Thread image created by yours truly, depicting Iran and Pakistan very impolitely not asking whether America, on the other side of the planet, is okay with them transporting gas around.
The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline has long been obstructed by American involvement in the region. Iran completed its section of the pipeline quite quickly, but Pakistan has been unable to finish its construction for a decade due to the fear of falling afoul of American sanctions on Iran. The United States has repeatedly tried to pressure Pakistan to give up the project and obtain gas from other countries instead. Recent articles on the state of the pipeline are contradictory, with some stating that Iran or Pakistan have given up on the pipeline while American sanctions persist. Pakistani officials reject this framing, saying that they are still working with Iran to try and get the project completed somehow. Nonetheless, Iran is becoming increasingly frustrated and is threatening a legal battle and a demand for reparations.
Meanwhile, back in Niger, the $13 billion under-construction pipeline connecting Nigeria and other West African countries to Spain and Italy will likely face delays due to the sanctions applied by the West and ECOWAS on Niger. Those following the European gas fiasco will be aware that while Spain and Italy have been impacted by the energy crisis, they have been very busy making deals with African countries to replace their Russian gas, and thus stand a better chance than Germany of making it through the crisis with their industries somewhat intact. The coup has thrown a wrench into their plans, though they can still obtain some gas from northern African countries.
And, last but not least, America tried for years to stop the construction of the Nord Stream pipelines between Germany and Russia, which culminated in them deciding to blow them up late last year.
All in all - the United States really does not like it when countries build up energy infrastructure and gain some independence from them.
Here is the map of the Ukraine conflict, courtesy of Wikipedia.
This week's first update is here in the comments.
This week's second update is here in the comments.
This week's third update is here in the comments.
Links and Stuff
The bulletins site is down.
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Add to the above list if you can.
Resources For Understanding The War
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.
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.
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 ~ 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
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.
Last week's discussion post.
Every time I explain the war to libs I become 1% more pro-Russia and I'm a little concerned about it.
Like, can someone tell me what Russia or the separatists could have done differently that would allow the provinces some pathway towards secession or even just representation, while minimizing loss of life? There's an answer to that question, right? Help.
That's the question they never answer. Once you acknowledge that the Ukrainian govt was literally waging war against an ethnic scapegoat and that the intention of NATO leadership is to absolutely pillage the people and natural resources of Russia, what was Russia supposed to do differently?
I don't think it's realistic that NATO expected to just steamroll Russia so I don't really agree with this interpretation at all.
It’s the economic sanctions. Cutting Russia off SWIFT and confiscating their foreign reserves were the equivalent of dropping financial nukes on the country - to blast them back to the 1990s poverty. Then they’d be able to move in and carve up Russia’s resources for themselves. They were fully conscious of what they were about to do to tens of millions of people in Russia.
The fact that Russia survived the nukes was an exception, not the rule. Most other countries would not survive that.
I don't believe sanctions are a reliable, sufficient method of collapsing major world powers. It's not really relevant to my question in any case.
The point is that they didn’t know that.
What they were seeing is that the two largest economic bodies teaming up together (US + EU) to unleash the most powerful economic sanctions ever seen on a country with a GDP smaller than Italy’s. It was supposed to be a show of force and a warning to the rest of the world about “this is why you don’t fuck with us Europeans or this will be the fate of your country! If we can collapse Russia with ease, we will collapse yours too”
I think they did. Because it's just generally true.
I really don't see on what basis I'm supposed to believe that they believed sanctions would be enough. You can't just press a button and destroy a major world power. I find it absurd to think that they would go down this whole path of provoking war, all of it resting on the assumption that Russia would instantly collapse when they did sanctions. There are way more plausible explanations and interpretations that don't rely on people being that dumb.
All the politicians saying "russia will colapse from sanctions" isn't good enough?
Here is the most blatant example I could find.
No, it's really not. I'm not inclined to take what they say at face value and assume it's what they genuinely believe. I don't see why they'd impose sanctions and then be like, "Well, who knows whether this will do anything or not."
I don't see what you're trying to show with that. That they wanted to collapse Russia's economy? Obviously. Like I said, if they're doing sanctions then they're going to say that they're going to work regardless of how much confidence they actually have in them. These statements don't really mean anything to me.
They are fail children who really do believe their own rhetoric. That is why we are in this issue in the first place. You think NATO politicians would have sent all that military equipment to Ukraine if they thought it would be destroyed/countered as quickly as it was?
This is lazy and uncritical. Even if it's true, politicians' decisions aren't based solely on their own whims, but rather based on the material interests they serve. Frankly, I don't see how this is that different from shit like, "Putin invaded Ukraine because he wasn't hugged enough as a child."
Yes, that's exactly what I think. Why not? Gives an excuse to spend more on the military, which lines their own pockets.
The ruling class being full of people living in a bubble that insulates them from material reality is a historical trope. "let them eat cake" Nero playing his Lyre watching Rome burn. etc.
When has america ever needed an excuse to spend more on its military? If anything I think this war is convincing governments that they are getting too little for what they are spending.
"Historical tropes" aren't a substitute for material analysis.
Sorry, what? All the time! Constantly! At this point I'm inclined to say we are living in totally different realities and there's not much point in continuing.
They're getting slightly skeptical of the EXTRA billions of dollars their spending specifically on aid. Meanwhile, the conflict is used to justify increasing the already absurdly high US military budget, which is the highest it's ever been in all time.
The idea that this war could cause governments to be convinced to spend less on the military is one of the most absurd suggestions I've ever heard.
I think one a key intent was cutting Europe off from Russian resources and weakening its industry to the benefit of domestic US industry in anticipation of conflict with China.
It's nothing to do with steamrolling militarily, the sanctions were put in place in such large doses and so quickly as to try and cause a breakdown of the war effort and internal revolt against the Russian government by West-friendly oligarchs who could then hand over everything that isn't nailed down to the West
Yeah obviously once they sent troops in NATO did sanctions but the idea that that would lead to what you said is a pipe dream. Obviously if they somehow got Russia on a silver platter they'd loot it, as they would anywhere. My question doesn't concern events after Russia sent troops in, my question concerns the events leading up to that. I am not inclined to believe that NATO's plans from the start relied on sanctions being enough to bring down Russia as that's an extremely unreliable approach.
NATO actually started the sanctions before the invasion. People were back then were actually saying "Wait, if we threatened Russia with sanctions if they invaded and then sanctioned them anyway, what is stopping Russia from invading?".
The biggest sanction on Russia is probably being cut of from the Swift network and that was put in place after the invasion. Along with the foreign reserves being seized.
I stand corrected on that point, but I still don't think NATO went down this path thinking that all they had to do was press the sanction button and watch Russia collapse.
coming to this pretty late, but yeah, we'll never really know since we can't get in their heads but there might be some credence to that believe among US policy planners as they did a similar thing to Allende's Chile with the whole "make the economy scream" sanctions.
That was of course coupled with a US-supported military coup with Pinochet. They are also using sanctions to encourage domestic discord in Cuba and Venezuela to ultimately achieve a regime change. Economic sanctions are definitely in the coup-toolbox right?
Absolutely they're in the toolbox. But that's not the same thing as being reliable enough to be treated as the lynchpin of this whole plot, especially with a country as large as Russia. And did they just fail to consider the difficulty of co-ordinating sanctions with places like India, let alone China? What, they had this whole plot years in the making that was completely dependent on sanctions, and then right before it pops off, they start saber-rattling and starting shit with China? None of it lines up and there are more plausible explanations that don't rely on that assumption.
The same people already pillaged Russia once, and it took them a long time. This has been a several decades long project and I don't see what's changed that would suggest they have a different motive. But I think you're probably onto something in your comments below. They probably weren't so stupid to actually think Russia would be handed to them in a couple of months.
On second thought, some of them definitely thought that, the rest were just stirring up racism. Also, I'm tired, so I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at.
I guess my view is that it's more about seizing control of Ukraine than having designs on Russia, although that could be a long term goal. They wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO and they didn't want to give the people the option of saying no. Some people didn't like that, so they seized control of their provinces and declared independence, and Ukraine wasn't going to allow that but Russia backed them up. I think the explanation that it was about bringing Ukraine into NATO better fits with these events than that all of this is a plot to loot Russia. The latter is speculation that is only supported by further speculation, that they thought Russia would fold like a house of cards as soon as they imposed sanctions, which I find unbelievable.
Of course, they'd loot Russia given the chance, but the same is true of anywhere. I don't think there's any reason Russia would be specifically targeted, as it's not as if they were particularly vulnerable. I also haven't heard any explations for how the West supposedly made such a huge miscalculation regarding sactions, aside from "they're all just really stupid."
Generally my position is that I think that the people of Donbas ought to be able to have a representative government and be able to choose their own fate, and I'm coming around to the argument that that was impossible to achieve through peaceful means. But at the same time I'm skeptical of a lot of other Russian narratives about the war, and that includes the idea that the whole thing is a plot to pillage Russia.
A brewing conflict at the border, that can be ramped up or down on US orders, can also be used to get concessions out of the Russians. Even better if NATO is there, because Russia has to avoid getting into a direct confrontation with them. Ultimately this allows them to destabilize Russia and undermine state control over the border region. If Russia doesn't want that to happen, they might have to agree to some other bullshit, like allowing some NGOs to operate or something like that.
The answer that'll really get you labelled as a Putin shill is that Russia shouldn't have stopped at Crimea back in 2014. Back then the Ukrainian state was much weaker than it is now and Russia could possibly have beat them a lot faster and consequently with a lot less lives lost compared to what's happening now.
To go even further, Russia and the USSR before them should have been more assertive against and less trusting of the West at every turn. "Peaceful coexistence" was a mistake and led to here. Against NATO, peace was never on the table.
I imagine the sanction regime of the west would have actually done something in 2014. I don't think the Russian economy was quite ready at that point
I'm not sure how NATO would react. The whole reason they declared an SMO and not a war(no full mobilization even 18 months later) was because they were afraid of NATO's response.
It was a mistake of course back then and today as well. The SMO shit was far too conservative even though it was working and Ukraine was finaly on track for a peace agreement, history wont look back favorably to that choice.
Then again one could argue the only reason we are not in a nuclear winter right now is exactly because the Russians were too scared so lucky for everyone else too. Even the west used to talk about "red lines" or pushing Russia back in the early days too.
But if Russia loses (or didn't intervene) then Donbas wouldn't have any protection if it declared independence, and no representation if it didn't. I don't particularly trust Russia but I don't see much hope for the people of Donbas without them.
If you watch Patrick Landcaster's interviews in Crimea a lot of people say that Ukraine didn't invest in any public infrastructure of any kind. Minimal roads, no water, no schools, no hospitals, etc but that since Russia took over it has invested significantly in infrastructure.
I cant imagine that Russia would act different in Donbas. They have already started paying pensions to former Ukrainians and begun rebuilding some of the cities they took.
Even if Russia does exploit Donbas resources and labor a harder than the rest of Russia it will likely be preferable to being exploited by Ukraine and persecuted for their culture.
Maybe if Donbas had a referendum on joining Russia before the SMO started? That would have made Russia's involvement a bit more reasonable but the west would just call it a rigged referendum like they have with all the others.
I have enough problems getting the libs to acknowledge the Crimean Referendums in the 90s.
Well they won’t, because the conclusion, for them, is predetermined
Yeah I mean if Ukraine was prepared to accept the results of a referendum they wouldn't have banned opposition parties in the first place.
Yeah this keeps going back to
becoming increasingly fascist
I'm not sure whether the foreign or domestic pressure was the bigger influence but that certainly played a role.
hmm I could be wrong but I think they did in 2014, this MoA article on Feb 17, 2022 from the buildup series quotes an AP piece:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-moscow-061c1ea46ad98716b8da01eb8b967da2
Possibly if Russia had either annexed Donbas immediately or allowed them to join the Russian Federation. Crimea managed to avoid being shelled by being part of Russia.
The problem with that from Russia's perspective is that Russia was significantly more vulnerable to sanctions in 2014. Russia spent the past 8 years on hardening itself against western sanctions. Ukraine and NATO spent the last 8 years on ideologically hardening Kyiv's army and government to fight to the death. Russia managed to avoid being destroyed by sanctions and NATO managed to avoid a repeat of the Georgian war.
I think the tenet of "If you're explaining, you're losing," is possibly the only correct thing Reagan ever did or said other than dying, when applied to real-life debates and arguments. Everybody's seen the TV arguments where a host is asking short, snappy, accusatory questions to a person that has foolishly volunteered to try and explain their viewpoint, where every time they get more than 10 words into an explanation they are cut off and another accusatory question asked, so even if you support the interviewee it's like "Dang, this is rough to watch." It's mitigated quite a lot online by upvote metrics - if you see a short, snappy comment with like 3 upvotes and a reply with 80, then you mostly know in your lizardbrain who is winning and who is losing. But even so, the tenet still holds, and that's why it's important to also attack your opponent rather than remaining in defensive explanations after every accusation. Hence the chapo/Hexbear styles of engagement with libs.
With that said, what might be happening is that when a liberal offers a short, concise, and wrong accusation or argument - say, "Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is an authoritarian dictator who wanted to destroy Ukraine for not bowing down to him, and Ukrainians are resisting him," - it's tempting to try and offer a short, concise, and more correct statement in response - "Actually, Putin was justified in invading Ukraine because NATO pushed up to their borders and Ukrainians are Nazis."
The problem is that that response isn't actually true, or at least it's not the whole truth, and additional details are critical to make the argument more airtight especially if you don't want somebody to turn around and say "Well, if you think that's right, then you think X country (that you don't support) invading Y country (which you support) was justified too, because the situations are broadly comparable."
The problem now is that if you try and add those additional details, by the time you're done, you've written an essay, and you are explaining and thus losing. This is the exact problem I had with writing Hexbear's position on the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
So I'm personally quite non-judgemental when people on the Left in public give these sorts of short, snappy, and wrong statements, because while people around them are like "This isn't my position, this is insufficiently nuanced, actually I have a great 15,000 word essay on this and 7 books if you want to know more..." in reality they're constrained by "If you're explaining, you're losing."