back in my map era, we're ukrainemaxxing right now
Declarations of the imminent doom of Ukraine are a news megathread specialty, and this is not what I am doing here - mostly because I'm convinced that whenever we do so, the war extends another three months to spite us. Ukraine has been in an essentially apocalyptic crisis for over a year now after the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive, unable to make any substantial progress and resigned to merely being a persistent nuisance (and arms market!) as NATO fights to the last Ukrainian. In this context, predicting a terminal point is difficult, as things seem to always be going so badly that it's hard to understand how and why they fight on. In every way, Ukraine is a truly shattered country, barely held together by the sheer combined force of Western hegemony. And that hegemony is weakening.
I therefore won't be giving any predictions of a timeframe for a Ukrainian defeat, but the coming presidency of Trump is a big question mark for the conflict. Trump has talked about how he wishes for the war to end and for a deal to be made with Putin, but Trump also tends to change his mind on an issue at least three or four times before actually making a decision, simply adopting the position of who talked to him last. And, of course, his ability to end the war might be curtailed by a military-industrial complex (and various intelligence agencies) that want to keep the money flowing.
The alignment of the US election with the accelerating rate of Russian gains is pretty interesting, with talk of both escalation and de-escalation coinciding - the former from Biden, and the latter from Trump. Russia very recently performed perhaps the single largest aerial attack of Ukraine of the entire war, striking targets across the whole country with missiles and drones from various platforms. In response, the US is talking about allowing Ukraine to hit long-range targets in Russia (but the strategic value of this, at this point, seems pretty minimal).
Additionally, Russia has made genuine progress in terms of land acquisition. We aren't talking about endless and meaningless battles over empty fields anymore. Some of the big Ukrainian strongholds that we've been spending the last couple years speculating over - Chasiv Yar, Kupiansk, Orikhiv - are now being approached and entered by Russian forces. The map is actually changing now, though it's hard to tell as Ukraine is so goddamn big.
Attrition has finally paid off for Russia. An entire generation of Ukrainians has been fed into the meat grinder. Recovery will take, at minimum, decades - more realistically, the country might be permanently ruined, until that global communist revolution comes around at least. And they could have just made a fucking deal a month into the war.
Please check out the HexAtlas!
The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel's 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.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
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.
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this, but how / why does the US have this bullshit veto power in the UN? They can just no-sell the rest of the world's members unilaterally, and I don't understand why the rest don't ever have any ability to collectively tell the US to fuck itself and proceed without our consent.
Realpolitik, basically. Great powers will not accept to be bound by decisions made by others and they're too big to be strongarmed into compliance. If you want them in, which you do if you want the UN to be legitimate and to be a forum for diplomacy, you have to recognise this reality.
The League of Nations did not have a veto which is part of the reason why the US never joined and why Nazi Germany and imperial Japan left. This made the organisation even more toothless than the UN.
Security Council veto power probably has prevented additional world wars, possibly nuclear ones, so I guess it's nice in that respect, but it does definitely come with the inability to punish a Great Power diplomatically.
In this vein of discussion: I'm honestly unsure what the stage after the United Nations looks like in this regard. Until global socialism, there will be nuclear-armed countries with differing interests; even relatively close allies can have major problems. The UN is (more-or-less) the diplomatic arm of American hegemony, so perhaps it falls as the US falls, but the US (and the UK and France etc) will still have nukes even as a regional power, so perhaps not. Maybe the UN will stay approximately how it is until the breakdown of capitalism, with a declining US hegemony only making other parts of the UN a little more functional? It's not really high on my list of priorities to care about though.
I wouldn’t agree with this.
The UN reflected US hegemony since the UN reflects real world alignments and the strongest nation can push their interests more strongly but I don’t think it’s inherent in the structure of the UN, aside from the fact there’s no mechanism to replace Britain and France with India and Brazil on the SC.
The UN seems well designed to me in the sense its structure is mostly unopinionated about the structure of the world order, aside from the SC which is still mostly correct anyway.
The only real design flaw is that the security council was set in stone at the end of WW2, but they were smart enough to include china even if dumb enough to include France, - and France and the UK having a veto isn’t that big a deal since that’s simply giving the US 3 vetoes when 1 was enough to begin with so not a biggie.
because they won WW2 to be exact, that's what the permanent cast on the Security council are; though PRC replaced the ROC
It's the only reason why the UN exists at all. Veto power is built into the UN Security Council, so all Security Council members have veto power. It's basically just a realpolitik admission that actual power lies within a few countries. If the US doesn't want something to happen, they can block it real life. Same with Russia, China, etc. The "Great Powers" have the ability to unilaterally use their power, and the UN tries to reflect that ability.
Remember; when the U.N. was established, world war 2 had just ended. The US was the only industrial economy not totally ravaged by bombing and firefights. It was also the only country at the time with nuclear weapons.
That is the context that the liberal world order was born out of-- everyone in the mosh pit had beaten the shit out of each other, but then the US stands up, shrugs it all off, and pulls out an uzi.
Because it was that or nothing, basically.
Back to back world war champs baybee
The US I can understand. But why do the UK and France still have veto power?
Because the other countries felt they deserved it after ww2 and they still have nukes.
The UK won ww2 so did France also but i think France is because Ussr asked to have it included because he thought degaulle can be a neutral actor iirc
Rare Stalin L
The permanent members are basically the inherents of the league of nations since they won ww2, they have veto power because of that.
For your question regarding US can fuck up any resolution. Every permanent member can, but even when UN resolutions passes any members can technically say fuck it and do what they want (see the invasion of iraq)