This article is from earlier this year, in march, but I felt it was worth posting in coordination with my last post.

Note: The audio is messed up for headphones, only coming out of one ear.

On 25 October 2026, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and Wenhua Zongheng jointly convened in Beijing to discuss 'China's Socialist Modernisation and Perspectives from the Global South'.

The event marked the launch of two major publications: Volume 4, Issue 1 of the international edition of Wenhua Zongheng, Building a New Development Theory from the Global South, and the Tricontinental dossier, Walking on Two Legs: The Socialism of Chinese Modernisation.

The discussion explored how China's path of socialist modernisation resonates with the developmental aspirations of the Global South.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13151282

CodePink's co-founder Medea Benjamin is in China for the first time in over three decades. Back then she came to investigate China's sweatshops and the terrible conditions workers faced as the country embarked on its massive journey which ultimately saw 800 million lifted from extreme poverty.

Today, the China she sees is worlds apart. Modern, clean, safe, and not at all concerned with war with the United States. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Medea joined me in the Reports on China studio for a one-on-one chat about being arrested multiple times on Capitol Hill, Western media lies, racism in America, trying to teach ordinary Americans that China is not an enemy, and so much more.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13151073

The Pentagon just declared war on... Chinese flashcards? 🇨🇳🇺🇸

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently puffed out his chest to announce the dismantling of 80 "propaganda cells" across U.S. universities. But what high-tech espionage ring did they actually bust? Subsidized language lessons, cultural exchanges, and free dictionaries.

In this video, we break down the massive evidence gap behind the Confucius Institute hoax. After years of DOJ investigations and a grueling 8-month Senate probe, how many language teachers were indicted for espionage? Zero.

So, what is Washington actually afraid of? We expose the true motive behind the ban (hint: it's the exact same reason they panicked over TikTok and Red Note), the blatant hypocrisy of U.S. regime-change operations overseas like the NED and USAID, and how this entire "national security" panic is really just a cover to protect domestic corporate monopolies from affordable foreign innovation.

The U.S. brings colour revolutions; China brings dictionaries. Don't fall for the geopolitical hype.

Notions of fairness as pushed by the exploiting classes are based in falsehood, fancy, and fakery. Whether it is explicit caste saying an entire group deserves their "lesser" position or more fluid notions of what one deserves, such as through individualist narratives to do with personal responsibility, the capitalists, the imperialists, the colonizers: they all look for ways to justify their exploitation as fair and just.

Sometimes they use religion as a means of validating, laundering, and sanctifying these narratives, teaching people that they will get what they want by being "good" and not get what they want by being "bad". These notions of "good" and "bad" are, for the exploiting classes, defined in the manner which is most convenient to continuing their exploitation. Violence is presented as bad when it challenges exploitation and presented as good, as self defense when it protects systems of exploitation.

This produces people who suffer all the more when, upon experiencing hardship in life, they struggle to understand "why me." I, they think, "did everything right." I "did what they said I should do yet still I suffer." It can bring on a sort of nihilist defeatism. "If I did everything I was supposed to and still suffer, then what was the point of all this?"

Revolutionary fairness, or we could call it liberation fairness or communist fairness, is different. This kind of fairness is rooted in human need and logistical efforts toward getting needs consistently met. Revolutionary fairness may sometimes mean rationing few resources among many, but it is not inherently about impoverishment or scarcity.

A revolutionary entity that has advanced resources can produce more advanced outcomes for people. Rationing can transform into dramatic gains in quality of life.

It is worth noting that an exploitative entity can have an abundance of resources and still engineer scarce conditions for the masses, under which they experience avoidable hardship simply because the exploitative dynamic demands that they do. This is sometimes the case under modern capitalism, such as when grocery stores are full of more food than people can buy and eat before it expires, while some are going hungry. Or when housing infrastructure is there to house the people, but due to the exploitative mandates of private property and the landlord, some are homeless.

So, the difference between bourgeois fairness and revolutionary fairness is not "how much resources they have." The difference is in how they use those resources. Revolutionary fairness going through famine will do its best to ration fairly and work hard to overcome the problem. Bourgeois fairness sitting on prosperity will make some suffer and blame them for their position of suffering. Revolutionary fairness with prosperity will uplift millions in quality of life. Bourgeois fairness going through famine will hoard resources for the wealthy and seek to use military force to crush unrest.

