wiredearp

[Nel B. @noirnen]

On NATO 3.0
I just published a long essay I've been working on for weeks. It's called NATO 3.0: The Transatlantic Cage and the Rise of the Bunkerstate, and honestly, it started as a much simpler piece and then kept growing as I dug into the documents.

What I found, in short: the NATO summit in Ankara was the formal ratification of a qualitative shift in how the alliance functions. Europe is being systematically restructured as an operational node, a self-funding, self-industrializing garrison that will absorb the conventional burden of attritional warfare on the continent, while the U.S. ruling strata retain the command layer, the nuclear umbrella, the digital brain, and the strategic direction.

I trace this shift through the NATO declarations, through the Army War College monograph that calls for Europe to abandon "fragmented industrial nationalism" and shift to a "positional-defense framework," through the financial mechanisms (the NATO Innovation Fund, the ESG rewrites, the long-term procurement guarantees) that are channeling private capital into the defense sector, and through the historical record, the 1959 memo that already described this division of labor, the 1995 Libicki text on "vertical coalitions" that reads like a blueprint for today.

I also try to connect this to the Bunkerstate framework I've been developing. NATO 3.0 is the Bunkerstate at the transnational level, the same logic of securitization, the same hollowing of the civilian sphere, the same reorientation of the state toward war preparation, now scaled across a continent.

It's a long read. I don't apologize for that since the topic demanded it. But I tried to make every section earn its place. If you're interested in the (NATO-)machinery behind the headlines, I think it's worth your time.

As always, I welcome comments and questions. These are just frameworks through which we can see the world, but let's think and build together. (Link below)

[Hüseyin Dogru @hussedogru_]

On this day in 1961, the US started spraying Agent Orange in a campaign called “Operation Ranch Hand,” which would last 10 years. The program entailed the spraying of 19 million gallons of defoliants and herbicides over rural South Vietnam. Its alleged aim was to deny the Vietcong access to food and concealment provided by vegetation. In reality, it was to punish and deprive the Vietnamese people for their resistance.

[wiredearp @wiredearp]

@StatmanDK Deres sadistiske "NVE netværket" er aldrig omtalt før 2025, ligesom deres kriminelle "Foxtrot netværk" aldrig blev nævnt før 2023. Det er textbook psyops som legitimerer indskrænkning af borgernes frihedsrettigheder, og de framer unge som ryger i spjældet for deres agenda.

[wiredearp @wiredearp]

De "svenske bander" lokker børn på sociale medier til mord via "krypterede beskedtjenester" og derfor legaliserede Hummelgaard ansigtsgenkendelse. Nu gør "sadistnetværk" det samme, og Wammen præsenter sin straf-uden-dom. Men hvem "groomer" og "radikaliserer" reelt vores børn? 1/x

[wiredearp @wiredearp]

Men kan jo efterhånden ikke undgå at forstå at regeringen arbejder for Palantlr, så derfor bør vi snart sætte os ind i deres forretningsmodel. Pressen kommer ikke til at bemærke at "Minority Report policing" til bekæmpelse af os allerede er vedtaget i USA.
https://t.co/64Q1plnHRm

[wiredearp @wiredearp]

Det er så det jeg snart bliver straffet uden dom for at sige, så det er sidste chance for at bemærke det som pressen altid "overser," nemlig at justitsministrene tracker amerikanernes program for bekæmpelse af Antlfa som styrer de venstre­orienterede.

https://t.co/iEd31JzVEe

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

There's a special irony in The Economist, which Lenin himself described as a "journal which speaks for British millionaires", now conceding that firms under capitalism "stand little chance against a Leninist developmental state."

[DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics]

Spain is a 🇵🇸🇺🇦 government. This is not a coherent geopolitical position, it’s completely oxymoronic.

[Brian Berletic @BrianJBerletic]

US plans for destroying nations like Russia, Iran, and China have been publicly published, talked about, and implemented for decades.

Politicians do not make these policies. They simply sell it to the public or distract the public away from these policies.

Multinational multi-billion dollar corporations don't sit there every 4-8 years leaving their future/fate and US policy to "voters" and the clowns they pick for office.

Instead they have created a political system to serve as an "explanation" for and/or a distraction away from their own continuity of agenda.

Corporations fundamentally pursue the maximization of power and profit - and therefore their collective agenda driving US policy is to maximize US power and profit - hence endless exploitation at home and hegemonic war worldwide no matter who you vote for.

This should be beyond commonsense.

But instead of understanding this as the fundamental nature of the US system and going on from there - people cannot help but to indulge in the daily political circus and attempt to cobble together fictional narratives to explain why "Obama" or "Trump" or "Biden" are doing the things they're doing - essentially continuity of agenda - without actually acknowledging continuity of agenda itself and the real interests driving it.

Instead, the "reason" Trump is continuing wars the corporations have planned and implemented for decades is because "he's blackmailed" or "has bad advisors," or "lost his temper" and not because the US political system is a deliberate system of control rather than a process of self-determination.

If you understood continuity of agenda and that unelected corporations drive it - BEFORE the 2024 elections you would have known these wars would continue and others would be started - just as they now have been - regardless of who won.

These people ignoring continuity of agenda and doing "analysis-by-official narrative" or "analysis-by-political party" are constantly wrong precisely because of this.

They are the same ones who said Trump would end all these wars in the first place (simply because he "said" so) or that Iran "won" and the US would leave West Asia (because the Western media suggested it), and are still looking for reasons to explain US policy in terms of "Trump," his "emotions," and the circus performed by him and those around him and even those "opposing" him.

And because they are doing this - they will continue to be wrong.

Truth is arrived at through first principles and scientific analysis and an understanding of material reality.

Like a math problem, if you don't get it right from the very start - everything you do onward will drift further and further from the right answer.

Go back to the beginning and start over until it all actually adds up.

[Alon Mizrahi @alon_mizrahi]

We were taught the story of WWII wrong. This is the main reason many of us are so confused (at least on the West).

You see, we were told that in the Second World War, two major armies were fighting the Nazis: the Red Army and the American-led army, uniting France, Britain and other countries.

The only problem is, the Nazis and the American-led coalition of nations were in perfect agreement on everything the world except one issue.

Both the Americans and the Germans believed in the values of colonialism, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Both believed that black people were subhuman, and that Asians, Arabs, native Americans, and Slavs (read: all indigenous people on earth outside Western Europe) were inferior races - beliefs that now unite Europe, the US and other white colonies around the world.

Both believed their whiteness represented a divine right to rule and subjugate all of humanity, and own all its resources.

The only difference between the two sides was the Jewish question: Americans idolized them, and Germans demonized them. That's the entire difference. It is a minor dispute in an otherwise perfect harmony.
-
The punchline is this: the story of WWII was not the USSR and the US fighting one Nazi amy. The real story was the USSR fighting two Nazi armies.

And the Soviets made amazing gains and had heroic achievements, but eventually they lost the war when the Soviet Union was brought down in the early 1990s.

What we are seeing today is THIS WWII - the real WWII - still being waged, with Russia and China still fending off the Nazi attack (of which Japan is still a part, and Zionist is a central spearhead).

The war never ended. It just evolved.

The big difference now, which guarantees the defeat of the white supremacist, Jew-idolizing Nazis, is the reemergence of new-old anti-Nazi forces: China as the biggest and most powerful military and industrial power on earth; Iran as a major native power sitting on top of the world's energy reserves, and Russia regaining its confidence and power after the trauma of the 1990s (Yemen and North Korea add depth and weight to this alliance).

Additionally, the US has lost momentum and steam, and the white supremacist civilization is clearly the intellectual and military underdog that will never be able to subjugate all of humanity, and therefore has to collapse under the weight of its own insane delusions and megalomania)

If you look at things this way, everything make perfect sense, without gaps and inconsistencies.

[Chetuya Chinagolum @Chetuyachinago]

Now we completely understand exactly why a soft regime change was quietly carried out in the United Kingdom to forcefully remove Keir Starmer from power. Under Starmer's administration, the British government restricted the United States military from using its strategic island bases, deepwater naval ports, and Royal Air Force airfields to launch offensive, deep-penetration airstrikes targeting critical Iranian military capabilities.

The "Schrödinger's ceasefire" was obviously nothing more than a strategic breathing window for America to re-arm, re-target, and regroup. A part of Washington's operational blueprint during this ceasefire period included orchestrating the forced resignation of Starmer, bypassing democratic norms, and handpicking a far more loyal, completely submissive Prime Minister who would obediently do the absolute bidding of the Pentagon and the CIA.

And indeed, we are currently witnessing the devastating material results of this political transition in real time. Heavy American B-1 bombers carrying thousands of tons of heavy conventional payloads, precision-guided munitions, and bunker-buster bombs are taking off directly from RAF bases. Furthermore, specialized electronic warfare aircraft and tactical jamming platforms have been aggressively deployed to the UK to blind integrated air defense systems, jam military communications networks, and disrupt satellite navigation systems deep inside sovereign Iranian territory.

Of course, this is absolutely not to suggest that Keir Starmer was an innocent, anti-imperialist saint who refused to serve the transatlantic empire; he was ultimately removed simply because he failed to show total, absolute, and blind compliance to Washington's timeline. We historically witnessed this exact same ruthless dynamic during the chaotic Arab Spring: most of the regional leaders who were violently toppled, publicly disgraced, or ousted in CIA-backed operations had loyally done the bidding of Washington for decades. But the very second they showed the slightest hesitation, questioned imperial directives, or displayed minor signs of prioritizing their own domestic stability and national interest over the profit margins of the Western military-industrial complex, they were instantly declared obsolete, systematically targeted, and permanently removed from office.

[Nel B. @noirnen]

A Potential New Energy Leverage: The US-Saudi Nuclear Deal
There is a benefit for US power elites.
The deal is explicitly structured so US firms—Westinghouse and others—have a central role in developing Saudi Arabia's nuclear infrastructure while limiting the involvement of foreign competitors. This will create a long-term technological lock‑in: US designs, fuel services, maintenance, and, potentially, US-built enrichment capacity on Saudi soil.

In essence, this deal is about making Saudi Arabia dependent on US nuclear supply and expertise for 30 years. Moving into Saudi civilian nuclear is about creating a long-term technological and regulatory dependency. A new kind of energy leverage parallel to oil and gas if you will.

In a 2016 lecture to the US Naval College on energy and geopolitics, the lecturer asked:
"You want to have that kind of power over other countries? Well, hell yeah. Why wouldn't you?"
In relation to being able to supply or deny, control and influence countries through energy and its accompanying infrastructure.

So, yes, they want the US ruling strata want that kind of power but via civil nuclear and corporate contracts, not just hydrocarbons.

The deal is an attempt to pre‑empt Russia and China as nuclear suppliers to Riyadh by locking US firms in as "central" actors and shutting out foreign competitors.

But it also means the US can set the rules of the program, including what kind of enrichment is allowed, under what safeguards, and with what verification mechanisms.

The benefits include:
Commercial-Industrial: The deal is worth tens of billions of dollars and aims to give American companies a central role in developing Saudi Arabia's nuclear infrastructure.

Geopolitical Alignment and Hedging Against China/Russia: It explicitly seeks to reduce Russian and Chinese influence by channeling Saudi demand through US vendors rather than Rosatom (Russia) or CNNC (China). It ties a key regional pillar of US strategy more tightly into US-controlled technology and fuel cycles, making it harder for Riyadh to pivot strategically without massive sunk-cost penalties.

Energy Transition and Diversification in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia wants nuclear as part of diversifying its power mix and freeing more oil for export in the long term. US participation ensures that this diversification does not become a vector for Chinese or Russian strategic entry.

Fundamentally, energy and energy technology are tools for structuring dependence and advantage.

The agreement leaves open the possibility of domestic enrichment following a joint US-Saudi study, and crucially, does not require the IAEA Additional Protocol, weakening traditional nonproliferation standards.
However, the enrichment path is conditional and time‑bound:
If the joint study rejects domestic enrichment, Saudi Arabia is barred from looking elsewhere for 10 years.
If it proceeds, enrichment facilities would be built by US firms under strict security measures, with sensitive technology transfer limited.

In other words, Washington is trading purity of the "gold standard" for control from inside the program. The US is betting that having a seat at the table—and designing the reactor cores, fuel contracts, and verification protocols—is more effective than outright prohibition.

A provocation and a precedent

Here is where this gets interesting and why Zarif's latest Foreign Affairs article matters so much.

At a time when the U.S. and Israel are conducting military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to, among other objectives, trying to destroy their nuclear capabilities, the U.S. is simultaneously granting Saudi Arabia a similar technological pathway. This overt double standard functions as a powerful provocation to Iran's revolutionary faction, while simultaneously providing urgent practical impetus for the regional integration approach.

Zarif wrote:
"I also proposed a regional nuclear network, including an enrichment consortium devoted exclusively to the peaceful application of nuclear science. Its members would pool regional expertise, promote scientific collaboration, and reinforce confidence through cooperative verification arrangements that ensure no member pursues nuclear weapons. China and Russia, together with the United States, could help establish such a fuel enrichment consortium with Iran and interested neighbors in the Persian Gulf, which should then become the sole fuel enrichment facility for West Asia."

Washington is now signaling that enrichment in the Gulf is not a taboo in principle—at least for Saudi Arabia—if tightly structured and US‑influenced (joint study, US‑built facility, safeguards).

It aims to embed Saudi nuclear activities inside a US‑centered technological and regulatory ecosystem, mirroring Zarif's notion that sensitive fuel‑cycle work should happen inside structured, externally anchored frameworks rather than in isolation. (No nuclear sovereignty that is. No deterrence even theoretically.)

In that narrow sense, the deal is possibly a "nod" to the idea that the answer to proliferation risk is managed enrichment under dense institutional and supplier control. An integration and subordination into the multilayered cage, one could say.

The US–Saudi deal is not designed as a reply to Zarif. But it does validate his underlying claim that enrichment in the Gulf can be accepted if institutionalized. And it gives certain elite factions in Tehran a concrete precedent they can leverage in arguing for the kind of multilateral enrichment architecture he sketches.

To summarize: The US-led empire will let you keep your machinery, so long as Washington holds the off-switch. The question then is, what use is your machinery then?

[David Hundeyin @DavidHundeyin]

If you think about it, the so-called 'Supermarxists' are just Liberals in constume. They're almost identical.

1. They both share a complete detachment from material reality.

The Liberal believes that change will come from voting one more time, after the 50,001 times he already voted to zero result. The Supermarxist believes that change will come from reading one more book and posting one more verbose 'analysis' on his Substack. Either way, solid actions and material results are not their thing.

2. They're both profoundly dishonest people.

If you point out that a transvestite neurodivergent Ethiopian lesbian IDF pilot who flew a bombing mission into Gaza is just an imperial drone who doesn't deserve to live, the Liberal will call you a hateful, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, ableist, anti-Semitic so and so, while the Supermarxist wearing a Palestian keffiyeh with a watermelon logo on his Twitter bio will tell you that you are wrong to call for the IDF pilot's death because you and her are both workers being exploited by the global capitalist class.

3. They both love their heroes exclusively dead.

If a leader achieves material results for his people, they treat him with suspicion or hostility as long as he is alive and in power. Once he's dead or in jail after being taken out by the empire's military, then he ascends their mental Mount Rushmore. Thomas Sankara, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba etc are their faves, but only because they're dead. When Sankara was alive, they were both calling him a "dictator" or ignoring his existence altogether. Now that he's dead, he's safe to acknowledge.

When Che was alive and vigorously ending the lives of South African apartheid soldiers, they both called him a "renegade" or a "terrorist." Now that he's dead, they both wear t-shirts with his face printed on. They dislike Ibrahim Traore right now because he's alive. If he gets headshotted by a French sniper on live TV tomorrow, Liberals will start wearing red berets and gloves, and Supermarxists will find a way to repurpose "La patrie ou la mour" into one of their empty slogans.

Growing up is realising that these 2 types of idiot are literally the same person.

[Maitreya Bhakal @MaitreyaBhakal]

Ask yourself why there is a Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation but not one for Victims for Nazism.

Have you ever even heard the phrase "Victims of Nazism"?

[wiredearp @wiredearp]

@LinsanityStrong @CounsellingSam We support China because China still made an effort to stop the pandemic, years after everyone else gave up. Since you seem to trust US government sources, here's the US Director of National Intelligence stating that the United States caused COVID. https://t.co/TPvF6EKikh

[Paweł Wargan @pawelwargan]

This is a fascinating document that should be received as a tremendous validation of our movement.

Beyond the revisionist bluster, it does something you will rarely find in imperial records: it acknowledges the singular power of internationalism and in particular the ways in which it has been shaped and sharpened through the collision of Marxism with the anti-colonial struggle.

Most imperial accounts of actually-existing socialism rest on an uncomfortable contradiction. On one hand, socialism is a failure. On the other, it must actively be countered with the full weight of imperial power. The justifications typically given are less than satisfactory: socialist countries are “dictatorships” that deny their people “freedom”. With the slightest of effort, even apologists for imperialism could see through these claims.

More powerful socialist states are sometimes — absurdly given their supposed failures and inefficiencies — accused of unfair economic advantage. The finger has been pointed at both the Soviet Union and China: socialism generates “overcapacity”, intervenes in “free markets”, and floods Western markets with its goods. These accusations are similarly flimsy.

The claim made in this report is stronger. It rests on a cardinal principle of the internationalist tradition: that liberation in one site of struggle can serve as tinder for liberation everywhere. It attributes to Cuba’s revolutionary movement both the capacity and determination to act in the service of revolution outside its borders — and acknowledges its success in doing so. This, the State Department says, represents a “new Marxism” — what it calls Third Worldism — that saw the struggle for liberation in global terms.

Advocates of these ideas, the State Department writes, “spoke the language of a single planetary struggle – stretching from the battlefield to the classroom – between the West and the Third World. In their telling, the revolutionary agent was no longer the industrial proletariat, but the colonized nations and peoples of the Global South. The principal antagonist of world history was no longer “capital,” but Western civilization itself.”

The report misplaces the epistemological turn that saw Marxism shift in emphasis from simply “workers” to “workers and the oppressed”. This transformation emerged through Lenin’s work on imperialism and the Comintern’s engagement with the colonial question, not strictly with Cuba — although Cuba played a tremendous role in rallying the forces of the global anti-colonial struggle. But the report recognises that the greatest threat to empire is, first, the unity of the oppressed in the Global South and, second, their coming together with the oppressed in the North under a rubric of decolonisation.

Internationalism is the highest stage of class struggle — the moment at which class consciousness rises to the understanding that the global struggle for liberation is connected by the sinews of imperialist exploitation that extend into every state, every society, and every community.

At the end of the day, only a liberated people that have mastered the full capacities of their state can meaningfully practice internationalism. Until then, the task is to build powerful national movements and seize state power. Existing revolutionary states fuel this process not only materially, but also by infusing the wider global movement with the morale, spirit of struggle, and theoretical rigour to advance the cause everywhere — from occupied Palestine to the US settler-colony. The State Department recognises this dynamic, acknowledges its enduring power, and fears it.

This report is a signal that the US takes seriously the threat to imperialist hegemony, and intends to target it at its source. For internationalists, it should be read as a calling — our tradition of struggle works and our historical task is to rediscover its mission and escalate it on all fronts.

[Amir @AmirAminiMD]

I wish it were only one school 4 months ago.

[Nel B. @noirnen]

New Interview: The Myth of U.S. Retreat, European Vassalization, and the "Multi-Layered Cage"

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with Ali from FinLog for my third appearance on his channel to discuss the current geopolitical landscape, the shifting strategies of the US ruling strata, and the developments and contexts of our multipolar world.

For those who have been following my recent essays here on worldlines—particularly Multipolarity in a Multi-Layered Cage—this conversation dives into the practical application of those frameworks.

We covered a lot of ground, but here are the central geopolitical dynamics we unpacked:

The US-led core is repositioning. The withdrawal of US conventional forces from specific theaters (like West Asia or Germany) can be understood and observed as strategic realignment. The US security apparatus explictly acknowledges it no longer has the industrial capacity for large-scale great power wars. Instead, it is shifting toward "chess moves" —limited operations, proxy wars, sanctions, asset freezes, cognitive warfare—designed to bleed rivals and exploit vulnerabilities without triggering a direct confrontation the empire cannot win. At the same time, it is actively expanding its command, control, and nuclear deterrence structures. They are retreating from the front lines, but consolidating the strategic architecture. Furthermore, there is a tightening of the financial, technological, logistical, and cognitive infrastructure that I call the multi-layered cage.

Europe as a "Positional Defense" Buffer. Perhaps the most critical shift we discussed is the trajectory of the European Union. The US security apparatus (as explicitly stated in a recent US Army War College report) is actively working to transform Europe into a highly dependent, US-interoperable industrial base. The goal is to move away from fragmented national industries toward a scalable defense base, pushing Europe to adopt "positional defense frameworks" and mass conscription. In short: Europe is being molded to hold the “eastern flank” against Russia, while the US retains supreme strategic command, and the hold over technology and software (think, interoperability).

The recent placement of a US Army colonel as deputy head of German Army operations is just one more signal as Europe is being prepared as a forward position.

Alternative institutions are still embryonic. We also discussed the Global Majority and initiatives like BRICS and the New Development Bank. While there is undeniably a strong global anti-imperialist sentiment, there is still no shared horizon for a fundamentally alternative operational logic. Currently, alternative infrastructures function primarily as a shield against US-led hybrid warfare, and to gain maneuvering room and autonomy within the existing global market, rather than as an attempt of a potentially decoupled system. The danger here is that as long as countries continue hedging to maintain access to US-led markets, the US will systematically exploit these vulnerabilities to force compliance. (Also, almost every country has a faction within its ruling strata that seeks integration rather than decoupling.) Until a shared positive horizon emerges—a vision of how societies can be organized that is not subordinate to the empire and not emphasizing the private market over state and social spheres—the cage will hold, and every country will continue to hedge.

The MoU with Iran is not a peace agreement. It is a "performance-based" framework—the US Ambassador's own words—designed to extract concessions, empower the integrationist faction, and keep the siege operational under diplomatic cover. The empire is looking for vulnerabilities everywhere, and it is turning crises—natural, economic, or created by its own sanctions and kinetic attacks—into captive markets and coercive integration mechanisms. At least that’s the logic behind those actions.

The Pivot to the Western Hemisphere. As the US tries to curtail Chinese influence globally and weaken Russian capabilities via European proxies (or dominions), it is simultaneously becoming much more possessive of the Western Hemisphere. We discussed what this means for Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, and even the strategic militarization of Greenland.

We also discussed the limits of the "civilization state" discourse, the structural role of far-right parties in weakening European regulatory sovereignty and how that is benefitial for the US ruling strata, and more.

The conversation was detailed, and I tried to ground every claim in specific institutional documents, including and primarily the latest US Army War College report on the strategic security environment. If you are interested in how the US intends to use financial, technological, and regulatory layers to maintain its leverage in a world where unipolarity is officially dead, I highly recommend giving our conversation a listen.

🔗https://t.co/UH5vqtsByO

As always, thank you for reading, watching, and supporting Worldlines. I would love to hear your thoughts on the interview in the comments below.