Analysis based on fantasies versus based on realities, at a time when wars are being expanded and unified.
We are living at a crucial point in history where the US-West is losing wars on two big fronts: Ukraine and Iran. The US, due to its depleted military arsenal and lack of capability to replenish it promptly, is resorting to expanding the wars to other regions and countries in different forms: 1) to distract attention from its defeats and 2) to shift the burden of actual fighting to other countries. Neither Ukraine's attack on an Iranian vessel in the Caucasus Sea nor the Saudi attack on the Yemeni's plane carrying officials returning from Iran are coincidental events. Contrary to the narrative that the attack on an Iranian vessel is an act of Zelensky of Ukraine courting Trump, it is an indirect decision and action of the US, since without US intelligence Ukraine could not have carried out such a strike. Similar provocations and false flag attacks, alongside economic and political games (in Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Philippines, Cambodia, and other regions and countries, the US is trying to expand and merge wars worldwide. Listening to Zelensky and some of the US officials, the possibility of an attack on North Korea or on its assets becomes likely. Another war to drag South Korea and Japan into.
In this brief article, I will
take up fundamental preconceived, manipulated perspectives in order to counter
fantasies and wishful thinking with concrete realities, with quotes from the
related articles and links to them.
To analyze a given phenomenon at a given time has to be based on the concrete realities of the given situation. The analysis based on fantasies, delusions, and outdated perceptions divorced from concrete realities will always end up in wrong conclusions. Currently, most analysis is done about events (wars, the economy, etc.), either totally based on fallacies or subjective wishful thinking deriving from the perspective that nothing has changed in the world. Then, what should we look for to determine if the analysis is objective or subjective, fantasy-based or reality-based?
1-First of all, we have to
recognize the fact that our world is not static; it constantly changes:
industries, economic and military powers, strategic alliances. Our world, in
this sense, is not the same as it was before 2022. As we have noted in 2022, the world is in a
transition period from a unipolar world order to a multipolar world. (1)
Since then, this transition has
accelerated; now we have a multipolar world order: the US-West on one side,
Russia, China, North Korea, and now Iran on the other, affecting, shattering,
and redrawing the entire geo-strategic alignment worldwide.
2- Secondly, as Engels
pointed out more than a century ago, and Stalin reiterated with examples from
the Second World War, the economy and industrial capacity (as a producer) are
the defining factors in waging protracted wars and emerging from them as the
"winner". Although I have explained in numerous articles, if we
summarize it, a country that has focused on military industry will inevitably
follow the path of de-industrialization.
“”when Italy
and Germany have already placed their national economy on a
war footing, squandering their reserves of raw material and foreign
currency for this purpose; and when all the other big capitalist
powers are beginning to reorganize themselves on a
war footing.
…as distinct
from the preceding crisis, the present crisis is not a general one,
but as yet involves chiefly the economically powerful countries which have
not yet placed themselves on a war economy basis. As regards the aggressive
countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, who
have already reorganized their economy on a war footing, they,
because of the intense development of their war industry, are
not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction, although they are approaching
it. This means that by the time the economically powerful,
non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis the
aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material
in the course of the war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe
crisis.”” (2)
We are witnessing live how the
US built its economy on war footing
de-industrialized the country and has become a “consumer” country depleting its
military arsenal and cannot wage a protracted war, or any other war after Iran
war due to its de-industrialization of economy on which the military industry
relies on for not only raw materials but related industries, technology,
expert, skill employees and required material to replenish its military
arsenal.
Here comes the fantasy-based
wishful thinking, disregarding the fact of the depleting military defensive and
offensive arsenal of the US. I will not
go into details regarding this fact; one has to listen to the analysis of US
military experts and official confessions of the US. The fact reiterated by most objective analysts
is that even if the US has the side industries to produce and replenish its
military arsenal, it will take years to produce and to bring it to the previous
level of the arsenal. The problem that most analysts either disregard or
consciously hide is that the required material to produce the weapons and
ammunition at the level of our technological era requires rare-earth minerals,
the production and refining of which are under the monopoly of China. One can easily
acquire this knowledge and confirm by searching for the subject. Assuming that China will supply the US with
refined rare-earth minerals for the US
to produce military products to use against China would be considered as
fantasy. (3)
Considering the next subject: the
shortage of jet fuel and diesel and its heavy use in military means and
methods, the depletion of military stocks may be a secondary problem the
US-West would be facing; no planes can fly, no tanks and military personnel can
move, no missile launchers can work, no UAVs and their control centers can
function. A total paralysis of military function regardless of having a
military stock or not.
3- Thirdly, as the
application of dialectics to the fact that “the world is not static” is a
necessity, the application of dialectics that “nothing is by itself but
interconnected with each other “ is another fundamental rule in analysis. Let's give an example of oil in a way that
can be applied dialectically to most
countries.
Trump and its administration
claim that the US does not need oil, as it produces all its needs. The
facts tell otherwise;
Approximately 80% of U.S. crude
oil production is light sweet crude oil. It produces a massive surplus of light
sweet crude oil but relies heavily on foreign heavy crude oil due to a
structural mismatch in domestic refinery configurations. Sweet crude oil yields
high volumes of consumer gasoline; heavy crude is indispensable for heavy-duty
industrial supply chains such as high-density jet fuel used by commercial
airlines (in addition to the military). A shortage of heavy crude restricts jet
fuel yields, directly driving up airline operating costs. That is for air
transport. For land transportation,
heavy crude oil is required for distillate fuel oil (diesel). This fuel powers
nearly all commercial freight trains, long-haul semi-trucks, delivery fleets,
and diesel-powered tractors for farming. So, the shortage of heavy crude oil,
or better to say diesel, will inevitably increase the cost of transporting
every commodity, including the agricultural commodities to processing plants
and grocery stores, resulting in food price inflation. There are so many
dialectically connected industries that will be affected by the shortage of
heavy crude oil. The U.S. imports approximately 4.0 to 4.5 million barrels
per day of heavy crude oil. Out of
that US imports an average of 490,000
barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil from the Middle East Gulf region: Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and other Gulf States. The U.S. West Coast is particularly
reliant on Middle Eastern oil, taking in nearly 47% of all U.S. imports from
the Persian Gulf. So, the narrative that “we do not need Gulf Oil” is a fallacy in reality, which can bring about
an economic crisis in the US. All the increased cost will be shifted on the
shoulders of consumers.
4-Fourthly, under these
conditions stated above, to speak of a land invasion of Iran (or even Yemen) is
beyond fantasy. US-Israel tried very hard to have the Kurds and Baloches do the
fighting for them and die. It seems they were not successful, and it remains a
pipe dream.
Information warfare and fear-mongering
to influence the masses and small countries in shaping perspectives
5A- Nuclear war fear-mongering is widely
being used as a likely, in some cases a highly likely, option. As I have noted in one of my articles: “With
the technological - satellites, Artificial intelligence, precision-guided
subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic missiles, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles),
USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles), lately introduced Robot Tanks, lasers, signal
jamming, and so many others to count-development, the need for the use of nuclear weapons is diminishing.
These new technological war machines are also extremely destructive but can be
localized, and their extent is controllable.” (4) (5)
In another article I had stated
that “The premise that direct wars between superpowers will bring about the use
of nuclear war convinces most every objective Marxist Leninist analyst that
nuclear war between them is highly unlikely… having nuclear weapons and
striking first does not guarantee the destruction of a nuclear power country,
but possibly may bring about the destruction of the first attacker. In that
sense, the nuclear weapon serves only a deterrent role… The perpetual
theoretical possibility of nuclear exchange masks its practical impossibility
under finance capital's hegemony… The transition to multipolarity does
introduce complexity and potentially more avenues for struggle via indirect
methods like proxy wars.” (6)
The narrative that “Israel can
destroy Iran with nuclear weapons “ is a fantasy-based fear-mongering psyop
propaganda considering the sizes of each country. A nuclear attack against Iran
can cause substantial damage to Iran; however, Iran does not have to have and
use nuclear weapons to destroy a small, population-concentrated country like
Israel. That is without the possibility of Iran having and/or acquiring a
couple of nuclear warheads from North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, or China. It would
be a suicidal attack on the part of Israel.
5B- NATO Article 5 fear mongering has been used by Western Media and liberal
“experts,” which reinforces the fantasies
and wishful thinking on one side, and fears on the other. As I have noted on my
related article, “ People assume that an
attack on a NATO member will automatically trigger a “collective
defense” and/or “offense,” which creates
a larger false fear of a “nuclear war” between the nuclear powers. War
mongering, information war, and fear mongering in order to manipulate the
masses at large… Article 5 does not automatically obligate every member
state to participate militarily. NATO has never promised “automatic military
response”; the collective defense obligation contains significant legal
ambiguity and real-world constraints… Member states have the discretion to
determine for themselves what constitutes “such action as it deems necessary,”
and domestic constitutional processes pose substantial thresholds to military
participation. In any major decision to engage Russia militarily, the consensus
mechanism further amplifies the veto power of individual member states (such as
Turkiye, Germany, or Italy)…. In the current international landscape, NATO is
more likely to continue operating on a track of “verbal coordination, but
individual action” —highly unified in political declarations, but on the
substance of military intervention, each nation will act according to its own
national interest calculus.
Understanding the facts about
Article 5 of NATO will arm the masses with knowledge, prevent Western manipulation, and render
fear-mongering in vain. In addition, it proves that all the striving and
provocations of Ukro-nazi Zelensky to
trigger Article 5 of NATO via Baltic States or Romania, Poland are meaningless
and will remain fruitless in reality.
Without the direct participation of the two military powers of NATO, USA, and Turkiye – and some more-
the EU military power is irrelevant to the degree of a joke against Russia.””
(7)
6- The defence pacts
between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korth Korea are being carefully disregarded
and ignored by the Western Media. Unlike NATO and other similar Western agreements, which remain to be on paper
and are ineffective in practice, the defence pact between China and Russia, Russia
and Iran, and Russia and North Korea is practiced in reality in different forms. West
pretends that there is no pacts between these countries based on its own
false agreements. In my article “On
the North Korea and Russia ” alliance”; reasons, significance, and implications” I stated that: The alliance between
Russia and North Korea in specific and with China in general will not only
continue but strengthen relative to the continuation of US-West supremacist and
bellicose imperialist policies of using force in different forms and magnitude
in order to subjugate the countries of
the world…Long historical relations between North Korea and the Soviets played an
important role in reinitiating the relationship for the new developing political,
military, and social realities in the East, particularly and the world in general.” (9) The treaty signed on June 19, 2024, Article 3 of the pact requires both nations
to immediately activate negotiation channels if there is a direct threat of armed aggression against either country, aiming to coordinate positions and
agree on practical measures to prevent war. Article 4 (unlike NATO) clearly mandates that if either country faces an armed
invasion and falls into a state of war, the other party must immediately
provide military and other assistance using all available means without delay. Articles
8 & 9 focus on building mechanisms to strengthen defense
capabilities, joint efforts to prevent war, and expanding regional and
international security collaboration.
China and North Korea's defense
pact goes back to 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and
Mutual Assistance. I stated in my article “ Formalizing
the alliance of Three; Russia-North Korea defense agreement” that: The
defense treaty with North Korea is China's only formal military
alliance treaty signed with another country that has not been
rescinded since the founding of the People's Republic. Article 3 of the
agreement is the central security mechanism of the treaty. It explicitly
dictates that both sides must take all necessary steps to prevent aggression
from any state against either party. If either country faces an armed attack by
any single nation or coalition of states and enters a state of war, the
other party is legally obligated to immediately render military and other
assistance using all available resources.
There is no formal defense
pact or mutual military alliance between Russia and China. While
their defense and tactical cooperation is at its highest level, they operate
under a strategic partnership rather than a treaty with mutual security
guarantees. However, in its dialectical connection, as I have noted in the above-mentioned article: “Adding the Russia-North Korea defense treaty to the
China-North Korea defense treaty, now we have an indirect defense treaty
between China and Russia. Simply because any attack on one will include all directly
or indirectly due to the combined defense treaties with North Korea. So,
the formal declaration of a Russia-North Korea defense treaty is in fact a
formal declaration of a Russia-China-North Korea defense agreement, defense
alliance. ” (10)
As I have explained in the
article (6), in our new technological era, technology, information, and
intelligence play the decisive role in defense in particular and war in general.
Supplying information and intelligence, technologically developed
military means are more decisive than supplying manpower for the outcome of a
war. In this sense, the Russia-Iran Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic
Partnership, although it omits a mutual military alliance or automatic mutual
defense commitment, focuses instead on structured security and military-technical cooperation. Similarly, the Iran-China Comprehensive Cooperation
Program and specific defense-industrial
arrangements. The agreement is not a military alliance or mutual defense like
that of NATO, but it is an economic, geopolitical, and security cooperation
agreement which includes provisions for joint military training,
intelligence-sharing, collaboration on dual-use technologies,
telecommunications infrastructure, and satellite cooperation.
If we think in dialectical
connection, the Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran agreements it
is a stronger, long-term, and effective alliance in both military and economic
senses. In specific, contrary to the wishful thinking of the US-West, which tries very
hard to draw a wedge between them, considering the geography, the alliance
between Russia, China, and North Korea is an existential and an ironclad one.
The reality is that the above agreements
in the East are more resilient, more adaptive, and more materially grounded than
any Western bloc, precisely because it is forged not by ideology, but by the objective
logic of imperial encirclement. These agreements are “geographically
defensive” not to “project power” but to negate the projection of
Western power. Meaning that a global
confrontation would only arise if the
West initiates aggression against this space; the alliance is reactive, not
expansionist. To claim otherwise is to mistake the shield for the sword.
Conclusion
In a world constantly changing
with the emergency of new economic and military powers, with new technology,
new strategic, economic alliances, the countries, especially those
ex-colonizers who built their economies on a war footing and thus de-industrialized,
and thus have become “consumers” rather than “producers” (except military and
tech industries), it is inevitable that the dominant “pre-conceived perspectives” of the people
and of the analysts will change eventually.
It is a fact that the US is a declining
empire both economically and militarily, yet still dominant in global finance
and information warfare. However, if we do not, in a simplistic way, equate
"money" with "economy" as a decisive factor in war, we have
to recognize the fact that it is not the amount of printed money but a
functioning industrial-producer economy that is decisive in winning a war.
Deindustrialized countries with an economy built on a war footing will
inevitably have economic crises due to the wars they wage. That is what we are witnessing in the US and
the West.
Despite all the self-pompous
narratives of the US regarding its military power, the facts in Ukraine, Yemen,
and Iran have proven to be otherwise. Militarily and economically dependent,
Europe-NATO has no military or economic power to speak of. They can neither
wage military nor economic war against the new powers by themselves. They have
no military means and men to wage war against Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea, even together with the involvement of South Korea and Japan. Those narratives are psyop propaganda within
the information warfare in which they are still dominant.
They are declining ex-colonial
countries cornered due to unending defeats, who are looking for an off-ramp.
With their fantasies, hubris, and wishful thinking, however, they are trying to
expand the wars to other regions and countries to find respite, replenish, and
reenergize themselves.
Due to their arrogant and
condescending perspectives, they blind themselves to recognizing the fact that
both militarily and economically, they are far behind China and Russia. And it
is the same hubris preventing them from acknowledging the fact that, for the
military industry, they are totally dependent on rare-earth minerals, over
which China has a monopoly.
One has to give credit to the US-West
for their expertise and successes in information warfare and the manipulation
of the perspective of the large masses. However, as history has proven, no war
can be won through airstrikes and propaganda. Their focus on information warfare, propaganda
and high investment in perception is not
a sign of “strength” but an indication of loss of material capacity and their military weakness for decisive ground
warfare.. Wars are won on the ground through the support and participation of
the people at large. US-West's
"forced upon", "false-flag" provoked and manipulated wars
have been unsuccessful, backfired in the case of Ukraine and Iran, and are bound to fail and backfire.
Especially in the era of a multipolar world order, as Lenin stated, small/proxy
wars may change character from reactionary to progressive, from progressive to
reactionary as far as the participants are concerned.
Meaning that the wars were waged
as a means of distraction from the economic crises and suppressing the possible
uprising of the discontented masses can easily turn into anti-imperialist wars,
wars of independence, and wars of revolutionary democracy. Yes, we are not
anarchists who expect and root for "uprisings" and
"revolutions" at the expense of a large population of people.
However, when we have no control
over developments, we strive to debunk and expose the bourgeois narratives and
inform people as much as we can for a better outcome for the interests of
workers and peasants. As Lenin pointed out, "In history there have been
numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress and
suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited
the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and
reactionary institutions, the most barbarous despotisms in Europe ". (8)
So, a bloody, destructive war out of our control can bring about a positive
result for the local people in particular and the people of the world in
general, i.e., a destruction of Israel and further weakening of US imperialism.
That, in return, may bring about people's uprisings in Europe and in many
corners of the world.
Erdogan A
July 28, 2026
NOTES
"I acknowledge the use of DeepSeek (Chinese version) as a “devil’s advocate “ aid to find out what the “counter arguments” would be, and address those to strengthen my arguments. All theoretical frameworks, political conclusions, historical interpretations, and final editorial decisions remain solely my responsibility."
(1) Erdogan, The
difference between Marxist and Bourgeois analysis of the developments and
forecast of the war in Ukraine
(2) Stalin, Report on the Work of
the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(3) Erdogan, Rare
earth minerals and Trump’s tariffs on China; Facts and fictions, subjective
narratives versus objective realities;
(4) Erdogan,
On the likelihood of a Nuclear war
(5) Erdogan, Who
Actually Makes the Decisions for Foreign Policy in the US? Conflict Within the
Bureaucracy
(7) Erdogan, NATO’s
Article 5; as a widely exploited and misunderstood Treaty Provision
(8) Lenin, The Principles of
Socialism and the War of 1914–1915.
(10) Erdogan, Formalizing
the alliance of Three; Russia-North Korea defense agreement”
