Image is of a Russian missile impacting Ukraine.
As we rapidly approach the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Ukraine War (an anniversary I absolutely did not expect would occur while the two sides were still in combat), we have seen Russia turn to a new strategy, starting late last year but intensifying in December and now January.
Russia seems intent to disconnect Ukrainian cities from the electrical grid by focussing bombing on thermal, gas, and hydro stations, causing major power blackouts across the country. Russia is also bombing substations relatively close to Ukraine's three nuclear power plants (Zaporzhye, the fourth, remains under Russia control), studiously avoiding hitting the premises of the NPPs themselves for obvious reasons. Even if they're far away from the NPPs, striking the substations does have risks, because if the nuclear reactors aren't shut off before the substations are bombed, there is a possibility that there will be insufficient backup power to prevent a meltdown - hence why Russia hasn't really attempted to do this for four years.
Most of the electricity generated in Ukraine comes from the nuclear power plants, both because of the infrastructure they had initially (Ukraine was 7th in the world in nuclear electricity generation before the war) and because Russia has bombed most non-nuclear power stations and substations already. Over the last couple weeks, we have seen Ukrainian media fly into a frenzy about long-lasting blackouts, especially in the middle of winter. After the Zionist entity destroyed virtually all civilian infrastructure in Gaza while the West cheered on, they now appear to have changed their mind on whether such strikes are an effective and humanitarian option to subject millions of people to.
Regardless of whether you personally believe these Russian strikes are justified (I'm pretty iffy myself), it must be stressed that Ukraine has been bombing Russian tankers and oil refineries and power stations for a long time now, so in a sense, this is a retaliation. It's also remarkable, compared to Western wars, that Ukraine was even still allowed to possess a functioning electrical grid for nearly four years into a war of this magnitude. That all being said, while Ukrainian strikes have been somewhat but not overly impactful on the Russian oil sector, the response is clearly very asymmetrical: Ukraine's power grid is, according to Ukrainian energy corporations, now 70% degraded and is virtually impossible to now repair, and blackouts can last most of the day.
For everybody's sake, I hope a ceasefire and peace deal will be reached soon. But after four years of seeing opportunities for an end to this war squandered over and over, I'm not holding my breath.
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.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
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.
Venezuelan oil was already for all intents and purposes privatized though, with Chevron being the only legal distributor according to the sanctions..They didn't need to abduct Maduro, he has publicly been willing to work out something resembling this new deal for over a year now. And the U.S. had made motions towards accepting this deal, but balked at Maduro and the PSUV being in charge.
They wanted, and still want, a collapse of the government and a change in the ruling party. However, barring an actual invasion (which they do not seem willing to commit to) it doesn't appear as though that will happen.
It's not a clean win for the U.S. It's a mixed victory. They continue to get to expand on the oil revenue they were already getting from Chevron, the guy they didn't like is gone, but the government still stays, though humiliated. If this humiliation leads to an opposition party coming into power, then it will be a complete victory. Which at this point wouldn't surprise me if that does happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
The question is why did they do all this stuff in order to cement a deal that had already been on the table?
Venezuela was not already for all intents and purposes privatized re: oil. The deal with Chevron still left PDVSA as the state monopoly. The monopoly that directed proceeds to people-focused projects.
This was indeed already on the table, but that is not a vindication. That means empire was already winning that major concession, or had already won it. Damning for PSUV and Maduro, continuing to be for new leadership.
It is absolutely a complete compromise of their material position. However, given their structure, this was already untenable in the long term. Unless you wish for them to literally retreat to the mountains and begin a guerrilla campaign in 2025, this is the pragmatic option. The current Venezuelan government and military does not want to become Yemen, and I don't blame them for that.
Would you rather someone else be in charge of Venezuela? Would you rather Machado be in charge, or a Juan Guido? Someone who will fully empower the gusanos to come back and kill Chavistas in the streets? That is what would happen, which we know because they have done it at every anti-Maduro rally before the police and military come in to put a stop to the violence.
I'm not saying that this is the correct decision, I am saying that it is a pragmatic, understandable, decision by the leadership given their position.
If the pragmatic position is to abandon the core mission and throw away the major source of material economic power, to what extent does the project even exist? Every other neoliberalized peripheral country follows the regime they have just "compromised" to.
Whether the only other option is to prepare for guerilla warfare and mass mobilization is something that any country can leave up to the invaders' choice, it is not like it's actually under Venezuela's control as to whether that happens. And capitulation is not a formula for avoiding that situation. Exactly the opposite: it just makes you a softer target if empire decides to do it. See: the erasure of the remnants of pan-Arab nationalism. And Cuba's project still exists and they are not just constantly in the mountains. So I strongly disagree that this is pragmatic. It is understandable, yes, from the perspective of a leadership that doesn't want their families murdered. But that does not align with the interests of the people or the project, it aligns with imperialist interests.
I don't think a list of what I want really makes much sense or is germane. But I want them to not do the capitulation that undermines the very core of the Bolivarian Revolution and seriously risks the entire project. And I want PSUV to be a stronger party.
It is pragmatic if you don't want your family to be murdered as well. Point taken though.
I wouldn't hold the PSUV to the standards of Cuba. And Cuba isn't doing too hot right now either, it could easily be the next domino to fall here if Iran goes the way they want it to, regardless of party strength.
Stripping away reliance on oil revenue may force the administration into more radical positions. However for the most part I agree that it weakens them. Ultimately, what I am hoping happens (idk if it will or not) is that the coletivos begin to separate themselves away from the repeated, demonstrable, weakness of the PSUV and form themselves into a real vanguard party. The bones are there for it if they can shed the rotting flesh of demsoc politics. If this time can be used as wisely as Stalin used the Molotov-Ribbentov Pact, it isn't a total loss. It remains to be seen though.
That said, I am used to losing, we have been losing my entire life. So I am also keenly aware of the possibility that this was all for naught and in two years we will be hearing about how the brave moderates took back their government through principled protests, that definitely didn't leave tens of thousands dead in the streets. It's all unfortunately spectacle to me.
They didn't want "something resembling this new deal" (i.e. conditions). They wanted flat out obedience to the Empire and exactly what it dictates. And they now have that.
I think the win is a lot cleaner than you are acknowledging. Hell, the CIA even identified Rodríguez as the best successor after a coup.
This isn't 'flat out obedience to the Empire'. Flat out obedience would be Machado level privatization, as has been funded and advocated for by CIA up to this point. And that still could happen, but I haven't seen it yet. All I have seen is the same deal that Maduro wanted, just without Maduro.
You have to learn to read between the lines here. They wrote the report AFTER they took out Maduro and the government didn't suddenly collapse. I'm sure the report before this had Machado as the natural candidate. You can't follow the recommendations of something that has already happened. You really think that the CIA gives a shit if Venezuela 'falls into civil war or military uprisings', because that is their reasoning here.
I don't think the report was post-kidnapping. There are articles as far back as Jan 6 about it saying Trump was briefed on the report "in recent weeks" (example). Leaks and articles about it appeared after the attack, yes, but I think it's fairly certain that the report itself was from prior.
Yes, I think the CIA cares about whether there is civil war and/or military uprisings. While they probably wouldn't mind that as an outcome in general, I absolutely believe they would prefer a scenario where an obedient government managed the population and created more friendly conditions for contemporary and future oil extraction. That coupled with the obvious hegemonic dick waving of "we can remove any head of state anytime we please, so fall in line and stay in line" is probably an ideal outcome, actually.
Yeah no shit it came out on the 6th, Maduro was abducted on the 3rd. And before that on the 4th they said that the U.S. was going to run Venezuela.
It's seems like they didn't really have an exact plan in place for afterward, which makes sense since according to other reporting there are two competing factions with the Trump admin, the old school neo-cons and the paleo-conservative MAGA people, who are completely at odds with each other when it comes to this foreign policy stuff. This admin is not a monolith. The right hand and the left hand are not talking to each other, and if anything are trying to obstruct each other.
That article doesn't say "in recent weeks" this report was given, you said that. The other article you posted explicitly says.
"Following the lightning military operation to overthrow the Venezuelan president, the United States has left power in the Latin American country in the hands of Rodríguez, based on reports from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), according to reports published by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. U.S. spies advised the White House that it was more advantageous to keep those loyal to the Chavista regime in power because they control the military and police forces."
It doesn't say when the reports were issued, if this was the plan all along, or whatever else. If anything, it reads like they advised them after the operation, but again, the timeline is not at all clear here.
Based on the lack of clear communication after the capture, I think they likely settled on a plan around the 4th or 5th, and then leaked it to the press.
Idk though, I could be completely wrong here, but I'll be fucked if I actually believe what is published in the NYT or WSJ.
Here is a direct quote from the article:
Anyway, I'm not sure why they would lie about this one. But sure: could be.
I didn't see that in the article, but idk that website was pretty glitchy for me. I'll take your word for it.
Why would they lie about it? Um, to save face because they didn't actually know what to do when the government didn't suddenly collapse, like others were saying? Again, it isn't like they came out with a strong front after it happened. The action was decisive but the media shit afterwards was some of the most inept weak ass shit I have seen since Bush. Maybe that is the point though, idk.
I think you should assume that that CIA thing is a limited hangout / PR for empire.