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.
Before this is removed for 'not news', do you know why Marmitelover hit
?
him and xhs are probably just lying low so they dont lose their accumulated 'credibility' making further (incorrect and minimally falsifiable) predictions from positions amenable to the extant imperial order given the current instability.
What "incorrect and minimally falsifiable" predictions did @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net and @xiaohongshu@hexbear.net make exactly?
The last time I saw anything from Marmitelover was their (excellent and correct) analysis on the US military buildup and logistics in the months prior to the Iran War before they went silent, and XHS' main schtick is criticizing China for their neoliberal mindset by not focusing on fiscal deficits/ net imports more to improve domestic consumption, which is a position that hasn't been proven wrong yet given the CPC itself is now starting to recognize it.
I think it's far more likely both are just busy with their lives and don't want to waste time arguing with terminally online idealists who keep calling anyone who applies a good material analysis a "doomer".
I sent one of the moderators a message on the 29th or 30th of March explaining why I wouldn't be online anymore and said that they were free to tell people why (with less detail than the private message). In short, career change, and I really don't want to screw up this career change. So no time for posting.
All good comrade, some folks here have been throwing big accusations against you recently with little to no basis (one comment straight up called you a reactionary that peddles US/Zionist propaganda) and I felt it unfair that you were not present to defend yourself.
By all means though, you do not have any obligation to post or prove yourself to anyone here.
Nothing's changed lol
There are a handful of users on here who have had beef with marmite for a long time over dumb shit that has nothing to do with what's been discussed in this comment thread or the news mega in general, and are just using their absence in this comment thread as an opportunity to talk shit.
There's also a contingent that have held a grudge over the times they were right specifically because they looked at the material reality on the ground instead of taking friendly propaganda sources as gospel.
I didn’t see a lot of predictions, but there were statements about “air superiority” that were just vibes based, and statements about the number of lost aircraft that could have come directly from Centcom. Anyone is likely to make incorrect predictions; being unable to accept what has already happened is a different thing, imo.
Shipwreck's 2024 election takes aged like milk. Just jaw-droppingly wrong on so many accounts. I made a joke about how they switched accounts so people wouldn't be able to read their awful awful election takes which some people didn't like lol.
MarmiteLover123 had a pretty bad analysis about Iranian Internet traffic if I remember correctly. They thought that the loser shah's son getting Internet traffic on his social media account meant there was a secret segment of Iranian society who liked the shah's son and not just bots.
Was there ever any confirmation that shipwreck and xiaohongshu were the same person? Going back to shipwreck's account shows it's been completely scrubbed so I can't review their 2024 US election comments, but they did have similar views on China and I think they both favoured books by Michael Hudson.
Yes I do remember that, but he quickly retracted that claim when called out on it.
Nonetheless, I do highly appreciate both of their analyses on the main topics they focus on, and I don't really condone the idea of unfairly bashing some of our most well-informed commentators while they are absent as it goes against the policy objectives of this community.
We're only Human after all, and everyone is bound to make a mistake at some point.
Most of the awful awful election takes were from another account. It was either TrueLiberal or Kaplaya or something like that. It was also the account where they asked that question "what should China do if it gets nuked by the US?" They would write paragraphs upon paragraphs about how Biden is a 5-d chess grandmaster and how China blew its chances at dedollarization and how Biden is a much more cunning imperialist than Trump only to end it with "anyways, Biden is better on trans issues, so you should vote for Biden."
I've only properly interacted with XHS once. It was about China and corruption (later spiraling off to be about bureaucracy and also culture and tradition as driving forces of history and development) around 2-3 months back. I felt that he clearly has read many books and articles but that his analysis was idealist and not very sound to put it mildly.
I think a lot of people remembered that debate because the mods highlighted it and it literally went through multiple megathreads lol.
I did read through some of that discussion as Chinese history is a particular interest of mine and I thought you and XHS both made good points, but I didn't see the conclusion of that as I felt it was getting too long winded from you and XHS just repeating their thesis without coming to a compromise.
I don't really miss the uncritical acceptance of the US/Zio line on everything and the neutral/doomer tone they had on anything to do with the resistance, tbh.
