Image is of a destroyed American AWACS plane in Saudi Arabia, of which there is a very limited supply and each of which is enormously expensive both monetarily and in terms of components. Iran hit this with a precision drone strike that likely cost ~$20,000.
I don't have much to add from the last megathread description. This isn't to say that nothing has happened or has changed since then - decades are still happening in weeks - but the general flow of the war is remaining the same. Trump sometimes threatens to open the Strait with troops and flatten Iran to rubble, and other times threatens that he's gonna back off and let other countries handle it if they really want little trifles like "fuel" and "energy" so much. Iran continues to strike across the Middle East. The West continues to bomb civilian infrastructure due to their relative inability to affect the missile cities. In all: things are generally getting worse for America and the Zionists.
April is the month where the last ships that left Hormuz before it was closed will arrive around the world, so the last month of economic turmoil has been a mere prelude to what's going to occur in the near-future. The silver lining is that Iran appears to be formalizing the new state of affairs in Hormuz, creating a rial-based toll to allow passage between a pair of Iranian-controlled islands where they can be monitored, meaning that, as long as the US doesn't do something exceptionally stupid, the global energy crisis may "only" last a couple years instead of simply being the new reality from now on. Some countries have already agreed to this arrangement, and others will inevitably follow despite their consternation as their economies increasingly suffer.
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.
Nukes don't really make sense in a war like this; a single nuke won't degrade Iran's mosaic defense, as people have said before it's a big country, a single city or bunker lost won't break Iran
Then we get into the problem of ground detonations; IF we assume the nukes are used as bunker busters, which frankly doesn't seem likely to destroy anything buried at an appropriate depth (so many would be needed), but the radioactive fallout would spread throughout the region: Russia, Pakistan, Turkey, the Gulf, either an actual nuclear power is irradiated (which triggers MAD) or a US ally dies
So for nukes to work, they have to be used on cities, leading to the greatest genocide in human history or they would be deployed as bunker blusters on dozens of targets, irradiating half of Asia
Yeah, I don't think so, nuke talk is a psyop
The nuke talk and disbelief that it will happen is starting to feel a lot like our position on Russia before they invaded.
I think war is little different than the use of nukes, otherwise the world would already be an apocalyptic wasteland
Perhaps but I'm not ruling it out. I think it's unlikely because it's totally unhinged and harmful to the US, but I also think it's possible the US is just that unhinged now.
Capital allowed True Believers high on their own propaganda into the levers of power and I don't think anything is truly off the table now.
What made me suspicious that the war was gonna happen was the evacuation order for Donetsk and Lukhansk due to supposedly intensified attacks by Ukraine. Doing that was a really weird move, and supposed evidence didn't show the artillery fire by Ukraine to be any worse than usual.
For nukes... I have no idea what to look for.
There absolutely was an increase in attacks on the donbas in the run up. I was following the daily reports.
So was I. It was still well below 2015's
Just after the invasion started I remember seeing a graph of the shelling in the days before the invasion and it was a very steep line angling upwards idk
I didn't believe the invasion would happen a month before, I changed my mind two weeks before because of Ukrainian artillery attacks, but I thought it would be limited to Donbass
The Kiev operation took me by surprise; I guess no credit for partially correct answers
We have seen repeatedly in this war that there isn't a lot of bluffing from either side. On the other hand, Trump lies and exaggerates all the time. On the other hand, he is talking like a leader who is losing a war. (There are lots of "on the other hand"s and "although"s in this post.)
The entity dropped the equivalent of like eight nuclear bombs on Gaza, no one "important" cared. If the USA drops a nuclear bomb on Tehran (really the worst case scenario for me), why would the reaction from the world be any different? Fascists will say they had to do it in order to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons (we had to destroy the village in order to save it), liberals will wring their hands, China will send a strongly-worded letter, the EU will say that Iranians brought this on themselves by resisting their genocidal extermination. On the other hand, the USA faced defeat in places like Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan and didn't use nuclear weapons, but Iran is a far greater threat to American hegemony than any of these countries ever were. The growing adoption of the petroyuan is a dagger piercing the heart of the American Empire. It means no more free money for Trump and the bourgeoisie and revolutionary discontent inside the USA, since even white Americans will have to really work for the first time in their / our lives. We will have to work the way the global south works, and in my experience it's far easier to radicalize people when they work like that. The Russian Empire was an imperial-colonial empire just like the USA, and its ruling class was overthrown as a result of military catastrophes and unbearable inflation. Revolution also came to succeeding in Germany in 1919.
The USA using nukes does open the door for Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (and for Ukraine to respond in kind), which is a nightmare in and of itself (although for whatever reason, Russia doesn't seem to be in a rush to end the war in Ukraine). Iran might also have nuclear weapons or develop them quickly or purchase them from the DPRK, since I think most if not all of us can agree that the USA using nuclear weapons (even a lot of nuclear weapons) will not stop Iran. A few nukes dropped on "Israel," however, means no more "Israel."
On the other hand, the USA is basically out of options. They tried using conventional weapons, but they're running out. Whenever their planes fly inside Iran, they get shot down. They tried their crazy land invasion, it was destroyed. They tried getting Kurds and protestors and other countries to fight for them, and basically nothing happened. There's nothing left to do. They can either use nuclear weapons, or just keep getting pushed back—although if they use nuclear weapons, they will still keep getting pushed back. The AoR has many more hands to play, the USA has just one. Iran is aware of all of this and they don't care. They are the children of Imam Hussain, who sacrificed himself to change the world. We are all facing a catastrophe, but the Iranians are not afraid.
I don't want to believe it, I want to be wrong, but if the choice is eternal slavery or nuclear weapons, I choose nuclear weapons.
That's the result of human psychology; those eight equivalent nukes were dispersed over two years and could be statisticalized, rendering the impact diffuse (in the mind of the west)
Nukes on the otherhand, overwhelm the human mind and lead to super mass casualty events that aren't diffuse or dispersed over time, creating political impact that's irrespective of the actual statistics. Nobody remembers the apocalypse of ordnance rained down on North Korea, but everyone remembers Hiroshima
I mean I agree with this completely, but it's an argument against the likelihood of nukes being dropped
The US maybe, but the rest of the world also has the option of nukes, so maybe withdrawing from West Asia is becoming more of an option with each passing day
Me too, me too
Which do you see as more likely: Trump using a nuke or leaving all America’s military bases in humiliating defeat?
leaving all America's bases with some spin or casting the blame elsewhere. he agreed to turn tail in Afghanistan, the US simply needs to leash Israel from escalating during talks and find a clever way to frame Trump as not responsible and/or successful. using a nuke is speedrunning speedrunning imperial collapse, theres a heap of vested interests trying to prevent that between him and the button
In his own mind; the nuke
The minute he orders it; the gears of the empire will more likely start to seize and push back, making a withdrawal more likely in the end
Trump is more likely to “die of a heart attack” as he says “drop the nukes”. And everyone pretends his last words were something completely different.
I honestly don't know
We live in interesting times
God damnit
it's a lot easier to say this when you aren't on the receiving end of the nuke
Everyone might be on the receiving end of nukes if the USA drops a nuke on Iran.
well to be honest I don't think global nuclear annihilation is an improvement over a crumbling imperialism and rising socialist China
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that I have had to say "nuclear Armageddon is NOT GOOD for the working people of the world" on this site multiple times and it's somehow a controversial take...
Posadas would be proud of us
It's "Let's watch Threads again" time.
...I really don't wanna though.
I don’t think it’s good, I’m just saying that this is where we are:
🐬
You guys keep trying to apply rationality to a group of people who purged the US military of anyone who wasn't willing to tell those under their command they are doing all of this to summon Jesus to Earth.
It makes sense if your goal is simply to kill as many people as possible.
considering most of the contenders for this record already belong to the US, we shouldn't rule it out
Shouldn't rule it out, but it would lead to the total death of US soft power everywhere and for all time, most crucially in Europe, and as this war as shown US hard power isn't what it once was
The political blowback would sink Trumpism and conservatism in general forever, the Gaza effect x10
The rational thing to do in that situation would be to denuclearize the US. Every other country ought to embargo the US instantly in retaliation at a minimum.
I feel like Europe has so far, and will continue to, come to heel
Alternatively, Trump doesn't understand or care about tactics or strategy. Instead he knows "nuke = biggest boom" and so he orders nukes because bigger boom means more stronger and more stronger wins war. Trump is 12. There's no rationality to anything that the US is doing in this war, I can't imagine that Trump will rationally decide not to use a nuke. If he wants to, it will happen, and he won't have a good reason to want to
He ordered a MOAB strike in 2017 for precisely that reason
I don't believe the US will use a nu Lear weapon.
However, they don't have any rungs left on the escalation ladder, and the BBC is manufacturing consent for it.
Exactly. Trump would never do something that makes no sense
Look, Trump may be an outrageously short sighted, selfish and petty idiot,
Also tons of oil would get irradiated making it basically worthless.
How do you figure? Maybe some oil stored in surface facilities would be impacted, but oil in the ground wouldn't be.
Rendering Iranian oil stocks and infrastructure worthless would benefit the US, though
Ali Kadri emphasizes that war is a process for accumulation, and one of the ways that the US can continue accumulating power and wealth is by devaluing Iranian land, labour, resources, and people
I think they will try with MOABs and tactical nukes on non-metropolitan areas first. The MOAB was first dropped under Trump's first presidency. I think he will try to do it again, maybe calling it the "FOAB" or something even stupider than that. If that doesn't deter Iran (it won't), next on the escalation ladder is tactical nukes. Nobody (important) is going to care if tactical nukes are dropped at random villages or mountain ranges where alleged underground bunkers and fortresses are located. I don't think the Trump administration is going to care about Russia or Pakistan being hit with radioactive fallout.
The wildcard is whether there will be a coup after the MOAB gets dropped but before the tactical nukes are deployed. There's a good chance that Trump himself wants nukes dropped but the rest of the security apparatus refuses and in the end, Trump is a senile old man with declining health living in the middle of a global pandemic.
As I know less about geopolitics, history, current events, geography, diplomacy, weapons, economics and strategy than others here I think I am somewhat qualified to imagine thing thinking of the american leadership. (Tho lacking some of the ideological illogics.)
What about dropping one on a non strategic (or not crucially strategic) spot just to show you are willing?
Like fuck up a random river or something.
Everyone remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki but who remembers all the testing in Nebraska or Hawaii or whatever. Just do a test... Which will also give cover in case it doesnt work. Maybe the target wasn't supposed to even be Iran, it misfired over there. Now we have to make a big clusterfuck of inquiry to determine what happened. Conspiracy theories on all sides til the end of time.
Or put it close to the Israel end of Iran (down wind if possible) and say it was Iran failing to nuke Israel. Iran will know it wasn't theirs. Nobody in the west will believe them. Israel will say it's holocaust 3.0 and whip themselves up even more than now. And rest of west will wring hands while supporting. What choice?