No update today.

Links and Stuff

Want to contribute?

RSS Feed

Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Add to the above list if you can, thank you.


Resources For Understanding The War Beyond The Bulletins


Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map, who is an independent youtuber with a mostly neutral viewpoint.

Moon of Alabama, which tends to have good analysis (though also a couple bad takes here and there)

Understanding War and the Saker: neo-conservative sources but their reporting of the war (so far) seems to line up with reality better than most liberal sources.

Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict and, unlike most western analysts, has some degree of understanding on how war works. He is a reactionary, however.

On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent journalist reporting in the Ukrainian warzones.

Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.


Telegram Channels

Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.

Pro-Russian

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.

https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ Gleb Bazov, banned from Twitter, referenced pretty heavily in what remains of pro-Russian Twitter.

https://t.me/asbmil ~ ASB Military News, banned from Twitter.

https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.

https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday Patrick Lancaster - crowd-funded U.S journalist, mostly pro-Russian, works on the ground near warzones to report news and talk to locals.

https://t.me/riafan_everywhere ~ Think it's a government news org or Federal News Agency? Russian language.

https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ Front news coverage. Russian langauge.

https://t.me/rybar ~ Russian language.

https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.

https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.

https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense.

https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.

Pro-Ukraine

With the entire western media sphere being overwhelming pro-Ukraine already, you shouldn't really need more, but:

https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.

https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.


Yesterday's discussion post.


  • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ukraine - The U.S. Is Moving Towards Escalation Moon of Alabama

    TLDR: There's desperation in Europe and the US, both socioeconomically and politically. Biden and several European leaders appear to be wanting peace, while Boris Johnson appears to want the war to continue for its own gain. In order to save himself, Biden might try to invade a country to boost his appeal, but they obviously can't take on China, nor even really Iran, so Syria is one of the only remaining targets; recent events in the Middle East are beginning to suggest that there's something revving up there.

    TLDR the TLDR:

    Biden: "Assad must go!"

    :who-must-go:

    expand

    The catastrophic economic consequences of the 'western' proxy war with Russia are setting in. As a result the high inflation, caused by supply side constrains due to sanctions and a far too much spending, will ruin the middle classes of many countries.

    To those who did not wear blinders and who knew of the real economies of the 'west' and Russia this was very predictable and predicted:

    "The U.S. is pushing its European 'allies' to commit economic suicide by sanctioning everything Russia. The U.S. should be more careful. It is one of the biggest buyers of Russian oil and its aircraft industry depends on titanium from Russia. Russia surely knows who is trying to hurt it the most and it surely knows how, and has the means to, hurt back."

    The hurt has not at all reached its peak. This winter will be very difficult for Europe. Poor countries are even worse off. Many will experience hunger crises and riots.

    Today the Russian president Vladimir Putin held a speech at the Petersburg economic forum. The transcript isn't out yet but here are excerpts from a Twitter thread: [...]

    Every word of that is true. Maybe Putin reads Moon of Alabama as I have made many of those points again and again.

    It will not only be the current elite of Europe that will be replaced. The U.S. will see similar changes. Biden and the Democrats are toast:

    "The survey of 1,541 U.S. adults, which was conducted from June 10-13, found that if another presidential election were held today, more registered voters say they would cast ballots for Donald Trump (44%) than for Biden (42%) "

    "Since Biden took office, no previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll has shown him trailing Trump (though Biden’s most recent leads have been within the margin of error, like this one is for Trump). One year ago, Biden led Trump by 9 percentage points. In 2020, Biden won the White House by more than 7 million votes."

    "Yet Biden’s job approval rating has been atrophying for much of the last year, and the new survey shows that it has never been weaker. A full 56% of Americans now disapprove of the president’s performance — the highest share to date — while just 39% approve. Three weeks ago, those numbers were 53% and 42%, respectively."

    At Asia Times David Goldman sees signs of Biden changing course on Ukraine:

    "A compromise in Ukraine with significant territorial concessions to Russia – the only conceivable way to end the war – would humiliate Washington.

    A negotiated solution to the Ukraine war, though, is not impossible. Washington could continue to portray itself as the defender of Ukraine’s sovereignty while encouraging European leaders to do the dirty work and force Ukraine into negotiations with Moscow.

