The restoration of imperialism reached a new stage in the millennium. The provocation of 9/11 triggered the crusade against so called Islamic 'fundamentalism'. Mainstream literature criticising the previous support of Taliban by the US disregarded how the Taliban was promoted against communist forces in Afghanistan. When NATO’s main counter-revolutionary mission is abstracted from the political level of class struggle, it retards the direction of the struggle. Without a historical materalist approach, reactionary movements are placed in the same line with national liberation movements of the 20th century.
“This is not to deny the Taliban’s flaws, some of which are obviously serious. However, they must be doing something right that attracts the masses to their cause, movement, and fight. That something right includes, among others, the class struggle-on behalf of the peasants and other poor-against the big landlords and other rich, struggle against the invasions of western civilisation and culture and preservation of national and Islamic religious identity, and war against the military invasion and occupation of US-led NATO and other foreign forces.” 
Reactionary movements organised during and after communism are seen as indigenous ally forces of the underdeveloped world. The antagonism is defined culturally and class struggle is attached to it artificially. This methodology reflects Taliban's position as 'flawed' although their historical and ideological character is explicitly counter-revolutionary.
According to a Western centred approach, the radical movements have to be controlled and the moderate ones to be communicated by the developed world. The collaborative attitude towards jihadists of FSA against those of ISIS is a similar deviance from anti-imperialism like the benevolence towards Taliban. Reducing the struggle to opposing a dominant threat, which depends on the view point of different ethno-centric or religio-centric positions, is blind to the traps of reactionism.
NATO rearticulates its raison detre on this basis. The popular struggle shifts from questioning NATO itself to the legitimacy of NATO interventions calling for UN or the consent of the countries of a given region. Social conscience which can be easily manipulated takes the place of class consciousness. Simultaneously, the structure and character of organised struggle transforms to horizontal and identity-based forms in which popularity of the struggle downgrades political consistency. NGO's imperfectly satisfy the re-emerging pursuit for an organised struggle as they fill the gap created by the absence of a political working class struggle.
The popular anti-NATO movement carries the same short-sightedness of the recent anti-globalization movements. Demands for international reform deviate the focus of struggle from national policy centres. These centres determined by each country’s own capitalist class actually legitimise imperialist policies under various political and ideological guises. The discourse on contributing to peace-keeping operations becomes a means of justifying support for imperialist policy. Liberalism is the source of this dilemma.
“Therefore, the “new”“humanitarian”role of NATO as “defender”of the Human Rights and the astonishing, for the international community, circumvention of the Security Council and the violation of the Chart of the United Nations, bring to the fore a fundamental contradiction of Liberalism. On the one hand, a sovereign nation and people’s right to self-determination, and on the other hand, the universality of the human rights regardless of national borders. This contradiction leads to thematics concerning the Law/Ethic, the rights of minorities, the change of the borders, the right of intervention for humanitarian reasons in the interior of a state, the role of NATO and the European Union in similar crises, etc. Furthermore, it brings up to the discussion of the question of the maintenance, of the Nation-State in its existing form.” 
The motto of Responsibility to Protect corresponding to the second principle of liberalism is used by NATO to justify international interventions. Yet this liberal position is reinforced with local reactionary ideologies. Generally, reactionary ideologies (ethnic nationalism, religious sectarianism) are nourished at the subnational level -dividing and degenerating each country's working class- in capitalist restoration and liberal ideologies (globalism, cosmopolitanism) are nourished at the supranational level -blurring the national power centres of the dominant class- in imperialist restoration. They both try to undermine the revolutionary class struggle for political power on a national scale.The penetration and concentration of international capital help imperialism in adopting a universalist discourse, while disintegration of subordinate societies according to identities instead of classes is reinforced with a pluralist discourse, deteriorating both sovereign rights and collective rights. Thus only a class perspective can overcome the dilemma of liberalism: Since restoration takes away the historical gains of the working class struggle, the only way to claim national sovereignty and humanitarianism together is to unite the working class and establish socialist political power in each country.
Politically, counter-revolution (anti-communism and hostility towards working class politics) is reproduced with the interaction of reactionary and liberal ideologies. This may be carried out by force or by moderation. In any case, international interventions towards sovereign states are all illegitimate whether they are unilaterally led by US-NATO or multilaterally accepted by the UN or regional unions. However, NATO plays the good cop/bad cop at the same time: Interventions in the name of peace and human rights paradoxically trigger mutual armament and undermine the rights of citizenship and communitarianism. This invalidates the liberal dilemma.
Another approach reduces the axis of confrontation to nations versus imperialism. The subject of resistance is identified with the national regime that imperialist powers aim to topple. This is a strategic problematic for communist movements. The dominance of nationalism over patriotism -where the latter recognises solidarity between people from different ethnic, cultural and religious origins- may create an obstacle for the emergence of working class internationalism.
In Africa, for instance, China's increasing role is challenged by NATO, a representative of the historical interests of the West over the continent. This justifies the African political powers' conceptualisation of re-colonization. In the book Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure of Libya (2013), Horace Campbell argues that 'the African Union must be strengthened to be able to meet the political, diplomatic and military requirements to resist external military missions such as that of NATO in Libya'.  Likewise, in the 70th anniversary of the Red Army victory over Nazi Germany, the encirclement of Russia by NATO and collaborating countries, or rather the regime changes in countries neighbouring Russia one by one, necessarily reminds the tragedy of no more than a century ago. 
However both are the remnants of the 20th century. In Africa, since the great struggle given against the apartheid regime, the communist movement has given up political power to the regimes that violently suppress the people and the working class. Neither is today's Russia the same as 1940's Russia. It is true that siege, encirclement and blockade are means of isolating a country to force regime change. But when the reaction emerges from a regime-centered point of view, even though the resistance of the regime justifies itself, a solution within the imperialist-capitalist system is imposed in vain.
The prominent regionalist approach against NATO is Eurasianism. Alexander Dugin, the leading theoriser of this approach argues that 'globalization is an objective and irreversible process'. According to him, 'a civilisation diversity' has to be created against the Atlanticist project. These sound like the post-communist rhetoric on the 'the inevitability of globalisation' and 'the clash of civilisations'. Hence, Eurasianism settles itself in the conceptualisation of the post-Soviet era.
From a similar perspective, the writer of Globalization of NATO (2012), Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya underlines Eurasian unity as an 'alternative to NATO’s Atlanticism'. However, imperial rivalries and the deepening of class conflict alongside economic crises do not find any alternatives within the Eurasian unity. In contrast, it can be seen that the Eurasian countries are trying to get a bargaining power against NATO, to be recognised instead of being pushed aside in the war for hegemony. At this point, just like the reformist approach to globalisation, we find a reformist approach to a new form of 'third worldism', flourishing against the resistance to NATO.
“China and Russia, as the leading powers of SCO, cannot assume the kind of responsibility that the US state did after World War II. The Marshall Plan...was the material basis for the emergence and consolidation of the NATO alliance. By contrast, SCO cannot go beyond simply providing diplomatic communication channels; it does not have the capacity to foster the economic and political interdependence of its member countries. Second, SCO remains an extremely top-down mechanism, and lacks the cultural organising capacities to create a new Eurasian identity. .. [and] SCO lacks mechanisms to create an intelligentsia of its own through the establishment of regional ties among universities, defence schools and think-tanks.” 
Peace-keeping and economic development are defined within the limits of the imperialist-capitalist system. The Eurasian project is mainly formulated in reference to the imperialist reconstruction of Europe in the 20th century. This may be seen as an attempt to block NATO with a periphery version of the 'third way' or with the so-called 'new social movements' instead of the working class struggle for power.