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.

Students in front of the Mujahidin Grand Mosque in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, with an ominous, thick haze obscuring vision.


My weekly preamble is in spoiler tags below.

preambleThe last week has been quite a busy one for world energy markets. The first big piece was the reveal that the US is removing sanctions on Russian fuel exports until April 2027. This has been yet another fascinating collision of the Ukraine and Iran Wars, and, of course, another example of all the complicated situations that countries that are otherwise geopolitically aligned can get themselves into, as obviously Russia being allowed to export more diesel does bend the curve on shortages to a degree. China "helping" the West by reducing their demand for foreign oil purchases for much of this year as they drew from their enormous domestic oil reserves is another example of this kind of dynamic. Given how much Russia has helped Iran - especially now, with large increases of Caspian Sea vessels helping Iran mitigate some of the blockade's impact - I don't view this as a betrayal, but more of a unfortunately necessary geopolitical tactic, particularly if increased Russian state revenue lets them defeat the NATO-backed forces they're fighting a bit easier. Regardless, it would be very unfortunate if most of Russia's diesel went directly to the US and not to other struggling countries (not least among them, Cuba), as that would give the US a bit more road to kick the can down.

Ukraine has not taken this news well. It can be hard to figure out to what degree Trump is using kayfabe in any particular situation, but Ukraine immediately striking a Russian diesel export station (to which Russia retaliated by knocking out power throughout much of Kiev) seems to have genuinely annoyed him, e.g. saying that Ukraine should get a new leader. He also tried his classic move of willing a ceasefire into existence purely by social media decree. This worked during the Twelve Day War, but not here - at least not yet. I'm currently cautiously disregarding rumors that the US is going to actually take away intelligence or material support from Ukraine. It's not impossible, and would actually be another data point in the trend of the US withdrawing from Europe (with their bombers evacuating their UK base very recently too), but this antagonization of Russia has been a plot in the making for over a decade, and I would be surprised if Trump was allowed by the powers that be to interrupt this plan in any meaningful way. Perhaps there will be some largely symbolic move instead.

Over in West Asia, Ansarallah is tidying up their encirclement of Taiz, with the noose tightening around PLC forces. The Saudi counteroffensive was very Ukrainian; i.e. it existed mostly as a media phenomenon, but somehow even more half-hearted. Their sole territorial acquisition up to me writing this is 10-20 miles of largely empty coastal plains and an airstrip that Ansarallah, without an airforce, has no real use of. In return for Saudi bombing, Ansarallah has continued hitting oil infrastructure, and additionally escalated by striking terminals at King Khalid airport. Ansarallah gave several warnings to immediately evacuate everybody inside, and the Saudis did not even bother to sound the alarm of an incoming missile, which is emblematic of their desperation to maintain the illusion of the pre-war status quo. The strike on Terminal 3 killed about a dozen people and injured a few hundred. While Saudi airlines are trying to maintain operations, several Western airliners are pausing flights for now, which mirrors the air blockade that the Saudis have forced on Yemen for several years. Meanwhile, Iran has escalated strikes on tankers both inside the Strait of Hormuz and far outside it, as it truly starts to slam the hammer down on what limited illegal transits were making it through. This comes in the form of both missile/drone strikes and naval mines and will keep physical oil prices elevated well into the short and medium terms if maintained. Additionally, the US continues its reported buildup of forces for another try at striking Iran, possibly before the midterms, but I sincerely don't know what they could possibly hope to achieve beyond trying to get more votes from chest-thumping jingoistic morons while yet further degrading their position in the region militarily and economically.

Meanwhile, over in Southeast Asia, air pollution has dramatically increased over the past few months due to manmade wildfires in Indonesian forests and peatlands, which were caused by profit-seeking slash-and-burn farmers clearing land with fire, and then further exacerbated by one of the worst El Ninos on record. This bourgeois idiocy has caused untold environmental damage, hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore, prolonged closures of major institutions like schools, and required the distribution of oxygen cylinders throughout parts of the populace to try and keep them alive and at least vaguely healthy.


Last week's thread 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:

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
[–] 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (19 children)

Different thing, the bookcade did not stop the war, responding in kind did.

You are not blockading Texas you are hitting refineries. Israel stoped because they hit the Haifa refinery and it's still in repair, that is 2000+ km, yes you would need longer range missiles, but Iran's missile range can, and has been increased in tests.