    A possible hint in this direction came on June 14 from the US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin H. Kahl, who declared: “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate. They’re going to set those terms for themselves.” "

    ...

    But today, without any announcement, the British prime minister Boris Johnson, undoubtedly on order of Biden, appeared in Kiev to lobby for more war just like he did at the end of March when he told Ukraine's president Zelensky to ditch the negotiations with Russia.

    That is why I fear that Michael Brenner is right and that Biden will escalate the war by attacking somewhere else:

    "Necessity is the mother of invention — or so it is said. However, grasping what is “necessary” can be a very slippery business. An actual recasting of how one views a problematic situation normally is a last resort. Experience and history tell us that, as do behavioral experiments.

    So, you are stuck with the albatross of a truncated, bankrupt Ukraine hung around your neck. There is nothing that you can do to cancel these givens — except a direct, perhaps suicidal test of force with Russia. Or, perhaps, a retaliatory challenge elsewhere. The latter is not readily available — for geographic reasons and because the West already has expended its arsenal of economic and political weaponry.

    Over the past year, the U.S. attempted to foment Maiden style regime changes in Belarus and Kazakhstan. Both were foiled. The latter was with the connivance of Turkey, which deployed a contingent of bashi bazouks from the stock of Syrian jihadis it keeps on call in Idlib (to be deployed as President Recep Erdogan did more successfully in Libya and Azerbaijan).

    There remains one conceivable sensitive target: Syria. There, the Israelis have become increasingly audacious in goading the Russians by airstrikes against Syrian infrastructure as well as military facilities.

    Now, we see signs that Moscow’s tolerance is wearing thin, suggesting that further provocations could spark retaliation which Washington then could exploit to ratchet up tensions. To what avail? Not obvious — unless the ultras in the Biden administration are looking for the kind of direct confrontation that they’ve avoided in Ukraine, until now.

    The implication is that the denial option and the incremental adjustment option are foreclosed. Serious rethinking is in order — logically speaking.

    The most worrisome scenario sees the frustration and anger and anxiety building in Washington to the point where it encourages a reckless impulse to demonstrate American prowess. That could take the form of an attack on Iran in the company of Israel and Saudi Arabia — the region’s new odd couple.

    Another, even grimmer prospect would be a contrived test of wills with China. Already we see growing evidence of that in the bellicose rhetoric of American leaders from U.S. President Joe Biden on down."

    The Pentagon is not ready for a war on China. Iran is too strong and would respond to an attack by launching its huge missile arsenal on Israel and U.S. allies in the Gulf. This leaves Syria. It is unlikely by chance that the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the U.S. is coordinating Israeli airstrikes in that country:

    "WASHINGTON—Israel secretly coordinates with the U.S. on many of the airstrikes it carries out in Syria as the allies face a battlefield crowded with militant groups, Iranian-backed militias and foreign militaries, according to current and former U.S. officials."

    I expect those airstrikes, like last week's attack on the airport of Damascus, to intensify with the hope to divert Russian attention from Ukraine.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      3 years ago

      I was close to the character limit so I'm putting this here: I hadn't really considered the fact that the US depleting its arsenal, and without the infrastructure to replace it on a reasonable timeframe, means that an actual invasion of Iran (as opposed to trying to bomb it from above until it submits) becomes increasingly more difficult and impractical as every day in this war passes and every billion dollars is spent on it by the US. Doesn't mean they won't try anyway - these wars aren't really about winning, but more about doing well enough to not cause massive unrest back home but never ending it so the MIC can make huge profits off it - but I had always assumed that an invasion of Iran was very much on the horizon, within the next decade, and honestly I think it could have happened by now if coronavirus hadn't happened.

      But now... I feel like it's getting pushed increasingly far in the future. If this war ends tomorrow then it could still happen within the next five years or decade, but if it really does last for a year or longer, and the US keeps depleting their arsenal in Ukraine for that whole time (necessarily, because how could Ukraine last that long unless they had western arms being piped in), then who knows? Maybe Iran won't be invaded for a long while. Maybe a bombing campaign or something that ends terribly, but no real boots-on-the-ground stuff.

      • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I wouldn't go that far on the US is running out of weapons idea, this is way too simplistic when you look at what the US is actualy sending.

        It is the same mistake as thinking the US can't fight a war because the F-35s would crash immediately after takeoff or something.

        The support for Ukraine contains a lot of shit that doesn't matter, javelins don't matter, artillery doesn't realy matter because the US could build those very easily if they realy need to. What else is left? Shitty drones and NATO APCs and tanks. Maybe some EU countries would have some problems if they get rid of the tanks, but not the US.

        You see for one thing the only thing I'd say Zelensky is "right" about is that the US support so far is complete worthless shit. Ukraine needs modern fighter jets, even F-16s would do fine. They need modern tanks and APCs not shit from the cold war museums.

        Obviously yes they will never get that, and yes obviously they would need months of training. But this is the truth nonetheless and when you look at what the US army actually uses to fight wars it is modern tanks, APCs, modern aviation, modern artillery and an extremely professional army.

        So the US imo can still fight any war, Ukraine is not a significant factor beyond the MIC grifting.

        Now when it comes to actualy winning a war that is another matter entirely, you know Iran has all the familiar problems of a large somewhat modern capable army and formidable defensive terrain along with a radicalized population. The US indeed would never win an offensive war against Iran.

        But that doesn't mean they can't just go out and try and the point here is that IMO all the media talk about depleting weapon stocks is just media fodder for the benefit of the MIC, you know to simply make it easier to justify more spending, not that the US is actually suffering from this in a truly sensible scale.

        Put it in another way, the US has thousands and thousands of modern tanks and fighters, bombers, obviously the entire navy still intact. Giving away shitty anti-armor missiles isn't going to change that. It is not as if the javelin is the linchpin of the US army or anything.

      • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        How much material goods is the US actually sending? It looks more like the US is mostly clearing out it's old stockpiles and then also sending a few gee-wiz high tech gizmos for the press to fawn over. Most of the billions the US is spending is going to the MIC in order for them to build weapons to replenish US stockpiles

        • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          They've sent a significant amount of their stockpile of Javelins and Stingers, which, as you say, isn't very new stuff, but they are usually reliably good if the people using them have been properly trained and they're fully charged and such. And they're clearly important enough that the US feels the need to build more of them to replenish them, though they say that it'll take over a year to build them back up due to the relative lack of US industry.

          Right now, as I say, I don't think it's a significant factor as to whether they invade Iran - but I could imagine a situation where the US tries to even half-way meet Ukraine's needs of like 1000 howitzers and MLRS systems and so on, and maybe even eventually planes and higher-grade stuff, and Russia decides it really will annex all of Ukraine and we're here a year from now and that operation is still underway and America is still sending arms, then I think you could see the US's stockpiles being depleted enough that a plan to invade Iran in early 2024 to boost Biden's ratings could actually become infeasible. That, combined with the shortages of microchips and the metals needed to build weaponry.

          The main determining factors for me is a) to what extent the US actually wants to make this Russia's Afghanistan vs if they're just about ready to throw in the towel right now, and b) how far Russia truly intends to go. Only the Donbass? Odessa and Mykolaiv? Central Ukraine? All of Ukraine? Another, non-NATO country that gets wrapped up somehow (e.g. supporting Tranistria?) If Russia says "Fuck it, we're taking all of Ukraine" and then America decides that invading Iran isn't really an option for whatever reason (including if they get a nuke) and so decide to go all-in on defending Ukraine, then I think that Ukraine could become a junkyard for American weaponry, vehicles, and perhaps planes. If the war is over in a month then it won't matter either way, as @BynarsAreOk says in the other comment in this thread. Right now, it looks like the US is edging towards desiring a peaceful solution in the near-to-medium term, but if Kiev and Zelensky are actually under threat, does Biden go "Okay, we're doing it, we're sending you a bunch of planes"?

    • Shoegazer [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      It's pretty cool how we get to just launch missile strikes on a country we never declared war on then have the nerve to criticize others lol

    • SupFBI [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I don't know that there's much appetite for "boots on the ground" war among the US populace. That could easily change with a false flag of some sort. Exceedingly easy to whip us into a froth.