Image is a frame taken from this video of Iranian missiles raining down on Israel without interception due to a weak and depleted air defense system after a year of war and genocide.
Mao, 1956:
Now U.S. imperialism is quite powerful, but in reality it isn’t. It is very weak politically because it is divorced from the masses of the people and is disliked by everybody and by the American people too. In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of, it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.
When we say U.S. imperialism is a paper tiger, we are speaking in terms of strategy. Regarding it as a whole, we must despise it. But regarding each part, we must take it seriously. It has claws and fangs. We have to destroy it piecemeal. For instance, if it has ten fangs, knock off one the first time, and there will be nine left, knock off another, and there will be eight left. When all the fangs are gone, it will still have claws. If we deal with it step by step and in earnest, we will certainly succeed in the end.
Strategically, we must utterly despise U.S. imperialism. Tactically, we must take it seriously. In struggling against it, we must take each battle, each encounter, seriously. At present, the United States is powerful, but when looked at in a broader perspective, as a whole and from a long-term viewpoint, it has no popular support, its policies are disliked by the people, because it oppresses and exploits them. For this reason, the tiger is doomed. Therefore, it is nothing to be afraid of and can be despised. But today the United States still has strength, turning out more than 100 million tons of steel a year and hitting out everywhere. That is why we must continue to wage struggles against it, fight it with all our might and wrest one position after another from it. And that takes time.
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.
John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024 (1h video)
Their liberalism shows through quite a bit: they “love liberal democracy” and line-go-up and all that. Still some good discussion regarding Ukraine, Russia, China, India, Iran, and Palestine/Isntrael.
I watched this already and I can’t help to notice how Jeffrey Sachs sounds like a normal human being who regardless of his lib status and past “transgressions”, seems to be genuinely interested in human cooperation and betterment, while Mearsheimer sounds like a freaking “We’ll if I don’t steal it, someone else will!” ghoul.
I’ve said it before, but as much as Mearsheimer claims that realism doesn’t really have a voice in the halls of power what he means is realism like his. He approaches that truth when he claims that america’s actions during the unipolar moment was merely enshrouded in a mist of liberalism. But the truth of the matter is that Biden, Nuland, et al are as realist as John when they feel the need to take on Russia and China at the same time. And it is John who’s the naive fool who thinks that you can ally Russia against China. Especially at this juncture.
American primacy can only be maintained by a war against all. I doubt that John is really in denial about this. But as a true believer, he has to at least pretend.
I think John would disagree that they are as realist as him, at least when it comes to Russia (and Palestine) since they are doing the opposite of what he’s been saying to do on Russia for at least 20-35 years and he is one of the most vocal critics of the US role in Israel. Realism isn’t just “attack everyone”. It also includes looking at the situation from the other sides perspective from a realist analysis and trying to most effectively play one’s cards to systematically advantage the larger strategic picture. And his major criticism of us policy with respect to Russia is that they refuse to treat Russia as a legitimate power with its own legitimate interests. Instead, he would say, that the US are just crusaders who feel like they have a right to possess everything and destroy everyone and will pursue that goal even though it leads to their own self destruction, which is what’s happening in Russia and in Palestine which is why, despite his faults and frustrating takes, John has been saying US policy in both of those spheres has been completely wrong.
Of course he would. And my whole point is that he’s wrong. Moreover, his own arguments prove that he’s wrong.
John constantly says that American Primacy can only be maintained by preventing the appearance of regional hegemons. He also claims that had he been in charge in China or elsewhere, his first priority would be to see to it that these countries become regional hegemons as quickly as possible. Ergo, from the point of view of american security, the United States is, at best, in a Cold War against every potential regional hegemon. This means every member of the BRICS, as well as the EU.
It doesn’t matter that John claims Russia should have been integrated into the american alliance. His disagreement there is not about the fundamental nature of international relations. But one of chronology. Let’s destroy China first and foremost. That’s it.
It also doesn’t matter that John claims Russia should be treated as a legitimate power with its own legitimate interests. His fundamentally realist worldview is defined by how that cannot, ever, be the case. The moment Russia, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Turkey and so on are treated as legitimate powers with their own legitimate interests is the moment the US is at war with not one potential regional hegemon but 5 or 6.
Many analysts have pointed out that Ukraine aside the greatest loser of the war is the EU. The larger picture only confirms this fact. American foreign policy has successfully contained the EU. Every regional partnership weaved by EU politicians has either gone nowhere or ended up in an American War of Aggression against the european’s partners. Iraq, Iran, Libya and so on. That is another area where John is just coping. In but 20 years a continental union larger than the US was reduced from an alternative to a basketcase. This is success from John’s own perspective and wouldn’t have happened if Russia was an EU and NATO member.
To nail that coffin, John also claims that Israel’s actions are not in America’s interests. Which is absurd. Israel’s actions are against the american people’s will, but they are most certainly in the US’s interests. As defined by John, it being preventive action against all regional hegemons. In this case the EU, Turkey, Iran and even Russia.
That’s the problem with John. He presents himself a just a rational and reasonable realist. In reality he’s an american supremacist. His belief in american exceptionalism is the primary driver of his policy recommendations, not his theory.
I haven’t been following him too closely recently and maybe something has changed but I don’t think his analysis of either Russia or Israel tracks with that. He says supporting Israel and Ukraine in this way is against US interests because the US loses its ability to have overwhelming control in these places and destroys the strategic positions the US has accumulated for decades. He straight up said that from a US realist perspective, supporting Israel in this way is destroying americas control over west Asia and the oil and trade resources it provides.
I agree the his perspective is always that of the US state department because he sees himself as a continuation of the intellectual circles that support a country’s strategic policy and his team is the US (there is a reason the map in his office still has the USSR on it - he is nostalgic for a time when us strategic planners actually acknowledged that their opponents were powerful and sophisticated and it took sophisticated planning to counter them).
But to argue that the man who wrote the book on how AIPAC has systematically pulled the US into making choice after choice that is against its strategic interest up to and including the point at which the US loses the strangle hold it has had on the west Asian petroleum complex is the same as the US administrations who continue to do the things he says is destructive does not really hold water.
Again: I know the specific things you’ve quoted. I’ve even read books of his in college during in my IR courses. What you’re ignoring is the things I’m quoting. The other halves of his interviews. Which is John’s undying belief in american exceptionalism, and the policy prescriptions he considers necessary to maintain it. Simply put, you are latching onto part of John’s canon of beliefs and failing to see his contradictions. Which is important because any interesting thinker is contradictory.
If Mearsheimer tells you that Russia should be treated as a legitimate Great Power with legitimate security concerns, you can then ask him: should the US do everything in its power to dislodge Russia’s status as the regional hegemon in Central Asia? He’ll either say yes - because that’s what he also believes when it comes to China in East Asia - or equivocate the issue by claiming that, actually, China is the ascendant hegemon in Central Asia. Which would untrue. Russia and China have complementary spheres of influence, the chinese have no real desire to guarantee security in the 'stans and the russians have no heft to guarantee economic growth on their own.
When John writes an entire book about AIPAC and how Israel is causing the US to make choices against its strategic interests, John is actually going against his own theory of international relations. Israel is an american outpost in the middle east. It’s purpose is to leave chaos in its wake and prevent the ascension of any potential regional hegemon. Israel exists for the exact same reasons the US supports Taiwan: and there’s no equivocation there on John’s part. The US should go to war over Taiwan in order to ensure China never becomes a regional hegemon. That is what John believes when it comes to China. The only thing he hasn’t realized (or, rather, pretends not to) is that policy makers also believe that the US should go to war to prevent any other potential regional hegemons. Be they Russia, or the EU, or Turkey, or Iran, or Brazil, or India.
The only disagreement there is a matter of chronology. John thinks China is the most pressing threat, and must be dealt with now before the empire is overstretched. That is a mistake on his part, and a failure of his in advocating for the american power that he believes must be preserved. Had Russia joined the EU and NATO, the US would have lost two continents. Should India reach China’s level of development, it too will have to be contained - just like the EU was. John’s world view is the exact same as the realists in the American State. The only difference is that John is in charge of writing books while policy-makers are in charge of killing whoever and however many need to be killed in order to maintain empire. Both sides share the same fundamental mistake of fighting against the times.
Had John been in any way different from the rest of the american realists, he’d make policy recommendations fed by his theory. Where the US would seek to balance out the ascending powers of Asia, rather than gearing up towards war for their destruction. No, even when Mearsheimer recognizes that the unipolar moment is gone what he recommends is to prolong american primacy as much as possible as to destroy contenders in detail. His desire for the US to continue to rule the world is what motivates him, not his theory.
I think you are taking past me and, in doing so, arguing with a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not denying that John comes from a Reganaught chud worldview in the capitol of chud economics and foreign policy taking the chud-jingoist side of America needing to be in charge of everywhere. In many ways I find listening to him sort of like listening to say Chas Freeman. They are both on team America and have major blind spots. But they analyze American problems through a framework that no longer exists within the regime. It’s why they depart so vehemently from the government’s approach to Ukraine and Israel. And understanding how a realist approaches questions from within the US framework rather than the Liberal Crusaders who actually run the country has value in better understanding why the US is failing in all of its stated goals and risking nuclear war and how US institutional logic transformed following the end of the Cold War.
And this is where I think you are incorrect about John’s take about Israel. While the US uses israel as you describe, John’s criticism is that this is the wrong horse to back if the desire is to accomplish the goal. While he still speaks from a place of wanting US domination (which I am not defending) the realist framework he employs leads him to conclude that this strategy is wrong and a different one would be right. And he has been fairly consistent in everything I’ve seen on that subject for the past year.
I don’t know if you’ve actually heard anything he’s been saying for the past 2 decades but he has been making policy recommendations regarding russia and Israel this whole time and they are pretty straight forward: when Russian says that eastward expansion of nato will be seen as an existential threat that they will respond to accordingly, you should take them seriously and negotiate a deal rather than continuing to expand nato eastward; that by refusing to do so the US undermines its entire network of alliances in Europe who, as has happened, are not suited to use the military solution on Russia and will suffer collapse as a result. And with that collapse and insistence on military solutions to the exclusion of all others, the US destroys the strategic strength it built up through its network of alliances for 75 years (which he is particularly invested in).
Similarly with Israel, he was basically right that by doubling down on supporting Israel no matter what would result in the total collapse of any possibility of creating a stable situation in west Asia the US could control.
I don’t necessarily agree with most of his China analysis - I don’t think he has a good base of understanding of China the way he does with the former Soviet Union and Palestine - so he basically stars from the premise that what US leaders say about China is true, that it is a threat to the US. From that assumption, he says the US is misallocating its resources and strategic alliances.
In any case, what makes his analysis at least worth understanding is not that he has a great vision for what is best for the world. Instead he is one of the few establishment people from team America that actually tries to apply old-school rational analysis to US strategy.
So again, I’m not defending his America-first positions. But I am saying that saying that he is just the same as the liberal-hegemonic establishment is not correct. And saying he has made no policy proposals that would materially differ from the establishment is just not accurrate seeing as there is ample documentation of exactly what he has been proposing, particularly vis-a-vis Russia and Israel for at least 20 years and it has been to do the opposite of what the US has done.
I’m sorry but, everything in this and the following paragraph was factored into every post of mine in this comment thread and I’m not about to repeat myself for a third or fourth time.
This is as simple as it gets: if you apply John’s China logic to Israel, then John is wrong about Israel. If you apply John’s China logic to Russia, then John is wrong about Russia.
Israel is not going against US interests. It’s fulfilling Mearsheimer Doctrine and destroying all possibility for regional hegemons.
Making war against Russia is not against US interests. It is also fulfilling Mearsheimer Doctrine because Russia is already a regional hegemon and those are Not Good.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: