The left has long argued against the imperialist manoeuvres of both Washington and Moscow. The slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow” served as a guiding principle, a rejection of Cold War binaries that demanded allegiance to one empire or the other. Yet, in an era of aggressive militarism from Russia and chest thumping from the United States, and with the rise of reactionary nationalism in the form of Putinism and Trumpism, we must formulate a response that goes beyond theory, beyond slogans, and into the material realities of war, occupation, and self-defence.
Self-determination is not an abstract right, it is a necessity for the survival of working-class and oppressed peoples. Ukraine’s struggle against Russian imperialism is not merely a geopolitical contest, but a fight for national sovereignty, for the right of its people to determine their own future. To reduce this to a proxy war between imperialist powers is to ignore the agency of those fighting on the ground. Likewise, those resisting US-backed coups, occupations, and economic coercion, from Latin America to the Middle East, are engaged in struggles against a global order that seeks to subjugate them. The left must be clear, opposing US imperialism does not mean excusing Russian aggression, just as opposing Putin’s expansionism does not mean backing NATO’s militarism.
Yet, as the world fixates on Russia’s expansionist ambitions, the fascist project in the United States continues to evolve. Trump may posture as the great peacemaker, the dealmaker, an isolationist who wants to withdraw from endless wars. But the reality is far darker. His movement is deeply intertwined with Christian nationalism, a reactionary ideological force that seeks to impose a theocratic vision on both domestic and foreign policy. This is not just rhetoric, it is about reshaping the global order in ways that serve American dominance, white evangelical supremacy, and corporate power.
We have seen his ambitions before. In his first term, he openly mused about using military force to seize oil in the Middle East, boasting that the US should have “taken the oil” from Iraq and Syria. His administration recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a move that emboldened further territorial expansion, and escalated interventionist threats against Venezuela, with open discussions of military action to remove its government. He pushed NATO members to drastically increase military spending, not as a retreat from global policing but as a demand that US allies fund its strategic dominance.
With his return to power, Trump’s ambitions have only sharpened. His bizarre proposal to purchase Greenland, dismissed as absurd at the time, was not an isolated impulse but a symptom of his broader worldview, a belief that US power must be projected, expanded, and enforced, regardless of legality or global stability. His remarks about the Panama Canal, his disdain for international agreements, and his open hostility to multilateralism all point to an administration that, far from being isolationist, seeks to reassert imperial control under a different guise.
Most recently, Trump has suggested sending military forces into Gaza, not as part of any so-called peacekeeping effort, but to facilitate the creation of a “Middle Eastern Riviera,” an elite tourism and business hub built on the ruins of Palestinian homes and lives. This is the logic of Trumpism, imperialism disguised as development, military force deployed to create profit for the wealthy, the occupation of land repackaged as an economic opportunity. Just as he once justified keeping troops in Syria to “take the oil,” he now proposes turning the devastation of Gaza into a playground for global capital.
Is this just Trump being Trump, the man who thrives on controversy and believes no publicity is bad publicity? Or is this something more dangerous, a political project that no longer hides behind coded language, but embraces authoritarianism outright? The modern Republican right, increasingly shaped by Christian nationalism, no longer simply flirts with imperial nostalgia, it actively seeks to reshape borders, control global trade routes, and dictate the sovereignty of other nations. This is not an anomaly, it is the logical extension of Trumpism.
To mistake this for isolationism is to ignore the reactionary militarism at its core. Trump’s movement does not reject US global dominance, it wants to reshape it in its own ideological image. The left must recognise that opposing this is not the same as endorsing liberal interventionism or NATO expansionism. It means standing against a new, deeply ideological form of imperialism, one that fuses nationalism, militarism, and religious extremism into a singular, dangerous force.
Can Military Spending Ever Be Justified?
But what of military spending? Is it ever justified? For decades, the socialist left has rightly argued against bloated military budgets that serve only to enrich arms manufacturers and fuel endless wars. But there is a crucial distinction between the militarism of an imperialist state and the necessary defence of a people under threat. To advocate for Ukraine’s right to arms, for Palestinian resistance against occupation, or for the self-defence of nations facing existential threats is not a capitulation to militarism, but a recognition that, in the real world, resistance often requires force. Theory alone does not stop missiles, analysis does not shield civilians from drone strikes.
This is where some elements of the left fall into a dangerous moral paralysis. They denounce the horrors of war while refusing to engage with the reality that some wars, wars of liberation, wars of defence, are not only just but necessary. This does not mean a blank cheque for military expansion, nor does it mean supporting war for its own sake. It means recognising that, in a world where fascistic and imperialist forces are on the march, those who resist must have the means to do so.
Does this mean supporting the dominant class? The answer depends on context. A capitalist state will always seek to turn military strength into a tool of its own expansion, a means to protect capital and suppress internal dissent. But does that mean the working class should abandon any concept of defence? Should those resisting occupation or invasion refuse arms because the manufacturers profit? That logic would leave only the forces of reaction well-armed, only the imperialists equipped to dictate the terms of struggle.
A left-wing defence policy must be rooted in class struggle and internationalism, in practical solidarity with those fighting for their own sovereignty. It must reject the false choices offered by capitalist states while refusing to cede the terrain of security and self-defence to the right. A people’s defence is not the same as imperialist militarism. A refusal to arm the oppressed is not pacifism, it is complicity.
The challenge for the left is to navigate this terrain without succumbing to the easy comforts of dogma. Because when bombs fall, the debate is no longer theoretical.
Artificial Intelligence (10) Book Review (85) Books (89) Britain (50) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) Crime and Punishment (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (56) Elon Musk (9) Europe (12) European Union (10) Fascism (10) Film (12) France (15) Gaza (14) Imperialism (22) Iran (10) Israel (17) Keir Starmer (12) Labour Government (35) Labour Party (9) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (14) Nigel Farage (17) Palestine (15) Protest (16) Reform UK (26) Russia (18) Ukraine (10) United States of America (95) War (24) Welfare (9) Work (10) Working Class (9)
