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.


  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    the intention of NATO leadership is to absolutely pillage the people and natural resources of Russia

    I don’t think it’s realistic that NATO expected to just steamroll Russia so I don’t really agree with this interpretation at all.

      • 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.

          • 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.net
              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.net
                  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.

            • 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.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s nothing to do with steamrolling militarily, the sanctions were put in place in such large doses and so quickly as to try and cause a breakdown of the war effort and internal revolt against the Russian government by West-friendly oligarchs who could then hand over everything that isn’t nailed down to the West

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah obviously once they sent troops in NATO did sanctions but the idea that that would lead to what you said is a pipe dream. Obviously if they somehow got Russia on a silver platter they’d loot it, as they would anywhere. My question doesn’t concern events after Russia sent troops in, my question concerns the events leading up to that. I am not inclined to believe that NATO’s plans from the start relied on sanctions being enough to bring down Russia as that’s an extremely unreliable approach.

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          NATO actually started the sanctions before the invasion. People were back then were actually saying “Wait, if we threatened Russia with sanctions if they invaded and then sanctioned them anyway, what is stopping Russia from invading?”.

          The biggest sanction on Russia is probably being cut of from the Swift network and that was put in place after the invasion. Along with the foreign reserves being seized.

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I stand corrected on that point, but I still don’t think NATO went down this path thinking that all they had to do was press the sanction button and watch Russia collapse.

            • ChairmanSpongebob [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              coming to this pretty late, but yeah, we’ll never really know since we can’t get in their heads but there might be some credence to that believe among US policy planners as they did a similar thing to Allende’s Chile with the whole “make the economy scream” sanctions.

              That was of course coupled with a US-supported military coup with Pinochet. They are also using sanctions to encourage domestic discord in Cuba and Venezuela to ultimately achieve a regime change. Economic sanctions are definitely in the coup-toolbox right?

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

                Absolutely they’re in the toolbox. But that’s not the same thing as being reliable enough to be treated as the lynchpin of this whole plot, especially with a country as large as Russia. And did they just fail to consider the difficulty of co-ordinating sanctions with places like India, let alone China? What, they had this whole plot years in the making that was completely dependent on sanctions, and then right before it pops off, they start saber-rattling and starting shit with China? None of it lines up and there are more plausible explanations that don’t rely on that assumption.

    • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same people already pillaged Russia once, and it took them a long time. This has been a several decades long project and I don’t see what’s changed that would suggest they have a different motive. But I think you’re probably onto something in your comments below. They probably weren’t so stupid to actually think Russia would be handed to them in a couple of months.

      On second thought, some of them definitely thought that, the rest were just stirring up racism. Also, I’m tired, so I might be misunderstanding what you’re getting at.

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess my view is that it’s more about seizing control of Ukraine than having designs on Russia, although that could be a long term goal. They wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO and they didn’t want to give the people the option of saying no. Some people didn’t like that, so they seized control of their provinces and declared independence, and Ukraine wasn’t going to allow that but Russia backed them up. I think the explanation that it was about bringing Ukraine into NATO better fits with these events than that all of this is a plot to loot Russia. The latter is speculation that is only supported by further speculation, that they thought Russia would fold like a house of cards as soon as they imposed sanctions, which I find unbelievable.

        Of course, they’d loot Russia given the chance, but the same is true of anywhere. I don’t think there’s any reason Russia would be specifically targeted, as it’s not as if they were particularly vulnerable. I also haven’t heard any explations for how the West supposedly made such a huge miscalculation regarding sactions, aside from “they’re all just really stupid.”

        Generally my position is that I think that the people of Donbas ought to be able to have a representative government and be able to choose their own fate, and I’m coming around to the argument that that was impossible to achieve through peaceful means. But at the same time I’m skeptical of a lot of other Russian narratives about the war, and that includes the idea that the whole thing is a plot to pillage Russia.

        • trompete [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A brewing conflict at the border, that can be ramped up or down on US orders, can also be used to get concessions out of the Russians. Even better if NATO is there, because Russia has to avoid getting into a direct confrontation with them. Ultimately this allows them to destabilize Russia and undermine state control over the border region. If Russia doesn’t want that to happen, they might have to agree to some other bullshit, like allowing some NGOs to operate or something like that.