You need to blow up a few refineries in retaliation and they leave you alone.

stoping smuggling in the strait is a different matter it is to bargain to end piracy on Iranian goods. For that you need to take the world economy hostage, but not to defend yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (18 children)

    Could a dedicated effort by Venezuela strike targets in the US?

    Probably, yes.

    Being very realistic, I’d reduce that to maybe a couple of lucky shots land at best. But let’s just pretend Venezuela had decades of missile experience and an industrial base like Iran… then probably yes they’d hit some stuff.

    Could even the best effort, strongest optimistically realistic effort, by Venezuela bring the USA to the negotiating table via use of missiles?

    I don’t see it.

    1. Multiple hours flight time to target vs minutes to target = much easier to intercept
    2. Rockets suffer from the rocket equation. Weight + velocity = energy. Fly further and either you require a lot more fuel or a lot less payload.
    3. Far less density of targets. You take out one oil rig, you’ve subtracted its production. That’s all. You sink a ship in the SoH? Now zero ships want to transit that strait.
    4. Far less total supply. Gulf of Mexico is like 2-3% of global supply. SoH carries 15-20%.
    5. You’re right beside the heartland. The US needs to send aging carrier fleets to project power to SoH. Clogged shitters, suicide attempts, etc. Against Venezuela they can fly from land bases on home soil.
    6. Venezuela does not have the missile tech Iran has.
    7. Venezuela does not have the industrial base that Iran has.
    8. Venezuela does not have a land corridor to China or any other friendly state. It barely even has even neutral states nearby.

    It doesn’t even begin to compare.

    Assume Venezuela is wildly successful and take out 100% of targets. Not a single missile is intercepted despite hours of flight time. Global oil supply drops by 2-3%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 hours ago

    Venezuela does not have a land corridor to China or any other friendly state. It barely even has even neutral states nearby.

    This is key. People go on about Venezuela needing cruise missiles and nukes as if missiles and nukes appear out of thin air. The technical skill to make said missiles and nukes also doesn't appear out of thin air. The USN is already sinking random Venezuelan boats. How are you going to even get your Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Korean scientists and engineers into Venezuela in the first place? Would any of those countries even risk putting their best scientists and engineers on a plane to be shot down by the USAF or on a boat to be sunk by the USN?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

    If I had missile cities in LATAM instead of oil refineries I would target:

    • US ordinance plants (only like 5 that make all explosives for the entire military)
    • US munitions depots (McAlester alone has like 30% of US ordinance)
    • USAF maintenance bases (Oklahoma, Georgia, Utah). You could take out hundreds of air frames and the infrastructure required to repair them. There would be no replacement for at least a decade.
    • The handful of oil pipelines that supply most US oil to refineries, and refined products to population centers.
    • Port of Los Angeles and other ports.
    • Manufacturing chokepoints for standoff munitions. There is one plant that assembles Tomahawks, one plant that assembles AGM-158 JASSM and other missiles.

    The US has consolidated so much of its power projection logistics into a few narrow chokepoints that if you had like 500 missiles I think you could bring the US empire to a permanent end as long as you picked your targets correctly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 hours ago* (5 children)

    The distance from Venezuela to LA is 6,000 kms.

    I’m sorry but you’re departing into pure fantasy here if you think Venezuela can hit those targets.

    Come back down to earth.

    Let’s put Iran in Florida. Let’s say the US is simply not allowed to invade them. Let’s give them a magic tunnel to get supplied by China and Russia.

    Even now, with pure magic on their side, the Gulf of Mexico represents 3% of global oil. SoH represents 15-20%.

    And still the distances are shorter from Iran to Oman than Florida to Texas.

    You’re arguing a pure fantasy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

    The only thing I'm arguing is that there are better targets. Also yes it's a fantasy because I am not a Latin American leader and I don't have missile cities.

    Even now, with pure magic on their side, the Gulf of Mexico represents 3% of global oil. SoH represents 15-20%.

    My point was that there are better targets than the Gulf of Mexico.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago* (3 children)

    The best target would be New York and Washington and a couple of nukes but that’s not on the table so what’s your point?

    If Venezuela has command of the starship enterprise they could defeat the borg.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (2 children)

    The point is that you don't just have to attack oil shipping, there's other stuff that is higher impact. You're right that it doesn't actually matter because it's not going to happen. I can still say which targets I would pick if I was Claudia Sheinbaum with a bunch of missiles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    What is higher impact than cutting off 15-20% of global oil and gas?

    Like yeah sure, nuking Washington or defeating the borg is, but being real about it, what can Venezuela achieve that is higher impact than cutting off 15-20% of global oil and gas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    I know the original argument was about Venezuela but I'm thinking more along the lines of Cuba or Mexico. I already said what would be higher impact, USAF maintenance/logistics facilities, manufacturing bottlenecks for standoff weapons, munitions plants and storage facilities.

    The SoH has a larger global impact, but the US is still a net energy exporter (I know they still import a ton of oil and also have to participate in the global market). My whole point is that Iran hits the oil because it's there. That's where they can apply leverage because they can't just lob missiles directly at the US. Anyone in this hemisphere that is close enough (Cuba or Mexico) wouldn't need to target oil in the same way, they could just go right for the actual military facilities. You also don't need to target the oil supply, which is a small portion of the global oil supply, you could just target pipelines that do internal distribution. All the oil going to New England is only a fraction of a percent of the oil in the world, but it's 100% of the oil going to New England.

    Like you said it's all fantasy, my point is just that nobody would have to copy Iran's strategy 1:1. Anyone in this hemisphere would have different targets. That's all my original point was.

    Obviously the US knows this and would never allow any country to develop this capability anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 hours ago (9 children)

    But you don't need to take out supply, you just need to hit them hard enough that they stop hitting you.

    Reducing oil supply is to negotiate for other things.

    The us did not stop hitting targets in Iran because the strait was blockaded they stoped because they were getting blown up, and because of the treat of blowing up stuff in Saudi. The threat of blowing up stuff in the us is much more persuasive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 hours ago* (8 children)

    But you don't need to take out supply, you just need to hit them hard enough that they stop hitting you.

    Yeah and I strongly dispute that Venezuela can achieve that goal.

    What targets?

    For comparison, Iran would be striking Germany at these distances.

    That’s roughly the distance of Iran to Diego Garcia, successfully hit one or two times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 hours ago (7 children)

    They hit Diego garcia.

    A refinery or 2, a port in florida, mar a lago, etc.

    Of course they can't archive that goal now, if they had started preparing 30 years ago like the Iranians,with Iranian input and cooperation, they absolutely would. The Iranian missile program would also be better of. The thing is they never took it seriously, and now it's too late.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago* (6 children)

    I did an edit before I saw your reply citing that example.

    Even Iran with all its advantages compared to Venezuela achieved that only a couple of times. And that base is still active.

    Like, at the end of the day, the SoH is uniquely important and narrow. Comparing that to Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico is comparing my garden fence to the Great Wall of China. It’s not going to do fuck all against the Mongols.

    Even assume total Venezuelan dominance and they hit everything, it’s still only 2-3% of global supply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

    But again the attacks did not stop because sho. You don't need a bloksde to cause deterrence.

    The attacks diminished and finally stoped because Iran was able to hit targets in retaliation. It's not that much harder to hit longer distances, the same mid range missiles can hit at 4500+ km with some modifications, they don't do it because there is no need, and because the self imposed limit it's like the nuclear stuff, another bargaining chip.

    In a scenario, were the goal of the missile program is to retaliate against us targets, there are no such limitations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago* (4 children)

    I think you do need a blockade to have deterrence.

    Wars are won by logistics.

    The US isn’t defeated by hurting its morale and striking some targets.

    The US is defeated by making the cost of war uneconomical.

    Pearl Harbor and 9/11 didn’t defeat the US. Economic exhaustion within Vietnam and Afghanistan did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

    Yes the cost of war is uneconomical if you hit back, in this case if anything it is the ability to hit back what allows the blockade to continue without further strikes.

    What makes it uneconomical, is the relative cost of maintaining the different systems, the potential gains, vs the costs of having your refinery blown up.

    American logistics have not been significantly affected by the blockade they ran out of munitions, because of already existing problems with their industrial base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago* (2 children)

    Waging war against Venezuela would be enormously cheaper than waging war against Iran.

    I’m not going to reply any more. This isn’t a serious line of discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments