It looks like the Elensky curse has struck again

It's a little frustrating that you seem to ignore everything i wrote about engaging with the content of a piece and just keep doing this "attack the messenger" thing. There's this strange way of thinking that i see most often in liberals where you can never engage with or come into contact with anything that is associated with people who have reactionary views on certain issues, almost like they think that by doing so you somehow become morally tainted by association. As a dialectical materialist i think that this kind of puritanical impulse is not helpful.

To answer your question, no, there is not much out there with this level of quality of analysis on these topics. There just isn't a huge amount of content like this coming from progressive channels, i wish there was.

By the way, this channel isn't even the worst offender as far as reactionary sources of good geopolitical analysis that have been shared here. When we do so we assume a certain level of political maturity from our comrades, such that they can engage with the analysis presented and separate that from whatever other reactionary views that source may have. Are you also going to say we should never post anything from Russian or Middle Eastern sources because they almost certainly hold reactionary views on some issue or other?

If someone is uncomfortable with giving a particular channel views they can use one of the alternative links provided, where the video is embedded on a third party website. I'd recommend doing that anyway for privacy reasons.

The advantage of videos like this is that they use the western media's own reporting and publicly available information to show how, when you actually dissect what they are saying, they frequently slip up and admit the truth even while they try to spin it to fit their narrative. That is helpful when trying to deprogram people who would otherwise not trust any non-western source, or who would refuse to listen to any overtly communist channels.

If you think that sharing videos like this should come with a content warning to caution against listening to these sources on other topics, then that is totally valid and we can absolutely do that.

As for who he used to write for, of course that's fair to point out, but to be consistent you should also take issue with any author who used to write for Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, CNN or any other mainstream media. Genocide apologist, warmongering, imperialist bourgeois establishment mouthpieces are no less reactionary than far right conspiracy theory websites. In fact the latter sometimes stumble onto real conspiracies and have occasional flashes of insight into how the covert and overt machinery of the bourgeois state works in ways that liberals never do. Obviously that's wrapped in utterly deranged, delusional reactionary drivel, but still.

Much, much worse. She is a French citizen with virtually zero connection to Georgia who was placed there to act like a colonial administrator of the olden days doing the imperial master's bidding and keeping the colony on a leash.

Nuclear weapons are not a panacea. They do not replace a conventional deterrent. If all you have are nuclear weapons and nothing else then your enemy has escalation dominance and can keep pushing your red lines bit by bit. Think about it, are you going to respond with an all out nuclear attack to every provocation? Or are you going to let the enemy employ salami slicing tactics until they are in a position to take out your nuclear deterrent and leave you with nothing?

Moreover, a country with nuclear weapons but a weak or nonexistent conventional military is effectively inviting a first strike on its nuclear capabilities because if those get neutralized the enemy then knows nothing can stop them. We know that the US' leaders are increasingly irrational and delusional. What if they decide you don't have the guts to actually pull the trigger on nuclear retaliation for a limited incursion or bombing campaign? What if they think they can take your nukes out before you launch, or they convince themselves that your weapons don't work or that they can defend against them?

Another issue is that simply having nuclear weapons is not enough, you also need to be able to deliver them on target, and in sufficient quantities to make the enemy pay more than what they consider an acceptable cost for destroying you. The DPRK don't have nuclear submarines and they won't ever gain the aerial superiority required to deliver nuclear payload by bombers so they are left with only one leg of the nuclear triad which is ground launched missiles. And those can be intercepted, especially if the distance is long as it is to the US mainland and the enemy has a large military presence in between, which the US does with its navy and its many bases in the Pacific. And the DPRK don't yet, as far as we know, have the hypersonic technology that Russia has which would make interception much harder. They also likely don't have thousands of nuclear missiles so they can't just rely on sheer numbers and betting that enough will get through to cause significant enough damage.

It would be one thing if they were only facing the puppet regime in occupied Korea, they can more than likely level all their cities as the distances there are too short to intercept, but their real enemy is an ocean away, with a large territory and forces spread out all over the globe. The only real way to guarantee your safety is for the US to be aware that you have the capabilities to fend off at least partially any first strike attempt (i.e. you have a good integrated air defense), AND that even if nukes are never launched you can make any potential conventional war very unpleasant and costly for them.

Admittedly this is a big cost to pay for a small country like the DPRK, but unless you have a bigger country to protect you it's either that or inviting destruction.

We have pretty conclusive proof they were trying to make him into the Russian Guaido. There's a clip going around from 2013 claimed to be either Navalny himself or the director of his "anti-corruption" fund (either way makes no difference) that shows them asking a British MI6 agent for 10-20 million dollars in order to plan, in their own words "mass protests, civil initiatives, propaganda, establishing contacts with elites".

My bet is that the West decided now that he was going to serve a decades long sentence for numerous crimes he was no longer worth anything as an asset and they burned him. They did it at an opportune enough moment to create distraction from unfavorable developments and try to use this along with the fearmongering story they ran about Russian space nukes to get the US Congress to give them the money for more weapons to Ukraine.

The OG Nazis used a considerable chunk of their limited resources toward the end of the war on building Vergeltungswaffen, literally revenge weapons. These had very little military benefit and were mainly intended to terrorize the enemy civilian population. It's standard fascist MO to do this shit when they lose a war.

Why produce weapons and munitions yourself when you can just buy them from the US and enrich their military industrial complex? In fact from an American perspective, why does Europe need its own weapons industry at all? Better that they become fully dependent on the US, that way they are easier to control.

The Saudis found out that that isn't so easy to do even when you have billions of dollars of American weapons. Why does everyone assume that the US and UK will do any better? The Saudis at least are familiar with the region and were able to somewhat find allies among the locals, but Westerners are basically universally hated there. They will achieve nothing but kill more civilians.

Purely performative gesture. If a city wants to show genuine support it can start by backing BDS.

I think this illustrates the point:

I hope they do. This would set a very good precedent of neo-colonial comprador puppets being tried as traitors to their country, which they objectively are. Only hope that other countries that liberate themselves follow suit, ideally catching them before they manage to escape and steal a bunch of the country's wealth like that rat Afghan puppet president in 2021.

Did all the Japanese get killed after they surrendered? Did all Germans? If they had surrendered earlier less of them would have died. The same goes for Nazi Ukraine. Their defeat is inevitable, and prolonging the inevitable only adds to the suffering...and to the list of war crimes that they will be charged with by Russia's tribunals afterwards. The West's "support" is literally destroying Ukraine and they have all admitted that they have no problem with this, in fact they profit from it.

The West is happy to "fight to the last Ukrainian" to hurt Russia, the Banderite Nazis are happy to die (and force their less fanatical compatriots to do so as well) for the West so long as it enables their genocidal urges, meanwhile the only ones who actually care about the Ukrainian people and have gone out of their way to try and save them from the Western imperialists and from themselves are the Russians.

It's actually really sad that there isn't a single country on the planet that cares about Ukraine except Russia (and maybe Belarus). To the West they're just a tool, useful idiot cannon fodder, to the rest of the world they're a tragic cautionary tale about what happens when you let the lunatics take over the asylum, which is what happened on the Maidan in 2014. If you really cared about Ukraine you too would want the flow of weapons and money to them to stop, because the longer this goes on the worse it will be for them.