Half the parties in the group are pro-NATO socdems

idk, i feel that Iran's long term survival and success hinges on either getting a nuke and/or building a conventional modern airforce and air defense systems at scale (by approaching China and Russia with the desperation their position dictates and doing and giving up everything they can to get whatever they can from them, something that they havent remotely done by now) for Israel and the US being unable to do what they have been doing. Also purge a lot of people. Yeah they probably shouldnt accept any loopsided ceasefire right now but at some point they will have to even if it still isnt in their favor and create a relatively stable enviroment to chase the above goals without israeli airplanes and mossad agents strolling around above and on the ground.

You are correct but there have to be other historical, geographic and even cultural factors taken into account if one is to explian how vassals of similar economic scale and size like Canada, UK or Germany , that on paper should actually have more independent power and policy making vs the US relative to Japan, seem more willing to eat shit and die on America's directive.

Japan's proximity to the emerging dominant superpower in China and their much greater economic entaglement. A collective trauma from the plaza accords informing theor strategy now. A historicaly more nationalist and sovereign minded view of themselves and cultural attitude. The actual total war and surrender they "suffered" purely in the hand sof the US and the following occupation. Maybe the fact that they werent the ground zero nearly as much gladio and CIA activity compared to some European countries for most of the post war period. Maybe with the LDP being a one party state and the constitution being US written their political development in recent decades saw less of an industry of US led think tank/ngo politician incubation and training. In general the fact that the US is in Asia but isnt of Asia. The region and japan may have a more historicaly continuous collective memory, cultural and ethnic dynamics, national relations, spheres of influence etc etc spanning hundreds if not thousands of years. Being without the US as the major player and hegemonic power isnt something that alien or disqualifyingly uncomfortable

There is a lot of plausible deniability in intelligence sharing so there is and will be a lot of wiggle room for China so it wouldnt surprise me if they do it or of they already have. No one is really focused on them in the grand sceme of things of this war compared to the scale and publicity of western intelligence operations and sharing in ukraine

I dont think so , platforms like these it seem way to way too overkill just to know some oil facility was bombed or that some blockade action was taken like 20 minutes earlier than they would otherwise . At the very least they are there to colllect data of cutting edge american platforms in deployment/use

vance wasnt even in the security meeting lmao loser

Your thing has become somewhat more difficult since at least with Biden we could give the benifit of the doupt that there were 4d chess plays from his administration behind the scenes and that the words of said administration were subbtle push and pull messages to foreign powers. Now you get to do ~Kremlin~Washingtonology with random parts of Trump brainfart ramblings to connect them to hidden empire checkmates. With Trump not only masterfully teasing the US geopolitical moves, offers and threats in his speeches but presumably building an administration that can even see them through. I dont envy you

Just a note. US is ~3% of FDI in China… in good years, FDI is ~4% total investment in China, <2% of GDP for a decade now. (Some of the FDI from HK SAR is also partly from the US, taking a detour to the mainland over HK but still) Im sure China is dismantling one of the pillars of its monetary and economic policy in capital controls in defeat as we speak to get that life saving American FDI. All the signs are there, after all the CPC has announced that "they welcome and urge foreign investment and US cooperation and will try to make the enviroment easier for it" for the 5000th time since reform and opening up

probably yeah, and tbf other than those issues i mentioned they are more so 70% good -30% bad in most other stuff from an orthodox Marxist-Lenninist perspective.

On foreign policy matters idk if much shift may happen but it doesnt matter that much. They are still way more anti-Nato than anything else despite their "China and Russia secondary imperialist powers" positions. I have been personaly been told by one the highest ranking party member in foreign relations matters that "yeah of course we will be expanding cooperation with China, Iran ,Russia etc if the party comes to power or win elections and likely preemptively expand party ties with the CPC before that. If they are still chill with us after we Nationalize most of the stuff Chinese multinationals own in Greece that is. Cause from the other side we can only expect a sanctions regime"

On LGBT issues for example a big factor imo was that the party for decades had a much stronger support and membership in older age groups and in ereas outside the biggest 1-2 urban centers (Athens and Thessaloniki). So there wasnt some upwards pressure from inside the org and voter base to "modernize" in those fronts. But their youth league and support has been marketably on the rise in the last couple of years and they are seeing their best electoral gains nationaly in Athens. There will most likely be some incremental change towards better positions going forward instead of a massive shift or realization of "oh we were wrong sorry" and that has already happened in the discorse and analysis within the party compared to lets say 5 years ago. Thats why their positions are so confused and all over the place at the momment. Progressive gender analysis and positions coexist and are expressed together with more conservative understandings that are sadly also boosted by a "reactionary" opposition to US rainbow imperialism and by the trends in capital and neoliberalism subsuming a lot of the LGBT messaging and movement. Those contradiction has led to the party not voting in favor of the Right Wings government's gay marriage and adoption bills,but mostly focusing on their opposition to certain parts of the bill from a socioeconomic PoV that has merrit but in no way excuses not supporting those bills. Stuff like their opposition to the existance and expansion of surrogate motherhood under capitalism , their opposition to economic and social benifits for Gays (as well as straights ) being tied to marriage to begin with. So they can in the same time be for stronger anti-discrimination laws against LGBT people , free trans healthcare etc etc but also force themselves to take nitpicky and incoherent positions on Gay Adoption or Marriage but not necessarily outwardly homophobic ones

To be more exact and lib friendly they:

Basicaly supported the center-fascist Bruning government that arose after the collapse of the previous coalition they were part of in 1930 by refusing to attack him cause he was the "lesser evil" and basicaly never voting against him in any junction that mattered. He unopposed or with SDP support accelerated and normalized Germany's military build up, empowered nationalism domesticaly, shifted foreign policy narratives along chauvinist and imperialist lines, eroded whatever democratic and parliamentarian norms Weimar Germany had left (he ended up governing only by decree in his last year) and most importantly completely missmanaged the economic crises with immenselyt anti-worker measures and horrible results. Effectively pushed the political theater considerably to the right.

SPD's toleration policy went to such an extent that in order to save Bruning, the SPD abstained in the 20 March vote on the construction of 'pocket battleship B'. It seemed impossible for the Social Democrats not to vote against this project. Rejection would have been in line with that principle of anti- militarism which in autumn 1928 had inspired the party to rebel against its own Chancellor, Hermann Muller, in the vote on the new battleship's predecessor, 'pocket battleship A'. But as both Chancellor Bruning and Reichswehr minister Groener had threatened to resign if the battleship's construction was rejected, the SPD decided to go along with it, basicaly facilitating the shift towards more militarist and right wing politics and delegitimizing themselves among the people that would be willing to fight the Nazis later, surrendering any chance of SDP leadership in any anti-Nazi movement of mass support .

The next test of the policy of'toleration': the emergency law of 5 June 1931, which involved radical reductions of social welfare expenditure. Bruning threatened to serve notice on the Prussian coalition (SDP stronghold) if it wasnt passed. The blackmail worked. At a session of the Council of Elders on 16 June, the SPD withdrew any motion against the upcoming austerity or the budget committee. It defended its compliance on the grounds that the government had declared its readiness to 'begin at once negotiations for the alteration of the emergency decree"

. As a price for that tolaration the SDP delegitimized themseleves and lost both electoral and grassroots support, vital for any anti-nazi movement. The Social Democrats in autumn 1931 had had to resign themselves to the splintering off of their extreme left wing, which set up independently as the SAP, Socialist German Workers Party). Nor did they allow themselves to be too disconcerted by their heavy losses in the Hamburg and Hessen elections of September and November 1931. The party leadership considered the defence of the 'Prussian stronghold' worth all these sacrifices. Two weeks after Hindenburg's re-election, the stronghold began quake. At the regional elections of 26 April 1932, Prussia's ruling coalition lost its majority. On 20 July 1932, the Prussian stronghold fell with a coup d'etat by which Bruning's successor had the cabinet of Otto Braun dismissed. The SPD showed basicaly no resistance to that, basicaly bend over without a fight and missed its last chance to bar the way to catastrophe while millions of communists and grassroots sympsthisers were malding and screaming for action . As historians argue if the working class had risen at that juncture over that coup they could have succeeded still.

Nah this probably is a Russian strike. Apparently a memorial service was held in a cafe over some AFU officer so someone tipped Russia off that there is a gathering of Ukranian soldiers and officers (like in that pizzaria/hotel strike a while ago) so they dusted them. Ukraine knows by now that concentrations and meetups of military in civilian areas will get targeted but they dont care. Same also with that drone exhibition last month. Russia will fire the missle and sadly there will prob be civilian casualities as well

Chinese socialist revolution before Mao's leadership is pretty legit. Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, are all real socialists, they truely cares about the worker and envisions a better future for China.

So no revolution at all? 95% of the critical mass and anything that can be called a large scale revolution (with organizational successes of the masses) happened in China in the 30s and had little to do with Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao previous work ,no matter how admirable. The CPC almost died and was built back up multiple times by the time Mao succeeded and Mao was vital in that. You cant get more legit than revolution under Mao. Under probably the worst odds and situation any communist party and revolution had to face they endured, made correct and miraculous choices and political and military manuvers at every turn and won, uplifting and liberating hundreds of millions of peasants and women. No Mao, no successfull revolution in China and no emancipation of the masses. Good luck doing the long march and outmanuvering the KMT from the countryside by amassing immense support with Chen Duxiu's ideas about the peasantry.

Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao may have envisioned a better socialist future for China but they were and would have been unable to make it happen. They lacked both the military genius, the correct analysis on the peasantry or the rhetoric and vision of mass politics that Mao had that allowed the CPC to pull through against all odds and win