Mere hours before Trump's 8pm Tuesday deadline yesterday, Pakistan's government contacted Iran with a US-written proposal for a two-week ceasefire, explicitly stated to also include Lebanon, during which they would negotiate a permanent end to the war on the basis of Iran's 10 Points. Among other things, these points include 1) maintaining strict control (joint with Oman) over Hormuz, complete with a toll; 2) the end of sanctions on Iran; 3) keeping their enriched uranium; 4) a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East [stated by the Supreme Leadership Council but not in the 10 Points, so who knows], and 5) some plausible guarantee that Iran would never be attacked again. I've heard rumors that China may have prodded Iran to accept these terms.
In theory, these are relatively confident and maximalist demands. In practice, Iran has already achieved military and economic control over Hormuz and the withdrawal of many US troops and bases from the region, so at least a few of Iran's demands are, to a greater or lesser extent, already achieved, and with little hope for an increasingly exhausted US to undo these achievements short of nukes.
A couple hours after the ceasefire, the Zionist entity began a wave of airstrikes in Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as flying drones into Iranian airspace. This was a strange move to make even if you assume - very sensibly - that the US is completely agreement non-capable: why not agree to the ceasefire and simply pretend to negotiate for two weeks while regrouping/repairing what assets you can and then start hitting Iran again?
One theory is that the Zionists are testing to what degree Iran is actually willing to have solidarity with Lebanon and Hezbollah. While the Resistance has been relatively united since October 7th, the formation of separate peaces instead of negotiating terms as a united front has been a major exploitable weakness. Alternatively, it's been proposed that the US didn't even consider using the ceasefire to regroup and deceive Iran, and that Trump merely wanted a way to chicken out of his threat on Iran's electrical grid - the fact that US officials have since stated that Iran's 10 Points were not the same ones they agreed to is a point supporting this, I suppose. If the conflict resumes and Trump does not deliver another 48 hour deadline (and/or makes it something silly like a month from now) then this could be the explanation.
From Iran, I am getting the sense that a lot is happening behind the scenes. Statements from top officials like Araghchi have stated quite plainly that there will be no ceasefire and no negotiations unless the Zionists stop attacking Lebanon, but as of ~24 hours after the ceasefire began, there has been no significant military response from Iran yet. There have apparently been phone calls between Araghchi and numerous regional officials, but it is unknown to what end. All the while, the global economic situation continues to deteriorate. Over the next week or two, the last tankers that left Hormuz before it closed will arrive at their destinations. If the missile exchanges begin once more, then the West, much like most of the rest of the world, will be experiencing all sorts of fuel, energy, food, and product shortages while trying to justify why they broke the ceasefire to kill more Lebanese civilians.
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.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' 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.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt1CgQsgpI
Richard Medhurst succinctly putting the last 5 years into perspective.
I disagree with a lot of this. My main criticism is that I think we're in the middle of a complex and evolving situation and a lot of this is opportunism for the benefit of long term imperial projects as opposed to the plan for those projects. There are also many factions, goals, and unspoken impulses of empire to say that this is the one plan that they have.
Controlling commodity flows and especially fossil fuels is core to dollar hegemony. Taking back control of Iran and their oil has been a core goal for decades. It's much easier for me to believe that a lot of imperial planners wanted Iran to be subjugated, but when it wasn't quickly brought to heel they moved to take advantage of the oil shock.
Also, I doubt anyone in the deep state thinks that this is a serious and permanent plan. Within a decade most of the oil and gas that was destroyed will be rebuilt and renewable energy sources will have expanded significantly. This can only be temporary as the world moves away from fossil fuels and the systems of international control that the US has built and maintained.
The US threw a bunch of shit at a wall and this is something that actually stuck when the rest didn't. After everything else blowing up in their faces, they finally landed on a decent gameplan. I don't think it's a long term plan for various reasons many people have already stated.
I stopped watching towards the end (cos I'm sleepy) where he posits that this will result in vast reindustrialisation for the US via cannibalisation of EU and other allied countries' capacity. It seems easier said than done.
My understanding is that US doesn't have the industrial workforce or infrastructure to reshore what it's lost. Top scientists and talent have left, labour costs are comparatively expensive, logistics are hampered.
Companies would only be building white elephants in the USA, surely, please someone tell me why Richard thinks that this part of his hypothesis would actually pan out for the US of A.
Not only that but reindustrializing for real (if it could actually be done) also potentially brings back a lot of the power of the proletariat as a class, that’s why the capitalists de industrialized America in the first place.
that's why it will likely be "friend-shored" to Mexico and Central America and not directly brought back to America beyond what is necessary. The Gulf of Mexico and Panama would become the new world energy hub.
he's a journalist talking about something in an area in which he has no expertise so no i dont think he has a good reason for it
He widely publicized the story on UN participating in the Saudi/US oil embargo of Yemen and widely covered it when everyone else on the left ignored Yemen before October 7th. The "official" story was that the UN checkpoints were an alternative to the US/Saudi embargo, but in reality they were an additional checkpoint and filter and ended up reducing oil imports even further when they said they were there to do the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LQ1HlY6bzo (October 8th, 2022)
He widely publicized the story on the offshore Gaza and Syrian gas fields, and Israel and the US's driving interest in them. The largest known gas reserves on Earth. Something completely ignored in most western leftist analysis of the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7fIe8PYbg
He consistently provides materialist explanations with correct understanding of energy. You couldn't be more incorrect that this is outside his area of expertise, this is the area in which his reporting has been more cutting and consistently proven correct. It's the area where his analysis is the most advanced compared to the overall western left.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
Medhurst's argument seems to be, "Even a temporary US monopoly on energy could precipitate durable capital flight into the US, reindustrializing the US and deindustrializing Asia and Europe. Then the US seals the deal with naval piracy, unless Iran, China, and Russia can defeat the US navy and/or make that piracy too costly to maintain."
Is that accurate? I struggle to imagine the US reindustrializing. Maybe the plan is to situate that industrial growth in south and central America and then extract the profits back to the US? The other thing is, militarily -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't navies easy to disable with missiles and submarines, assuming you can locate the ships? It would be a major escalation, sure, but no more an escalation than this plan to hold global shipping at gunpoint to strangle the economies of rival nuclear superpowers. The US can't just put their navy under their nuclear umbrella -- or some other retaliation umbrella -- and do whatever they want. China, Iran, and Russia have their own means of destruction. At the end of the day, MAD alone is not a basis for primacy, and it kinda seems like MAD is what this plan boils down to.
*I'm not disagreeing with Medhurst, I bet this is the plan.
It isn't intended to be temporary. It's intended to be permanent via Chevron. The capital flight and de-industrialization of Europe has already begun. The question becomes really if they can make China unattractive and noncompetitive to force de-industrialization and capital flight to the US. They can at the least with this plan put a really big hurt on China and make them reliant on the dollar and maintaining its hegemony which means US hegemony which also means the B&R fails which means the US succeeds in enslaving most of the planet and China's attempts to free them fail which ultimately if not interrupted at some point in this process leaves China a mere regional power totally under the economic power of the US in a world also controlled by the US.
In other words China and Russia but China especially need to be strident and prepare for combat on the high seas against this pirate empire. The US won't go down easy. If this video is to be believed they have no intent of retreating to the Americas as many here like to speculate rather they may cede air power and all their air bases for a handful much more defensible and important naval bases and choke points across the globe and attempt to maintain power via a navy.
This is also why Trump's plan for building American ships by imposing fees on any ships coming to the US that aren't US made shouldn't be scoffed at right now as transitioning from an air power to a naval power would require increased shipbuilding capacity which would be helped by opening new naval yards, expanding existing ones via commercial orders. However, even if that should fail the US has enough ship-building capacity as well as established ports around the world to fairly effectively carry out this strategy.
Navies are not easy to disable no. Compared to air forces that sit on tarmacs fairly static ships are constantly moving so a lot harder to find, target, and destroy than air forces that can't be in the air all the time. Additionally these carrier groups carry anti-sub equipment, travel with attack subs, and have aegis anti-missile defenses on them.
It's not impossible if China wants to war with the US for them to attack them and start destroying them but two things: 1) China doesn't want to fight the US, has resisted any military action against them because the US is run by mad-men with nukes who are seething at Christianity losing, white supremacy losing (but I repeat myself), and capitalism losing and China also does a lot of business with the US and while the US might take a lot of slaps from China they'll probably cut off trade and crash the Chinese economy if China goes to war with them. 2) China does not have a deep water navy. They lack the ability to project power like the US does. They don't have logistics chains for projecting power like the US does. They don't have all these colonial hold-over ports and different fleets all over the world supported with air power resupply. Ultimately the US could carry out their piracy just with subs so developing ultra-long-range missiles for taking out carrier groups while firing from China and evading their interceptor defenses won't be enough to stop the US because the US can continue to carry out this strategy with subs. Thus China requires a deep water navy capable of sub hunting in vast stretches of multiple oceans around the world. This will take time to build, take time to figure out logistics for because they don't have land bases to resupply from anywhere in the world at this point so it would be more expensive and intensive on them. This gives the US probably another decade of dominance at least during which they can do a lot.
If China strikes now, dissuades the US they might be able to prevent this strategy from fully unfurling and the US might indeed flinch this early on. However if the plan progresses, Europe de-industrializes and the US somewhat reindustrializes or at least "friend-shores" the industry to say Latin America, Asian lapdogs, etc then the US will become progressively less likely to flinch. Problem is China's navy at the moment isn't really ready for a full confrontation with the US that rages far from the SCS (US has been very careful in this plan to have its choke points and blockade points far from the SCS).
This seems like a possible Chinese strategy for naval piracy scenarios. Just put missiles and drones on the cargo ships themselves disguised as regular merchant ships. Not sure how effective that would be long-term in a hot war situation, but it's an interesting concept for these scenarios.
https://news.usni.org/2026/01/07/chinese-merchant-ship-sports-electromagnetic-drone-launcher-vertical-launching-systems
https://asiatimes.com/2026/01/chinas-drone-carriers-hide-in-plain-sight-among-merchant-ships/
this is a quibble, but I think China does have a sizeable blue-water navy -- mainly lagging the US in number of carriers (China 3, US 11) -- but in any case, as you point out, China lacks the many overseas naval bases the US can use to refuel its ships around the world, which is a major disadvantage
But what about economic leverage? If the US threatens to wage essentially a U-boat campaign against global shipping unless everyone buys American, I would think China, Russia, and Iran combined could still exert considerable economic leverage in the other direction, creating a "fucked either way" situation where it costs money to defy the US but also costs money to concede to the US, forcing a negotiation. Am I being naive? Or is the crucial point that, as you said, China does not want to fight the US to begin with?
The idea is for the US to create a trap with significant friction if China resists at any point early on (like barbs pointed backwards to prevent leaving it), allow China some exceptions early on so they are less likely to react, then once they're in deep snap the trap shut after they've drained Europe and strengthened themselves. So I don't think the point is to spring the trap in 2028 but maybe 2030 at which point China is deeper into the trap, US has had time to benefit, to strengthen itself, to drain its vassals, etc.
The point is also keeping China doubting that this is a plan, from seeing it and acting on it. Because there must always be doubt when we're talking about starting a war with the US, the rational minds in China will say let's not over-react, we don't have sufficient proof of this, etc. And they'll want to wait and that is how China operates, it is patient, it doesn't react dramatically and the US knows this, the US has studied China and the US will count on this for their trap to work.
There are a lot of ways this could go wrong. It's not fool-proof even if it is very clever, very intelligent, very elegantly designed. Even if it does go wrong the US has already cemented a lot of power and will continue to drain its vassals, force them to send capital to the US, reduce their competitiveness, and in all likelihood in Europe's case lead to a resurgence in angry far-right politics which the US wants to see. So even if they don't achieve their maximum win conditions out of this they're still likely to profit and extend their life and strength quite a bit by it.
This is the strongest and most holistic analysis I've seen. I like it a lot, I like how much it's trying to zoom out and see the whole picture as one larger thing.
His point on moving the planet's energy source away from the middle east and to the gulf of mexico makes the reason they want to eliminate Cuba so much clearer as well. Cuba would be able to do what Iran are doing otherwise.
I haven't watched the video referenced so I'm not commenting on the quality of the content posted, but please take a deep breath, both of you @juniper@hexbear.net @InexplicableLunchFiend@hexbear.net
Richard Medhurst is just “some westerner” now. The guy who radicalized more people than this website probably and went to jail for reporting on genocide
we're all tense. the stakes are high and we're in suspense with these talks. maybe juniper was not familiar with medhurst, was upset by the content of the video (which is potentially disheartening), and then, when they were already upset, reacted poorly when someone defended the video and chastised its detractors? it's not the most graceful conduct but these things happen. I think we have to cut each other some slack and not let arguments take on a life of their own. sorry to unfairly single you out, you don't deserve it, but you're the last one to have commented.
