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.
So Ukrainian politics are basically patronage networks. Political clans based on networks of corruption more than anything else, but also generally aligning along regional and ideological lines. Regional identity, ideology, and very high levels of corruption all blur together.
Political equilibrium is achieved by duplicating political power centers and rotating control of these power centers through the different criminal clans. So for example the SBU is one power center (basically the FBI or CIA, successors to the KGB), and the national police overlap in their powers with the SBU, and then there is another overlapping body which “fights corruption” etc. Control of law enforcement means there is a choreographed Mexican standoff with each criminal clan having the power to come after the others.
So power is split between the clans but so is the ability to make money. Public infrastructure and the opportunity to extract money belongs to one minister, military procurement to another, etc so in the same way that police power gets split, so is the ability to extract money via corruption.
The clans horse trade for the balance of power and money that they feel they need and occasionally they kill each other because they’re mafia.
Reforming this system is nearly impossible because reforming one section, mounting an anti-corruption drive in procurement for example, means directly attacking one of the criminal clans that control the country.
The popularity of Zelenskyy was due to him being an outsider, or at least perceived as a political outsider, who wasn’t part of this sclerotic network of criminal gangs. Since he was outside the political equilibrium of corrupt clans there was a belief that he could actually reform this system. (As an aside, he was also fairly popular in the east since the criminal clans that were aligned with the east had been exiled and the associated political parties had been banned, and Zelenskyy promised to implemented Minsk II so he saw broad support across the country.)
This system of multiple patronage networks competing for money and power results in a kind of equilibrium. A Mexican standoff. It’s nearly impossible for this political system to change course because any change of policy means one clan wins and another clan loses. This locks the system into a kind of consensus. You don’t come after me and I won’t come after you.
Add into this the USA and the EU playing favorites by favoring one group over another. The US funding one political service (eg “anti-corruption” institutions being aligned with one criminal faction) means that some clans become closely associated with the US. Other clans respond by strengthening their hold on other power centers such as the SBU to stymie the other clans from becoming dominant. This is part of why you see such a proliferation of various militias and why when the militias are officially integrated into the national guard they retain autonomy because these militias are the armed vanguard of one clan or another.
Another symptom of this system is that political parties are very transient. Most only last for one or two elections. Each political party is really an adhoc grouping of interests for that specific election, they divide the ministries as spoils and make sure everyone important gets their piece, and nothing changes.
The result is that actually no one is really calling the shots because you can’t steer this ship. Any change of course means one group will lose influence and power, and either they need to be compensated for this or they will resist it.