[We republish here this statement, to which we are also signatories, on the current world situation and the concrete possibilities for a response on the part of the proletariat and its organised revolutionary minorities.
Obviously, this is still a quite dynamic and uncertain period within the current phase of the lifecycle of the reigning world-capitalist mode of production, whose social paroxisms inevitably give rise to military conflagration on an increasingly larger scale.
We subscribe, nevertheless, to the analysis put forward in this text with respect to the current intensification of imperialist rivalries, its likely consequences, and how we orient ourselves towards the emergent class movements as genuine communists.
The statement is also available in Spanish and French.]
Ukraine, Gaza, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Iran, Sudan, the United States… but also Greenland… mark the clear increase in war zones and the intensification of social and criminal violence, worsening an already precarious economic situation. This proliferation of armed conflict zones, described as low- or medium-intensity, unequivocally illustrates the acceleration of the capitalist trajectory toward generalized war. This multiplication of conflicts, in most cases resulting in large-scale “humanitarian” catastrophes, shows that the capitalist world is economically, politically, and militarily preparing for larger-scale war outbreaks.
The reconstitution and reorganization of blocs and alliances, as well as the reinforcement of the division of the planet into zones of control and influence, express bellicose preparation and a concrete military perspective toward a conflict that may be imminent. Therefore, it is on a global level that preparation for accelerating the course toward war is taking shape.
In the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—regions long at the center of imperialist interests and conflicts between the two former major protagonists, the United States and the USSR—the emergence and intervention of new powers rising among the great powers must be added: China, India, South Korea, Japan. This new situation puts an end to the former “East–West” bipolarization and reshapes it into a plural and multi-crisis landscape. In this context, Xi Jinping’s China stands out as one of the most proactive, intensifying its territorial claims, especially around Taiwan, and striving to structure an international framework free from Western hegemony.
This dynamic accelerates the fragmentation of former “global governance” by exacerbating all capitalist contradictions within already established military blocs such as NATO: divergent interests in the Mediterranean, conflict over Greenland, Turkey’s ambiguous positioning, the question of whether Russia or China constitutes the primary threat, and the tendency toward European autonomy. The time has come for strategic repositioning and for organizing the camps that may confront each other in the relatively near future.
The persistence of conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, together with the recent attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, as well as structural social instability within the country, continues to weaken regional balances. These flashpoints generate severe humanitarian crises and maintain constant pressure on an increasingly unstable international equilibrium. Donald Trump’s return to the presidency of the United States marks a profound acceleration of this paradigm, already sketched during Biden’s term. The previous administration anticipated distancing from the EU and prioritizing trade war centrality with China. Direct interventions, particularly in Venezuela, as well as territorial ambitions regarding Greenland, illustrate a transactional (“give and take”) and unpredictable diplomacy. From an investment standpoint, artificial intelligence remains the main driving force, although it increasingly confronts limitations in energy capacity and rising risks of cyberthreats and other forms of private and state piracy.
Current “Trumpian” policy is at the forefront of this global trend to violently redraw zones of influence. In doing so, it breaks the old balances of the “Cold War” era (1945–1991), with its pacified and “United Nations” codes. This new proactive policy marks, both outside and inside the United States, the unabashed return to a supposed authoritarianism and open repression as the primary mode of political action.
Of course, “dirty maneuvers” of all kinds have never ceased (clandestine operations and underhanded tactics), but from the kidnapping and exfiltration of Maduro onward, they clearly show—just as the name of the operation “Absolute Resolve” indicates—the generalized combative direction being taken. The era of Orwellian double-speak—“speaking of peace to prepare for war”—is increasingly giving way to martial affirmation of rearmament, which, of course, is accompanied by repression and the resurgence of aggressive nationalisms.
“Trumpist” policies are increasingly imitated by other countries, as shown by the latest crisis between Colombia and Ecuador, where, the day after Colombian President Petro requested the release of Jorge Glas, Ecuadorian President Noboa responded by imposing 30% tariffs on Colombian imports. In response, Colombia suspended crucial agreements, such as oil transit (46 million Colombian barrels have passed through the OCP pipeline since 2013) and reciprocal electricity supply. The escalation of retaliatory measures raises fears of serious economic destabilization for both countries. Thus, the economy is used more than ever as a primary weapon of war. “Trumpist” policies also extend to Cuba.
Overall, this is a global situation generating increasingly widespread geopolitical, economic, and social instability. Such vulnerability has not been seen since 1945 and today increases the risk of crises in all areas: financial, military, social, and climate-related. The famous American investor Ray Dalio predicts that the United States has now become a true powder keg.
