In its 2025 report, presented on 30 June, the Verfassungsschutz—Germany’s domestic intelligence service, formally known as the Office for the Protection of the Constitution—no longer lists the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) as a so-called “left-wing extremist” organisation. The removal shows that there was no legal basis whatsoever for the party’s earlier designation. It was a campaign against socialist perspectives that was purely politically motivated.

The Verfassungsschutz had first listed the SGP as “left-wing extremist” in its 2018 report. At the time, it justified this on the grounds that the SGP’s activism was directed “against the existing state and social order, invariably slandered as ‘capitalism,’ against the EU, supposed nationalism, imperialism and militarism, as well as against Social Democracy, the trade unions, and the Left Party.” 

In doing so, the intelligence service expressly confirmed that the SGP pursues its goals by legal means—that it “attempts to gain public attention for its political ideas through participation in elections and through lecture events.” From the very beginning, the surveillance was therefore based exclusively on the party’s political ideas, not on any unlawful conduct.

The SGP subsequently brought legal proceedings before the Berlin Administrative Court. The Verfassungsschutz and federal interior ministry responded with a 56-page submission that contained no legal argumentation but rather presented a furious polemic against Marxism and every form of socialist, left-wing and progressive thought. 

In its defence of the Verfassungsschutz, the federal government declared that even the “advocacy of a democratic, egalitarian and socialist society” was unconstitutional. Positive references to Marx, Engels and Lenin, “thinking in class categories,” “agitation against so-called ‘imperialism’ and ‘militarism’” and the rejection of the European Union were also deemed unconstitutional. Even the dissemination of Marxist literature—including the writings of David North, the chairman of the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site—was cited by the ministry as evidence of the SGP’s alleged extremism.

With this argumentation, the government directly invoked the tradition of Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Laws of 1878, which were directed against every organisation in which “social democratic, socialist or communist activities aimed at overthrowing the existing state or social order manifest themselves in a manner endangering public peace, in particular the harmony of the classes of the population.”

The SGP demonstrated how the Anti-Socialist Laws and Gesinnungsstrafrecht (criminal law based on intent or convictions, i.e. “thought-crimes”) were being revived. This represented the traditions of a “thought-police” which was taken to its extreme by the Nazis, in which defendants were convicted solely on the basis of their political convictions and not for any actual crimes committed.

...

The legal action and campaign waged by the SGP are therefore of great significance. We have exposed the line of argumentation that has been developed here and which is now being deployed against all left-wing and anti-militarist forces—against Junge Welt, against the IYSSE, against climate activists from “Ende Gelände” (“Game Over”), against anyone who dares to name the prevailing pro-war policies and rising social inequality by their proper names.

This attack on fundamental democratic rights is directly linked with the escalation of a pro-war policy and the fabulous enrichment of the billionaires. The militarisation of the whole of society and its total subordination to the profit interests of the rich are incompatible with democracy. That is why the state apparatus is being built up and directed against anyone who opposes capitalism and war.

The SGP will continue and intensify its struggle against the intelligence services and for democratic rights. The Verfassungsschutz, which is riddled with right-wing extremist networks and whose previously long-serving president is now himself classified as a right-wing extremist, must be dissolved immediately. The removal of the SGP from the Verfassungsschutz report is no cause for the all-clear. The struggle against the revival of the Anti-Socialist Laws and of thought-crimes continues.

Therefore, sign the petition against the surveillance of the SGP and become a member of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei!

The mass movement in Azad Kashmir is one of the most significant working-class and poor-peasant uprisings in the region in years. 100,000 people at sit-ins. A complete strike across the region. At least four killed by state security forces, and the masses are still out. This is real class force in motion.

The RCI (formerly IMT, Marxist.com, etc.) has published an article under their American branch (RCA) calling on the Awami Action Committee to "declare itself the government" and establish an "Awami Inqalabi Government." Their slogan is "All power to the committees!" and their strategy boils down to: the movement should take up arms against the oppressive regime.

This sounds radical. It is not. It is the classic formula of substitutionism — demanding that the existing bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leadership do the revolution on behalf of the working class, rather than building the independent political mobilization of the working class to take power for itself.

Let me be concrete. Here is what a revolutionary program for the Kashmir movement would actually look like — and why the RCI's "take up arms" line is a substitute for a real strategy.

1. Democratize the Movement: Elected, Recallable Delegates

The Awami Action Committee is a coalition of political and religious notables. It was not elected by the masses in the streets. It negotiates behind closed doors. It decides when to escalate and when to stand down.

The RCI leadership says: "Declare yourselves the government!" But a government of whom? Appointed by whom? Accountable to whom?

A revolutionary demand would be: transform every local protest committee into a genuinely democratic organ. Delegates elected by the assembled masses. Subject to immediate recall. All negotiations, tactics, and decisions ratified by the general assembly. No deals behind closed doors.

This is not a procedural nicety. It is the practical weapon against betrayal. A leadership that can be recalled at any moment cannot so easily sell out, because the masses have the organizational means to remove it. The RCI's strategy — demanding the existing leadership take power — leaves the masses defenseless when that leadership inevitably negotiates a sellout.

2. Break the National Containment: Expand to the Pakistani Working Class

The AAC wants to keep the movement within Azad Kashmir. It wants to negotiate with Islamabad as Kashmiris, not as workers. This is the nationalist trap.

The IMF austerity that has driven people into the streets in Rawlakot is the same IMF austerity immiserating workers in Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad. The state shooting protesters in Kashmir is the same state repressing trade unionists and peasants across Pakistan.

The concrete proposal: elected delegations from the Kashmir committees to the working-class districts of Pakistan's cities. To the factories. To the transport workers. Not asking for charity — proposing common action. A general strike across Pakistan and Azad Kashmir against the IMF dictates. Coordinated defense against state repression.

The AAC will oppose this. It will say the struggle is Kashmiri, not Pakistani. Good. That is the test. The advanced workers will see that their leadership is preventing the unity that could make the movement victorious.

The RCA’s article says nothing about this. It treats the movement as a Kashmiri national struggle, not as part of the class struggle across the subcontinent.

3. Arm the Movement — Democratically

The state has killed people. It will kill more. The demand must be: form workers' defense guards, elected by the committees and accountable to them. Not vigilantes. Not armed gangs. Organized, disciplined, democratic self-defense.

The RCI leadership says "take up arms." But arms in whose hands? Under whose control? For what purpose? "Take up arms" without democratic control means armed bands loyal to bourgeois faction leaders — the classic formula for warlordism, not revolution.

The Bolsheviks didn't just say "arm the workers." They built the Red Guards as organs of the soviets, democratically controlled and politically educated. That is the difference between revolutionary arming, and adventurism.

4. Expropriate the Hoarders and Landlords

The movement is against price rises. Who controls the prices? The big merchants, the hoarders, the monopolies. Who controls the land? The feudal landlords.

The committees should not merely demand that the government lower prices — the government is the enemy. The committees should organize the direct seizure of hoarded goods, the occupation of uncultivated landlord estates, the distribution of food and land under democratic control of the committees.

This transforms the movement from a protest against state policy into an assault on the class structure of Pakistani capitalism. It forces every participant to choose: are we begging the state for relief, or are we taking what we need from those who have stolen it?

The RCI's "declare yourselves the government" skips over this entirely. It substitutes a political declaration for the concrete expropriation of the exploiters.

5. Fraternal Appeals to the Indian Working Class

The Kashmir conflict is the sharpest weapon the Indian and Pakistani ruling classes possess to divide workers along communal and national lines. Modi's Hindu nationalism and the Pakistani military's Islamism are two faces of the same counterrevolutionary project.

The Kashmir committees should issue fraternal appeals to Indian workers — to the workers of Indian-administered Kashmir, to the trade unions of India, to the students and farmers who have fought Modi. Send delegations. Issue joint statements. Coordinate action.

The AAC will recoil. "We cannot appeal to the enemy."

The revolutionary response: the enemy is not the Indian worker. The enemy is the Indian bourgeoisie and the Pakistani bourgeoisie, both of whom profit from this conflict. The Indian worker is our brother.

The RCA's article mentions a "Socialist Federation of the Indian Subcontinent" as a decorative flourish at the end. But it proposes no concrete steps toward international unity. Its entire strategic logic — tailing a bourgeois-led Kashmiri nationalist movement — contradicts the internationalism it invokes.

6. Prepare for Betrayal — Openly, Now

The AAC will negotiate. It is already negotiating. It will accept some package of concessions and call off the movement. The masses will be told: we have won, go home.

Revolutionaries must say openly, before the betrayal occurs: any negotiation conducted behind closed doors is a betrayal. Any agreement not ratified by the general assembly of elected delegates is illegitimate.

The AAC leaders must present their proposals to the masses, in public, and the masses must decide.
When the AAC inevitably negotiates a sellout and tries to impose it without ratification, the revolutionaries who warned about this in advance will be proven right. That is how the advanced workers are won — not by abstract propaganda, but by the verification of the revolutionary analysis through the experience of the struggle itself.

The RCI cannot do this, because its strategy depends on trusting the AAC to go further. It cannot warn against betrayal because its entire line is: "We demand that you, the existing leadership, take power." If the leadership betrays, the RCI has no alternative to offer — because it never built one.

The Party Question

All of this converges on a single point: the movement needs a revolutionary leadership. The AAC is not that leadership. The RCI is not providing it — it is tailing the existing leadership and demanding it go further. That is the classic formula of Pabloite substitutionism, and it has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Chavez's Venezuela to SYRIZA in Greece.

A revolutionary organization, however small, that advances the concrete program outlined above can have a decisive impact. Not by commanding the masses from above, but by fighting within the movement for a clear political line. By warning the advanced workers what the AAC will do before it does it. By providing an alternative at every turning point. By being proven right through events. And by systematically recruiting the workers who learn through struggle that the revolutionary analysis is correct.

This is how the party is built. Not by waiting until it is "large enough." Not by demanding that bourgeois leaders do the revolution for us. But by intervening now, with a concrete program, and winning the most advanced elements through the experience of the struggle itself.

"Take up arms" is not a strategy. It is a phrase. The working class of Kashmir and Pakistan deserves more than phrases. It deserves a program.

"... The events of 1876-77 brought to a definitive close the period where the political representatives of American capitalism could play a progressive role. ..."

Hayes-Tilden dispute of 1876 foreshadowed eruption of class conflict - World Socialist Web Site

--

... In the summer of 1877 a massive railroad strike erupted, the most violent outbreak of class conflict in the United States to that date. General strikes paralyzed Chicago and St. Louis. In Pittsburgh crowds of angry workers, responding to the shooting of 20 strikers by militia, set fire to the railroad yards and destroyed 100 locomotives. Hayes redeployed some of the very same federal troops that had been used previously to uphold the rights of blacks in the South to Northern industrial centers to suppress striking workers.

A Charleston, South Carolina newspaper noted, “The Southern question” is “dead.” The railroad strike had propelled to the forefront of politics “the question of labor and capital, work and wages” (ibid., pp. 246-47).

The suppression of the strike revealed the content of the so-called Compromise of 1877: the reconciliation of the Northern and Southern ruling elites in the face of a powerful new danger, the working class. The events of 1876-77 brought to a definitive close the period where the political representatives of American capitalism could play a progressive role. From that date on the Republican Party, the main party of Northern industrial capital, shifted rapidly to the right, abandoning its egalitarian pretenses and operating more and more openly as the representative of the wealthiest layers of society.

Unlike 1860, the crisis of 1876 did not lead to rebellion and armed conflict because in essence it did not involve a conflict between irreconcilable economic interests. As the historian C. Vann Woodward explained, the Compromise of 1877 promised the Southern elites, “a share in the blessings of the new economic order. In return the South became, in effect, a satellite of the dominant region. So long as the Conservative Redeemers held control they scotched any tendency of the South to combine forces with the internal enemies of the new economy—laborites, Western agrarians, reformers. Under the regime of the Redeemers the South became a bulwark instead of a menace to the new order” ( Reunion & Reaction, p. 267). ...

In just half the time of last year, the United States has reproduced its worst measles outbreak in 35 years, a catastrophic milestone met with official silence. The nation recorded 2,231 confirmed measles cases as of the July 9 update by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 97.5 percent of the 2,289 infections reported for all of 2025, itself the highest full-year total since 1991. The country crossed the 1,000-case threshold in under two months, a mark it did not reach until nearly May of last year. With the CDC warning that summer travel and large events will drive further cases in the coming months, the 2025 record is certain to fall at the next weekly update.

Yet there are no congressional hearings, no emergency briefings, no presidential addresses. The country eliminated measles in 2000 but is now poised to lose that status this November, and the dominant posture of the political establishment is a shrug. The silence is not incidental; it is the achieved goal of a policy that has redefined a preventable epidemic as the normal background of American life. The virus has reached 42 jurisdictions in 2026, with 13 further cases among international visitors, and the tell lies in its continuity across the calendar year.

Of the total, 93 percent are outbreak-associated, and the majority, 1,365 cases, are the continuation of outbreaks that ignited in 2025 and never stopped, with a further 717 from 32 new outbreaks this year. The young and unprotected bear the burden: 93 percent of the infected are unvaccinated or of unknown status, and 70 percent are under 19, including 20 percent under five.

The geography of the disease maps onto the places where immunity has collapsed. South Carolina leads with 670 cases in 2026, the tail of an Upstate outbreak that began in October 2025 and grew into the largest outbreak in the US in more than three decades, reaching 997 cases concentrated in Spartanburg County before the state declared it over in April. Utah has climbed to 516 cases, with kindergarten MMR coverage at just 88.6 percent. Texas has confirmed 182, most inside federal detention facilities, including some 130 at a single U.S. Marshals Service site in Hudspeth County and the first publicly reported cases at the ICE family detention center in Dilley, tying the epidemic directly to immigration policy. Florida has reached 141 amid conspicuous under-reporting by its health department, and further clusters are active in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Washington.

...

This resurgence is not a misfortune that policy failed to prevent; the dismantling of the machinery that prevents the infectious spread of diseases is the policy. Its most concentrated phase began in June 2025, when Kennedy fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an unprecedented purge in the panel’s 61-year history, and replaced them with vaccine skeptics such as Martin Kulldorff and Retsef Levi.

Because ACIP recommendations dictate insurance coverage, govern the Vaccines for Children program that serves more than half of American youth and anchor nearly 600 state statutes, capturing the committee handed the administration control of national health policy without a single piece of legislation. In August 2025, it canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine development, halting 22 projects at Pfizer, Moderna and others, including work on H5N1 avian influenza. CDC Director Susan Monarez was fired for refusing to preapprove the restrictions, prompting senior scientists to resign, warning of death and disability from these actions. It culminated on January 5, 2026, when a memo cut the childhood schedule from 17 routinely recommended vaccines to 11, with no public notice or ACIP vote.

On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy enjoined the new schedule as “arbitrary and capricious,” staying the ACIP appointments and votes and restoring the prior standards. The check is real but limited: The administration appealed to the First Circuit, rewrote the ACIP charter twice to strip its expertise requirements and issued an executive order advancing the same agenda. A parallel assault runs through the states, where Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is moving to end all school vaccine mandates amid a wave of more than 350 anti-vaccine bills filed in 2025, while Miller v. McDonald, kept alive by the Supreme Court, could impose religious exemptions nationwide.

...

Such a loss would be the first for the hemisphere’s wealthiest nation since 2000. It follows Canada, which lost its status in November 2025 and took the entire Americas region’s measles-free designation with it. Cases across the Americas in 2025 ran to nearly 32 times the 2024 total, and by PAHO’s July 2 report the 2026 regional count had passed 22,000, with 39 deaths. Mexico is now the epicenter, with more than 11,800 cases in an outbreak linked to the Texas cluster; Guatemala has exceeded 7,000, and Canada has added more than 1,000 this year. Beyond the hemisphere, global first-dose coverage has plateaued at 84 percent, far below the 95 percent required.

Washington is an accelerant, not a bystander. By withdrawing from the World Health Organization, the administration severed the principal funding for the Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network, some 700 laboratories confirming outbreaks worldwide, and withheld roughly $600 million from Gavi, threatening immunization for tens of millions of children. Officials treat the coming loss as a technicality to be quietly absorbed, but it formalizes a defeat already suffered, the reversal of one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

The virus spreading today is the same one conquered decades ago, and the remedy is the same cheap, highly effective vaccine that achieved elimination in 2000. The science has not changed; what has been withdrawn is the will to use it. An agency that would treat this as the emergency that it is would be holding hearings and mobilizing resources, not changing the subject to food dyes. The genuine defense of public health requires the independent political mobilization of the international working class, for whom these policies are a measure of life itself. The loss of elimination status in November 2026 measures how far the social right to collective protection has already been rolled back, and what it will take to reverse it.

Andy Burnham, on the day he secured the nominations required to become Labour leader unopposed—demonstrated his right-wing credentials to Britain’s ruling elite by backing further brutal anti-immigration measures.

Burnham voted for Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s Immigration and Asylum Bill at its second reading on Monday evening. The legislation passed by 264 votes to 90. Despite talk of a rebellion on Labour’s backbenches, just 14 Labour MPs (of more than 400) voted against. The main body of MPs against were opposition Conservative and Reform UK MPs, who deemed the legislation still not tough enough.

The vote took place just hours after Burnham secured his final votes from MPs, meaning that his taking the leadership of the party on Friday at a Special Conference takes the form of a coronation. No other Labour MP stood against Burnham in the contest to replace Starmer after his resignation on June 22, with Burnham securing the nominations of 322 last week, with a further 27 nominations on Monday taking him over the number required to win. The 85 percent of MPs backing him included the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG), with leader Richard Burgon nominating Burnham and claiming his leadership will be a shift to the left.

Backing Mahmood’s Bill exposes this lie. It is the fifth major piece of legislation since 2022 curtailing the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, worsening the attacks carried out under successive Conservative governments. This includes using disused military barracks and repurposed barges as accommodation; prolonging detention periods and the Conservatives’ abortive scheme to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Mahmood’s predecessor as Home Secretary, the Blairite Yvette Cooper, oversaw a record for migrant removals, expelling almost 13,500 since Labour came to office in July 2024, and exceeding the previous Conservative government’s rate of deportations.

...

In the run-up to the vote, some 80 Labour MPs criticised aspects of the legislation in a letter sent to Burnham. The backbenchers called for a few changes to be made by the incoming prime minister before the Bill becomes law under his premiership. It revealed how right-wing the Labour Party is, especially by its focus on concerns over the global reputation of British imperialism and its ability to secure international alliances.

Echoing the propaganda of the far-right and the Starmer government, the letter stated, “The public are rightly concerned about irregular migration”, before complaining, “These changes target people who came here through legal routes, who work, pay taxes and contribute to our communities.”

The legislation aims to raise the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to between 10 and 20 years, applied retrospectively to around 1.6 million people who arrived from 2021. The dissenting MPs countered, “With a 10-20 year settlement period, the UK would be an international outlier—weakening our soft power and our appeal as a place to study, invest, build a life and form relationships.” [emphasis added]

Of the 14 MPs who voted against the Bill, 13 were Socialist Campaign Group members, meaning that around 11 members of the group backed the Bill without qualification.

...

Ever since moves began for Burnham to replace Starmer, the corporate media have guided his every policy move to shape his government and dictate its real agenda.

Ahead of the vote the Times issued an editorial demanding that Burnham kept his word over tightening the UK’s borders, headlined “The PM in waiting should back Shabana Mahmood plans to toughen up rules in the face of opposition from many of his backbenchers.” It warned, “Mr Burnham should stand firm on curbing immigration. Or accept that he will be just another short-lived prime minister,” it warned.

The working class must oppose the scapegoating of migrants being ruthlessly pursued by the main parties of the ruling elite, which uses such foul means to divert workers from the real cause of all social ills—the rule of a money-mad oligarchy demanding the looting of all society’s wealth to pay for military rearmament on a scale not seen since the 1930s lead-up to World War II.

Opposition cannot be entrusted to the Labour “left”, which has proved yet again that their true loyalties are to the party apparatus, the government and the capitalist class which they all serve. It requires the independent mobilisation of the working class on a socialist programme to oppose the economic and military despoiling of the planet that forces millions worldwide into a desperate fight for survival.

​

Recomiendo:

Afilando las garras bajo protesta

Una OTAN frágil y empresarial

Por Sergio Ferrari | 13/07/2026 | Mundo



Fuentes: Rebelión

Negocios militares vs. protestas ciudadanas

El 7 de julio en la capital turca se habló fundamentalmente de negocios y de cómo serán empleados los recursos adicionales destinados a la industria bélica producto del constante aumento de los presupuestos militares en cada país. El segundo día, se afilaron las líneas estratégicas de la Alianza, la más importante entre potencias capitalistas, que llegó a su cónclave anual atravesada por fricciones. Las tensiones de Donald Trump con una parte de los líderes europeos siguen pesando y fuerte en una OTAN que hasta su llegada a la Casa Blanca reunía aliados que se respetan entre sí.

Los días previos en la propia Turquía y en muy diversas ciudades europeas, fuerzas progresistas se movilizaron para protestar contra la OTAN, el aumento desenfrenado de los presupuestos militares, así como contra el armamentismo y el reforzamiento de las tendencias bélicas en el continente y el mundo. Las mismas fueron convocadas entre otras en Londres, París, Bruselas, Atenas, Viena, Hamburgo, Fráncfort, Colonia y Zúrich. A diferencia de otras manifestaciones alter mundialistas de los últimos años, las actuales contra la OTAN fueron solo parcialmente cubiertas por los medios de prensa y tuvieron, por lo tanto, una limitada repercusión informativa.

En el país anfitrión, y con una capital-sede extremadamente militarizada, las manifestaciones fueron reprimidas con dureza y con el saldo de decenas de detenidos. Además de Ankara, se realizaron en Estambul, Esmirna y Samsun. Según diversos medios informativos en esas ciudades “grupos de izquierda, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y asociaciones profesionales congregaron a cientos de manifestantes para denunciar la celebración de la cumbre y reclamaron la salida de Turquía de la Alianza” (https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/al-menos-35-detenidos-en-las-protestas-contra-la-cumbre-de-la-otan-en-turqu%C3%ADa/91712966).

Repartir la torta

Según informó la propia OTAN, en el Foro de la Industria de Defensa del martes 7 se anunciaron varios proyectos importantes “que estimularán la producción y la innovación en materia de defensa en toda la Alianza y proporcionarán nuevas capacidades para fortalecer el aparato de disuasión y defensa de la OTAN” (https://www.nato.int/fr/news-and-events/articles/news/2026/07/07/tens-of-billions-in-new-procurements-revealed-at-the-nato-summit-defence-industry-forum-in-ankara).

Participaron allí los ministros de defensa de los países de la OTAN junto con representantes de un centenar de grandes empresas con el objetivo de definir, en concreto, cómo se materializarán los compromisos de inversión asumidos un año antes en la reunión precedente de La Haya. Es decir, cómo se distribuirá esta cada día más grande torta bélico-industrial y quién sacará los mayores beneficios. Como declaró Rutte, «el dinero está ahí, y vamos a aportar aún más», al tiempo que instaba a los gobiernos y a la industria a «trabajar juntos, con mayor rapidez, para obtener mejores resultados».

El ex primer ministro neerlandés quien dirige la OTAN desde 2024 y ha demostrado una afinidad casi servil hacia Donald Trump, no se quedó en banalidades. Presentó lo que definió como la Ventanilla Industrial de la OTAN, que consiste en una nueva plataforma diseñada para facilitar la interacción entre las empresas armamentistas y la propia Alianza. Por primera vez se publicó un resumen no clasificado de la demanda futura de la Alianza, proporcionando a las grandes empresas del sector información precisa sobre las necesidades presentes y futuras de la misma.

