Stephen Cho | Coordinator of the Korean International Forum 

War is the eve of revolution. Historically, wars on a global scale have served as decisive triggers for revolutions on a global scale. 

War is the situation; revolution is the strategy. The focal point of the current situation is World War 3, and the basic task of the revolutionary forces is anti-imperialist liberation. Scientific analysis of the current situation reveals the essence of World War 3, and the revolutionary study of strategy leads to the conclusion of anti-imperialism liberation. 

The key to the scientific analysis of the situation lies in the imperialist camp’s calculated move, and the key to establishing a revolutionary strategy lies in the anti-imperialist camp’s strategic move. The strategic goal of the imperialist camp is to form a “New Cold War” system, while the strategic goal of the anti-imperialist camp is to achieve liberation. 

In terms of justification, capacity, and operations, the anti-imperialist camp currently holds overwhelming superiority. 

1. Imperialism is the main culprit of World War 3

The storm of World War 3, unleashed by imperialism, is sweeping from Eastern Europe through West Asia (the Middle East) to East Asia and the Western Pacific. 

World War 1 was an inter-imperialist war. It resulted in the emergence of the world’s first socialist state.

World War 2 was an anti-fascist war. It was transformed from an inter-imperialist war into an anti-fascist war. The world anti-fascist front was formed under the leadership of the Soviet Union, leading to the victory of the anti-fascist camp. Socialist and national liberation camps emerged on a global scale, ushering in a historic upsurge. 

World War 3 is an anti-imperialist war. In this war, the world anti-imperialist front has been formed, paving the way for victory for the anti-imperialist camp. If the anti-imperialist forces are victorious in this anti-imperialist war, the imperialist forces will be decisively defeated and a new great period of upsurge will begin, marked by the significant expansion of the socialist and national liberation forces. 

Eastern Europe, West Asia (the Middle East), and East Asia constitute the three major theaters of World War 3. 

Russia, China, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are nuclear and missile superpowers. Eastern Europe and East Asia are the strategic theaters where Russia confronts NATO, and the DPRK-China-Russia confronts the US, respectively. Among them, East Asia is the main theater of World War 3. 

Meanwhile, West Asia is a tactical battleground between the “Axis of Resistance,” including missile power Iran, and Israeli Zionist-imperialism. 

The flashpoint in Eastern Europe is Ukraine; in West Asia, it is Palestine. The flashpoints in East Asia are the “Republic of Korea (ROK)” and Taiwan. The wars in Ukraine and West Asia are already underway, and the war in East Asia is imminent. 

The war in Ukraine began with the 2014 “Maidan coup,” intensified over the next eight years with the war in Donbass, and then entered full swing with Russia’s Special Military Operation in 2022. 

The war in Palestine in 2023 immediately escalated into a war in West Asia, with the “Axis of Resistance,” including Hezbollah, Yemen, and Iran, joining. 

In short, the war in Ukraine broke out in February 2022 and the war in West Asia began in October 2023. 

From September to November 2024, the “ROK” carried out local war provocations against the DPRK. If not for the DPRK’s “strategic patience,” the local war would have erupted, rapidly escalating into an all-out war. On December 3, 2024, a military coup took place in the “ROK.” Had it not been immediately overthrown by the people of the “ROK,” the fascistization of the “ROK” would have been completed, and followed by the war against DPRK. In short, the war in the “ROK” was decisively provoked by imperialism in September-November and December 2024. That period was when the war in the “ROK” was supposed to erupt according to imperialism’s World War 3 plan. Imperialism provoked the war in Ukraine in Eastern Europe in 2022, and the war in Palestine in West Asia in 2023. It carried out decisive provocations for war in the “ROK” in East Asia, but these were thwarted by the DPRK’s “strategic patience” and the heroic struggle of the people of the “ROK.”

In order to escape the worst political and economic crisis in its history, imperialism is trying to form a “New Cold War” by triggering World War 3 and denouncing the DPRK, China, Russia, and the “Axis of Resistance,” like Iran, as the “New Axis of Aggressors.” Imperialism is mobilizing all its military, political, and economic capabilities to achieve its goal of forming the “New Cold War” framework, pushing proxy wars across three major theaters.

In World War 2, Germany, Italy, and Japan formed the “Axis.” During the “Cold War,” the imperialist camp denounced the socialist camp as “Evil.” In 2003, US imperialism labeled Iraq, Iran, and the DPRK as the “Axis of Evil,” launched the Iraq War, and intensified its offensive against the DPRK. In 2024, imperialism labeled Russia, Iran, China, and the DPRK as the “New Axis of Aggressors.” When it became untenable to label the DPRK and China as “aggressors” because they did not respond to imperialist war provocations, imperialism lumped them with Russia and Iran and rebranded them as a “New Axis of Evil.” Whatever label is used, it is a vicious scheme to isolate and blockade the anti-imperialist camp and to construct a “New Cold War” framework.

The “Cold War” was a ploy devised to deflect the worst political and economic crisis of imperialism, brought about by the global emergence of the socialist and national liberation camps after World War 2 and the failure of the “New Deal policy.” The imperialist camp implemented a “blockade” policy against the socialist and national liberation camps to prevent the westward advance of the Soviet-led socialist forces through the Marshall Policy in Europe and the southward march of China and other socialist forces through the formation of ASEAN in Asia. 

The 1950 Korean War, which claimed the lives of approximately 5 million people, realized the “Cold War” policy. During the “Cold War”, imperialism focused on the blockade, regime competition, and arms race with the socialist camp, while waging “hot wars” against the national liberation countries. 

The “New Cold War” is a ploy by imperialism to deflect the unprecedentedly worst political and economic crisis in history through World War 3. 

Whereas the “Cold War,” which began after World War 2, ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe’s socialist bloc, the “New Cold War,” unfolding in parallel with World War 3, will end with the collapse of the imperialist camp. 

During the “Cold War,” the imperialist camp waged a “Cold War” against socialist countries and “hot wars” against national liberation states. In the “New Cold War,” by contrast, the imperialist camp is either already waging or provoking “hot wars” even against socialist countries. However, these “hot wars” in the “New Cold War” era are being carried out in the form of limited warfare, such as proxy wars and local wars. 

During the “Cold War” era, there were disputes over socialist principles between the Soviet Union and China―the two major powers in the socialist camp, but in the “New Cold War” era, there is no disagreement that the DPRK is the most thoroughly socialist country, and the alliance between China―a socialist country with its own characteristics―and Russia―a country with socialist heritage―remains firm.

Unlike the “Cold War” era, in the “New Cold War,” the DPRK, as the most thoroughly socialist and anti-imperialist country, has entered the ranks of the nuclear and missile superpowers, forming the three major anti-imperialist powers along with China and Russia. With the addition of the “Axis of Resistance,” including Iran, these from the four leading forces.

Both during the “Cold War” and the “New Cold War”, imperialism has been fundamentally doomed by its unsolvable and overlapping contradictions―between imperialist and socialist states, imperialist and national liberation states, imperialist states and peace-loving forces of the world, imperialist states and colonized peoples, monopoly capital and anti-monopoly working masses within imperialist states, and imperialist powers themselves. This is the common trait shared by both eras. However, unlike during the “Cold War era”, the “New Cold War era” is marked by a significant difference―although the socialist bloc has relatively weakened, the anti-imperialist camp remains broadly united. In contrast, within the imperialist camp, non-warmongering imperialist forces now hold considerable capacity, standing in opposition to the warmongering factions.

During the “Cold War era”, the economic crisis within imperialism deepened―from the overproduction crisis of 1929, through to the inflationary crisis of 1974. In contrast, the “New Cold War era” has witnessed crises of an entirely different magnitude: premised on the previous two crises, it has undergone the 2008 US-triggered global financial crisis and the 2019 pandemic-induced crisis. As a result, the economic turmoil within imperialism has reached an unprecedented level. In particular, the US national debt has reached $36 trillion, and the hegemony of the US dollar has weakened to an unprecedented extent.

