Image is of the Freedom Band performing at the end of the Second National Congress of the Socialist Movement of Ghana, sourced from this article. The same article contains most of the information used in the preamble below.
A little over a week ago, the Socialist Movement of Ghana concluded its second National Delegates Congress in Aburi, gathering 300 delegates from across the country. There, they deepened their commitment to the working class of Ghana and committed to intensifying political education and organization at the grassroots. The SMG itself decided to not electorally contest the 2024 elections in Ghana, but still presented a manifesto, and nonetheless managed to get two SMG members parliamentary seats in the National Democratic Congress.
Anyway, back to the National Delegates Congress: the delegates agreed that the Western imperialist system is now under a profound crisis, in which the likely future is a heightening of brutality, chaos, and resource plundering - a future which must be resisted and organized against.
To summarize their various statements and condemnations:
- Inside Ghana: a commitment to women’s rights, youth empowerment, and environmental protection.
- A condemnation of the resource plundering of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by imperialist powers.
- A salute to the people of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, in their campaign against outside imperial control in the Sahel.
- A condemnation of Morocco’s illegal occupation of the Western Sahara, and a call for the UN to identify the independence of the Sahwari people.
- A strong condemnation of Israel’s genocidal atrocities and massive terrorist operations against nearby countries, and support for Palestinian independence.
- Support for the people of Haiti against outside imperial domination.
- A call for the end of the blockade on Cuba and their removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
- Solidarity with Maduro and the people of Venezuela against the United States.
- A rejection of all imperialist aggression and sanctions against Iran.
- A condemnation of NATO’s decades-long military expansion eastwards towards Russia, especially as it has now resulted in massive devastation and risks a third world war.
- And finally, a commitment to Pan Africanism and international solidarity with all oppressed peoples around the world.
A platform I think we all can agree to!
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 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.
I think this could be about taking Bagram Air Base back from the Taliban in Afganistan. 3x AC-130 Gunships are in Greece, and there’s a flight of 16x A-10Cs in Europe currently. 3x of the tankers are specially modified KC-135RT tankers for SOAR missions (low altitude, nighttime and radio silent covert refueling). AC-130s would need low altitude refueling, and it’s a 1:1 ratio of AC-130s and KC-135RTs. The rest of the KC-135s are for the A-10s. All of this would be very useful to support a takeover of Bagram, and is actually very similar to the force that supported the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, KC-135RTs and AC-130s were also used then. Landing in Qatar suggests that this is not about Iran, the US would not attack Iran with assets stationed in Qatar, last time around they evacuated their base in Qatar. No flights of more advanced assets like F-22s or F-35s reported. You’d expect at least a token force of a dozen or so stealth aircraft for an attack on Iran. And the Taliban just shut off the internet in Afghanistan, complete shutdown. Could also be aimed at Syria (anti “ISIS” operations) or the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq.
AC-130s and A-10s are close air support aircraft, suggests US boots on the ground somewhere.
I’ll try post all the sources soon
3x AC-130 headed towards Greece
The 3x KC-135RTs flying out of McConnell AFB in the USA (serial numbers match some of the tankers headed to Qatar):
16x A-10s in Portsmouth, UK. Flagged as T-38s on flightradar24 - Facebook link
Afghanistan’s cellphone, internet services down after Taliban ordered cut, sources say - Reuters
Are they seriously gonna fucking invade Afghanistan again
If anything happens, probably a limited exclave at Bagram and maybe Kabul, I cannot see anything resembling a full or substantial occupation of Afghanistan.
Realistically, how capable are they of establishing something like that? Won’t they just need to create an ever-growing security barrier that effectively demands a proper invasion? A toehold defended by a foothold defended by a butthold?
Well the thing is the Taliban have no air force, no proper mechanized force, limited heavy weapons, no advanced intelligence or security apparatus like most stable nations. So what chance do they have in a stand-up fight against a US concrete fortress with air support from helicopters, drones, AC-130 gunships that can lay down hails of bullets, dominance in the skies, electronic surveillance and warfare, and the list goes on and on? The US can bring in heavy armor like tanks as well, artillery or large gun emplacements. They can bomb a strip around the base and remove any structures within half a mile, mine directly around the perimeter of the base and keep constant watch.
Sure they can’t hold the country, they can’t win the hearts and minds, they can’t safely take and hold multiple cities full of people who cooperate with the Taliban in fighting them or are Taliban themselves. But holding an airbase fortress that size with air re-supply shouldn’t be too hard from a tactical point of view. It’s more is the drain on resources to accomplish that sustainable and worth it long-term to the US and the US seems intent on encircling China so the answer is maybe.
Say they fly in 10,000 Marines and special forces to retake the base, stabilize it, repair it, put up mines, repel initial attacks, fortify it, etc. They then draw that down to say 5-6000 within 6 months with a heavy focus on drone patrols, cameras, sensors, aerial overwatch and rapid deployment forces within the base to repel any attacks on the perimeter with a permanent station of say 5-6 helicopter gun-ships, one AC-130, and several combat and surveillance UAV type drones (the big ones). Plus of course CIA forces, stealth helicopters, transport helicopters, etc for moving their ISIS moderate rebel types up towards the corridor that connects to China or possibly even trying to do low flying penetration into China itself to do drops of these moderate rebels and equipment caches directly.
Holding cities full of hostiles or people friendly to hostiles is very hard. Holding a fortress as long as you can supply it is not that difficult when you have an overwhelming advantage against the enemy and they have no ability to siege you with heavy weapons. Sure maybe the Taliban could get some powered hang-gliders and try to do a thing but base sensors would probably spot that, as would night-vision look-out and though they might kill some Americans they’d be slaughtered pretty quickly if not shot down on the approach. Probably it would mostly be limited to trying to snipe Americans who poke their heat out too far and taking pot-shots at the base walls and landing aircraft, as well as some drone attack attempts which is why the US would need some kind of point defense system but they probably have some they can deploy here. Maybe the Taliban can eventually get enough drones and weaponize them to start inflicting losses on the US that make the base a drain but they’d need an awful lot to overcome US defenses.
Another banger from the US military.
France: First time?
Not good if true. Fact is the US can pretty easily swoop in from the air and take that base if they want to. It’s pretty fortified too with huge concrete block barriers all around it so the US could take and hold it and its size means its somewhat self-sustaining as a mini-city with air resupply. It then just becomes an issue of morale as the troops can’t leave the base, occasional suicide attacks will occur (though if they’re simply using it as a fortress and the Taliban blocks anyone from selling to them anyways these will likely just mean some concrete blocks get replaced now and again as it’s hard to get inside a place like that if they’re not letting locals in or leaving much to go out themselves). Also an issue of cost but because the US can print unlimited money it can just afford to constantly fly in all the supplies they need from neighboring countries. If anything the strain will be more on how it will occupy some amount of their air force supply chain into the future keeping that place open. They’ll need to deploy some advanced anti-drone and anti-man-pad systems to prevent the Taliban shooting down their transports I suppose but that, some bombing of the areas around it and a no-go zone will make it harder.
Total aside but I read a kind of funny piece from RT where they were talking about how because Russia, Iran, and China are against it the US can’t possibly take the base. My thinking on that is yes they can. Iran is a paper tiger who backs down at the first opportunity and doesn’t want to truly provoke the US, they’re not going to fire a massive missile salvo there to try and dislodge the US. Their economic power to punish the US is zero. Russia is already near maximally sanctioned by and decoupled from the US, their economic influence on the US is zero. They’ve also show zero appetite for a direct engagement with even European lapdogs of NATO and constantly duck their escalations despite all their rhetoric so they’re not going to militarily stop the US. China has zero appetite for militarily challenging the US especially over this. Given the trade war, decoupling, stuff, etc they don’t have leverage to play against the US that won’t cost them a higher price than they’re willing to pay at this point. The article brought up economic leverage against the Taliban but that assumes they have a choice in the matter and if they don’t all of China’s cutting trade to Afghanistan won’t mean a thing. If anything if the US pushes in against the will of the Taliban then China will be incentivized to continue and upgrade trade in an attempt to prevent the US normalizing economic relations and gaining more influence and operational freedom though this may not work.
Pakistan also won’t do shit. India will cheer it on as they’re cheering on Trump’s genocide plan in Gaza because Modi and his Hindu fascist brigade have a genocidal hatred of Muslims.
The nearby 'stan countries are unlikely to cheer this on but most likely at least one of them will quietly cut a deal with the US for selling supplies and/or use of airbases in exchange for money and investment.
No one in the region will like it, Russia/China won’t like it. They’ll condemn, issue strong speeches, maybe some veiled threats but none of them are going to go to war with the US to put a stop to it. Nor do I suspect Russia or China will go as far as say giving the Taliban advanced anti-air systems to make air-resupply impossible which would shut the whole thing down or require a massive US commitment for a full invasion which I don’t think they’ll go for.
The Taliban are likely to greatly resent the US doing a forced invasion and taking of it but I doubt they’ll have a meaningful ability to dislodge them if they’re able to rely on air resupply as between air power and base defenses they’ll be able to hold off the type of light mechanized stuff the Taliban can throw at them. If anything it might pressure them to try and negotiate and spin the situation and Trump might even agree to some sanctions relief in exchange for some level of cooperation like allowing Afghan merchants to supply the base and for them to avoid attacking it.
I honestly don’t how how heavy an ask air re-supply of a 10,000 strong force there would be so maybe it wouldn’t be viable without Taliban cooperation but if anyone can do it the US can.
This map does a good idea of showing why the US wants it:
They could from this base use helicopters to ferry ISIS fighters up towards the corridor with China, move CIA assets up there as well and of course they’d like to be able to launch bombers/missiles at China from the west when it comes down to a war with them.
What’s the implication of the telecoms shutoff?
Probably to limit US/NATO surveillance in case of upcoming military action. Israel was able to gain a lot of intel through Iranian telecommunications at the start of the war before it was cut-off, for example. Ideology could also play a part, the Taliban aren’t exactly fans of the majority of content on the internet, to put it lightly.
Thank you. Do you have any confirmation on the rumors of b-2s en route and does that change the end goal of these movements?
Only seen that from clickbait channels, not the usual flight tracking sources. Doesn’t look like additional fighters or bombers deployed at this time. However it’s important to remember that the US military can move around assets in complete silence. Publicising movements is for signalling purposes.
My thoughts here
I would presume to prevent communication with collaborators/spies, to maintain order, prevent public panic, rumors, truths that are uncomfortable and panic inducing, etc.