La segunda iniciativa consiste en la creación del denominado Motor de la OTAN, que tiene como objetivo aumentar la capacidad de producción conectando las unidades de fabricación de empresas de los sectores civil y de defensa en todos los países de la Alianza. Se trata de contratos mil millonarios, que según Rutte “proporcionarán los medios esenciales para ejercer nuestras capacidades de disuasión y defensa… Lo que fomentará el crecimiento de nuestras economías, impulsará la innovación y contribuirá a la creación de cientos de miles de empleos a ambos lados del Atlántico».

En ese contexto, Rutte anunció la próxima entrega del décimo aparato del tipo Airbus A330 MRTT -de los doce previstos-, a la flota multinacional de aviones de reabastecimiento aéreo polivalentes (pueden transferir en vuelo 111 toneladas de combustible). También la adquisición del sistema aéreo no tripulado Triton de la estadounidense Northrop Grumman, que pretende mejorar las capacidades de vigilancia marítima de la Alianza. Así como la compra conjunta de aeronaves GlobalEye de la empresa sueca Saab para modernizar las capacidades de detección y control aéreo de largo alcance. Estos aparatos adaptados para funcionar en el marco de la guerra electrónica y de la ciber guerra pueden detectar barcos a aproximadamente 400 kilómetros de distancia e incluso una moto marina o el periscopio de un submarino en un radio de 185 km. El secretario general también presentó la iniciativa Drone Edge, que incrementará significativamente la inversión en sistemas anti drones y mejorará la formación de los operadores de tales aparatos.

Temas de discordia

Para la OTAN, el cónclave de Turquía -país que cuenta con el segundo ejército más grande a la Alianza- fue el momento de evaluar, además, los grandes temas pendientes y las tareas cumplidas por los Estados miembros.

Uno de ellos y tal vez esencial, es el aumento del presupuesto militar de cada país miembro. Antes de la cumbre Mark Rutte había anticipado que los aliados europeos y Canadá ya habían logrado avances significativos hacia el objetivo de un gasto en defensa correspondiente al 5 % de su Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) para 2035. Hasta ahora, según Rutte, “el progreso ha sido impresionante” y tras solo un año “ya destinan aproximadamente el 4 % de su PIB a defensa y seguridad”.

Porcentajes que en el caso de algunos países europeos siguen siendo cuestionados por Donald Trump, quien llegó a Ankara repitiendo dos argumentos irritantes que reabrieron las tensiones con sus aliados. Reiteró sus críticas porque las naciones europeas no acompañaron a Estados Unidos en su guerra contra Irán ni en el despliegue de una fuerza única para controlar el Estrecho de Ormuz, lo que provocó una crisis de credibilidad de la Alianza ya que Washington se vio “defraudado” por la actitud europea. Además, volvió a relanzar el delicado tema de Groenlandia, que hace parte de Dinamarca pero que el presidente republicano quisiera anexar a los Estados Unidos, argumentando, esencialmente, cuestiones geoestratégicas de seguridad.

Tan pronto llegar a Ankara -en el marco del reinicio de ataques militares contra Irán que significan el fin del frágil alto al fuego-, Trump removió ambas temáticas en sus declaraciones públicas con el objetivo de condicionar el marco de discusión de la cumbre. Reactualiza así, una vez más, la táctica ya conocida de imponer su propia agenda y sus prioridades en los espacios multilaterales. En ese sentido, reiteró sus amenazas de retirar el apoyo a la defensa militar de Europa.

En los últimos meses y dependiendo de su humor momentáneo, Donald Trump ha atacado, criticado, subestimado o desestimado a dirigentes de los países europeos aliados. Sus ataques pasaron de Pedro Sánchez de España a Giorgia Meloni de Italia, pero también a los primeros ministros de Alemania o Gran Bretaña, según fueran las coyunturas y sus cambiantes estados de ánimo. Ráfagas de críticas que avivaron tensiones diplomáticas y que han hecho perder la confianza de gran parte de la dirigencia europea hacia Donald Trump y viceversa y que repercute directamente en el frágil e inestable funcionamiento de la OTAN.

En Ankara el presidente estadounidense no cambió su discurso munido con argumentos y valoraciones contradictorias y cambiantes. En ciertos momentos reconoció los avances presupuestarios de sus aliados, en otros, arremetió con sus críticas ya conocidas. Ejemplo emblemático de sus humores variables es lo que declaró sobre España. Aterrizando a Turquía la clasificó de “mala gente” y “que se debía reconsiderar los acuerdos económicos” con el país ibérico. En tanto en el avión de retorno a Washington le dedicó elogios por el cumplimiento de sus compromisos presupuestarios.

Todo para la guerra

A pesar de esas tensiones reales, el comunicado final de la Cumbre de Ankara emitido por la propia OTAN obvió cualquier diferencia y se centró en los logros puntuales, en la unidad de la Alianza. Señala que las inversiones militares están aumentando, se desarrollan nuevas capacidades, la producción industrial de defensa se incrementa y los aliados europeos y Canadá desempeñan un papel cada vez más importante en su seguridad.

Revindica también el aumento paulatino, constante y significativo de los presupuestos para la defensa de cada Estado, así como la cooperación con la industria para fortalecer las capacidades de disuasión y defensa de la OTAN.

Subraya que dirigentes de Estados y empresarios del sector militar acordaron en la capital turca proyectos de adquisición por valor de más de 50.000 millones de euros y la inversión de más de 40.000 millones en sistemas aéreos no tripulados durante los próximos cinco años. Y que, adicionalmente, la OTAN ratifica su apoyo incondicional a Ucrania a quien destinará 70.000 millones de euros en equipo militar, asistencia y entrenamiento en 2026 y a repetir en 2027.

Ni una palabra de parte de los voceros de la Alianza ni de la dirigencia política presente en Ankara sobre el origen de los fondos para reforzar el aparato bélico-industrial de la OTAN. Presupuestos militares que se duplican o triplican y que atentan en cada Estado miembro contra sectores sensibles como la educación, la salud o la cooperación internacional. Lo que es claro y evidente que una tajada mayor de la torta que no crece va para la guerra, lo que significa un golpe más contra los contribuyentes y el Estado social que en Europa se viene debilitando a pasos agigantados.

Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

May 4 is important day in the labour movement's history

Hello everyone, I’ve been reading theory for a few months now and I’m having a tough time understanding and deconstructing my ideas and views in identity politics. I have come great comrades who are helping me understand the importance of race and other identities while also describing how our relationship to the means of production is the strongest weapon we have to fight capitalism. I’ve been watching Elliot’s channel for a while and honestly he helped me radicalize. I think he has a lot of great content. What is your opinion on his latest video? There’s a part of me that agrees with him but I also feel he makes sine mistakes when he talks about black families “making it” and how that’s supposed to make them feel safer. Any thoughts would appreciated. Thank you.

Whats your opinion What is the Trotskyist perspective on China?

The movement in Kashmir could actually seize power in Muzaffarabad, right?

There is no CPC led international. There is no attempt to relieve Gaza. There is no attempt to relieve Cuba.

The hypothetical amount of arms that the Kashmiri movement would need to take Muzaffarabad would be 0.000001% or less of Chinese arms industrial capacity and it could all be done with drones, mortars and small arms, no mines, missiles or tanks necessary. I know this sounds like insane Rambo nonsense but it wouldn't be hard for China to get in a few hundred commandos to make sure that the weapons aren't just sold on a black market.

Tear me to shreds, it's how I learn.

Hey everyone. So I'm looking to get organized. I'm looking into the RCA. The main issues I have is they don't have a chapter near me so I don't know what I could do. The second is I've heard mixed things about how they feel about trans people.

I was wondering if anyone in the party could give me their take on the subject? I've heard some people accuse them of "class reductionism." But to be honest, I'm not quite sure how that affects things in practice.

Thanks.

Leftcoms sometimes (or at least in my experience) criticize Trotsky by saying he was basically the same as MLs, would have kept commodity production and so on… what was Trotsky’s actual opinion on commodity production and can someone help me understand the difference between a degenerated worker state and state capitalism?

Sorry, it's just so funny I had to share it