In other words, bourgeois prosperity is prosperity for the exploiting classes. Revolutionary prosperity is prosperity for the masses. So, bourgeois fairness isn't fair at all. It is only through revolutionary fairness that we can actualize fairness for the masses.

The GZD matrix server is down because my oldest server (running smoothly without a break since 2012) has finally given up. I am now diagnosing the issue and I will edit this post as I know more. This may take a few days to resolve.

🫡 RIP 2012 Mac Mini A1347, you will be missed (unless I can get those juche necromancy machines working).

When Starbucks recently opened locations in Xinjiang, the "professional" China-watching community went into a complete meltdown. Why? Because the reality of what is actually happening on the ground in China is actively destroying their carefully crafted, multi-million dollar propaganda narratives.

In this video, I break down the absolute hypocrisy of western media outlets like the BBC, who celebrate Uyghur culture abroad while claiming it’s being erased in China—only to panic when you show them footage of Uyghurs proudly expressing that exact same culture in Xinjiang today. We look at the ridiculous claims from think-tank "experts," the inconvenient truth about who actually secured UNESCO heritage status for Uyghur Muqam, and why the US government is so desperate to stop Americans from seeing Xinjiang with their own eyes.

Finally, we discuss why this lazy, low-effort Xinjiang propaganda is suddenly crawling out of hibernation, and how the world is waking up to the blatant hypocrisy of those demanding outrage over China while cheering on actual, live-streamed atrocities in Gaza.

Is the West facing a deeper crisis of capitalism, militarism and imperial power?

In Episode 6 of The Southern Question, Ammar Ali Jan, Ameem Lutfi and Adeem Suhail examine the structural forces behind the growing global crisis, from unrest in France and Europe’s austerity policies to escalating conflicts in West Asia, the war in Ukraine, and the changing balance of global power.

Moving beyond explanations centred on immigration, political extremism or the crisis of liberal democracy, this conversation explores how militarism, imperialism and economic inequality are connected—and why the consequences are especially significant for countries across the Global South.

IN THIS EPISODE:

• The Crisis of the West: What do protests, political instability and social unrest reveal about the condition of Western societies?

• Militarism and Austerity: How can governments justify expanding military budgets while public services, schools and welfare systems face mounting pressure?

• War and Capitalism: How do military spending, arms industries and defence contracts shape modern economies?

• France and the Crisis of Democracy: The relationship between colonial history, state power, labour protests and the rise of the far right.

• Ukraine and West Asia: How do contemporary conflicts expose the connections between military power, economic interests and global politics?

• The Global South and Sovereignty: Why do industrial capacity, technological development, financial autonomy and national defence matter for countries facing external pressure?

• Imperialism and Development: Can countries build an independent developmental path amid global economic and military competition?

• The Future of Global Power: What can countries such as China, Cuba and Vietnam teach us about development, sovereignty and long-term strategy?

The discussion also examines the relationship between artificial intelligence, technology companies, military contracts and the changing political economy of war.

Rather than treating these crises as isolated events, this episode asks a larger question: Are militarism and war becoming central to the way the global economic order sustains itself?

Israel's election has produced a political deadlock, with Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot struggling to secure a governing majority as votes continue to be counted. But would a change of government actually change Israel's policies toward Palestine, Iran, and the wider Middle East? Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that Washington has warned Gulf Arab governments to prepare for a possible short but intense military campaign against Iran following the U.S. midterm elections. As the region braces for another potential confrontation, could Israel's political uncertainty coincide with a dangerous new escalation?

In this interview, Kevork Almassian is joined by independent journalist Sulaiman Ahmed of ‪@MoralResistance‬​ to examine Israel's election results, the role of Palestinian Arab voters, the country's anti-war movement, and the debate over apartheid and political representation. They also discuss American military preparations against Iran, a Drop Site News investigation alleging covert UAE assistance to Ansar Allah against Saudi-backed forces in Yemen, Jordan's deadly airstrikes in southern Syria, and the Mecca Pact negotiations between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Are regional alliances beginning to shift as another major confrontation approaches?

sorry, flavio...bolsonaros clan won't escape their crimes this time, or...as the cariocas would say: "A mentira tem perna curta" (Lies have short legs)

Maybe im wrong but with the incoming winter I think the Russians are gonna slow down their offensives again, so I think its probably gonna go into the 5th year. Honestly at this point my question is if it'll go onto the 6th and so on.

Honestly when the Kursk offensive failed I thought it was going to be over by last year, let alone this one.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13109974

The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal interviews Mohammad Al-Bukhaiti, a senior member of Ansarulah's political bureau and governor of the Yemeni province of Dhamar, about the Yemeni Armed Forces' war with Saudi Arabia and its successful advances across Yemeni territory previously controlled by its Saudi-backed rivals.

Speaking on October 20, 2026, Al-Bukhaiti confirmed that the Ansarulah-aligned Yemeni Armed Forces captured Mount Han overlooking the strategically significant city of Taiz.

This marks the latest advance in a military offensive that has seen Ansarulah, known popularly as the Houthis, seize new territory and hammer Saudi Arabia following the collapse of a four  year ceasefire between Sanaa and Riyadh.

Ansarulah's success seems to have the House of Saud on the ropes, with Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman calling on the UK, Egypt, Syria and possibly even Israel for help in beating back the onslaught.

Hekmat Aboukhater provided translation and research assistance for this interview.

Benjamin Netanyahu says the mission against Iran is unfinished as Donald Trump weighs new military options, including possible use of the GBU-43/B “Mother of All Bombs.” In this interview, Kevork Almassian speaks with Iranian analyst Ehsan Safarnejad about whether Washington and Israel are climbing a nuclear escalation ladder, Iran’s possible response through the Strait of Hormuz, threats against U.S. forces in the region, and the growing debate inside Iran over whether the country now needs a nuclear deterrent.

The discussion also examines the rapidly deepening Iran-Russia strategic relationship following Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Tehran and the newly published Makkah defence agreement between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Could this trilateral pact remain a defensive arrangement, or are we witnessing the foundations of a wider regional bloc designed to contain Iran?

Longtime friend of the show Navid Zarrinal returns to guesthost an interview with Shirin Saeidi, who was fired from her position at the University of Arkansas for her political positions.

They discuss the failure of Iranian Studies scholars to produce work related to modern Iran, defend their colleagues against Zionist repression, and adequately confronting US imperialism.

The one used in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12973939

Mind you, I didn't set out to deceive anyone. It was more of a "why call attention to it" thing. It's probably the only time I've posted anything AI where I didn't explicitly call attention to it as AI. But I've learned in the times I did do that here that some person or other would be upset, pretty much no matter what the content was of what I posted.

I figured, one of the primary complaints about AI generated images, is essentially that they look like they're trying to look professional but make basic errors. Which I think is a fair criticism. So I thought, what if I use stick figures. That's closer to meme level of illustration and expectations are lower for it, so if some basic mistakes exist, that's par for the course.

I did write the text itself as rhetoric and fictional conversation, but I didn't draw any of the image, nor did I place the text in the image. It was received extremely well for a lemmygrad post. I'm sure it is easily the most upvoted post I've ever made. I don't know what made it work so well, maybe the commonness of issues with landlords, but I can only guess as the responses didn't tell me much about the why.

One person did say "Ai stickfigures?" which surprised me a bit. I didn't think it looked overtly AI genned. But I asked them "why do you ask?" because I wanted to be sure whether it was confrontational or sincere interest in where it came from. They never responded, so I'm not sure.

But anyway, the fact that it was AI somehow didn't prevent it from seemingly resonating with people. I never would have drawn any such image on my own. I could make an attempt, but it would probably look like a child's fridge drawing and I would have especially struggled with the vividness of the facial expressions, which was where I sought to do the contrast between the feigned victimhood followed by literal mustache twirling villain. Caricature, but gets the point across.

Given how I've seen some react on here, I can't help but think it would have been a shitshow if I'd called attention to it being AI generated or if it had been drawn in such a way that it looked stereotypically "AI". Instead, as of posting this, it totaled at 111 upvotes and 0 downvotes.

It's always hard to tell the impact things have in a virtual forum, but with the limited metrics I have to go by, it went really well. And I didn't draw a pixel of it. This paints a picture for me that the issue with AI generated content in these spaces is not when it's AI generated but when people believe that it is. But people can believe something is even when it isn't. Or in this case, likely assume it isn't when it is. Maybe I'm wrong and the 100+ people who upvoted thought "AI" and upvoted anyway, but given how things usually go here, I doubt it.

I hope no one takes this as trickery or something. Having seen more recent angst on here relating to AI, I thought calling attention to this is an opportunity to make a point. When I went to make that image, it was mainly about seeing what kind of effective agitprop I could make with AI. Maybe knowing this explicitly will inspire some people to think more about how they can use it too, beyond the hated stereotypes, with thoughtfulness of design put into it. I am still determined to aid in strategic thought and practice, no matter how much mud is slung. Liberation demands it of me.

You're right to be mad about a lot of things. Help me help you be mad at the right people in a way that will change the world for the better.

The Center for Research on the Political Culture of Russia has prepared an analytical review, "65 Years of the Program for Building Communism in the USSR. The Image of a Communist Future and the Experience of Directive-Bureaucratic Achievement of Its Parameters . " The author and compiler is Doctor of Political Science S.P. Obukhov.

Sixty-five years ago, in October 1961, the 22nd Congress of the CPSU promised that the current generation of Soviet people would live under communism by 1980. Today, it's clear: social development cannot be decreed, and the transformation of Marxist ideals into a bureaucratic timetable was doomed to failure. Today, even the most orthodox communist parties speak only of a "long transition period," while the theoretical question of crucial practical significance for the struggle of the Communist Parties—"what does human life look like under communism?"—hangs in the air.

Drawing on a wide range of sources—from Western leftist theories (Badiou, Negri, Ding, etc.), the works of Russian researchers (from Ilyenkov, Kurginyan, Buzgalin, etc.) to the practices of the Communist Parties of modern China and Vietnam, their theorists (Lan Jiang, etc.)— Political Science Doctor Sergei Obukhov, in a 65-page review, explores the evolution of the development of the image of the communist future over the past 65 years since the 22nd Congress of the CPSU: from Soviet public consumption funds and Chinese “general prosperity” to the neo-feudalism of digital platforms. A paradoxical thing is emerging: while Western Communist parties, taught by the bitter experience of the failure of the 1961 CPSU Program, hide behind the formula “communism is achievable in the distant future,” the only detailed and honest images of the communist future (and its main pitfalls) over the past half-century have been created not by party ideologists, but by famous science fiction writers – from Ivan Efremov to Liu Cixin.

RESUME

Sixty-five years ago, in October 1961, the 22nd Congress of the CPSU adopted the Third Party Program and promised the country communism "in the main" by 1980. The program concluded with a phrase later quietly removed: "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism!" This review answers three related questions. What exactly was promised, and why was it not fulfilled? What has become of the idea of ​​communism in the intervening decades—in Western leftist thought, in the theory and practice of the ruling communist parties of China and Vietnam, in the writings of European, Indian, and Russian communists? And does anyone today have a vision of the communist future that can replace the failed vision of 1961?

The main conclusions of the review are as follows.

First. The 1961 CPSU program failed not because communism is impossible, but because social development cannot be decreed. The congress took goals formally derived from Marxism—abundance, a classless society, self-government, a new man—and transformed them into a calendar plan with figures and deadlines, ignoring the warnings of Marx and Engels themselves about the length of the transition period. The specific parameters (overtaking the United States in per capita production, expanding industry sixfold, increasing public consumption funds to half of income) were not fantasy, but a symptom of the impatience of the leadership of a previously backward country, which wanted to solve the problems of an industrial consumer society in one fell swoop. The very slogan "live under communism" instead of "build communism" was consumerist in spirit—and this is one of the reasons why it failed the test of reality.

Second. The public only half believed the promise—and this is known not from surveys from 1961, which didn't exist, but from retrospective studies. The main source of these figures, which are rife in publications, is the work of historian Yu. V. Aksyutin, "Khrushchev's 'Thaw' and Public Attitudes in the USSR in 1953–1964": according to his surveys from 1998–1999, 51–53% of respondents in 1961 believed in the very idea of ​​communism as a society of equality and prosperity, while only 37% of those who believed in the promise to build communism within twenty years.

Third. The consumer "package" of promises made by the CPSU in 1961 has been realized in the advanced countries by about half—but not as a system or as communism. Free healthcare, school meals, a 35-hour week, increased life expectancy, and the disappearance of heavy physical labor have become reality in many countries; free housing for all, the erasure of distinctions between city and village, between mental and physical labor, and universal abundance—not. The pattern is simple: the closer a parameter is to distribution, the more achievable it is; the closer it is to production relations and the problems of human exploitation by human beings, the further it is. Everything achieved today is the achievement of the workers' movement and the welfare state, albeit under the influence of the Soviet communist project. As soon as the Soviet project was interrupted, all these Western social gains became reversible.

