Geopolitics

Provoked is a masterclass in historical scholarship, offering a well researched, honest, and rigorous account of the origins of the Ukraine war. The book’s central thesis is that the West systematically provoked Russia into conflict through decades of duplicitous policymaking. Horton compiles a mountain of evidence to dismantle the simplistic “unprovoked aggression” narrative peddled by Western media and politicians.

The book’s main strength lies in its exhaustive use of primary sources to trace NATO’s broken promises to Russia. While many are vaguely aware of the infamous 1990 Baker-Gorbachev exchange (where the U.S. secretary of state vowed NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”), Horton unearths dozens of similar assurances from Western leaders. For instance, he cites West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s 1990 press conference with James Baker, where both men declared NATO had “no intention to extend… towards the East,” a pledge repeated to Soviet officials by British Prime Minister John Major and German diplomat Jürgen Chrobog. Even U.S. State Department officials, like Raymond Seitz, affirmed in internal meetings that NATO would not exploit Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe.

Yet as Horton reveals, Western leaders were already scheming to expand NATO even as these promises were made. By 1991, NATO’s Rome Summit laid the groundwork for enlargement, and by 1992, U.S. strategists openly pursued expansion to cement “Euro-American hegemony.” This pattern of deception of NATO methodically breaching assurances to Russia forms the book’s core narrative. Horton argues that Western elites, driven by hubris and short-term gains, ignored Russia’s legitimate security concerns, treating it not as a defeated rival to be contained.

It's worth noting that Horton, being a libertarian, does not romanticize Russia, and he condemns 2022 invasion as a strategic blunder. His aim isn't to justify Russian actions, but to show how NATO’s encroaching militarily, backing the 2014 Maidan coup, and dismissing diplomacy by Western leaders fostered the very aggression they now decry.

I highly recommend the book as a resource for understanding the background behind the conflict.

A surprisingly good video despite the somewhat clickbait-y title. The most important takeaway: Global south countries are no longer buying the West's propaganda, even about long demonized countries like the DPRK. "Your enemies are not our enemies." A polite way of saying: GTFO, we decide who we do business with, not you.

https://archive.ph/UnW3h

What distinguishes Marxist Leninists from the bourgeois liberals in their approach to the world events is that MLs are vigilant, they do not act based on the event by itself. They question and try to understand any event in its dialectical connection with the entire world events and developments. Such major events do not happen by itself as a coincidence but in most cases, if not all, is a by-product of the conflict in the world in general. It is understandable for average people to react to the news subjectively and without any evidence accept the bourgeois media narratives as the "fact". However, for vigilant Marxist Leninists it is a grave mistake to do so.

We live in an era of transition from unipolar world order to multi polar world order in which the US is declining both economically and militarily. US has been staging government changes and proxy wars in order to weaken its opponents. BRICS is one of its main target in order to save its financial hegemony, so are the countries within BRICS. Conflicts and wars at the doorsteps of its enemies, in this case China and Russia cannot be a coincident.

US inherited from the colonizer Britain the art of divide and rule policy and practices, developed it to the level of an unimaginable dimensions and fields. The expertise, knowledge and skills of the US in exploiting every difference in a specific country or region, creating conflicts, civil wars and wars between the countries are historically remarkable and they do deserve the Nobel price for that.

Lately, they have been trying to get Erdogan's Turkiye involve in "peace deal" for Ukraine and most likely a "peace keeping Turkish military force" in Ukraine. This is not a sincere act of diplomacy or an act of desperation as some may argue. This "diplomacy" act has overreaching insidious policy goals to drive a wedge between Turkiye and Russia by causing a rift or strain relationship between them.

Similarly, the "terror incident" in Kashmir that caused the straining of already existing rift between India and Pakistan cannot be taken as a coincidental incident especially when it happened soon after the visit of US VP Vance to India.