“According to Dalio, the last collapse of this kind occurred between 1930 and 1945, ‘leading to the establishment of the postwar monetary, domestic political, and international geopolitical order that we now see unraveling’. […] A stage described as ‘the most difficult and painful’, corresponding to the moment when ‘the country runs out of money and a terrible conflict usually occurs in the form of revolution or civil war’, with the only real options being peaceful or violent management, directly derived from decisions imposed by those in power. […] A fertile ground for the rise of populism, with the emergence of ‘strong, anti-elitist leaders who claim to fight for the common man’. […] This risk of change is reinforced by rising debt, with the accelerating effect of intensified money creation leading to increasing inflation. The result: the established monetary and political order erodes, inequalities deepen, and tensions intensify to the point of calling into question previously existing power relations”. (H. Bernard: Ce célèbre investisseur américain prédit un effondrement de l’ordre monétaire et politique actuel, January 27th, 2026)
The year 2026 thus reinforces the transition toward a complex world order, in which systemic management of geopolitical, financial, military, and climate risks becomes a strategic imperative for all states. The global economy therefore faces unstable growth and a sovereign debt crisis. This instability generally produces, in reaction:
— Protectionism, which becomes common policy among all states following the introduction of new tariffs imposed by the United States. These tariffs pose a serious inflationary risk and threaten to durably disrupt trade in goods and global supply chains. Historically, exacerbated competition has led to protectionist policies culminating in local and global imperialist wars.
— Nationalism, which remains the privileged ideological cover for protectionism. It develops all the more strongly as it confronts another nationalism that has also become more aggressive. Its development is symmetrical and complementary, constituting one of the indispensable ideological elements on the road to war.
— The generalized tightening of migration policies and the erosion of so-called “social gains,” increasingly undermining what were considered “acquired rights” of mythical “social democracy” and the last “social safety nets.” This tightening is generally accompanied by strengthened state repression as a “response” to social insecurity.
If a proletarian response emerges, it will develop antagonistically to the characteristic features of the road to war and as a reaction to the state offensive. At the beginning of the year, two initial outlines of this response clearly manifested, first in Iran and then in the United States:
— Between late December and early January in Iran, the force of the uprisings was once again violently crushed by massive, brutal, and merciless repression.
“What is happening today in Iran is not an exceptional event or a sudden explosion. This voice is that of a life that for years has been crushed under pressure and can no longer endure repression or silence. The people who have taken to the streets are not instruments of conspiracies nor pawns of world powers; they are the product of absolute poverty, continuous repression, everyday discrimination, and an apartheid woven into the very fabric of their existence. These protests do not come from outside; they have emerged from the heart of homes, from the streets, and from human beings who no longer want merely to survive but to fully live their lives” (Pensée et Combat Collectif, January 17th, 2026)
As Marx had already pointed out in 1848, regarding another proletarian defeat:
“The fruitless massacres since the days of June and October, the tedious expiatory festival since February and March, the cannibalism of the counterrevolution itself will convince the peoples that, to abbreviate, simplify, and concentrate the murderous agony of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new society, there is only one means: revolutionary terror”. (Marx: The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
— Shortly thereafter in the United States, on the contrary, it was the beginning of repression that lit the fuse and provoked the violent uprising of a section of the proletariat and subordinate classes in direct confrontation with the federal state and its armed forces. This attempt at reaction demonstrates that the only solution to the state offensive is to develop the weapon of struggle and class unity.
“On Friday, more than 100,000 people in Minneapolis, Minnesota, braved sub-zero temperatures and wind chills of –30 degrees Fahrenheit (–34 degrees Celsius) to join ‘Truth and Freedom Day’ protests against the killing of Renée Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent and the ongoing federal occupation of the city. The demonstration brought together broad sectors of the working class—healthcare workers, teachers, postal workers, and many others—as well as numerous students and members of the middle class. Immigrants and native-born marched shoulder to shoulder.” (WSWS)
The intensification of the trajectory toward war, accompanied by increasingly widespread repression, is the only path ahead from the standpoint of global capital. Faced with this proclamation of a bellicose and repressive catastrophe, the proletariat holds the key to the response through the development of its struggle, independent of all political, union, or national structures, and through methods of direct action, without any democratic illusions and in a revolutionary direction.
Imperialist war, fueled by unrestrained rivalries among capitalist powers, must be countered by a class war driven by the interests of a social class—the proletariat—that is alienated from all social wealth. Therefore, the exploited class must, in practice, show solidarity with all social struggles—currently, unfortunately, too limited—throughout the world, striving to radicalize and expand them. This is the only way to put an end to capitalist barbarism and the global massacre hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles, capable of annihilating all humanity.
February 28th, 2026
“Who has iron has bread” — Blanqui, London Toast (1851)
Barbaria
Balance y Avante
Matériaux Critiques
League of Internationalist Communists
and other internationalist comrades
League of Internationalist Communists 