Image is sourced from this Economist article.
Most of the information in this preamble is from the Cradle; notably here, here, here, and here.
The features of an effective American war (proxy or otherwise) is that it is a) against opponents with much less military power than you; b) with very low American losses; c) with victories you can visibly show off from time to time to justify involvement, and d) with a profit margin beyond merely giving money to military corporations. The war against Yemen was none of those; airplanes tumbled off aircraft carriers, and the navy complained of the hardest fighting conditions in decades. Conquering Yemen for its resources was inconceivable given the terrain, lack of good intelligence, and the strength of Ansarallah, and all that seemed to be visibly harmed were empty patches of desert and civilians.
Apparently, the ceasefire last month merely stipulated that they stop attacking merchant vessels in the Red Sea; it said nothing about attacking Israel. Therefore, Yemen is absolutely free to create a new blockade of Israel by just striking their airports and seaports, and all Israel can seem to do is try and bomb them in retaliation, a futile strategy which has failed to produce a military or political change in Yemen for the last decade when many other countries have tried it. And if America directly attacks them in response to attacks on Israel, the ceasefire is off, and expensive equipment will continue to be lost.
Across the strait from Yemen is an interesting array of countries. Egypt’s position in this war is well-known, and Somalia is under a kind of US occupation under the guise of fighting terrorism (Trump withdrew most troops, but they were then sent back under Biden). The other three are Sudan, Djibouti, and Eritrea. All three are increasingly being drawn into the anti-imperialist camp, as they cooperate with Iran, Russia, and/or China. Sudan is undergoing a civil war, but the rebels fighting the government are famously backed by the UAE. Djibouti has refused to allow themselves to be a launchpad for US strikes on Yemen.
Eritrea has a fascinating history of flip-flopping between West and East over the past few decades, but has, since 2020, sided with the East. It was one of the five countries to oppose the 2022 UN resolution condemning Russia’s war with Ukraine. Eritrea sends two thirds of its exports to China, and Iran has reportedly supplied them with military equipment. If a stronger link could be reforged, then Iran would have significantly less trouble sending military technology to Ansarallah, and to other friendly groups throughout the region.
Naturally, the lidless eye of the imperial core is shifting its gaze onto Eritrea. Meanwhile, Ethiopia - a country that has experienced frequent conflict with Eritrea - is part of BRICS+ and their economy is increasingly reliant on China (as is most countries’ economies nowadays). If a permanent resolution between the two could be created, it would be a victory for themselves and the Resistance, and a defeat for America, which thrives on conflict and destabilization.
Last week’s thread is here. The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel’s destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia’s youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don’t want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it’s just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists’ side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR’s former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR’s forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster’s telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a ‘propaganda tax’, if you don’t believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
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.
Pro-Russians are very upset about last night’s disproportionately small response to Ukraine’s provocations. Normally I could see where they’re coming from, but now it’s a bit different.
Andrey Belousov’s appointment as Russia’s Minister of Defense one year ago marked a turning point in the war. The media constantly asserted that, since his background was that of a technocrat economist, his task would be to optimize the rate of attrition, ensuring that Russia would prevail in the end, after many more years of the meat grinder. Well, they’re not too far off, but there is some nuance.
Bakhmut and Krynky were the peak of attrition warfare in this conflict. Since then, both sides have adapted to reduce losses while still accomplishing their goals. Kursk was likely Ukraine’s last big hurrah of wasting their own resources. Now they flexibly hold lines with the bare minimum number of troops, while Russia slowly chips away with motorcycle attacks. Neither side suffers noteworthy attrition anymore.
Okay, so if Russia continues to steadily capture territory, why not just keep this going until Ukraine vanishes from the map? Well, Ukraine and the West recognize that it’s a losing prospect for them, and they are not bound by international law. Now we see suicide bombings, terror attacks on trains, and so on, while the world turns a blind eye. It’s going to get worse the longer this goes on. What happens if they start making or “acquiring” dirty bombs?
So what option does that leave Russia? Well… to end the war. One way or the other. Putin is graciously offering a final chance for a reasonable peace deal. Trump genuinely wants out so he can focus on other things, and of course, the Pivot to Asia. But he will need to pressure Ukraine to accept the deal, and it’s unclear if he will.
If negotiations fail to achieve peace before a certain deadline, overwhelming military force must be used to eliminate the threat, permanently. No “hostile rump state, armed to the teeth” will be allowed to persist. It will be a combination of massive annexations and regime change. Russia has been preparing for this scenario at least since Belousov’s appointment. His task was to keep up the pressure while building an entire new army on the side, complete with the best equipment and fresh, motivated soldiers. There are various articles from Western sources noting how Russia has been stockpiling equipment, most notably modern tanks and missiles, and don’t forget Russia’s enormous military recruitment campaign.
All this to say: tit-for-tat strikes don’t really matter anymore. This is the endgame. If you want huge missile strikes, probably just wait a few months.
Not escalating in response to every provocation is a power move.
Who’s in control? If Russia’s strategy is working, why change the strategy in response to stunt?
The only valid reason to do a show of force would be to discourage Ukraine from trying something similar again in the future. But Ukraine is already in a desperate position, the regime is facing existential risk anyway so it can’t be discouraged from these stunts.
The problem with Russia’s response is that they have to respond, but how, against what, and when is a big issue, Russia’s kind of boxed in there. Ukraine doesn’t have an equivalent asset to the large bombers Russia lost, and there are limits to what Russia can hit, I gave my opinion on that in a comment here
Which is exactly why I believe last night’s strikes were the response.
If Russia is preparing a “shock and awe” style offensive, which I think they are, they can’t really do much in the meantime besides protect their assets. The last important military-ish targets in Ukraine are energy infrastructure, which Russia will want to hit as part of said offensive, not now.
Yeah I agree with you, it was the response, but a relatively weak one because of the position they’ve boxed themselves into.
The problem with striking energy infrastructure, and we saw this when Russia launched their de-electrification campaign late last year, at times over 100 cruise missiles were fired in a single attack wave, is that there are hard limits to what can be hit because of the nuclear power plants (NPPs). Russia can’t hit any of the electrical infrastructure attached to the NPPs or any of the other power plants supplying the NPPs with a secondary electricity source. Russia hit some substations that the NPPs depend on last year and the IAEA put out a very blunt statement a few hours afterwards. Russia has avoided doing that since then. The NPPs are a big headache for countervalue strikes on energy infrastructure. Not that I’m advocating for such, I’m just analysing here, I don’t want anyone to suffer of course, but countervalue strikes are part of war unfortunately…
Update 260 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine - 17 November 2024
This is just ordering the most expensive thing on the menu and getting mad at the bill when it comes.