic realities and are designed to protect and benefit the super-rich and giant corporations.

Fourth, the impact of this incident on the so-called peace process in Turkey:

 There is no doubt that what is happening will have a very negative impact on the Kurds in Turkey, the PKK, and Ocalan himself. The SDF was the backbone of Rojava and of the Kurds in Turkey. While the SDF and the autonomous administration in Rojava were important to Erdogan and his government, the PKK was neither important nor threatening to them as much as Rojava. The PKK is under the control of the Turkish state. The Turkish government could have fought it at any time, as they did, and in doing so, destroyed three parts of Kurdistan. Erdogan and his allies in the government knew that the PKK’s armed movement had done the greatest service to the Turkish state since 2015, when the fighting started again between Turkish state and PKK,  while it had not provided even the slightest benefit to the Kurds or to any part of Kurdistan.

Erdogan and his government consider Rojava so important and dangerous for the Turkish state that, if it were not for the US alliance with the SDF and the support it received not only from Kurdish people but also from many countries around the world, the Turkish government would have destroyed it from the start. They never hesitated to attack, as they did in 2018 when they managed to invade Afrin, one of the Kurdish regions in Rojava.

In my opinion, if the situation worsens and the war in Rojava continues between the SDF and the Syrian army, ending in the defeat of the SDF, it will also end the so-called peace process. Ocalan will either be ignored or forced to do what the Turkish state wants. The SDF was a great force and a very important moral support for Ocalan, and it is still significant. Defeating the SDF would be a defeat for both Ocalan and the PKK.

Fifth: Blaming the US:

 Most Kurds, along with some European and Arab leftist politicians and governments, blame the US for being unfaithful to the Kurds, even though the Kurds have made all the sacrifices to defeat IS and protect their citizens in Europe, the US, and other countries.

Those who hold these views do not ask what agreement existed between the SDF and the United States. Anyone aware of the situation knows that the United States never made any promises to the SDF or to the Kurds of Rojava from the beginning. On one occasion, Trump said, “The Kurds are brave and good fighters. They have helped us destroy IS. We have given them their rights, helped them, and paid them.” Tom Barrack also confirmed this a few days ago, but in a different way, saying, “We no longer need the SDF, and now we have a government that is our ally in the fight against IS.”

The US not only did that, but it also came and divided the Kurds and the Kurdish resistance in Rojava. The US only had a contract with the SDF and worked with them, while rejecting the other two parts of Rojava: the autonomous administration and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) itself. The SDF is the army that protects the autonomous administration, while the PYD is its planner and leader.

The United States has never hidden that it is an ally of the SDF, not of the PYD or the autonomous administration. This policy of the United States, which all three parts of Rojava accepted from the beginning, was aimed against them and was extremely dangerous. It is therefore one of the factors behind what is happening now.

Many of us know that relying on the United States and Western countries is not reliable. They are not only pursuing their own interests, but most of them have no history of liberating any nation or supporting any revolutionary movement. On the contrary, they also have a bloody history.

Unfortunately, we are now seeing the same scenario that occurred in Afghanistan being repeated in Syria. All the sacrifices made in Afghanistan and all the money spent to overthrow the Taliban ended up bringing them back to power, which Trump highlighted during his election campaign as a major weakness of Biden and his administration. The same thing is happening in Syria, but this situation is extremely dangerous. It could lead to genocide, potentially spark an Arab-Kurdish war, and the destructive flames of this conflict could spread to Iraq and a few other countries in the region.

This is the plan and agenda of the United States and some Western countries.

It is time to learn a big lesson, not just in Rojava. We must reject the dirty role of political parties, leadership, sacred leaders, and armed warfare except in self-defence. It is time to organize ourselves outside the control of political parties and dominant leaders and thinkers. It is time to awaken. Let us reject the attractive slogans of “long live… and death to…” and move beyond thinking driven by emotion and feeling. We must think with our minds and learn from history about the bloody role of rulers and authoritarians. That is the only way forward. At the same time, we must stand up against the oppression and genocide of the Kurdish nation in Syria, and against the dark forces that seek to control the urgent course of history under the guise of religion, vanity, chauvinism, and fascism.

………………….

* Rojava is the northeastern part of Syria where the Kurds live.

Zaher Baher

16 January 2026

.

Donald Trump is not the fool that much of the global media and social media portray him to be. While his decisions, behaviour and policies can be hard to predict, he is a businessman and politician who generally follows through on his statements and presents himself consistently.

Unlike many before him, he does not appear to operate with a hidden agenda. His predecessors were less like independent businessmen and more like listeners who followed the interests of major companies. Trump, however, approaches politics as a businessman and is less influenced by corporate voices. In my view, his policies toward this system, and his efforts to preserve it, partly align with the interests of large companies in the United States and abroad. By allowing conflicts and turmoil to spread, attention is diverted away from public concerns and the media becomes occupied, weakening workers’ movements and the struggles of other oppressed groups.

 He understands that organizations like the UN and NATO no longer play the roles they were originally created for, and that their founding purposes have largely faded. He also believes they have become costly commitments for the United States, requiring the country to spend large amounts of money without receiving matching benefits.

Ukraine and Trump’s politics:

When you look at his approach to Ukraine, it is based on a practical view of the situation. Ukraine has been defeated, and a government that has lost a war cannot set terms for the side that has prevailed. For that reason, making peace sooner would bring Ukraine the greatest benefit. Trump also understands that NATO cannot enter the conflict directly, and he sees that many European governments and political parties are weak and often dependent on the electoral support of Islamic communities.

China and Russia:

Trump believes that China is engaged in an ongoing effort to gain global dominance and eventually replace the United States. He also understands that no matter what the United States does, it is unlikely to fully win this coming economic and strategic competition. Still, he knows it can be slowed down, and he aims to delay China’s rise for as long as possible.

Trump has identified several factors that could temporarily slow China’s advancement, reduce the pace of competition or create significant challenges for Beijing. He understands that the United States does not rely on oil now or in the future to the same extent, but he also knows that China depends heavily on oil as a primary source of energy to sustain and expand its economy, which in turn affects the economic balance with the United States.

Russia may not rely on oil and gas in the same way as the United States, but these resources are a major economic tool and a strategic weapon. They allow Russia to fund its wars and keep certain countries dependent on its energy, effectively keeping them under Putin’s influence. These countries desire oil and gas, but at a low cost.

Venezuela:

What Trump did in Venezuela was seize its oil fields so that millions of barrels of oil could be added to the global market each day. Doing this would lower the price of oil, which would hurt Russia by worsening its financial and economic situation. As a result, Russia might raise taxes on its citizens to make up for the losses from selling oil, reduce spending on public services, increase the cost of basic necessities, and cut or reduce aid to people who need help with daily living expenses. Meanwhile, the cost of importing anything into Russia would go up, and consumers would have to pay more. These effects and others would have a serious and damaging impact on the economy and directly affect how the government manages the country.

As for China it will inevitably face challenges from its competition with the United States, as well as from America’s economic influence over the countries where China invests.

What Trump is doing in Venezuela is not what I mentioned that some regional and international media are talking about. Trump knows that Venezuela is not only the heart and lifeline for some neighbouring countries and other states, but also a centre of aid and support for some countries, including Cuba, which receives 95 percent of its energy from Venezuela. Colombia is another example, as well as Caribbean countries like Trinidad and Tobago that have major trade agreements with Venezuela.

In addition, Trump can weaken the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), which now has 11 members, but Venezuela is not one of them. Venezuela applied to join BRICS, but Brazil blocked its membership because all BRICS members must agree for a new country to join, and without that approval Venezuela was left out of the group.

The BRICS leaders at recent summits have confirmed that there is no formal joint BRICS currency yet, and no official release date has been set. Instead, the bloc is focusing on other forms of monetary cooperation. Occasionally, they use digital currencies among themselves for trade and other purposes. If BRICS eventually launches its own currency, it could weaken the dollar, reducing its value and global influence. If events unfold according to Trump’s plan, both the BRICS countries and any future currency they introduce could be weakened, if not rendered completely useless.

Trump, whether we like him or not, or agree with him or not, is, in my view, a smart person who knows what he is doing. He wants the United States to maintain its position, ensure the economy stays at least as strong as it is, and make sure that economic growth benefits large corporations and the super-rich. He wants American companies and the wealthy to remain dominant. In short, he aims to take from the poor and give to the super-rich.

Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia and the United States:

Venezuela has historically been Cuba’s main supplier of oil and fuel under long‑standing bilateral agreements, often in exchange for services such as medical support and technical assistance. Venezuela accounted for about 95 percent of Cuba’s crude oil imports in 2022, and Cuba imported around $161 million worth of goods from Venezuela that year according to United Nations trade data, with crude oil and fuel products being the dominant category.

Trade between Venezuela and Colombia has grown again since 2022. Between January and July 2024, bilateral trade reached about $607 million, an increase of 36.5 percent compared to the same period in 2023. Figures show that from January to June 2025, total trade was approximately $560.7 million, up about 14.1 percent from the same period last year. From January to September 2025, trade volume continued rising, reaching about $863 million, an increase of around 8.3 percent compared to the same period in 2024.

Much of that expansion in trade comes from Colombian exports to Venezuela, including food, consumer goods, chemicals and plastics, which make up the majority of the exchange. Venezuelan exports to Colombia remain much smaller and consist mainly of goods such as iron and steel products, fertilizers, aluminium and some fuels. In short, the total value of trade with Colombia is now in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year, with the balance of trade heavily tilted toward Colombian exports. Two‑way trade is rising as cross‑border economic integration continues to recover after 2022.

Venezuela and the Caribbean

Venezuela has historically played a significant economic and political role in many Caribbean and Latin American countries, especially through concessional energy programs such as PetroCaribe. PetroCaribe was an agreement that allowed Caribbean states to buy Venezuelan oil on favourable terms, including long‑term financing and deferred payments, and it was a major driver of regional trade for more than a decade. The agreement helped many countries secure energy supplies at preferential prices but has largely been held up by Venezuela’s declining oil production and broader economic problems.
In the first seven months of 2024, Venezuelan exports to Aruba and Curaçao were about $6 million.

Trade relations with Trinidad and Tobago have been shaped by both opportunities for trade and energy cooperation, as well as recent diplomatic and logistical challenges. Trinidad and Tobago has sought to develop natural gas partnerships with Venezuela, including joint ventures to tap offshore gas fields, reflecting potential future energy‑related business. For example, the two countries signed a long‑term licence agreement to develop the Dragon gas field, which could supply natural gas across the maritime border and support Trinidad and Tobago’s energy industry.

However, such projects have faced regulatory, political and sanctions related setbacks, including changes in US licences and shifting diplomatic relations that have stalled or complicated development. As a result, overall trade with Trinidad and Tobago remains regionally significant but lower than past levels and has been limited recently

In 2019, Venezuela exported about $8.96 million worth of goods to Guyana, mainly refined petroleum products, while Guyana exported about $73.9 million worth of goods to Venezuela, with rice as its main export.

Trump and Greenland

Trump is not naive enough to believe that China or Russia will invade the island and pose a direct threat to the United States. He is fully aware of this, but he aims to be able to block Chinese and Russian ships in the future, if necessary, partly to create more challenges for Europe and its leaders. He might even seriously consider annexing the island to the United States, but not because of any immediate threat from Russia or China.

He chooses his timing and tactics very cleverly to achieve his goals. Many of us know that Trump wants two things: to challenge Europe and its leaders and to assert U.S. dominance over them. His strategy involved raising tariffs on European imports while framing compromises that still benefited the United States and himself.

The other goal is to focus on Russia and improve relations with it. In this case, he aims to stop the war between Russia and Ukraine and broker an agreement that serves the interests of both Russia and the United States.

He tried hard, but European hardline leaders, especially in Britain and Germany, still insist on agreements that benefit Ukraine and themselves. Trump, in turn, has no choice but to create events or situations that put them in a fragile position, forcing them to agree to his terms. In this scenario, either Trump’s demands are met, or he withdraws from involvement in the Ukraine–Russia conflict. If that happens, Europe will lack the capacity to further support Ukraine and secure its victory. Meanwhile, Russia would gradually occupy more territory in Ukraine. The consequence is that the next agreement between the two sides would be even more difficult, leaving European politicians with no option but to accept what they would see as an insult and humiliation.

The question is whether this will work for Trump and if he can stop China and its rise to hegemony. Only the future will tell.

Whatever the outcome whether the United States remains dominant or China or another country takes its place there will be no fundamental change in the lives of workers and oppressed people worldwide, and the wage labor system will continue. There is no good capitalism or bad capitalism, just as there is no inherently good or bad state. Capitalism is a global system, and the state is its strongest pillar. To challenge it, we must collectively act locally, think globally, and offer solidarity to those resisting the system wherever possible. This requires organizing ourselves everywhere in horizontal organizations and groups. These are the means to build a classless and non-hierarchical society that is, to create a socialist/ anarchist society.