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.


  • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t believe sanctions are a reliable, sufficient method of collapsing major world powers.

        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”

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is that they didn’t know that.

          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.

          • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I really don’t see on what basis I’m supposed to believe that they believed sanctions would be enough.

            All the politicians saying “russia will colapse from sanctions” isn’t good enough?

            Here is the most blatant example I could find.

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.”

              Here is the most blatant example I could find.

              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.

              • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They are fail children who really do believe their own rhetoric.

                  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.”

                  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?

                  Yes, that’s exactly what I think. Why not? Gives an excuse to spend more on the military, which lines their own pockets.

                  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                    Gives an excuse to spend more on the military, which lines their own pockets.

                    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.

          • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.