I don’t think he took a clear stance that this is all going to work out as an unambiguous win for the US, he’s just giving a theory for what the strategy is.
Yeah, he was rather explicit if brief towards the end that Iran (and by extension Russia and China) have the military means to fuck up the US's plan.
Not sure where you are getting that conclusion from. Not wanting to hear bad news doesn’t make it untrue.
Also Richard isn’t “some westerner” he’s a Syrian refugee and one of the foremost journalists on earth who served time in UK prison for his reporting on Israel and Gaza during the genocide. The first ever person to be charged under the UK’s new anti-terrorism laws. He also spent years covering Assange when everyone else had abandoned him and given up. Put some respect on him
A couple people in these threads get really defensive and bitter and rude and bad faith whenever they hear a message they don’t like, and it always coincides with this bullshit standpoint theory of “you are just a stupid westerner shut up!!!”
This isn’t groundbreaking news it’s a summary and analysis. If it matches what has been discussed by Michael Hudson and Brian Berletic that is only because it is correct.
You quote mine one quote from the entire video where Richard calls AmeriKKKa out for the violent rogue state it is and think yourself smart for already knowing this? No shit Richard is making this video as an easy to understand summary for the masses. Some people need it repeated still.
Again, you are extremely hostile and bad faith
This is not a good faith comment and it’s your first one in the thread you liar. You cannot disengage after making an argument you are abusing the system to get the last word in
Well if this is true then nothing on earth can get the US to abandon the zionist entity and all talk of that is as usual just copium/hopium. Not that I seriously thought they would but it would seem their energy dominance re:LNG relies explicitly on the zionist entity continuing to exist, continuing to be part of the rest of the world including open trade with it in order to export gas, remaining stable, and remaining close to the US and coordinating with them in regards to their grander geopolitical strategies with energy which means not turning the US back on them.
One interesting thing I'll notice is Ukraine is ramping up their drone war, they're now one of the most skilled operators in the world with very skilled people and a great knowledge set. They have unlimited access to western precursor components to build their drones and if the US says so they'll coordinate with them for deep strikes into central Russia to destroy gas infrastructure and strangle China. Frankly short of decisively defeating Ukraine and forcing them to the negotiating table by making their position untenable I don't think this whole Russian plan of bleeding them is working out after all. They only get better at drone terrorism and warfare, they only contribute more skills to the west, they only create better designs, strike deeper, radicalize more of their population with Nazi propaganda.
But I do find it interesting the video brings up Diego Garcia and the US naval advantage and ring around China in as far as they believe it will be part of maintaining the petro-dollar and controlling China. I've often noted the same thing, that this, Greenland, Panama Canal, etc is all part of a way to control global trade to control China. He's come to basically the same conclusion I have but I didn't notice the gas moves specifically and some of the elegant details of this plan, he really lays it out in a way I never could. Very impressive.
Frankly I increasingly wonder if Ukraine isn't intended to be kept burning through when the US makes their moves on China so that they can just use Ukrainians to blow up Russian supplies to China and squeeze them using an existing conflict so it isn't even that obvious. China is averse to alliances, averse to getting involved militarily so their only moves are economic in nature which limits them compared to the US in what they can do especially given the extensive alliances, vassals, etc the US has. The US can have their Ukrainian proxies launch massive attacks and completely devastate Russian abilities to supply China and hurt their economy, force them into submission to the west for vital LNG and other supplies and flip the script on China's current rare earth monopoly.
And once again I think things like this are valuable because too many people here assume the US is run by incompetent failsons, that it's floundering around just doing things randomly when in fact there is a grander strategy. Yes some pieces of that come into place in a rather inelegant and floundering fashion due to failings of individual politicians and their moves but the grander plan continues to move forward across administrations.
If you remember, the US pushed really hard to become the primary supplier of LNG to the EU following the Russian SMO, sanctioning and cutting off of Russian energy imports and the destruction of Nordstream. There was even a brief row where Canada was exploring increased exports to the EU but the US squashed it almost instantly. The subsequent explosion in energy costs for both American and EU consumers is obvious. Here is an article talking about the results. There was a business insider article from the time detailing it a little better but im too lazy to find it right now. The EU, obviously, has a far larger consumer base than the entity.
But your analysis is mostly on point, just a little skewed. The focus in American foreign policy shifted hard towards China under Obama in the early-mid 2010's.
The initial plan for Ukraine was to draw Russia into a war to bleed out its military, coupled with supposed crippling economic sanctions the aim was to reduce Putins hold on power within Russia, encouraging regime change. Hence the rise to prominence of Navalny. Who had extensive ties to western institutions including the NED funded and run by the Clinton's.
Thus Regime change in Russia was in turn intended to isolate China. Since Russia is an enormous source of raw materials such a change would have immediately compromised China's very existence while putting western capital into a similarly dominant position. All roads lead to China in terms of current American foreign policy.
Edited spelling and grammar
Does Ukraine have the manpower to last that long?
I imagine nazi groups within Ukraine can likely continue to operate as US-backed guerilla terrorists for a long time
No
People said they wouldn't last 6 months here at the start. Then Ukraine wouldn't last a year, then not two years. Then repeated assurances a new Russian offensive was coming in 2024, then 2025 that would collapse the front and Ukraine would have to surrender. People have been saying Ukraine would run out of man-power for years so excuse me if I don't believe it. There are shortages sure but this is a new age of warfare using drones operated by women in apartments in Kiev and the far west of the country which make it hard to advance so even if a Ukrainian position has only half its compliment of men it doesn't matter because the Russians are pinned by drones that will assassinate them without notice and few counters.
Truth is the lines are not moving much, Russian gains are slow and mostly empty area or small hamlets. Constant drone attacks have made troop movements very slow, very cautious on both sides and the Russians don't really have a comprehensive counter that enables them to get out of this trench warfare and either really break Ukrainian lines by killing enough of them and/or safely advance their own forces at any meaningfully significant pace.
There's no sign that Ukraine's lines will collapse. If anything they've adapted to Russian tactics that led to devastating early losses and are only getting stronger technologically and on tactics. At this rate of gain it will take Russia years more just to free the oblasts they legally claim and incorporated as Russian territory to say nothing of how they're going to move beyond that to forcing Ukraine to surrender by doing something like taking most of it industry, putting Kiev at threat, cutting them off from the black sea entirely, etc.
Ukraine isn't winning but they're not going to collapse and give Russia what they want anytime soon either. If the war ends soon it isn't because Ukraine lost or Russia won decisively on the battlefield its because Ukraine's backers decided to re-allocate too many resources elsewhere and told them to throw in the towel in doing so.
I will say I have paid very little attention to the overall Ukranian conflict other than the initial nazi belligerence and repeated Russian warnings that went unheeded.
I don’t think the Russians are that interested in pushing deeper into Ukraine. Bear with me on this: trying to seize control of more populous regions in Ukraine and pacify the nation would inevitably lead to terrorism, IEDs, entrenchment into Green Zones with the occasional mission into enemy territory. And now, with drones, not even the green zone would know peace. It would be Russia’s Iraq War.
They have to know this better than I do. What they can do is open a front, bleed the Americans and the Europeans dry; make a bunch of these politicians basically radioactive, and create a buffer zone between themselves and NATO. Sadly, your average European is fucking brainwashed. I’m in discord servers with European artists that think Russia is the big bad and they are willing to fight to the last Ukranian. Regardless of what Ukranian nazis did to antagonize the Russians.
Americans are getting tired of these wars. Trump rode in on a non-interventionist ticket (just like every single successful president). At some point, we’ll revolt, or a real one, will get the presidency and finally pull out. But Ukraine is not gonna last without American and European funding. Which means they are in a more precarious position than the Russians.
I just watched this again it's so information dense. It's so fucking good. I highly recommend this to everyone, it's very convincing and very materialist.
Off topic but love the 00's nu metal look from Richard
Punished Medhurst: It's just one of those days
thought it was Kyle Kulinski for a minute brb going blonde
This is great, thank you! Although disillusioning, it is important to face the reality that the US empire is flexible enough to still be in a very strong position and moving in a smart way to strengthen it further.
It’s also important to remember that this isn’t something that Trump administration came up with. The stage has been set for this transition over 40 years of work by capitalists expanding domestic oil and gas production as well as one-by-one picking off the middle eastern countries that could resist and surrounding Iran. This isn’t Trump being a genius, he’s pressing the button on the plan already made by the military and imperialist deep state. He’s doing so in the most inelegant and unpopular and naked way possible, which probably isn’t preferred, but at the end of the day nobody will argue if it gets results.
Yes, of course, good point.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: