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.
Might have something to do with the rumours that the 10-point plan Trump was briefed on is different to the official proposal given by Iran. At least that's what NYT reported a few hours ago.
The report also correctly cites Iran's 10 point plan and how it potentially contravenes with Washington's publicly stated goals, so the discrepancy is noted here.
There's definitely a lot of misinformation going on right now so take everything with a grain of salt, but from this report alone, which allegedly comes from an anonymous White House official, there could very well be actors within the US government (Neocons in the cabinet? Deep state war hawks? Zionist lobbyists?) that are intentionally misleading Trump by giving him false information about Iran's proposal/ the situation on the ground. For what purpose I do not know yet.
Full article below in case NYT takes it down, emphasis mine.
Iran publicly released on Wednesday what it said was the 10-point framework for talks that President Trump described as “a workable basis on which to negotiate” an end to the war. Much of it consisted of maximalist demands that look difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with U.S. aims.A White House official said the points do not match what Mr. Trump was referring to. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House discussions.
Iran released its version of the proposal the morning after the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week cease-fire, and calls for American troops to leave the region, reasserts Iran’s control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz and maintains Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
Many of these demands are likely to conflict with a 15-point proposal U.S. mediators laid out last month.
That proposal was never made public, but officials briefed on the plan, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details, said it addressed Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs, as well as maritime trade. U.S. mediators had pushed in previous negotiations for limiting the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles and halting all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment.
Mr. Trump on Wednesday appeared to refer to that U.S. plan, writing on social media that “many of the 15 points have already been agreed to,” and repeating his insistence on “no enrichment of Uranium.”
Here are the 10 points of Iran’s proposal, according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, and where these demands might conflict with Washington’s aims:
1. An American guarantee of nonaggression with Iran.
In the earlier, 15-point proposal offered by U.S. mediators, only a cease-fire was on offer. Iranian officials want to ensure a formalized end to hostilities that is more permanent. This is one of the main demands, according to interviews with regional security figures and a former Iranian diplomat, that Iran will focus on.
2. Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz.
This is likely to become a major sticking point. Iran’s ability to strangle traffic through the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, has wreaked havoc on the global economy. It is very unlikely that Washington or Iran’s Gulf Arab neighbors would accept this.
3. Ending the regional war on all fronts, including against Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, in Lebanon.
This could become an eventual point of alignment. The United States and Israel want Tehran to curb an alliance of militias it has fostered across the region, which it calls the “Axis of Resistance.” Many of those militias have come to Iran’s defense in the current war, launching drone and missile attacks on U.S. targets, Gulf countries and Israel. Among them was the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, to which Israel responded with a major offensive. Israel then announced plans to occupy parts of southern Lebanon. Israel says the current cease-fire does not apply to its operations in Lebanon. Whether the Lebanon front can be brought into a longer-term deal is an open question.
4. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region.
U.S. forces maintain bases across Gulf Arab states, Israel and Iraq. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which the U.S. would accept this.
5. Reparations to Iran for war damages.
Iran has sustained a devastating level of destruction, not only to its military sites but to critical infrastructure, including pharmaceutical and steel plants, bridges, universities and energy facilities. There has been no indication that U.S. officials would consider offering compensation.
6. Acceptance of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
This is diametrically opposed to Mr. Trump’s most recent statements, in which he has again called for zero enrichment of uranium. Some regional diplomats have aimed to soften U.S. demands, suggesting Tehran could instead agree not to actively conduct enrichment, or to limit enrichment to a symbolic amount at the lowest threshold for civilian purposes. It remains unclear whether Washington would accept that.
7. Lifting all primary sanctions on Iran.
Washington has imposed on Iran different forms of primary sanctions, or direct restrictions on financial transactions, since the founding of the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution. In previous negotiations, mediators aimed for U.S. officials to lift some sanctions in exchange for concessions on Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Trump’s own statement on Wednesday touched on the idea of offering “Tariff and Sanctions relief.”
8. Lifting all secondary sanctions on Iran.
In addition to its directly blocking trade with Iran, the United States also imposes sanctions that penalize other countries or non-American companies that do business with Iran. Like the point on primary sanctions, this part of the proposal would likely be negotiable depending on what Iran offers.
9. Termination of all resolutions against Iran by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Last June, the U.N. nuclear watchdog passed a resolution against Iran for the first time in 20 years, saying that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, a move Iran condemned as political. Washington cannot force the I.A.E.A to repeal its resolutions, but it could perhaps pressure allied countries to do this as part of a comprehensive deal with Iran.
10. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran. There have been several U.N. resolutions against Iran, particularly on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Last October, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran, saying Iran was in breach of a 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment. Washington could try to influence its allies to do this, but again, it would likely require a comprehensive agreement with Iran.