India is the US's most important trump card in its fight against China. Just listening and reading the Indian Mainstream media easily confirms the fact that they carry the narratives of anti-China faction of US Neo-Cons. Both countries, Pakistan and India have good relations with Russia and US. Pakistan has recently improved its relations with China, disappointing and angering the US. A war in the region benefits neither India nor Pakistan but the US. Neither China nor Russia would like to have an ongoing war between two nuclear powers at their doorsteps. US Neocons, with their unending fantasy of driving a wedge between China and Russia is playing another card in its sleeve. They hope that China who is having good relations with Pakistan will have diplomatic problems with Russia who has good relations with India. That is of course in addition to desire to exploit and benefit from the war which inevitably will harm BRICS.

No "terrorist" organisation has claimed the responsibility for the attack. Usually one of the US-Mossad fed and backed Islamist organisations claim the responsibility. Under these conditions who can say which government is behind this attack? Looking at the history, and the current world conflict in the world, it seems that the most plausible conclusion would be the "declining empire" is behind this attack.

That is not our subject to discuss here. One should ask the question of "who benefits from this "terrorist attack" in order not to fall into the usual trap and repeat the bourgeois narrative. Our subject is the attitude and statement of the so called Communist Party of India (Marxist) to the war and its comparison with the statement of Pakistan Communist Party.

The Indian CP (Marxist) presented what chauvinism really is with its statement on the possibility of an all out war against Pakistan . A great practical example of what chauvinism really is.

Indian CP does not even defend the right of self determination for the hundreds of oppressed nations in India. Like some others behind the mask of Marxist Leninists, they disregard the right of self determination but are eager to defend the right of self determination for the Neo-Nazi Ukraine.

Most national struggles against the fascist Modi Government, currently the ongoing genocidal war against Naxalite indigenous people and its Maoist Guerillas never mentioned by these chauvinists. Guerilla warfare is being waged in India since 1960s especially in Western Ghats and Aravalli Range, recently civil war started in Manipur. Western Ghats run parallel to the western coast of India, while the Aravalli Range is located in the northwest of the country, mainly in Rajasthan. Manipur borders Myanmar.

These chauvinists are asking their racist, fascist government to punish the "terrorists" and Pakistan, they are congratulating the fascist government's attack on Pakistan for "being non-escalatory and successful." They are giving advise to the fascist government to "continue the pressure on Pakistan".

Most importantly, their statement to the fascists; " The Indian government should ensure that the unity of the people and integrity of the country are protected", is the worse kind of chauvinist statement that only a fascist can speak of. Because India is not a unified country. There are hundreds of different ethnic and religious groups under oppression and fighting for their right of self determination. Claiming to "protect the integrity" of such a country has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism.

With their fantasy and chauvinism they are not even able to see the concrete condition and situation of India. As a proxy to US anti-China policy and practices, a protracted war with another US proxy Pakistan -with the sin of being in relationship with China and improving its relationship - will inevitably bring about the fragmentation of India. With over 200 million Muslim population which makes up of over %14 of population, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and hundreds of ethnic minorities under oppression and subjected to genocide, there is no "unity" of people in India other than the unity of Modi and fascist government followers. Most of these minorities are already fighting for their rights and a direct war will make it easier for them to gain their independence.

The delusion of these chauvinists deriving from the unipolar world order era, they forget the fact that now we are living in an era of multi polar world. It is not coincidence that these so called "Marxist left" are mouth pieces of dominant classes which in fact clearly points to their social-chauvinist nature.

The delusion and fantasy that India is a "superpower" must be contagious even the "left" believes in and defends. India ranks 126th out of 143 countries, alongside with Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Congo in MPI -Poverty index. India ranks 111th out of 125 countries on Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2023, with "serious" hunger severity. Although GDP PPP is a better indication of a country's economy (GDP divided by the population) which provides a measure of average income. India's GDP per capita in reality is lower than many other countries, reflecting the large population and income inequality.

Now lets read and compare the statement of Communist Party of Pakistan to that of India CP;

Statement of the Central Secretariat of the Communist Party of Pakistan on the escalation of military tension between India and Pakistan:

"The Communist Party of Pakistan, grounded in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, firmly condemns the military aggression initiated by the Indian bourgeois state and the counter-aggression launched by the Pakistani ruling class. These are not wars of liberation, nor are they in the interest of the proletariat, they are the wars of rival bourgeois military aggression for regional hegemony at the expense of the working class.

We assert that the working masses of India and Pakistan have no stake in the nationalist sabre-rattling of their respective ruling classes. In a region armed with nuclear weapons, these provocations risk plunging the subcontinent into catastrophic annihilation, an outcome that would spare neither caste, creed, nor class, but would disproportionately destroy the lives and livelihoods of workers, peasants, and the poor. Such military posturing is a diversion, a smokescreen to veil the deepening crisis of capitalist exploitation, inflation, unemployment, and social unrest. It is a tactic long used by bourgeois regimes to stoke reactionary nationalism and crush the rising tide of class consciousness.

The Communist Party of Pakistan calls upon the working class and progressive forces across South Asia to reject this false nationalism and embrace proletarian internationalism. Our struggle is not with the workers across the border, but with the comprador bourgeoisie, feudal remnants, and military-industrial complexes that profit from bloodshed. Let there be no illusion the path to lasting peace lies not in diplomatic band-aids between warring states, but in the revolutionary transformation of society through the overthrow of capitalism, the dismantling of bourgeois militarism, and the unity of the working class beyond borders.

Let the war drums of chauvinism be silenced by the battle cry of international solidarity.

Workers of the world, unite! Inquilab Zindabad!"

In a major recalibration of its year-long Red Sea military campaign, the US has agreed to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces, brokered by Oman. After months of escalating attacks under the guise of “protecting international shipping,” Washington now finds itself calling time on a conflict it launched – but failed to control.

While Yemen’s leaders stress that operations in support of Gaza will persist, the US pivot signals more than de-escalation: It is a tacit admission that its campaign has collapsed under pressure, unable to achieve even its most basic strategic goals.

With over a thousand airstrikes launched since March 2024, Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning. The war devolved into a costly, high-stakes exercise in attrition – one Yemen emerged from stronger, not weaker.

A flawed campaign from the start

From its inception, the US-led campaign ‘Prosperity Guardian’ lacked clarity. The mission to “protect shipping lanes” quickly became an open-ended confrontation with no political roadmap. American officials misread both the battlefield and Yemen’s resilience.

Despite the might of its airpower, Washington failed to dent Sanaa’s capacity or will to fight. Instead, the bombardment accelerated Yemen’s military innovation, forcing Washington into a deterrence game it could not win.

Yemen’s unconventional warfare style, grounded in its topography and culture, posed immense challenges. Leaders operated from mountainous terrain fortified by tunnel systems, well beyond the reach of satellite surveillance.

The US had little intelligence penetration into Yemen’s military hierarchy and no functioning target bank. Sanaa’s leadership, experienced from years of prior war against the Saudi and UAE-led coalition and its proxies, held the advantage.

Speaking to The Cradle, Colonel Rashad al-Wutayri lists five key reasons for the campaign’s failure. First, Yemen’s use of low-cost, high-impact weapons – ballistic missiles and drones – pierced even US carrier strike groups.

Second, the campaign failed to protect Israeli or allied shipping. Third, Ansarallah exposed Israeli-American spy networks and clung to its demands: Namely, an end to the war on Gaza. Fourth, apart from Bahrain, Washington’s Arab allies declined to join the US-led coalition. Fifth, the financial cost spiraled, with the US spending millions on interceptors to counter drones built for mere thousands.

No coalition, no ground game

Washington’s diplomatic push to build a regional anti-Yemen coalition fell flat. Persian Gulf states, still stung from their own failures in Yemen, wisely kept their distance. Saudi Arabia refused to be drawn back into a war it has been trying to exit since 2022. The UAE, meanwhile, limited its support to logistics. Egypt stayed silent, unwilling to be sucked into another regional escalation.

This reticence was not without reason. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued direct warnings to neighboring countries: Any cooperation with the US – via bases or troops – would bring immediate retaliation.

The threat worked. When Washington explored the idea of a ground assault using US special forces and Persian Gulf-backed militias, the plan quickly collapsed. Yemen’s terrain, its entrenched resistance, and the bitter legacy of previous Saudi-Emirati attempts made such a venture untenable.

Political analyst Abdulaziz Abu Talib tells The Cradle that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have internalized the cost of further escalation. While both continue to bankroll proxy militias, they are steering clear of overt military entanglement. Yemen’s ability to withstand this trilateral aggression – and to land blows on US and Israeli interests – further eroded faith in Washington’s protective umbrella.

Bombs, billions, and blunders

Between March 2024 and April 2025, the US launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Yemen. Yet, rather than break its adversary, the campaign emboldened it. In retaliation, Yemen escalated steadily – from targeting Israeli vessels in November 2023, to US and UK ships by January, the Indian Ocean by March, and the Mediterranean by May.

By July, Ansarallah struck Tel Aviv with hypersonic missiles. A direct hit on Ben Gurion Airport followed, redrawing the region’s military balance.

The costs piled up. In the first three weeks alone, the US burned through $1 billion. Weapons like Tomahawk and JASSM missiles – costing millions apiece – were deployed against drones worth a few thousand dollars. Yemen’s own achievements mounted: 17 MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down, two $60 million F-18 fighters lost in just over a week, and a declared aerial blockade of Israel.

Wutayri highlights that Yemen developed its arsenal domestically, without foreign technical assistance. That included the hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli and US air defenses, and drones capable of striking both military and commercial ships. Even as Washington intensified its bombardment, Yemen’s operational tempo and range only grew.

Erosion from within

Back in Washington, the cracks were showing. The Pentagon quietly expanded military commanders’ autonomy to strike targets without White House clearance – an effort to shield the administration from political fallout. But the costs, both financial and reputational, were impossible to ignore.

US media outlets began questioning the purpose and direction of the campaign. Public patience waned. There were calls for countries benefiting from Red Sea trade – namely Persian Gulf monarchies – to shoulder the burden of maritime security.

Wutayri says the US suffered further humiliation: a destroyer and three supply ships were sunk, and both the USS Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers were targeted. Despite spending another $500 million on interceptors, the results were negligible. The image of US warplanes crashing into the sea, and of exhausted troops – some 7,000 deployed – unable to break Yemen’s resolve, dented American prestige.

More than just a response to Red Sea attacks, the campaign was part of Washington’s broader effort to counter China’s regional influence, particularly Yemen’s emerging Belt and Road links. But the military track backfired, hardening local resistance and undermining US credibility.

Abu Talib notes that even stealth aircraft and strategic bombers failed to achieve deterrence. The Trump administration faced two options: retreat under the weight of defeat, or engage in talks under Ansarallah’s terms – chief among them an end to the Gaza war.

A war without an aim

From the outset, Washington struggled to manufacture a narrative of victory. The Pentagon released videos of jets launching from carriers – empty spectacle, absent substance. There were no “shock and awe” moments, no milestones to sell as success.

Yemen, meanwhile, delivered iconic images; among them, a father shielding his child during a bombing raid – a powerful symbol of national defiance. As civilian casualties mounted, so did public fury. Scenes of women and children pulled from rubble circulated widely, drawing uncomfortable parallels with past US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Abu Talib, Yemen’s social cohesion and rugged geography undermined every attempt to break its lines. Far from fracturing under pressure, the public rallied behind Ansarallah. The more the US escalated, the more entrenched Yemeni resistance became – both militarily and socially.

Now, the Trump administration is shifting gears, seeking peace without admitting defeat. But Sanaa is not standing still. It promises continued operations, and with them, new strategic equations that could further upend the regional balance of power.