Fourth. Marx's understanding of communism today exists in disarray. The Western left—from Badiou and Negri to Jodi Dean and Kohei Saito—has retained the critical core (alienation, class domination, the "common," liberation from labor), but has lost the subject of transformation and the strategy. Their thinking vacillates between the hope of a "capitalist road to communism" through basic income and the alarming diagnosis of neo-feudalism.

Socialist China and Vietnam retained the formation scheme, the primacy of productive forces and the goal of comprehensive human development, but postponed indefinitely everything related to the abolition of private property, the withering away of the state and class struggle.

Domestic concepts—Ilyenkov’s cosmocommunism, Buzgalin’s “creatosphere,” Kurginyan’s “communism as the idea of ​​human elevation,” and Davydov’s “personaliat”—exist on the margins of party practice.

Neither side fully embraces Marx's understanding. However, the combined contributions of both Western and Russian scholars, as well as the practice of the Communist Parties of socialist countries, encompass and develop almost the entire Marxist legacy in understanding the image and characteristics of the future communist society.

Fifth. Despite all the justified criticism of the CPSU's failures, not a single communist party in the world has formulated a coherent, positive vision of communism to replace the vision of 1961. The prevailing formula—"socialism is durable, communism is beyond the horizon"—has been variously formulated: "initial stage" (CCP), "transitional period" (CPV), "transitional phase" (PCF), "advanced democracy" (PCP), "people's democratic revolution" (CPI(M)), and three stages of "renewed socialism" (CPRF).

Exceptions are partial. China offered a vision of the future with parameters and deadlines (2035, 2049), but for socialism, and with the same directive method as in 1961, only stretched out over a century. The French Communist Party, from 2013 to 2016, made the only attempt in Europe to describe a "new generation communism"—through a "society of perfect equality" and "common goods"—and by 2026, retreated to the procedural formula of "communism of conquest." The lesson of 1961 has been universally absorbed as a prohibition on the date, but along with the date, the creative work of developing the content has disappeared.

Sixth. The only fully developed images of human life under communism over these 65 years were provided not by party thought, but by fiction—science fiction. Yefremov completed what the Program lacked—the education of the new man as the "pillar" of communism; the Strugatsky brothers showed communism as a lived-in everyday reality and were the first to warn of abundance without consciousness ("Predatory Things of the Century"); Lem described a "philistine communism" of satiety without risk; Liu Cixin tested communist humanism for survival in the structurally hostile environment of predatory civilizations in the "dark forest." Writers already in the 1960s had grasped what the discussion deduces from theory: the main deficiency of the 1961 image is not the parameters of production, but the new man and the subject who nurtures him.

This leads to a practical conclusion for a party claiming to inherit the communist tradition. The substantive elements of a new vision of the future exist. These include universal basic services as the heir to Soviet public consumption funds. They also include the socialization of digital property. They also include the ecological limit as the limit of any abundance. And most importantly, the comprehensive development of the individual as the criterion of politics, and communism as the highest humanism. But all such theoretical developments are scattered among theorists, parties, and writers, and no one has compiled them into a program. Collecting them is a task that, judging by this review, no one has yet taken on.

CONTENT of the entire investigation

RESUME ✅ (already covered above)

PART I. STARTING POINT: THE 1961 PROGRAM AND ITS FATE

Section 1. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU and the image of communism in 1961

Section 2. The Failure of the 1961 Program: A Today's Assessment

PART II . COMMUNISM AS AN IDEA: MARX AND THE FATE OF THE CONCEPT IN MODERN THOUGHT

Section 3. Marx's understanding of communism and its fate in Western leftist thought

Section 4. Two Scenarios for Moving Beyond Capitalism: The “Capitalist Road to Communism” and Neo-Feudalism

Section 5. Limits to growth and going beyond the limit: Saito's eco-communism, Foster's eco-socialism, Ilyenkov's cosmocommunism and domestic interpretations of the ideal

PART III . THE COMMUNIST PERSPECTIVE IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MODERN COMMUNIST PARTIES

Section 6. Experience of modern socialist countries: China and Vietnam

Section 7. The Communist Perspective in the Documents of the Communist Parties of Europe and India