Whereas the “Cold War era” was marked by a bipolar structure centered on the US-Soviet confrontation, the “New Cold War era”―which began after the brief unipolar system of US hegemony that followed the end of the “Cold War”―has developed into a multipolar system involving multiple contending forces, including China and Russia apart from the US. Although a multipolar system is not the strategic objective of the anti-imperialist camp, it holds significant tactical value in weakening the imperialist camp. The “New Cold War era” is, in essence, a “new bipolar structure” between the anti-imperialist and the imperialist camps. In this sense, the “New Cold War” serves as a strategic expression, while “multipolarity” is a tactical one. From the perspective of dialectical negation, the sequence of “affirmation―negation―negation of the negation” is expressed as “bipolarity―unipolarity/multipolarity―new bipolarity.” The truly revolutionary concept, consistent with the dialectical principle of contradiction between the old and the new, and of the transformation from an old-dominated system to a new-dominated one, is not “multipolarity,” but rather the “New Cold War.”

The imperialist and anti-imperialist camps are confronting each other economically and diplomatically as G7 versus BRICS, and militarily as NATO versus the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In the “New Cold War era,” as China and Russia have come to represent the position of the anti-imperialist camp, the United Nations Security Council has become effectively paralyzed. In response, the imperialist camp has sidelined the UN Security Council and instead advanced its imperialist agenda through the G7 and NATO, thereby escalating the drive toward a world war.

There is a decisive difference between the New Cold War and the Cold War in terms of the purpose of the world war. The imperialist camp is actively pushing for the initiation of World War 3 in order to consolidate the “New Cold War” structure. The imperialist camp has neither the will nor the capacity to eliminate the existence of the DPRK, China and Russia. Rather, by labeling these countries as the “New Axis of Aggressors” and the “New Axis of Evil,” it is merely attempting to draw a line between the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps and to enforce a strategy of “new blockade.” The shift of this line can be expressed, in strategic terms, as a transition from the “Asia-Pacific Strategy” to the “Indo-Pacific Strategy,” and in geopolitical illustration, as a transformation from a “W-shaped” configuration that includes China to a “U-shaped” configuration that excludes China. In other words, the decisive difference between the two sides lies in China. After President Xi Jinping’s visit to the DPRK in 2019, China came to the decision to resolve the Hong Kong issue through police force, thereby affirming a policy shift from “keeping a low profile and biding time” (taoguang yanghui) to “peaceful rise” (heping quji). In the “Indo-Pacific Strategy”―a “new blockade” policy that draws a “U-shaped” line to encircle the anti-imperialist camp―war in East Asia is not optional, but inevitable. This is why the imperialist warmongering forces persistently provoke wars in the “ROK” and Taiwan for the war in East Asia.

If a capitalist society is like a car, the capitalists are the drivers. The former is the system; the latter is the controllers. As capitalism has evolved from monopoly capitalism into state monopoly capitalism, the controllers of this system have naturally evolved as well. Understanding the strategic objectives of the core forces of imperialism―the controlling forces within imperialism―is the most crucial premise for formulating the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the anti-imperialist camp.

In a scientific analysis of the current situation and the formulation of revolutionary strategies based on it, not only analyzing the system crisis, but also analyzing the strategies of its controllers who attempt to escape this crisis is one of the fundamental components.

It is necessary to distinguish between Jews in general and Zionists among them. The problem lies not with “Jewish capital” in general, but specifically with the “Zionist transnational capital,” including financial capital. Anti-Semitism is erroneous and is a fascist perspective, but anti-Zionism is not an error as it is a revolutionary standpoint.

The national liberation of the Palestinian people fundamentally aims to end the occupation by Zionists, not oppose Jews in general. Historically, Palestinians have never been anti-Semitic, while Zionists have historically been anti-Palestinian. The essence of the Palestinian issue is not religion or ethnicity, but fascism. Chauvinism manifests as fascism in the political realm.

Trump is positive in that he is relatively non-warmonger; however, his essence is imperialist. His suppression of anti-Zionist movements in the US by labeling them anti-Semitic reveals his imperialist nature. It reflects his fascist nature, at least in this field. The anti-imperialist camp should tactically cooperate with Trump as a non-warmongering force within imperialism to deepen contradictions with imperialist warmonger forces, but must firmly oppose Trump’s imperialist and fascist policies. 

Regarding China, the Trump’s first administration pursued a policy of “decoupling,” while the Biden administration adopted a “de-risking” policy. Although the “de-risking” appears softer than the “decoupling” in terms of sanctions and attacks on China, it is actually the opposite. The “de-risking” conceals a scheme to wage war in Taiwan through Taiwan’s separation provocations. The Trump administration declared that it would respond only with a 200% tariff increase even if China initiated the war in Taiwan. Such declaration, of course, poses no threat to the Chinese government, which is determined to accept any cost to achieve reunification. 

The imperialist core powers, by shifting from the 1944 Bretton Woods system to the 2014 Fortaleza system, positioned themselves at the center of a political seesaw, with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank (WB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the right, and the New Development Bank (NDB), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) on the left—in an attempt to continue manipulating the global economy through a calculated balance of checks and counterbalances.

To this end, China was incorporated into the global economic control system via the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. As if to test this integration, when NATO bombed Belgrade in 1999, they destroyed the Chinese Embassy. Much like the historical anecdote of Han Xin passing between the legs of a bandit, China endured this humiliation and, through its accession to the WTO, ascended to the position of a G2 power.

The core imperialist powers, under the framework of 1989 “Washington Consensus”, pursued “neoliberal policies.” Meanwhile, the USA used the 1985 Plaza Accord, to suppress emerging competitors like Japan and West Germany. Specifically, Japan suffered an “L-shaped” recession lasting over 30 years—known as the “Lost Decades”—and has yet to fully recover. In contrast, West Germany overcame its market challenges through reunification and the creation of the European Union, gaining access to low-cost gas from Russia, which enabled a relatively swift recovery. 

The US attempted to apply this methodology to China, which was rising as a G2 power. However, China, having drawn lessons from Japan’s experience, rejected this “Second Plaza Accord.”

In response, the Biden administration announced the policies of “New Washington Consensus” and “de-risking” in 2024. While it may appear as a continuation and innovation of the original ”Washington Consensus”, it is nothing more than a deceptive tactic. The essence of these policies lies in their strategic intent to provoke Taiwan’s separatist independence, thereby inciting a potential war in Taiwan and a war in East Asia—making them far more dangerous than Trump’s “decoupling” policy.

China surpassed one of its two major development goals set for the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China in 2021—achieving a per capita GDP of $10,000—by the year 2019. This economic achievement provided strong momentum for the formation of the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

As China and Russia firmly joined the anti-imperialist camp and the nature of the seesaw system transformed into a confrontation between the anti-imperialist and imperialist camps, the core imperialist forces could no longer remain at the center of the seesaw and were forced to move further to the right, to the side of the imperialist camp. As a result, the imperialist camp could no longer maintain its system of global domination—the “unipolar order.”

Furthermore, within the imperialist camp itself, the imperialist non-warmongering forces have emerged, opposing the aggressive war policy pursued by the imperialist warmongers. This internal contradiction has intensified as the World War 3 is being promoted.

The boundary between Europe and Asia changes according to the criteria applied. From this perspective, Eastern Europe can be regarded as Northwestern Asia, and Western Asia can more precisely be described as Southwestern Asia. 

The storm of world war is sweeping from Northwestern Asia through Southwestern and Southern Asia into East Asia. Under the strategy of a “New Cold War,” the target of a “U-shaped” arrow of war, which the imperialist camp is drawing to realize its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and “new blockade” policy, is clearly East Asia. It is now blatantly revealing its intent to ignite a war in East Asia against China and the DPRK―following its confrontations with Russia and the “Axis of Resistance” like Iran―in order to turn this region into the main theater and decisive front of World War 3.

Given that the storm of world war is encircling Asia, it is a reasonable prediction that it will move beyond Southern Asia and advance toward East Asia.

The Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan is a localized war in South Asia. This war aligns with the imperialist camp’s Indo-Pacific strategy by fueling tensions between India and China, thereby contributing to pulling India away from the anti-imperialist bloc and drawing it into the imperialist bloc. China and Pakistan have a very close relationship, and the Pakistani fighter jet that shot down India’s Rafale jet was the J-10C, a Chinese-made aircraft.

India is a founding member of BRICS, and Prime Minister Modi, having secured re-election, skipped the July 2024 NATO summit in Washington and instead visited Moscow for talks with President Putin. Meanwhile, the Quad is becoming increasingly ineffective. In this context, the outbreak of the localized conflict between India and Pakistan has heightened tensions between India and China, further fueling the atmosphere of World War 3.

Trump, following negotiations relatively with Russia and Iran, also mediated the localized conflict between India and Pakistan. After India was defeated in its initial attack on Pakistan, it launched a second strike targeting a nuclear facility. Immediately afterward, the Trump administration intervened decisively. The localized conflict between India and Pakistan always carries the risk of escalating into a nuclear war.

2. The anti-imperialist forces’ overwhelming superiority in justification, capacity, and operations

The national domination method of monopoly capital in the developed capitalist society is social democracy and fascism. Imperialism, as the outward expression of the monopoly capitalist system, represents its method of dominating other nations. The basic target of the national domination method is the class, and the basic target of the domination method against other countries is the national people. Class is the structure within a unit, while nation is the unit itself. Today, class has expanded to form the people, and the people—including the class—constitute the foundation of the nation. In the colonial “ROK”, the national bourgeoisie belongs to the nation but not to the people, while foreign workers belong to the people but not to the nation.

Social democracy and fascism are merely different modes of domination, but their essence—a system to serve the monopoly capitalist—is the same. Prior to World War 2, Nazi Germany shifted its mode of rule from social democracy to fascism. Social democracy and fascism are interchangeable forms of rule, depending on conditions. World War 2 began as a conflict between imperialist powers with social democracy domestic systems and fascism domestic systems. It later transformed into an anti-fascist war when the fascist state launched an invasion of the socialist Soviet Union, prompting a tactical united front—anti-fascist front—between the Soviet Union and the imperialist powers of the US and Britain against fascism. Fascism within imperialist states differs from fascism in colonial states. Fascism in colonies is one of the methods through which imperialism exercises colonial domination. From the 1950s to the 1970s, imperialist powers frequently employed fascism as a means of colonial domination. In the case of the “ROK”, the country was subjected to military fascist rule for approximately 30 years, from 1961 to 1992. This military dictatorship, manipulated by US imperialism, functioned thoroughly in service of US imperialist interests. 

In World War 3, the imperialist camp is using neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Zionists in Israel, and comprador fascists in the “ROK” as shock troops in its proxy wars. The people of each country, along with Russia, the “Axis of Resistance”, including Hamas, and the DPRK, are not only carrying out anti-fascist struggles against these collaborators, but are also waging anti-imperialist struggles against the imperialist forces orchestrating behind them. 

Russia is engaged in an anti-imperialist, anti-neo-Nazi war; Hamas is waging an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist war; and the Axis of Resistance as a whole, including Iran, is conducting an anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist war. The DPRK is preparing for an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war. If the US intervenes in the DPRK’s war of “Subjugation”—war of anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war—the war will escalate into a full-scale anti-imperialist, anti-fascist war, in which the DPRK’s primary enemy shifts from the “ROK” to the US.

Strategy and tactics refer to an integrated system of objectives, means, and methods. The strategy and tactics of the anti-imperialist camp likewise constitute a holistic system, consisting on the one hand of objectives, means, and methods, and on the other of justification, capacity, and operations.

The character of a war is determined by the purpose and objectives of its principal actors. Since the nature of war is relative, the characterization of World War 3 and its localized conflicts must be made from the standpoint of the anti-imperialist camp.

The war in Ukraine is an anti-imperialist, anti-fascist war, a war of liberation and prevention. As Ukraine’s neo-Nazis act as proxy forces for NATO, the imperialist aggressor, the essence of the war in Ukraine is anti-imperialist war. When a war breaks out in East Asia, Russia will expand the Ukrainian front into a broader Eastern European war. This would deal a severe blow to imperialist and fascist forces, serve as a liberation for the peoples of Eastern Europe, and enable Russia to prevent a NATO-led invasion.

If Russia reintegrates former Soviet republics into the Russian Federation and promotes NATO’s withdrawal from former Eastern Bloc socialist states, as well as Finland and Sweden, in order to create a buffer zone, as World War 3 enters a more advanced stage, such moves could invite accusations of “defensive expansionism.” However, this does not make Russia an imperialist power. Expansionism and imperialism must be distinguished.

The war in Palestine is an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, and national liberation war. The war in West Asia is an anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, and liberation war.

The war in Taiwan is an anti-imperialist, national liberation, and reunification war. Indigenous peoples make up only 2% of Taiwan’s population. Historically and practically, Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.

The war in the “ROK” is an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war and a war of “subjugation”. A war of “subjugation” essentially means a civil war. The war in the “ROK” is a civil war on the Korean peninsula. Currently, fascist factions within the “ROK” are attempting to ignite a civil war within the “ROK.” When the local war against the DPRK is combined with the civil war within the “ROK,” it constitutes the war in the “ROK.”

Looking at the history of South Korea, there was an internal civil war in 1948, a localized war against the DPRK in 1949, and the Korean War in 1950. The 1950 Korean War was an anti-imperialist, anti-fascist war, a national liberation war, and the fatherland liberation war. The DPRK refers to the combined national liberation and reunification war as the “Fatherland Liberation War.” The Korean War fought by the Korean people against US imperialist aggressors, was, in essence, an anti-imperialist war and a war for the liberation of the fatherland.

The commonality among the ongoing war in Ukraine in Eastern Europe, the war in West Asia, the imminent war in the “ROK” and Taiwan in East Asia is that they are all fundamentally anti-imperialist wars. In short, World War 3 is essentially an anti-imperialist war. Although it may be distinguished by the characteristics and conditions of the three main battlefields, its fundamental commonality—anti-imperialist nature—remains unchanged.

The war in Palestine is an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist war, and the war in the “ROK” is an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war. Although anti-Zionism and anti-fascism are emphasized respectively, at the forefront, the essential nature of both conflicts remains fundamentally anti-imperialist. Ultimately, the imperialists stand behind both the Israeli Zionists and the “ROK” fascists. Without imperialism, these wars would neither have occurred nor, if they did, would they be easily won by the oppressed and exploited peoples and nations.

US imperialism is organizing the S-QUAD to draw the Philippines into the war in East Asia. If China is inevitably forced into war with the Philippines and its imperialist backers, this war in the Philippines will differ from the war in Taiwan. The war in Taiwan is a national liberation and reunification war for China, a civil war fought within one country with the goal of territorial integrity. However, the war in the Philippines is neither a national liberation war nor a reunification war for China. Nevertheless, both the wars in Taiwan and the Philippines are anti-imperialist wars, and there is no doubt that the war in the Philippines will decisively promote the Filipino national liberation revolution.

Objectives can be divided into acquisition objectives and strike objectives. Each of these, in turn, can be further classified into strategic and tactical levels.

The anti-imperialist camp’s strategic acquisition objective is victory in World War 3—that is, the decisive defeat of the imperialist bloc. Its tactical acquisition objectives are victories in each of the three major theaters of war, which means the liberation of each respective front.

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are used during World War 3, their use will necessarily remain limited. The imperialist bloc, from the outset, has been waging limited war, including proxy wars, with the strategic objective of constructing a “New Cold War” order. Accordingly, even though the conflict qualifies as a world war, it is impossible to completely annihilate the strategic-nuclear-armed imperialist bloc. Thus, the strategic acquisition objective of the anti-imperialist camp cannot be the destruction of imperialism itself, but rather its defeat—more precisely, its decisive defeat.

A world war period is a period of great upheaval. The anti-imperialist camp must first transform this upheaval into a great change—reversing the declining trajectory of the global situation that followed the imperialist victory in the previous “Cold War,” and turning it into a rising tide. This is comparable to how the period of upheaval in World War 2 became a period of great change following the Battle of Stalingrad. Once the decisive defeat of the imperialist bloc is confirmed, the period then transitions into a period of great upsurge. The great upsurge that followed World War 2 will be reproduced after the World War 3 period.

World War 3 involves three main theaters: Eastern Europe, East Asia, and West Asia. The Eastern European and East Asian theaters are strategic fronts, while West Asia constitutes a tactical front. Nevertheless, victory on each of these fronts remains a tactical acquisition objective. World War 3 encompasses all three theaters as a whole and has an universal character itself, and therefore possesses a strategic character, whereas each of the three theaters, being constituent parts of the world war, and has a particular character, thus retains a tactical character.

The strategic strike target of the anti-imperialist camp is imperialism, while the tactical strike target is fascism. Imperialism is the root cause of the world war, and fascism is its servant.

The neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the Zionists in Israel, and the collaborationist fascists in the “ROK” all operate under the thorough control of imperialism, fulfilling the role of front-line assault forces in each theater to achieve imperialism’s strategic objectives.

Since World War 3 carries a strategic character, and its three major theaters carry a tactical one, imperialism—the main instigator of the war—is the strategic strike target, while fascism—the front-line shock troops in each theater—is the tactical strike target.

Strategic and tactical strike targets are each divided into primary and secondary categories.

The primary strategic strike target is US imperialism, while the secondary strategic strike targets are European imperialist powers and Japanese militarism.

Imperialism is the strategic strike target, but US imperialism, as the head of the imperialist bloc, is the main strike target, and the other imperialist powers are secondary strike targets.

The primary tactical strike targets are the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and the collaborationist fascists in the “ROK,” while the secondary tactical strike target is the Israeli Zionists. The battlefield in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, and the battlefield in East Asia, including the “ROK,” constitute strategic theaters in which nuclear and missile superpowers directly confront each other. Accordingly, the fascist forces that serve as imperialism’s shock troops in these theaters are treated as primary strike targets.

The Israeli Zionists, from the perspective of a regional theater, are strategic targets and primary targets for the “Axis of Resistance,” including Iran.

However, from the perspective of the global war, since West Asia is considered a tactical theater, the Israeli Zionists are regarded as tactical strike targets and secondary targets for the anti-imperialist camp.

Although Israel is a nuclear-armed state and Iran is a missile power with latent nuclear capability, neither are nuclear–missile superpowers equipped with hydrogen bombs and hypersonic weapons. Thus, the conflict in that regional theater is likely to remain limited in scope, and it will not escalate toward full-scale mutual assured destruction. So, in the context of the global war, the war in that region retains a tactical and secondary character.

The war fought by the anti-imperialist camp is an anti-imperialist war and thus, is a just war. The anti-imperialist camp firmly stands on the side of justice; while opposing imperialism, it also opposes fascism and strives for liberation and reunification. There is no historical precedent for defining imperialism as just, but just as imperialists opposed fascism during World War 2, it can never deny the justification of anti-fascism. The justification of liberation and reunification is just as objective as anti-fascism.

Under the banner of anti-imperialism, the anti-imperialist camp wages a just war for anti-fascism, liberation, and reunification. In terms of justification, the anti-imperialist camp overwhelmingly surpasses the imperialist camp. In war, justification is one of the decisive factors determining victory or defeat, defining the political and moral superiority of force.

The imperialist camp, while advancing World War 3, and planning the war in Ukraine and West Asia, overlooked the logical contradiction between anti-Russian propaganda and pro-Israel propaganda. The imperialist propaganda that condemns Russia’s anti-fascist war—a just war—as an unjust war, while simultaneously defending the unjust war of Israeli Zionists and fascists, holds no credibility at all. As a result, the imperialist camp has lost even the flimsy justification it had built by labeling Russia as the “aggressor.”

The notorious double standards of the imperialist camp have provoked strong backlash even within imperialist countries. It is no coincidence that large-scale protests under the banners of anti-Netanyahu, anti-Zionist, and pro-Palestinian are taking place both inside Israel and in many Western European countries.

One of the essential strategic tasks to strengthen the anti-imperialist front and enhance its role is for the anti-imperialist camp to actively support Russia in the war in Ukraine and the “Axis of Resistance,” including Palestine and Iran, in the war in West Asia, while simultaneously promoting strategic solidarity between pro-Russian and pro-Palestinian forces on a global scale.

Means is capacity. In revolution and struggle, capacity is divided into leading capacity and auxiliary capacity. There may be disagreements when adopting the view that armed struggle forces constitute the leading capacity and mass struggle forces the auxiliary capacity as a general theory of revolution, but there is no disagreement when adopting it as a theory of revolutionary war.

The leading capacity of the anti-imperialist camp is the “Three Countries and One Group.” The three countries are the DPRK, China, and Russia—all nuclear missile superpowers and major powers. The “One Group” refers to the “Axis of Resistance,” including Iran.

All members of the Three Countries and One Group are anti-imperialist armed struggle forces. Russia and the “Axis of Resistance,” including Iran, are currently engaged in armed struggles. The DPRK and China regard the wars in the “ROK” and Taiwan as imminent.

The Three Countries and One Group, as anti-imperialist armed forces, constitute the leading capacity, while the rest of the world anti-imperialist forces engaged in mass struggle form the auxiliary capacity.

Anti-imperialist ruling forces in Latin America and the Sahel region of Africa possess the potential to carry out anti-imperialist armed struggle under certain circumstances. However, since they exist outside the three major theaters of World War 3 and are not currently involved in or facing imminent war, they are not considered part of the leading capacity.

The DPRK is the most thorough socialist state, China is a socialist country with its own characteristics, and Russia is the most important inheritor of the socialist legacy.

The DPRK, as the most rigorous state based on socialist and anti-imperialist principles, embodies these not only in military and diplomatic aspects but also in economic and cultural aspects. 

China, as an economic powerhouse forming the G2 with the United States, is a main pillar of BRICS, the economic community of the anti-imperialist camp together with Russia. The essence of the “One Belt One Road” policy is to break through the imperialist blockade.

Russia, as the country possessing the world’s most powerful nuclear missiles, provides military support to anti-imperialist states within the anti-imperialist camp.

The battlefields directly connected to the three major leading states—the Eastern European and East Asian fronts—are regional battlefields of strategic significance among the three main theaters, thus considered strategic fronts. The front of the “Axis of Resistance,” including Iran, is a regional battlefield of tactical significance, therefore a tactical front.

The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip bear a strategic character in terms of the West Asian front as a regional battlefield, but from the perspective of the world war as a whole and global fronts, they remain tactical in nature.

From September to December 2024, imperialism, deploying Israel’s Zionists, launched concentrated offensives in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza in West Asia, inflicting significant damage on the anti-imperialist forces.

In contrast, regarding the invasion of Kursk in Russia in August 2024 and the lifting of long-range missile restrictions against Russia in November 2024, the anti-imperialist forces of Russia and the DPRK joined forces to lead the Battle for Kursk to victory, and the astonishing power of Russia’s “Oreshnik” missile struck fear into the imperialist camp.

The provocations against the DPRK to wage local war led by fascists from September to November 2024 were frustrated by the DPRK’s “strategic patience,” grounded in overwhelming military power. Meanwhile, the pro-American military self-coup attempt in the “ROK” in December 2024 was thwarted by the heroic struggle of the people in the “ROK.”

From the perspective of the world war, the anti-imperialist camp dealt a military strike to the imperialist camp on the strategic front in Eastern Europe, and military as well as political strikes on the strategic front in East Asia, both naturally carrying strategic significance.

Russia recently marked the 80th anniversary of its victory in World War 2 with a triumph in the liberation battle of Kursk. The DPRK established its strongest-ever military alliance with Russia by signing the DPRK-Russia Treaty on June 19, 2024, and concretized this treaty by participating in the Kursk liberation battle. The DPRK troops’ participation in this battle shines as the highest example of strategic solidarity among the leading countries within the anti-imperialist camp.

The DPRK signed treaties with the Soviet Union and China in 1961, confirming automatic intervention by the USSR and China if imperialist war against the DPRK recurs. Since China remains a socialist state, there was no need to renew the DPRK-China treaty during Xi Jinping’s 2019 visit. However, given changes in Russia from the Soviet socialist state, a new DPRK-Russia treaty was in need, which was signed during Putin’s 2024 visit.

The June 19, 2024, DPRK-Russia treaty establishes the strongest-ever DPRK-Russia alliance, surpassing the previous DPRK-Soviet treaty. Based on this treaty, it was codified that the DPRK and Russia would automatically intervene in the event of a war against imperialism involving the other party. Under this treaty, the DPRK’s participation in the Kursk liberation battle was fully legitimate under international law. Putin and Russia highly commend the heroic and sacrificial achievements of the DPRK military.

The anti-imperialist front is a strategic united front, while the anti-fascist front is a tactical united front. For the anti-imperialist camp, non-warmongering forces in imperialism are targets for tactical cooperation.

A strategic united front can remain throughout the historical course of revolution and its successive developmental stages, whereas a tactical united front is only effective within a limited time frame. A typical example of the former is the national united front, while the latter is the anti-fascist democratic front. The anti-Japanese national united fronts in the DPRK and China evolved into governments which have been continuing in the process of socialist revolution and construction. The world anti-fascist front during World War 2, however, was dissolved after the war due to the imperialist camp’s “Cold War” strategy.

Treating a permanent strategic united front as a temporary tactical united front is a right-wing deviation, while treating a temporary tactical united front as a permanent strategic united front is a left-wing deviation.

Tactical cooperation involves temporarily aligning actions to isolate and weaken a common enemy, while refraining from mutual attacks between the cooperating forces. By engaging in tactical cooperation, one can avoid situations where fighting between cooperating forces would ultimately benefit the common enemy. Since tactical cooperation is not a united front, meetings, agreements, or declarations are not necessary. In other words, those involved in tactical cooperation are neither subjects of solidarity nor subjects to shake hands with. Forming a tactical united front with the so-called “new right” that has roots in fascism, or aligning with them in solidarity, is a right-wing error and an error of rightist open-door policy.

In the political situation of World War 3, if the “new right” opposes the war and takes a different line from the warmongering forces in the imperialist camp, then tactical cooperation aimed at exacerbating the divisions within the imperialist camp and promoting the anti-imperialist camp’s victory in World War 3 is both justifiable and necessary.

In other words, when the imperialist camp is divided into warmongers and non-warmongers, as is the case today, it is important for the anti-imperialist camp to tactically cooperate with the non-warmongering forces within the imperialist camp. Denying this would be a left-wing error, an error of leftist closed-door policy. The unity of the anti-imperialist camp has strategic significance, while the division of the imperialist camp holds tactical significance.

The methods are armed struggle and mass struggle. When combined, they form what is called an All-People’s War. The fundamental struggle form of anti-imperialist camp is the All-People’s War. 

As the historical experience shows, the Soviet Union waged a war of attrition in World War 2; China won its liberation war through a protracted war; the DPRK achieved victory in its liberation war through guerrilla warfare.

Following World War 2, Italian revolutionary forces developed the concept of war of position. For the past three years, Russia has also relied primarily on a war of attrition in its prosecution of the war in Ukraine.

The forms of popular struggle can be classified according to intensity and leadership into: All-People’s Resistance War, All-People’s Resistance struggle, People’s Uprising, and Mass Uprising.

All-People’s Resistance War, All-People’s Resistance struggle, People’s Uprising are all forms of revolutionary resistance: All-People’s Resistance War is a resistance war waged together by regular armed forces and the masses; All-People’s Resistance Struggle is a combination of armed and mass struggle by the irregular armed forces and people; People’s Uprising is the highest form of popular struggle led directly by the people themselves; Mass Uprising is also a high-level mass struggle, but one typically led by reformist forces rather than revolutionary ones.

In the history of the “ROK”, the 1950 Korean war is characterized as an all people’s war; the 1948 Jeju uprising and 1980 Gwangju uprising as all people’s uprising; the 1960 April uprising and 1987 June uprising as people’s uprising; the 2016 “Candlelight uprising” and 2024 December uprising as mass uprising. 

The imperialist camp is conducting military operations in the form of proxy wars, expeditionary wars, “non-nuclear hybrid wars,” and limited wars. In contrast, the anti-imperialist camp is commonly engaging in direct war, proximate wars, “nuclear hybrid wars,” and full-scale wars.

In the context of World War 3, Russia is waging a war of attrition against the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and NATO, while the DPRK and China—preparing for a decisive imperialist provocation—have established military operational plans aimed at achieving victory within “72 hours,” based on blitzkrieg (lightning war), total war, and tactical nuclear strikes. In recent years, they have been refining these plans through repeated drills.

In November 2022, the DPRK responded to the US-“ROK” joint aerial invasion exercise “Vigilant Ace” by mobilizing 500 aircraft in a counter-drill. As their operational plan is designed to be completed within three days, they reverted to the Day 1 plan on the fourth day. In April 2025, China conducted a military encirclement drill around Taiwan, based on an operational plan that involved the projection of tactical nuclear weapons from air, sea, and land. Since 2024, the DPRK has been continuously screening the film “72 Hours” in theaters nationwide.

The imperialist camp’s hybrid warfare is a “non-nuclear hybrid war,” wherein the use of nuclear weapons is entirely excluded. In contrast, the anti-imperialist camp engages in a “nuclear hybrid war,” which includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Tactical nuclear warfare is a strategy that targets the enemy’s underground command bunkers with tactical nuclear weapons in the early phase of war, aiming to force a swift surrender and minimize human and material losses.

The DPRK possesses even tactical nuclear weapons and has the will to use them. In contrast, the “ROK” has no tactical nukes, and while the US does possess them, it lacks the will to use them. The DPRK’s tactical nuclear weapons are intended for use against the “ROK,” not the USA. However, if the US were to use tactical nuclear weapons, it would be doing so against the DPRK—and specifically on DPRK territory. In that case, the DPRK would retaliate against the US—specifically targeting US territory.

If such a situation unfolds, China and Russia would become involved. If the DPRK were to use a nuclear weapon—especially a hydrogen bomb—against the USA, then the US would feel compelled to retaliate not only against the DPRK but also against China and Russia with hydrogen bombs. This is because the US cannot allow China and Russia to remain intact after its own territory has been destroyed by thermonuclear weapons. In turn, China and Russia would naturally retaliate by launching hydrogen bombs at the US, and likewise, unable to leave Europe unscathed, they would also target Europe. 

This catastrophic chain of mutual assured destruction on a global scale is precisely why the US cannot, under any circumstances, initiate a tactical nuclear strike on DPRK territory. Thus, the DPRK, possessing tactical nuclear weapons, would be able to conclude the war quickly and with relative ease—within three days—against the “ROK,” which lacks such weapons.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the DPRK, China, and Russia is limited to their own historic territories and is aimed at achieving long-standing goals of territorial integrity and the surgical elimination of fascist forces. Tactical nuclear weapons are employed to bring a swift end to war through an ultra-short-term campaign, precisely to prevent the prolonged duration of conventional warfare and the astronomical human and material losses it entails. They are a means used for just purposes—to minimize the consequences of war.

However, if the US and NATO—acting as the backers of the “ROK,” Taiwan, and Ukraine—were to launch tactical nuclear strikes against the mainlands of the DPRK, China, or Russia, the situation would escalate to an entirely different level. In such a case, the DPRK, China, and Russia would rightfully and immediately retaliate with tactical nuclear strikes against the US and NATO homelands, plunging the world into a state of mutual assured destruction. For this reason, a tactical nuclear attack by the US or NATO would not only be unjust, but in practice, unfeasible. Such an action would mean the annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the planet.

Historically, the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons is the United States—US imperialism. The destructive power of the “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” bombs it dropped was well over ten times greater than that of the tactical nuclear weapons currently being planned for use. 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 16 kilotons, whereas the DPRK’s newly revealed tactical nuclear warhead, the “Hwasan-31,” intended for use in a war in the “ROK,” has a yield of 0.9 kilotons.

The “Hwasan-31” is designed for deployment across all domains—land, sea, underwater, and air—and is compatible with a wide array of delivery systems, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, maneuverable glide missiles, and even 600mm super-large multiple rocket launchers. The DPRK has completed all necessary preparations for its tactical nuclear weapons program—including production, deployment, operational training, and legal formalization.

During World War 2, the United States used nuclear weapons to annihilate Japanese militarism and fascism. In World War 3, the tactical nuclear weapons of the DPRK, China, and Russia will likewise be used to eliminate fascism.

The USA—as the first and only country to have ever used nuclear weapons and one that has continuously wielded nuclear blackmail against non-nuclear states while now driving the world toward World War 3—has no right to condemn the DPRK, China, and Russia for resorting to tactical nuclear strikes as a justified act of defense.

DPRK and China are currently upholding a stance of “strategic patience,” refusing to be drawn into provocations, even as the largest-ever war exercises targeting both countries unfold in the Pacific and schemes to ignite the wars in the “ROK” and in Taiwan accelerate. Their position reflects a steadfast commitment to preserving peace.

The DPRK’s war in the “ROK” is a war of anti-fascist, anti-imperialist and a war of “subjugation.” While anti-fascist war is inherently anti-imperialist, the anti-fascist aspect takes precedence in this case. This indicates that the Korean People’s Army will not engage US forces unless the United States intervenes in the war. 

Of course, in such a scenario, US forces and related elements would be effectively confined within their bases. Given that the DPRK would have already subjugated and occupied the “ROK,” the situation for them would be even more severe than that of the so-called “Green Zone” in Iraq.

Unlike Ukraine, which shares land borders not only with Russia but also with Poland, Romania, and others, and unlike Taiwan, which—though separated from China by sea—is an island completely surrounded by water, the “ROK” shares a land border only with the DPRK and is otherwise enclosed by sea on its three remaining sides. This gives Russia a geographic advantage in launching and occupying Ukraine by land, while Ukraine still has options to flee by land. In contrast, China faces a geographic disadvantage in having to cross the strait to attack and occupy Taiwan, but Taiwan is completely isolated and has no way to escape. As for the DPRK, it has a geographical advantage in attacking and occupying the “ROK” by land, while the “ROK” remains geographically isolated and has no route of escape.

The DPRK has undertaken extensive preparations for a war in the “ROK” by excavating numerous southward infiltration tunnels and strategic underground structures. The fascists in the “ROK” and the imperialists like the US Forces Korea (USFK) would find themselves immediately isolated and effectively taken hostage. 

The USA would bear responsibility for ensuring the safety not only of its own citizens but also of those from the other “Five Eyes” countries, as well as Japanese citizens.

It seems that the DPRK intends to use the presence of U.S. troops and other personnel as hostages in the event of a revolution in the “ROK” to pressure imperialist powers into lifting their economic and other forms of blockade. Fully aware of this, Trump has sought to withdraw the USFK before the outbreak of a war of ‘subjugation,’ yet his efforts have been hampered by the imperialist pro-warmonger forces. As of May 2025, reports indicate that the Trump administration is considering a troop reduction plan that would relocate 4,500 USFK personnel from the “ROK” to Guam.

The DPRK will never resume talks unless the agreements made during the 2018–19 summits with the US and the “ROK” are implemented first. It is no coincidence that the Trump administration has acknowledged the DPRK as a nuclear-armed state and is now moving to reduce USFK by 4,500 troops.

The reformist forces led by Lee Jae-myung, which won the early “ROK” presidential election on June 3, must also take concrete action by abolishing the National Security Act. USFK is an occupying and invading force, and the National Security Act is a fascist law. Their very existence proves that the “ROK” remains a US colony under fascist rule. The DPRK’s fundamental position appears to be that it will only enter into dialogue with the US and the “ROK” if and when USFK is withdrawn and the National Security Act is abolished. 

To this end, the DPRK issued its “Declaration of ‘Subjugation’” during the policy address of the Supreme People’s Assembly in January 2024, and notably omitted the policy address entirely in January 2025.

Since the Trump administration took office in January 2025, the DPRK has suspended intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch drills targeting the US mainland, and has instead been concentrating on tactical nuclear strike drills aimed at the traitorous and fascist forces in the “ROK”—using short-range ballistic missiles, strategic cruise missiles, 600mm multiple rocket launchers, air-to-air missiles, and other platforms.

For the imperialist war-mongering forces desperate to unleash World War 3, a war in East Asia is indispensable—and at its core lies the war in “ROK” as the ignition point. Having failed in the military coup of December 3, 2024, the fascist and reactionary clique in the “ROK,” now facing political death, sees civil war as its only remaining path to survival.

When a civil war overlaps with a localized war, it becomes a full-scale war—w war in the “ROK.” The historical sequence of the 1948 civil war in South Korea, the 1949 localized war against the DPRK, and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 is now being reenacted in the present.

From the standpoint of imperialist and fascist forces, the provocation of a localized war against the DPRK between September and November 2024 constitutes Plan A. The instigation of civil war beginning in December 2024 then becomes Plan B. If both fail, a war in Taiwan becomes Plan C.

In accordance with the 1961 DPRK-China Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance—and as reaffirmed during Xi Jinping’s visit to the DPRK in 2019—any outbreak of war, whether in the “ROK” or in Taiwan, will inevitably trigger the other.

With the victory of reformist candidate Lee Jae-myung in the June 3 presidential election, Plan B has become a difficult path for the imperialist and fascist forces. They now stand at a crossroads: either attempt Plan A once more, or proceed with Plan C.

Of course, Plan B within the “ROK” is not entirely off the table, as the possibility of a military coup still remains.

Plan A, as clearly demonstrated by this year’s largest-ever U.S.-“ROK” joint war exercises aimed at invading the DPRK, remains a constant and immediate option.

US imperialism has been accelerating its war exercises aimed at invading the DPRK: 132 times from 2003 to 2022, 123 times in 2023, 134 times in 2024, and it is already on track to surpass this record in 2025. In August 2023, the imperialist camp de facto established an “Asian NATO,” centered on trilateral military cooperation, through the Camp David summit between the US, Japan, and the “ROK.” Subsequently, preparations related to the “Pacificization of NATO” proceeded on both political and military fronts: on the political level, with the Washington NATO Summit Declaration in July 2024; on the military level, with a series of joint exercises held between June and August 2024, including “Freedom Edge,” “RIMPAC,” and “Ulchi Freedom Shield.”

“Freedom Edge” is a trilateral exercise involving the US, Japan, and the “ROK, ”explicitly aimed at joint operational readiness concerning the DPRK, and was one of the outcomes of the Camp David summit. “RIMPAC,” the largest annual maritime exercise in the Pacific, has steadily expanded in scope, with an increasing focus on scenarios involving both the DPRK and China. “Ulchi Freedom Shield” is the largest joint military drill in the region, specifically aimed at simulating a war against the DPRK.

Between June and August 2024, “RIMPAC” was conducted at an unprecedented scale in the Pacific, with 29 countries participating, involving 40 warships, 3 submarines, over 150 aircraft, and some 25,000 troops.

This exercise laid bare the reality of the “Pacificization of NATO” and clearly demonstrated how the imperialist camp is preparing for what many now call a “Second Pacific War.”

The series of events that occurred—the assassination attempt on candidate Trump in July 2024, the Kursk incursion, concentrated strikes on Hezbollah, and the drone attack on Pyongyang in August, September, and October—followed by the lifting of restrictions on long-range missiles against Russia in November, and the military coup in the “ROK” and the collapse of the Assad government in Syria in December—cannot be seen as mere coincidences.

That these provocations and attacks by imperialist warmongering forces and fascists took place around the US presidential election—and then subsided relatively after January 2025, when Trump, representative of the non-warmongering forces of imperialism, returned to power—points to the same context.

Trump engaged in serious negotiations with Russia and Iran. Even when an unprecedented and unexplained explosion occurred at Iran’s largest port on the very first day of talks between the Iranian and US delegations in Oman, Iran did not suspend the talks. Under the direction of NATO—representing the imperialist warmongering forces—its proxies, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Israeli Zionists, continue their attacks and provocations against Russia and Iran, respectively. Alarming signs of possible strikes on Russia’s nuclear reactors and Iran’s nuclear facilities have repeatedly surfaced. Israeli Zionists have intensified their assaults on Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. We must closely monitor whether these provocations by imperialist warmongering forces and their fascist puppets are merely aimed at sabotaging Trump’s negotiations, or whether they will escalate into a broader war in Eastern Europe and a full-scale war in West Asia. It is because the imperialist warmongering forces are not only deliberately pushing for the outbreak of war in East Asia—they are also relentlessly driving the expansion of war in both Eastern Europe and West Asia to crush the imperialist non-warmongering forces and fully ignite World War 3. 

The localized conflict between India and Pakistan, which had served to escalate tensions between India and China and to draw India toward the imperialist camp under the Indo-Pacific Strategy, was also brought to a halt through Trump’s mediation. 

The Trump administration stated that even if a war in Taiwan were to break out, it would respond solely with a 200% tariff on China. It also blocked the implementation of a plan—initiated under the Biden administration—to transfer operational control over US Forces Japan (USFJ) from the Indo-Pacific Command to USFJ. While publicly pursuing negotiations with the DPRK, the Trump administration repeatedly emphasized the DPRK as a nuclear weapons state and was reportedly reviewing a plan to withdraw 4,500 troops of US forces stationed in the “ROK.” Although a military coup took place in the “ROK” under the Biden administration, moves toward civil war were de-escalated during the Trump administration.

Fundamentally, the attempted localized war against the DPRK was deterred by the DPRK’s overwhelming military power and its “strategic patience,” while the attempt to provoke civil war in the “ROK” was blocked by the heroic resistance of the people in the “ROK”. Through the great December uprising, the people in the “ROK” prevented a repetition of Indonesia’s dark past—the Suharto coup and mass slaughter—from unfolding in the “ROK”.

Through this process, the people experienced a powerful awakening that they came to directly confront the limits of “ROK”-style democracy and rule of law, to recognize the deeply subordinated and reactionary nature of the existing society, and to deepen their collective realization of the need to advance toward a new society rooted in people’s democracy.

As the sole revolutionary force leading the revolution of the “ROK,” the People’s Democracy Party stood at the center of the political struggle to elevate the anti-fascist front into an anti-imperialist, anti-fascist front, and faithfully carried out its historic mission as the “locomotive of the struggle” throughout the entire course of the December Uprising.

For the imperialist pro-warmonger forces, the war in the “ROK” is the ultimate scheme to launch World War 3 in earnest through the war in East Asia and the most effective card for suppressing the imperialist non-warmonger forces that run counter to the march toward world war.

If a war in the “ROK” breaks out, a war in Taiwan would erupt almost simultaneously, rapidly expanding into an East Asia war involving Japan and the Philippines, and then into a Western Pacific war as Australia and others join.

A war in the “ROK,” a war in East Asia, and a war in Western Pacific are not a matter of choice but of necessity—the only remaining question is when, not if.

That timing will not be decided by the anti-imperialist camp, but by the imperialist camp—by the imperialist warmongering forces.

As reality clearly shows, the anti-imperialist camp is surpassing the imperialist camp in every respect—in objectives, means, and methods; in justification, capacity, and strategies.

The DPRK and China are steadily accumulating justification through “strategic patience,” while Russia and Iran, fully aware of the imminence of an East Asia war, are likewise exercising “strategic patience” by holding back from decisive countermeasures and escalation.

The delay in the outbreak of war in East Asia, the expansion of the war in Eastern Europe, and the widening of the war in West Asia is entirely thanks to the “strategic patience” of the DPRK and China in the former case, and of Russia and Iran in the latter.

3. The Final Victory of the Anti-Imperialist Camp Is Inevitable

Capitalism has evolved through monopoly capitalism and imperialism into state monopoly capitalism and modern imperialism. Ideology reflects its time; when the times change, so too must ideology. Leninism emerged as a continuation of the universal principles of Marxism, which reflected the era of monopoly capitalism, while overcoming its historical limitations.

Lenin defined imperialism as the highest and final stage of capitalism. Although the era of modern imperialism has since arrived, the universal principles of Lenin’s theory remain valid to this day. As stated in the preface, Lenin’s “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” inevitably bears the limitation of being written primarily from an economic standpoint. 

Imperialism, of course, is not limited to the economic aspect; it also possesses military and political features. For example, the mere presence of monopolistic forms of capital, the phenomenon of capital export, or holding a dominant position over other countries as an economic power cannot, in and of themselves, be sufficient to define a country as imperialist. At its core, imperialism necessarily involves colonial domination—and such domination is predicated not only on economic control but also, as a precondition, on military and political rule.

As history has shown, military domination is the decisive factor in colonial rule under imperialism. The most important criterion for determining whether a society is colonial in nature—the primary indicator to examine—is whether it is under military domination. Imperialism militarily occupies its colonies, governs them politically, and exploits them economically. In the absence of military occupation and political control, even if there are partial forms of economic subordination or exploitation, the relationship cannot be characterized as one between imperialism and a colony.

However, there is a so-called “theory” that claims all capitalist societies are, by nature, imperialist societies. It is truly deplorable that this pseudo-theory—lacking even the barest scientific foundation to qualify as a theory—is being propagated under the name of the “Imperialist Pyramid”, thereby sowing confusion within the international communist movement.

This clearly illustrates how stagnant the international communist movement has become. The reason why Solidnet—a respected body within the international communist movement—has failed to carry out the mission demanded by the times, remaining mired in division and paralysis, lies precisely here.

So long as the proponents of the “Imperialist Pyramid” theory remain at the helm of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), Solidnet—of which the KKE serves as an organizer—will be unable to overcome its inherent limitations.

The leadership of the KKE has committed a grave analytical error in understanding the current international situation by clinging to the absurd sophistry of the “Imperialist Pyramid” theory, labeling Russia as an imperialist state, and defining the war in Ukraine as an inter-imperialist conflict.

It must also be emphasized that other political forces within the international communist movement—though they may not explicitly follow to the “Imperialist Pyramid” theory—nonetheless commit the same error by advancing similar analyses that obscure the true nature of the war in Ukraine, ultimately serving imperialist interests.

The KKE leadership not only classifies Russia as an imperialist society but also includes China and even the DPRK. This logic leads to the conclusion that the imminent wars in Taiwan and the “ROK” are also inter-imperialist wars. As a result, the main strategic battlefronts of World War 3 are reduced to nothing more than conflicts between unjust forces, erasing the existence of any real enemy for the international communist movement and world anti-imperialist forces—a truly absurd outcome.

To confuse friend and foe is the gravest strategic mistake that communists must never commit. This was the essential error committed by Karl Kautsky during World War 1 and by Trotsky during World War 2. This is precisely why the KKE leadership’s “Imperialist Pyramid” theory evokes both Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism” and the ultra-left tendencies of Trotskyism.

It is no longer a secret that the KKE leadership followed Khrushchev―the ringleader of modern revisionism―in 1956 and even supported Gorbachev’s policies of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost.”

Some might defend the KKE leadership by arguing that most of the international communist movement followed the Communist Party of Soviet Union at the time and thus also committed revisionist errors. However, given the KKE’s central role as one of the main organizers in SolidNet, it must bear the corresponding political responsibility for the grave consequences of those errors.

It is worth remembering that Nikos Zachariadis, the most representative General Secretary of the KKE, was a revolutionary communist who stood firmly against Khrushchev’s revisionism—alongside Kim Il Sung, the General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Mao Zedong of the Communist Party of China, and Enver Hoxha of the Party of Labour of Albania. Ever since expelling General Secretary Zachariadis and other steadfast communists, the KKE leadership has followed a revisionist line—without ever genuinely reflecting on or evaluating its errors.

The KKE, which continues to cling to the pseudo-theory of the ‘Imperialist Pyramid’ and commit grave errors through its revisionist ideology and opportunist political line, must immediately withdraw from all positions of responsibility within the international communist movement. It must carry out a rigorous, scientific, and self-critical communist assessment of the ideological, organizational, and practical consequences of its actions.

The leadership of the KKE is today causing some of the most serious problems in the international communist movement: revisionism in ideology, both “left” and right opportunism in political line, and sectarianism in organizational practice. Even at this very moment, its erroneous ideas, theories, and line are spreading confusion within the international communist movement and sowing division among the communist parties of various countries.

The KKE leadership must be held strictly accountable for the political, strategic, and historical consequences of weakening the international communist movement and aiding the forces of imperialism.

It is no coincidence that the true nature of the KKE is being increasingly exposed through the ideological struggle waged by revolutionary communists, and that it is becoming ever more isolated within the international communist movement.

In February 2022, the war in Ukraine erupted. Originating with the 2014 Maidan coup, the conflict escalated into full-scale war through Russia’s “special military operation,” marking the opening salvo of World War 3.

Although World War 3 had begun, the international communist movement remained engulfed in severe confusion, unable to break free from the grip of the KKE leadership and its dogmatic adherence to the so-called “Imperialist Pyramid” theory.

As the KKE leadership defined the war in Ukraine as a conflict between imperialist powers, Solidnet experienced an unprecedented split and was compelled to issue two mutually opposing declarations at its meeting in Havana, Cuba, in October 2022. 

In this context, communist forces aligned in revolutionary orientation gathered in Paris in October 2022 to hold the 1st International Anti-imperialist Conference, issuing the Paris Declaration. The day after the declaration was released, the World Anti-imperialist Platform (hereinafter the Platform) was founded, based on the political program it laid out.

Since then, the Platform has organized seven successive international anti-imperialist conferences: in Belgrade, Serbia (December 2022); Caracas, Venezuela (March 2023); Gwangju and Seoul, the “ROK” (May 2023); Athens, Greece (November 2023); Washington, USA (July 2024); and Dakar, Senegal (November 2024).

Alongside convening international conferences for the scientific analysis of the global situation and the formulation of revolutionary strategies, the Platform has vigorously carried out joint anti-imperialist struggles to implement them in practice. At each event, rallies and marches were held, and communist party members and anti-imperialist activists came together to discuss and disseminate the Platform’s scientific understanding of the present conjuncture and its revolutionary strategy and tactics.

The world anti-imperialist massive struggles are also being carried out on a regular monthly basis, led by the People’s Democracy Party of the “ROK” and other participating parties and organizations wherever possible.

The Platform held its 2nd International Anti-imperialist Conference in Belgrade, Serbia, because NATO—an imperialist bloc’s military tool—bombed Belgrade in 1999. The Platform places strategic importance on opposing NATO, which is now executing World War 3 directly on behalf of the imperialist camp. Serbia is the most dangerous flashpoint country in the Balkans, where NATO—defeated in the war in Ukraine—could launch a retaliatory war.

The Platform selected Caracas, Venezuela—the heart of the Bolivarian Revolution—as the site of its first event in Latin America. The event was held in conjunction with the 10th anniversary of Hugo Chávez’s passing, adding to its historical significance. The Platform has consistently expressed its support for the Maduro government, which upholds the banners of the Bolivarian Revolution, anti-imperialism, and anti-fascism, strengthens the people’s power of the Communas, and advances toward socialism. In stark contrast, the leadership of the KKE played a divisive role in splitting the Communist Party of Venezuela, manipulated the breakaway faction, and absurdly labeled the Maduro government an “imperialist government.” This culminated in their shocking endorsement of a pro-US fascist candidate in the recent presidential election. The genuine communist forces of Venezuela, standing firm against these pseudo-communist elements, have upheld the revolutionary tradition of the Communist Party of Venezuela and maintained their revolutionary independence.

The next event was held in Gwangju and Seoul in the “ROK,” located at the geopolitical flashpoint of East Asia—the main battlefield of the unfolding World War 3. The mass street demonstration in Gwangju, carried out under the high banner of anti-imperialism and led by the working class, marked not only the first such action by the Platform, but also an unprecedented moment in the history of the “ROK” itself, lending it profound political significance and wide resonance.

In the “ROK,” a colonial and fascist society where the largest US military base in the world is located and where the most draconian fascist laws are in force, it is an unprecedented historical event for workers and the masses to march through the streets raising high the banner of anti-imperialism and anti-US, calling for the overthrow of the fascist regime. Such a struggle would have been impossible without the strength of the Platform, the true rallying force of the global communist movement and the anti-imperialist struggle. Amid the energy and momentum of the Platform’s international anti-imperialist conference and anti-imperialist massive struggle, the People’s Democracy Party successfully held its Party Congress, formed a new leadership, and proclaimed its people-centered “Theory of the 21st Century Revolution.”

The Platform’s decision to choose Athens, Greece as its next site was rooted in multiple layers of significance: to commemorate the 120th anniversary of the birth of Nikos Zachariadis, and the 50th anniversary of the Polytechnic anti-fascist and anti-imperialist uprising; to carry forward the ideological struggle against the revisionism and opportunism of the KKE leadership; and to highlight the geopolitical importance of Greece, positioned between the front in Ukraine and the newly emerging fronts in Palestine and West Asia. At the Athens International Anti-imperialist Conference, the Platform issued the “Palestine Declaration”, affirming international solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle. 

Subsequently, the Platform, overcoming tremendous obstacles, held an International Anti-imperialist Conference in Washington DC. in opposition to the NATO Summit. Despite intense repression and blockade by US imperialism—forcing an unavoidable reduction in scale—the event was of strategic importance and was carried out with high political quality. The Platform advanced powerful anti-imperialist rallies, marches, and propaganda actions in the heart of imperialism itself. No amount of repression or fascist suppression can block the path of the Platform.

A few months later, the Platform held its first event in Africa, in Dakar, Senegal, expressing solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggles unfolding in the Sahel, which today stands at the forefront of Africa’s resistance to imperialism. The event also commemorated the 100th birth anniversary of Amílcar Cabral, the renowned African revolutionary from Guinea-Bissau, in a meaningful tribute. From the time of the Dakar event, the Platform also initiated an international solidarity campaign calling for the release of Georges Abdallah, the Lebanese revolutionary who has been unjustly imprisoned for over 40 years by French imperialism for his role in the Palestinian liberation struggle.

Following the 2022 NATO summit held in Madrid, Spain, a new summit is now set to take place once again in Western Europe—in The Hague, Netherlands, in June 2025—as part of NATO’s drive to provoke and accelerate World War 3. In firm opposition to NATO’s expansion and war drive, the Platform continues to advance with unwavering determination and revolutionary clarity—until the day NATO is dismantled and world peace is achieved.

With over 80 political organizations all over the world signing the Paris Declaration, all the practical events, theoretical and propaganda work, event-based struggles, and everyday operations of the Platform are consistently oriented toward its three core objectives: to promote world anti-imperialist mass struggle, to intensify the ideological struggle against revisionism and opportunism, and the consolidate the international communist movement.

The Platform conducts its theoretical and practical activities under the banners of two central slogans: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” and “The people united will never be defeated!”

The Platform’s most fundamental task is to establish a revolutionary strategy based on scientific analysis of the global situation. By analyzing the global conjuncture of World War 3 unleashed by imperialism and presenting a revolutionary anti-imperialist strategy, the Platform is at the forefront of the struggle to strengthen the anti-imperialist front and hasten the final victory of the anti-imperialist cause.

As the world anti-fascist front triumphed in World War 2, the world anti-imperialist front will surely win in World War 3. As reality shows, the anti-imperialist camp is overwhelming the imperialist camp in justification, capacity, and operations. The final victory of the people, advancing under the banners of anti-imperialism and revolution, is inevitable. Revolution is science. So is revolutionary victory.