Was gonna say, they knew their military hardware but otherwise they were almost a hard-core reactionary
I really think that's unfair to marmite. First of all, it's ambiguous wording that could be read as calling marmite a reactionary. Military pessimism, warranted or otherwise, is not the same as supporting the empire. Second, for a concrete question like "whether or not a plane was shot down," what reactionaries think is irrelevant. Not to sound corny, but it's supposed to be just the facts here, we're not trying to live in a bubble where no one wants to give bad news or report a fact that a reactionary also reported. Reactionaries are not storybook gremlins that are compelled to lie 100% of the time.
Some of marmite's conclusions may have been disputable, but factual disputes in the news mega are healthy and part of the process, it doesn't need to be personal or have an ideological dimension. During the 12 day war, there was some ambiguous footage of explosions on a hillside near Tehran, iirc, which could have been gravity bombs (JDAMs) or standoff glide bombs (JASSMs, I think?), with different implications for how much air superiority the Epstein Axis had over Iran at the time. Marmite thought they were JDAMs. That is a purely factual claim that can be discussed on a purely factual basis, not an ideological dispute.
I hope this doesn't come off as a rant, I tried to keep it short. But I suspect that marmite, and XHS, dipped because people were rude to them and they started to get stressed out interacting with the community. The result was that we lost two very knowledgeable comrades with interesting things to say. We don't have to agree with all of their takes, that's not the point of a crowd-sourced OSINT forum like the news mega. It's a collective process.
Marmite was fanatically pro-ukraine and supported Pakistans bombings of Afghanistan wholeheartedly.
Honestly I find that hard to believe, and your wording reads as angry to me. I apologize if this is not the case, but I get the impression that you got into an argument with marmite, maybe heated words were exchanged and you are still tweaked about it, and now you are saying things out of spite. Ukraine is run by nazis, and, last time I checked, Pakistan recently bombed a hospital. Unless we have literal intelligence moles on this inconsequential website, I can guarantee with 100% certainty that no long-term hexbear user supports either of those things. Whatever marmite's takes were, we are missing some nuance between what he said and how you've recounted it here.
There was no argument. And...are you really playing the "you mad bro?"
Marmite unironically supported Ukraines right to defend itself in the face of Russian aggression and ignored the role the west played entirely placing the blame solely on Russia. In a separate thread he framed pakistans bombing as justifiable because it was betrayed by the taliban in Afghanistan or something along those lines.
Not sure why you find having a random person on the internet be knowledgeable about one topic and totally backwards on another so hard to believe. Doesn't matter to me tho. They knew their guns, but had a total lack of understanding of material reality. Ignorance or not.
I'm not trying to make you look bad, but that's how "fanatical support" sounds to me. I've been in this community since the subreddit and I have never seen any long-term hexbear user express "fanatical support" for Ukraine, so when I see that phrase it sounds like exaggeration or distortion, which is not what people usually do in a calm frame of mind.
The reason I care is that hostility and vague-posting are toxic to forums. It doesn't just affect you or Marmite, it changes the overall atmosphere of the site. A hostile atmosphere on a forum makes people defensive -- and then they protect themselves with more hostility, and it becomes a feedback loop: hostile atmosphere -> defensiveness -> further hostility. The temperature builds up online faster than in person because we don't have the social cues of a person's face, voice, and body language. Eventually, if it gets bad enough, users start to form cliques as a further way to protect themselves, which turbocharges the feedback loop -- the cliques reinforce the hostility and the hostility reinforces the cliques -- until the community balkanizes and dies. I have seen this happen to a community that was very dear to me, because people just would not or could not deescalate. Once the site culture, and the accumulated history of drama, reaches a certain threshold, it becomes hard to reverse. That is absolutely within the realm of possibility on hexbear.
Anyway, since you first responded to me I've been skimming Marmite's comments containing the word "Ukraine," using hexbear's search function. I'm 5 months in so far, and I haven't found anything that seemed like fanatical support for Ukraine in my opinion, or even lukewarm support. Maybe I'm skimming too lightly.
If it's older than 5 months, maybe you can provide links? Otherwise you're essentially vague-posting.
I kept digging, and Marmite's post history does not seem to support what you are saying.
Marmite on Ukraine, Russia:
Marmite has said that Russia is "fighting an existential war against NATO-backed proxies in Ukraine", and has criticized western liberals for their indifference to widespread naziism in the Ukrainian military. This does not seem like "fanatical support for Ukraine," or "putting all the blame on Russia." On the contrary, they are standard Hexbear positions.
Marmite on Pakistan, Afghanistan:
Marmite explained the situation from Pakistan's perspective. Perspective-taking is not the same as endorsement. Marmite characterized the Pakistani motive as retaliatory, which, afaik, is perhaps oversimplified but not wrong. At no point did Marmite defend Pakistan's decision to bomb a hospital, or even characterize Pakistan as good or bad.
I'm not trying to debate-bro you but it bothers me that Marmite may have been pitchforked off the site.
5 months in and you missed this? Convenient.
MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any] to news •
Bulletins and International News Discussion from March 11th to Whenever We Reach About 3000 Comments - The Fourth Iran VS US+Zionists War Megathread
told a Russian radio station that the U.S.-Israeli campaign in Iran “marks a transition to a different type of international relations” where at any moment, you can move from being a person sitting across the table to becoming a victim.” Lukyanov added, “How can negotiations even be conducted in such a situation, if you know that at any moment the other side may shift to a direct personal attack against you?
I'm sorry this is extremely funny given that Russia said for months that they would never invade Ukraine, including in talks with the US and Europe (to the point that a lot of us on here in the news mega naively believed them, including me), only to launch a war that has lasted 4+ years with no signs of stopping. And at the start of the war, Russia tried to have their special forces enter the Ukrainian capital and perform such "personal attacks" aimed at the political class of Ukraine as part of denazification.
This was the latest one. The first bit was the comment he was responding to. His reply is highlighted. The Afghanistan thread was before this so im not going to bother searching anymore. You do you, but i prefer to call out incorrect analysis when i see it.
I saw that comment. That's not "blaming the war on Russia," that's comparing Russian methods to US methods.
Russia did conduct a surprise attack following an ambiguous buildup. And, while this is the first I've heard of the Kiev special forces operation, if they attempted to detain or kill political figures that would also be a kind of decapitation strike. There's a methodological resemblance to the US blitzkrieg on Iran.
Comparing tactics is not the same thing as both-sidesing imperialism. For that matter, hexbear is anti-imperialist, not, strictly speaking, pro-Russia. AFAIK the neoliberal state of Russia is anti-imperialist as a matter of self-preservation, not on principle, although principle vs practice can get blurry.
Maybe you think Marmite should not refer to Russia in a flippant way, but this is absolutely not "fanatical support for Ukraine" -- Marmite even refers to the operation as denazification, right there at the end. The comment has 40 upvotes, it's within the bounds of acceptable speech on hexbear.
That doesn't mean it's beyond criticism. Marmite got pushback from a user who pointed out that, in both conflicts, it was the US side that sabotaged negotiations, and it was only afterward that Russia invaded. Take, counter-take, both upvoted. Normal exchange on hexbear.
First of all, no. There were plenty of responses including my own in that very thread if you would like to get a better understanding. Russian tactics are not the same as US tactics.
First of all, There was absolutely nothing "surprising" about this conflict. Again, i point this out to marmite. Russias actions were fully anticipated and encouraged by NATO.
Second, it was not a "decapitation strike". Nor did it precede the start of hostilities. As was the case with Iran. Given you weren't even aware of the Kiev operation, your own understanding seems to be as thin as marmite on this matter. And given I've already gone over this I'm not going to again. I do enjoy discussing this, have done a lot of reading and listening and have even written about it myself. So, if you would like a better understanding and more context i would be more than willing to talk elsewhere about it.
Marmite didn't even "both sides" anything. As I said, the role the west played in the origins of the conflict went completely unmentioned. Ignoring the dominant aspect of the contradiciton in question. In other words, repeating the imperial line that Russia acted unprovoked and in a vacuum. A sentiment you are now echoing. Tactics weren't even a part of the conversation. I agreed with marmite on the matter of political double speak, which you seem to be confusing with "tactics". but that wasn't the core issue being discussed.
You yourself seem like you could use a bit more material understanding of the contradictions currently at play in Ukraine.
The conversation in regards to Pakistan was similarly sympathetic to imperialism. Omitting pakistans history with the CIA and the Taliban entirely and focusing on a single recent event.
It's you who is coming off as incredibly belligerent rather than understanding when seeing the incorrect views of a potential comrade being corrected. There was no argument with marmite as I said. Rather, the incorrect line he had taken was pointed out, by more comrades than just myself. A core part of our system is criticism and self-criticism.
I'll respond to these points briefly but it's kinda beside the point. I'm defending Marmite not because I think all their takes are correct and I want to die on that hill, but because I think you misrepresented their views and by extension their character. Like I said before, I think it sets a toxic precedent to badmouth a user in good standing on this forum, and I want to set the opposing precedent that we also stick up for each other here, because these things ripple out and affect the community. Like anyone, Marmite has surely posted their share of hot takes and gaffes. Hexbear is also not a hivemind, we have bounds but people disagree within those bounds. I agree that "a core part of our system is criticism and self-criticism," but it needs to be respectful. That's not to call you a shitty person -- people get on each others' nerves sometimes, it happens.
I'm not trying to be hostile, but to be honest this shit makes me tense and I do not enjoy it. I'm trying to thread this needle where I defend Marmite, without putting you on the defensive so much that you have to protect yourself, and without escalating or getting too defensive myself, but also while protecting myself and not becoming a target alongside Marmite. Honestly the margins feel pretty fucking thin here. And it's not necessarily your fault or mine or anyone's, it's just the nature of the beast. Shit takes on a life of its own. This is why the only solution, the only way to keep a forum healthy, is a culture of patience, respect, charitable interpretation, and deescalation. That goes for me, you and Marmite.
Responding to the points:
There was also "nothing surprising" about the US bombing Iran. Visible buildup and motive alongside public denial. What adjective should be used? The intent was surprise / ambiguity
The difference between then and now is that now everyone expects this kind of thing. In 2022 it was harder to believe that Russia would invade. It didn't feel like WW3 yet. Now anything is possible.
I think because that literally goes without saying, in a hexbear news megathread, years into the conflict and over a decade after the color revolution in 2014. Especially for someone as chronically in-the-mega as Marmite. Marmite knows, everyone knows. This is one of the strongest lines of consensus on the site. Relentless pressure from NATO eventually provoked Russia into open conflict, because NATO nukes down the road from Moscow is a red line and has been since the breakup of the USSR.
I mean tactics in the colloquial sense, not the "tactical / operational / strategic" sense. Tactics as in "actions to achieve contested objectives." Doublespeak included.
To paraphrase, Marmite's take was "Russia criticized the US for doing something they also did." Whether you agree with the comparison is another matter, but that is what Marmite actually said. Not "Putler invaded for no reason and we need to support the heckin' Ukrainian resistance." No one on this website is saying that. If we conducted a poll right now, and that was one of the options, people would select it as a joke because that's how un-hexbear that take is.
Admittedly, four years ago I spent less time in the megathreads than I do now. I knew Russia made a push for Kiev, but didn't know about the attempted special forces raid, or maybe heard some early rumors about it and then never followed up. IIRC, at the time, a common early take in the mega was that the push for Kiev was a feint. And yeah, of course there's always more to learn about the dimensions of any conflict. But for the most part, I get the picture already.
Anyway, apologies for the long thread. No hard feelings, I hope. Have a good one.
Are there any comments in particular of theirs you would like to highlight?
Big difference between doomer (which i would not apply to them but at least it makes sense) and reactionary
MarmiteLover123 gave me uncomfortable "everyone is stupid except me" vibes towards the end. They had a fight with Tervell at least once over sources, and while I completely sympathize over them shitting on BRICS cheerleading accounts for poor analysis, it starts to get grating that a lot of their criticism is just pointing at various sources going, "This dude sucks. This dude is just a crank. This dude is a alt-media grifter. This dude is a state propagandist. This dude doesn't know what they're talking about." Okay, who isn't a crank or a grifter? Because it's obvious that MarmiteLover123 like everyone else here follows various people on social media who offer analysis that they feel is good. So, who does MarmiteLover123 follow?
My speculation is that the people who MarmiteLover123 follow are largely Western military analysts because they actually delve into military specifics and MarmiteLover123 doesn't understand various non-Western languages (Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, etc). And while MarmiteLover123 doesn't support Western imperialism, when you only consume Western sources, a lot of Western assumptions about their real and perceived enemies will inevitably seep into your analysis. This is why a lot of their analysis has a pro-Western tinge to it and why MarmiteLover123 doesn't stray too far from Western framing.
You could kinda see this as well when they always use "Ansarallah/Houthi." Everyone else either picks "Ansarallah" or "Houthi." Imagine someone going "CPC/CCP." It's a weird affect. I think MarmiteLover123 is legit the only person I know who does this to the point where if I see another account use this I would know it's them.
Anyways, I hope they enjoy their break from the news mega.
(I've stayed out of this discourse, since I was one of the people regularly arguing with Marmite and I don't want this to be interpreted as gloating or anything, I didn't dislike their presence on the site, but this is something I can specifically contribute on)
They mentioned a source in this post https://hexbear.net/post/8026521/7030720, who fits in exactly with this assumption, and who I... don't really find the most credible after going through some of his posts. I pointed out the guy being a crank, just as the people on the other side of the aisle that Marmite complained about, which they dismissed, and I didn't really want to get into it at the time, but the guy being a deranged pro-Ukraine freak is actually partially discrediting for his analysis - to genuinely believe in the possibility of Ukrainian victory at this point requires a thorough rejection of the strategic reality, "if Ukraine just gets more long-range missiles they can turn things around!" is not coherent materialist analysis.
(well, okay, this turned out ridiculously long so I'll spoiler it, but this Colby guy just really pissed me off so I wanted to write down some thought I had bouncing around since I checked him out, if I need to cite them later)
more
The effects of this bias are wide ranging. Colby cites a lot of factual figures about procurement, which is certainly valuable - except when it comes to Ukraine, suddenly he's completely uncritically repeating Zelensky's totally real figures about Ukrainian production capacity. He supports the strategy of Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, despite little evidence for its actual long-term effectiveness - but pro-Ukraine guys have to believe that Ukraine can achieve strategic effects with oil infrastructure strikes (and long-range strikes more broadly), since otherwise they'd have to face the state of the Ukrainian military on the actual frontline. And even accepting this premise that Ukrainian long-range strikes can actually cause severe damage to oil infrastructure, spinning this into it actually affecting the strategic reality on the ground still requires the oft-repeated Western chauvinist framing of "Russia as a gas station masquerading as a country", which is deeply anti-materialist and ignorant of the actual reality of the Russian economy.Colby's broader doctrinal analysis is also, uh... I pointed out this particularly silly example back then, of saying "The US is never going to abandon its bases or interests in CENTCOM" right as the US was in the midst of doing exactly that to like half its bases in the region. This thread on American theater missile defense doctrine, while it does at least start out with useful information and clearing up misunderstandings about the doctrine, does not in any way interrogate whether this doctrine can really work, and dismisses the critiques of low interceptor inventories - in the end, I feel it ends up being a classic example of the "Western doctrine can never fail, it can only be failed" framing often seen from Western analysts. His final "doctrine works, it just has to be implemented in full" statement, has, I feel, been pretty thoroughly repudiated at this point - the Iran war did involve the US and Israel expending a ridiculous amount of highly valuable munitions in order to destroy Iranian assets, and yet seemingly failed to actually meaningfully attrit Iranian missile and drone capabilities, and ended up with depleted interceptor stocks anyway. He states "In the absence of sufficient TMD, friendly forces are vulnerable to begin with, and do not have any freedom to operate" - and yet Iran proves this wrong, as they went through over a month of bombardment and yet were still able to keep up launches - by relying not on interceptor defense but underground facilities and concealment. He further dismisses worries about interceptor expenditure as "not that dire", midway into the war, despite extensive evidence for the success of Iranian strikes by that point, and this is all in service to the notion that Ukraine... is going to buy interceptors from the Gulf states? This is, again, pro-Ukrainian bias affecting his analysis - firstly believing Ukrainian claims that they totally have a bunch of spare drones sitting around to offer to the Gulf states, and secondly believing that the Gulf states are going to actually send a substantial amount of interceptors to Ukraine despite the performance of their air defense during the war - pro-Ukraine guys have to believe these things, since otherwise they'd have to accept the reality on the ground.
Another example of uncritically assuming Western doctrine will work - this argument, again dismissing critiques by other analysts, that the expenditure of ammunitions' obvious negative impact on military capability against China isn't actually a problem, since, uh, the US needs to eliminate the Iranian threat first, and so it's all justified? This completely fails to tackle the obvious question of "what if a US attack on Iran doesn't work and you just end up with no munitions and still facing two threats", and is also an example of how being a deranged imperialist compromises your material analysis - "acting now is undoubtedly wiser than praying that somehow the regime will not pose a persistent threat into the future" justifies this tremendous waste of ammunition by assuming that the evil Iranians were totally going to strike eventually anyway, despite all evidence from before this showing that the Iranians are moving very slowly, trying to avoid escalation, and having a substantial reformist faction which seeks rapprochement with the West - if anything, attacking has weakened those reformists and strengthened the hardliners by proving they were right about everything, thus making Iran into more of a threat! But the deranged fascist who assumes by default that the Iranians were scheming to attack him cannot really conceive of an analysis like that.
The "Western doctrine can never fail, it can only be failed" framing is also particularly common precisely among pro-Ukraine analysts, as it offers hope - if only Western doctrine was implemented correctly this time, Ukraine could win! The idea that there's just fundamental conceptual flaws there cannot be accepted. There's actually a great response in one of the above threads which exactly lays out one of the trends among pro-Western analysts: "Native English speaking Weapon and Military experts have proven themselves to be zoomed in tactical aspects of this conflict, as if they dictated strategic and geopolitical outcomes".
There's also this other thread I came across later, where he again dismisses expenditure concerns, this time about JASSM. He then states about where he got his numbers from, "The US Air Force's budget? Selected Acquisition Reports too. It's all there. The issue is that very few people understand how to read and cross reference these documents correctly." Except:
1/2
there was also this really amazing exchange there
"concerning" to see think thanks adopt the attitude of, uh... material reality? "anything that supports the idea of US military decline", like, uh, looking outside? it's not an idea anymore buddy
Anyways, a final thing with regards to the notion of this guy doing good "material" analysis - a point he seems to often make is the idea that the US totally has a bunch of extra production capacity that's just sitting there unused, so if only there was the political will then things like missiles and interceptors could totally have their production increased by the government putting in larger orders. I simply do not find this credible - perhaps if we were talking about a planned economy, sure, but in the modern just-in-time era of capitalism, the idea that there's these production lines just hanging out I find pretty doubtful. Uncritically citing MIC CEOs saying "well, we could totally make X amount" is not journalism (well, good journalism anyway) or material analysis. Modern executives are basically all hanging out in their office, with their hand over the big red "CLOSE FACTORY" button, sweating, just waiting for an accounting guy to come in and say "sir, there's been a 0.02% drop in profits" so they can slam the button.
A production line that's been making less than a hundred per year, but would totally be able to scale up to 600 if the government just put in an order that large, is just an idea that I don't find credible given everything known about how the US MIC works. Even if they had the spare tooling for this just sitting around (when, again, all evidence points to manufacturers, in all sectors, just rushing to dump spare productive capacity as soon as they're done with a contract and don't have a new one coming up, that's just how a system that prioritizes quarterly profits ends up functioning), they'd still need to hire a ton of additional personnel to run that tooling - in a country that has a shortage of the skilled workers necessary for this - and get the raw materials to actually build everything, in a time of increasing supply chain challenges.
2/2
Were there any that you disagreed with? Honest question
They've posted some twitter accounts over the years, you can search through their profile if you want. You could also ask if they come back
Nah, we actually bonded over how terrible a lot of the BRICS cheerleader accounts are. One of the biggest ones on Twitter is some cryptobro or goldbug. They always push out fake news. You also have this genre of crank who thinks every single large explosion is caused by a tactical nuke. There are people who think the US detonated a tactical nuke to blow up the Nordstream pipeline.
I just got uncomfortable by how MarmiteLover123 seemed fixated on how every single source sucks towards the end. Journos suck. Official press releases suck. AoR social media sucks. Western social media sucks. Alt-media sucks. Everything sucks. I don't remember them being this negative when Russia invaded Ukraine even though every one of their critiques applies as much to Russia-Ukraine as it does to the US-Iran.
Towards the end, they were combing through footage of wreckage of destroyed aircraft in order to debunk some talking point on social media. I think it's good that they've stepped back and have taken a break.
Not news
Bedtime is authoritarian
They don't call us tankies for nothin