Section 8. The Search for the Communist Ideal in the French Communist Party: From a “Society of Perfect Equality” to a “Communism of Conquests”

Section 9. The Image of the Communist Future in the Documents of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation

PART IV . THE IMAGE OF THE COMMUNIST FUTURE IN LITERATURE

Section 10. Literary images of the communist future: from Ivan Efremov's artistic interpretation of the ideas of the 22nd Congress to the intergalactic threats to humanity from Liu Cixin's "Dark Forest"

PART V. WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, WHAT REMAINS OF MARX, AND DOES ANYONE HAVE A VISION OF THE FUTURE: GENERALIZATIONS

Section 11. What aspects of the 1980s consumer image are realized today in advanced countries

Section 12. What features of Marx's understanding of communism have emerged today - among Western leftists and in the practice of China and Vietnam

Section 13. Have the communist parties formulated their vision of a communist future, or are they all stuck on the excuse that socialism is long-lasting, but communism is difficult to achieve?

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW

APPENDIX. POSITION INDEX: WHO AND WHAT APPROVES

Hope you like it! I hope you all find it very interesting and that it opens plenty of discussions here in Lemmygrad!

I am reading it by parts because there are sections that caught my attention first such as PART III Section 6. It's long but worth it

The entire document is in here -> https://cipkr.ru/2026/10/20/sergej-obuhov-uroki-1961-goda-kak-kompartii-iskali-obraz-budushhego-i-kommunisticheskij-ideal-v-teorii-praktike-i-fantastike/

Africa’s economic future, political independence and struggle over control of its natural resources are reshaping the continent’s place in the world.

In this episode of The Simardone Show, Aidan Simardone is joined by journalist David Hundeyin, founder of West Africa Weekly and The Spearhead, for a discussion about African industrialization, Pan-Africanism, political instability and the changing balance of power across Africa.

We explore why African countries exporting raw materials often capture only a fraction of their potential economic value, and what domestic refining and processing could mean for industrial development. From Burkina Faso’s gold industry to Nigeria’s Dangote oil refinery, we examine the opportunities and challenges involved in building African industries capable of processing the continent’s own resources.

The conversation also turns to Nigeria’s political future, the country’s upcoming elections and the complex causes of insecurity in northern Nigeria. We examine why violence is often reduced to a religious conflict between Muslims and Christians, and what broader political, economic and regional factors may be overlooked.

Finally, we discuss Ethiopia’s growing instability, the emergence of a new alliance of armed opposition groups and rising tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. What do these developments mean for the Horn of Africa, and could the region face another interstate conflict?

Topics discussed:

• Africa’s economic independence
• Pan-Africanism and African sovereignty
• Burkina Faso’s gold refinery
• Nigeria’s Dangote oil refinery
• Why African countries export raw materials
• Resource processing and industrialization
• Nigeria’s oil industry
• Nigeria’s upcoming elections
• Nigerian politics and the future of the country
• Insecurity in northern Nigeria
• Religious conflict and political violence in Nigeria
• Ethiopia’s political and military crisis
• Ethiopia’s new rebel alliance
• Ethiopia and Eritrea
• The risk of war in the Horn of Africa
• Western influence in Africa
• African development and the Global South
• David Hundeyin and African journalism

David Hundeyin is a journalist and founder of West Africa Weekly and The Spearhead, covering African politics, geopolitics, media and international affairs.

Benjamin Netanyahu is warning Americans that an Iranian nuclear weapon would make today’s energy crisis look far worse, while the Trump administration is considering an extraordinary new escalation: possible use of the GBU-43/B “Mother of All Bombs” against Iranian nuclear or energy targets. In this Monday geopolitical analysis, Kevork Almassian examines the growing contradiction between Washington’s threat of overwhelming force and John Mearsheimer’s argument that additional aircraft carriers, bombing campaigns and economic pressure still cannot force Iran into surrender.

The discussion also examines Reuters’ investigation into how Iranian precision strikes have damaged critical Gulf infrastructure and constrained U.S. war planning, Qatar’s public call for citizens and institutions to prepare for “worst-case scenarios,” and the danger of Ahmed al-Sharaa sending Syrian soldiers into Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. Are Washington and its allies approaching victory, or widening a conflict whose economic and military costs they may no longer be able to control?

Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.

☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive