133

A reminder that as the US continues to threaten countries around the world, fedposting is to be very much avoided (even with qualifiers like "in Minecraft") and comments containing it will be removed.

Image is of Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi (below) and Iranian Speaker of Parliament Ghalibaf (above, right) in the Iranian parliament in 2024. These two figures have played a major role in the war so far.


My summary of the situation as I understand it is in spoiler tags below.

summaryAfter many long weeks, Iran and the US have agreed that they're going to begin negotiations on certain topics in a process lasting at least 60 days. Due to America's perfidy during previous negotiations, trust has broken down so far that Iran demanded $12 billion of their frozen funds and several other promises, such as the end to the naval blockade, to even return to the table, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Iran also demanded that negotiations take place in two stages, and that nuclear issues will only be discussed in the second stage, which will be several weeks from now if everything goes as planned.

The terms of the MoU have themselves been a big source of confusion and suspicion, for me and many other pro-Iranian spectators. Getting the wording exactly correct is important, because the US really is like the devil - leave room for any possible interpretation in the contract that favors them more, and they'll insist that this was the only interpretation up for discussion. Additionally, the US might be historically bad at winning wars, but they're very, very good at winning peaces: they set up the post-WW2 order to best suit them by playing the European powers off each other; the DPRK might have survived the Korean War politically intact but existed for nearly the next hundred years as a sanctioned pariah; Vietnam was soon forced to economically engage with the country that had dropped triple of all the bomb tonnage of WW2 on them; and so on. It is no exaggeration when I say that the negotiation phase will be the most dangerous part of this war and it could lead to the most death and destruction without a single missile impacting Iran.

However, there's one little genocidal colony in the region that could stop this whole process from even beginning, as the US appears to have promised Iran that the Zionists will stop the war against Lebanon (and perhaps Gaza too? I'm a little unclear) and even withdraw entirely from southern Lebanon, including all bases set up since this broader conflict began. Apparently, the US promised this in return for Iran not striking the Zionists in return for their most recent strike on Beirut on June 14th. Now, the issue with this whole situation is that the US greenlit the Zionist strike on Beirut, and they knew that Iran would respond to it because they did in response to an earlier strike. If the US made such major concessions to Iran in return for this response strike not occurring, then why authorize the Beirut strike at all? Why make their position worse? Right now, I can think of two reasons. First is that they attempted to create one final embarrassment for Iran, under the assumption that Iran was so desperate for a deal that they wouldn't risk responding. Second is that this is all one big ruse or misdirection; the US does not intend to follow through with the MoU and subsequent negotiations anyway, and so the terms they're "agreeing" to don't really matter.

With the MoU signing apparently set for June 19th, we'll know for sure soon.


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

If you have evidence of Zionist crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.

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 the Zionists' 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.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 59 points 1 day ago

morale econony https://archive.ph/Ejsz9

The Morale of Military Families Needs Our Attention

The data reflect a troubling trend: The families of America’s service members are exhausted.

more

Today, the U.S. Army turns 251 ... But despite the Army’s reasons to celebrate, there is an aspect of today’s military that ought to give us pause: Many of America’s military families — the backbone of our armed forces — are not happy. Despite Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s triumphant announcement to this year’s West Point graduates that 2026 recruitment numbers hit their fiscal targets four months early, there’s been a steady decrease in military families’ willingness to recommend military service to their sons and daughters. In 2016, that number stood at 55 percent, according to the Blue Star Families Annual Survey; the most recent data reveals it’s now down to 37 percent. Meanwhile, the Army’s own Career Engagement Survey shows that “family” consistently ranks among the top reasons for soldiers of all ranks and designations to choose to leave the Army. Similarly, the Department of Defense’s Office of People Analytics’ most recent Active Duty Spouse Survey showed that one in three active-duty spouses favor leaving the military — the highest percentage ever recorded.

Since the end of conscription in 1973, there’s been an open secret about America’s military, and it’s twofold. First, spousal support is the prime predictor of actual member retention or staying in the military. But even before retention surfaces as a concern, initial military recruitment has been over-reliant on “legacy service members,” meaning on a repeat cadre of military families, to fill the service’s ranks.

love how the US managed to reinvent hereditary warrior-castes

While less than 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in the military today, over 60 percent of those who do come from military families. For the Army, that percentage is an astonishing 80 percent, with 25 percent having a mother or father who wore the uniform. Civil-military relations professors have been fretting about the military becoming a caste system. Their theoretical headache looks to be rather beside the point compared to the challenge military recruiters will shortly have to get even those legacy young adults to their signing desks: America is already experiencing a 13 percent projected decline in 18-year-olds. Only 23 percent of young Americans meet military eligibility requirements, while only 10 percent of young adults even have a propensity to serve — one important deciding factor in that propensity being a family tradition of service. Has the Army suddenly become unfriendly to military families? Theoretically, no. Congress assumed responsibility for military families with the passage of the Dependents Allowance Act in 1942, followed by the Department of Defense creating the Office of Family Policy in 1982, and it has increasingly accepted the reality that the well-being and readiness of military families is crucial to the strength and readiness, if not the resilience, of America’s fighting forces. The suite of programs for military families is such that in the post-9/11 years, the Pentagon bolstered the Military Families Readiness System (MFRS) to provide the support infrastructure military families need to navigate the military lifestyle’s related challenges at the level of lived daily life.

But combing through numerous studies and surveys from government, nonprofit, and advocacy groups, the Valor Institute concluded last year that it’s no wonder why the military families this system is supposed to be helping are left frustrated instead. The system in practice is messy, siloed, and fragmented, with layers of bureaucracy at every turn, and the programs’ “effectiveness is limited by a lack of coordinated monitoring and communication,” not to mention being without proper assessment measures in place to determine what is, or is not, working. Spousal unemployment, financial stress, childcare challenges, varying quality of health-care and education systems — these have been systemic concerns within military families for decades. Even prior to Congress’s authorizing the 14.5 percent junior enlisted pay raise last year, the metrics actually show active-duty and reserve spouses’ scoring better in general than their civilian counterparts for financial well-being. While that arguably only skims the surface of a much more complex situation that involves various grades of enlisted and types of officers, as the Valor Institute also acknowledges, it does throw into relief the truth that something beyond their finances is clearly going on with military families’ sense of well-being. And that something, or perhaps the sum of those somethings, is currently costing them too dearly to stay in the military community.

When military families report on the greatest stressors chipping away at their well-being, military spouse unemployment and underemployment rank high, year after year. “PCSing” — the moves every two-and-a-half years or so that the military calls Permanent Change of Station — is one culprit with many cascading effects: Around 400,000 service members PCS every year, while many of their significant others work in occupations like teaching, nursing, and cosmetology that require licenses that don’t necessarily, or easily, transcend state lines.

here we see how the imperial military eats itself alive - the need to maintain a presence all over the world means constantly juggling troops around, which they're not very happy about, especially as they age - traveling the world from base to base might seem cool and adventurous when you're 20, but not so much when you're in your 30s and are either going to be abandoning your family, or dragging them with you so they also suffer

Then there is the always thorny issue of childcare. Many military spouses are de facto single parents for extended periods of time, with 74 percent experiencing a spouse deployed for longer than 30 days. Since the military profession is a 24/7 rather than a traditional 9-to-5 job, and the military mission always comes first, the non-military spouse is forced to wear all hats on limited information and at a moment’s notice. Childcare assistance is thus not a luxury but often a stark necessity. Unemployment, finances, childcare, and difficult-to-navigate health-care and education systems cannot by themselves explain the sharp and sustained decline in family satisfaction with military life since 2012. But there may be the beginnings of an answer hiding in plain sight within another line of inquiry on the annual Blue Star Families survey: When looking at issues related to “morale, belonging, the nation’s support, and the future of service,” Blue Star Families researchers discovered that the strength of morale among active-duty service members was directly correlated with their sense of work-life balance, and that both morale and positive assessment of personal work-life balance directly correlated with the likelihood to recommend service. What a “normal” work-life balance even looks like when one’s job is fighting wars is a dissertation for another day. But the survey respondents gave a clear indication of what they meant when, months before anyone had an Operation Epic Fury in mind, 83 percent indicated “it was likely or very likely the U.S. would be involved in a major conflict in the next 3–5 years.” But it’s the following revelation that should give us pause: More than half of those active-duty respondents “did not think the general public would be prepared to support military families if the U.S. were to enter a major conflict.”

Without a strong sense of assurance bolstering their confidence that military families would receive the long-term support they would need in the event of their soldiers participating in war-level operations, military families are reluctant to remain in an already-taxing environment, let alone recommend to their military-age children embracing such a lifestyle. Lack of patriotism is hardly the contention here. The great camo-clad elephant in the base housing living room then cannot be avoided. Military families have reluctance about future conflicts because it was they and their families who shouldered the burden of a nation at war for nearly 25 years. Despite not donning the uniform themselves, the families of post-9/11 service members have already done tours of service. And all the evidence points to one understandable fact: However patriotic they might be, they are simply exhausted. Since 2015, anxiety and depression have been measurably on the rise among military spouses. Finding community, friends, and social and/or peer support is a difficulty they feel particularly keenly, according to a just-released study by the Institute of Military & Veteran Family Wellness. The rate of suicide among military spouses has also risen steadily since 2011, according to the DoD’s report released in April, and these spouses are young: More than 80 percent were under age 40. In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, 146 military family members, including 98 spouses and 48 dependents, died by suicide. Whether or to what extent any of these were influenced by the lockdowns and strictures of the Covid-19 years remains opaque. There’s still much that we don’t know about military family suicides, with DoD’s 2023 report being the first that had enough data to even begin to examine reliably long-term trends within this demographic.

cont'd in response

[-] nasezero@hexbear.net 54 points 1 day ago

The families of America's babykillers are tiiiiired

[-] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

Ben Givir is tiiiiiireeeed.

[-] kleeon@hexbear.net 47 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The families of America’s service members are exhausted.

Take a nap or something? Jeez

[-] Rojo27@hexbear.net 30 points 1 day ago

Taking our scheduled break from our regular program of shoving propaganda justifying every war ever to remind you that our soldiers and their families are sufferingbawllin-sad

[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago

more

Notably, what we do know is that a rising rate of suicide among male spouses is contributing to the overall rising numbers, accounting for nearly two-thirds of military spouse suicides. And according to DoD’s report, “the findings are significant because both the military and veterans’ populations have experienced increases in deaths by suicide in the past 25 years coinciding with the decades-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” A 20-plus-year war that is already fought can’t be somehow magically erased from post-9/11 military families’ lives, no matter how much any president, defense secretary, politician, or recruiting officer might wish to. But however uncomfortable to the modern political and analyst class the lessons of those 25 years might be, when it comes to the “Force behind the Force,” the lesson cannot be clearer. America’s military families will not again be willing to shoulder the burden of fighting America’s wars while America itself goes shopping. The wages of Donald Rumsfeld’s gamble to fight the Global War on Terror without expanding the military and multiplying the numbers of uniformed shoulders to carry it has now come due. His sleight of hand, to heavily operationalize the traditional “reserve” forces of the National Guard and Reserves instead of raising troop levels, only created a “wicked problem” with its own cascading difficult consequences that those two military components are still attempting to figure out. That extends now to the fraying, unofficial pipeline of military recruitment that the all-volunteer force has relied on for decades, the military family. And that is a part of the 251-year-long record that the U.S. Army — and the rest of the armed forces — have to contend with in practical terms, whether one fiscal year’s recruitment numbers are momentarily trending up or downward.

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
133 points (100.0% liked)

news

24804 readers
746 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS