zazen

In the connected comment to above I also said US would lose its economic tariff war against China. They also know they aren’t a clean match for any military adventure with China - Hegseth has said they lose to China in war game scenarios. This leads them to rhetorically downgrade China to a “economic competitor” rather than a “adversary” (more hostile language) in the national security strategy - despite project 2025 calling China the main threat. It’s still considered so (to empire) but they must adapt to reality. Make no mistake, this isn’t a strategic retreat - containing the rise of a rival superpower to maintain primacy is desired - but direct confrontation is too costly and high risk. Because they can no longer cheaply dominate everywhere due to imperial overstretch and rising powers competing - they must recalibrate and prioritise. Part of that is to tactically retreat to consolidate whatever they can ie low hanging fruit in Latin America (Venezuela) and from their own allies (Greenland) + ask their allies (vassals) to pay tribute and burden share (increase military spending and nod Japan to start barking via proxy at China). Hence the pivot to fortify with resilient supply chains and re-shoring industrial manufacturing for a possible (not necessarily a wanted) war case scenario. It’s necessary and smart to be self sustained to the degree that if a future confrontation were to happen it wouldn’t be as suicidal. It’s normal for every country to fortify what’s critical. The US has to deal with two uncomfortable facts: - It can’t decisively defeat a peer like China at acceptable cost. - It also can’t rule out confrontation entirely (even if highly unlikely or unwanted due to mutually assured destruction). So that forces a third path which is to reduce vulnerability. There’s obviously a more ethical way of doing this via influence and win-win partnerships - but empire is choosing to conduct itself imperially instead. China is actually more vulnerable than the US (imports food and energy on sea lanes its rival superpower navally polices). This same power has think tank pieces gaming naval blockade scenarios. This same power is starting to play pirates of the Carribean and more recently the Arctic. How did China plug these vulnerabilities? Trade, belt and road initiative, development projects and good relations with countries that can provide what it needs. As a diplomat said “when the West comes to Africa we get a lecture, when China comes we get a bridge”

Came upon this while chatting with GPT: ”There are two layers of resistance operating at once, and most analysis fails because it collapses them into one. At the micro level, there is resistance to a repressive, centralized state. That repression is real, harmful, and experienced directly by ordinary people. It expresses itself in protests, social unrest, and demands for reform. At the macro level, there is resistance by the state itself against external subjugation — sanctions, economic warfare, covert destabilization, and regime-change pressure by a dominant imperial system seeking to discipline a geostrategically important country that refuses submission. The critical insight is that the macro layer precedes and conditions the micro layer. A state under sustained siege cannot afford openness without exposing vulnerabilities that external powers are actively trying to exploit. As a result, it centralizes, securitizes dissent, and represses — not because repression is ideologically preferred, but because uncertainty under siege is existentially dangerous. This produces a self-reinforcing loop: economic pressure (largely sanctions-driven) creates hardship → hardship produces protest → protests are escalated or infiltrated → the state uses force to restore order → that force is framed externally as proof of inherent tyranny → further pressure and sanctions are imposed → hardship deepens. The population becomes both the subject of sympathy and the instrument of leverage. The irony is that the external power claiming to care about the people’s suffering is structurally responsible for sustaining the conditions that make that suffering unavoidable. The true regime in need of change is not simply the targeted state, but the global order that arrogates to itself the right to decide which governments are allowed to evolve organically and which must be coerced into collapse. Real reform requires breathing room, not suffocation. The macro solution, therefore, is not forced liberalization under threat, but a geopolitical order that tolerates plural paths, respects red lines, and allows medium and regional powers sufficient sovereignty to evolve without being turned into proxy battlegrounds. Without that shift, micro-level reform will remain sluggish or non existent — not by culture or ideology, but by structural forces.“ A great geopolitics vid from a Birds Eye view: Interesting how the left/right wing approach Iran vs Palestine. The above two vids shed light on it.

lol perfect quote. That’s true also - he is impulsive and performative but doesn’t mean there isn’t a larger strategy at play by those around him or within the state apparatus. He’s actually the perfect conduit for a late stage empire that doesn’t want to or have the time / resources to conduct policy politely. He’s absorbs reputational damage on behalf of the system - so much for MAGA boasting about him being against the deep state. Him having a “hulk smash” we look strong logic doesn’t mean he isn’t useful at a time like the one we’re in. It also doesn’t mean these actions will be good for the US empire long term - but instead will be self defeating as they alienate allies or force their own allies to hedge against the US. But late stage empires act brash and overextend themselves out of desperation just as USSR did. Greenlands always been on the radar: https://www.csis.org/analysis/america-arctic Even since the Cold War days where they needed it for early warning systems against Soviet ICBM’s that fly over the shortest distance that is the arctic. There actually is a plausible security angle to all this. Hence perhaps also the increase in military’s spending to €1.5t with mention of the golden dome: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260117-does-trump-need-own-greenland-to-build-his-golden-dome-missile-shield But instead of including allies in this arrangement and working along side them - they want to deny any future leverage to those same allies in a bid to maintain primacy. They don’t just want to be at the table but at the head.

Not sure this cleanly fits the groyper divide but interesting debate on the wider MAGA divide: Could say there’s three factions - libertarian non-interventionist MAGA who are anti-imperial by principle (Dave Smith) - neocon nationalist / interventionist MAGA who white wash imperialism under the banner of patriotic self-interest (D’Souza) - ethno-religous nationalist who only want intervention to serve their identified in-group or create a fortress around Western “civilization” ie Monroe doctrine. They also want internalised imperialism to enforce their version of America.

@Jodistrict Yeah he’s great overall which is why I listen to every vid of his. The OFCFG or simply the global elite have factions with different but usually overlapping interests - in constant negotiation. He recognises these factions but within the capital faction assumes a clean coordination. He also overlooks imperial empire logic (which seeks primacy) and overweights capital logic (which seeks profits). That distinctions helps make sense of things. For example theres a entire national security / deep state faction of elites who care more for geostrategic position and primacy than simply for profits - even though they are usually linked and can make a profit (MIC) from enforcing the US’s primacy. In this recent vid he acknowledges factions but then goes on to say that the capital elites want to “actively see the system devour itself” against the wishes of the neocon (imperial empire) faction who want to maintain the system through desperate acts that only expedite its fall. But these capital elites who seek profits literally depend on the system that enforces its primacy ie US dollar system, Western laws and financial markets. Just because they invest in emerging markets (BRICS / gulf) doesn’t mean their “engineering” the collapse of the West so they can rise with the east. Parasites don’t intentionally kill the host they depend on but extract till they do so anyway - but the intention isn’t there in some grand plan. It’s simply just hedging and de-risking or looking for new frontiers to make profit which is normal profit seeking behaviour. They wouldn’t saw the branch on which they sit which is the Western platform on which they make money and park money safely. These “transnational” elites invest beyond their home nation but still depend on it. Wherever else they wanna go with their money they will be and are subject to dealing with sovereigns (gulf and BRICS) who will discipline their capital predation unlike in the West in which they are backstopped by the state. Blatant imperial empire behaviour is initially used to establish the primacy of its platform, that their capitalists can then make profits on from a position of privilege. Blatant imperialism then becomes subdued imperialism as long as that platform isn’t challenged - it’s just managed. Once challengers to the system emerge (China, BRICS etc) that threaten the primacy of that platform - blatant imperialism awakens again to enforce it - which is what we see now. The product (oil) is less important than the platform (US/Western financial system) those products are bought and sold on. Amazon cares less about what product ranks 1st than the fact that their platform is the dominant one.

I wasn’t aiming for technical precision. I was generalizing to make a broader point that’s directionally correct as you nicely laid out in your own words “It's an ongoing battle orchestrated and paid for by Saudi and other actors.” That’s what I meant but could’ve worded better by Muslim Brotherhood offshoots ie it itself isn’t Wahhabi but that adjacent groups / offshoots adopted a salafist literalist lens that Wahhabism globalised via funding. That strand (Wahhabism) and orientation (salafist literalist) of Islam was imposed - that was pushed back on (because of the differences you correctly point out). And even its original sponsors are trying to unwind and de-radicalize it.

How Europe feels sending 50 soldiers to Greenland: Trumps just announced tarrifs on NATO allies over Greenland: I think the US empire is trying to lock in Greenland because of its increasing strategic importance. It’s already within the US orbit but under Euro sovereignty that still requires cooperation and permission they’d rather not ask for. Imperialism wants total control - especially over possible riches and leverage via trade corridors and choke points. What could give Europe more importance and geo-strategic value is being snatched away before it becomes relevant. Europe needs to start carving out its own autonomy and hedging pragmatically rather than being sucked into bloc thinking. Canada boosting ties with China in the “new world order” for example.

Like Raze said - Western governments back and uphold Israel to do what it does (meaning you can protest your own governments actions) where as they don't uphold Iran's. I saw someone say ''pro-Palestine protests are calling to stop bombs (on a besieged stateless people), pro-Iran protests are calling for dropping bombs (on a regime they want changed)''. One thing we can see is that marginalization leads to more radicalization. That happens in Western countries with ghettoized migrant populations who in fact take on more hard line strands of Islam than even Muslims in Muslim countries ie Dawah bros of UK / Muslim brotherhood offshoots who are more Wahabi / Salafi compared to a Middle East who are over that and trying to tackle it themselves - despite their own states funding much of that historically. Soviet era atheism forced top down brought a resurgence in Orthodox Christianity after USSR falling. We see right Wing Christian nationalism rising also. If religion and tradition are marginalized too fast, or all together erased (soviet) they go underground and come back later hardened. Ironically - the status quo will look to remain until Iran's given some breathing room to evolve slowly and organically over time which is a boring and ''un-revolutionary''. A lot of their hardening is due to self preservation of elites / mullahs + external pressure from being attempted to be contained by the imperial hegemon of the day (US and Western allies). Makes them dig their feet in and centralize the state because any ''liberalising'' or opening up provides surface area and vectors from which to subvert and bring down that same regime. Usually most states don't get repressive because they get boners for it but a lot due to external pressures which are applied to some and not others depending on how geopolitically relevant that country is (resources, chokepoints, population etc) and whether it is aligned ie subjugated or not to imperial interests. If sanctions were lifted and it could get wealthier + integrate and feel accommodated in the region / world + have a strong middle class of educated people travelling and interacting with the world = that is the best bet at bottom up change and reform happening. Even Kirk commented on intervention:

Great breakdown of events. Everyone seems to be bracing for something to happen but who knows when - most of the US assets (ships etc) are around Venezuela in the Caribbean so maybe they need to move more into the region before doing anything as Elliot says. Also 25% of interceptors being depleted in the last 12 day war against Israel is worrying - these are expensive and take time to procure. The only way the US would do something is if it can guarantee a short shock and awe campaign - get in and get out sort of thing. They aren't prepared for prolonged war as Israel would be without any air defense within 30 days. The only reason Venezuela was done was because they obviously had military insiders bought off allowing for heli's to fly in low without even any attempt at shooting them down which a simple RPG could do let alone other means. Short engagement is what their after rather than entanglement like a Vietnam / Afghanistan. Saying that - deception and trickery is a hallmark of the current admin like we've seen. So Iran is still on high alert - if those assets are moving in like Elliot says then anything is possible over the weekend. It could be that the protests got cracked down on very quickly shortening the time horizon for them to act upon a distracted state - starlink was shut down (prob via Chinese or Russian tech). I'd be very surprised if anything were to happen though. This guy breaks down the Iranian situation well:

@Elliott

The best video to understand Iran from a Iranian American: https://x.com/sharghzadeh/status/2010790722027618359?s=20 Also the below two for the geopolitics: 14min onwards for the following: Imagine the West claiming it wants to bring democracy to Iran when in 1953 the same West overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing oil - then backed the dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi who crushed democracy through secret police, torture, and repression to protect Western oil interests. If the current regime change were to work - there would still be secular authoritarianism needed just to maintain order against a ideological segment of the population who are loyal to the cause, just like the monarchists of past. But also - when you are targeted by the world hegemon due to being geopolitically defiant against being folded into the imperial blob - that invites containment and coercion which then requires a level of centralization and repression to stabilize against it. That then becomes a feed back loop of justification ''see, they're repressive which is why we must bring the evil regime down''. It's a bind of sorts. No country or state would allow agents of chaos torching buildings and targeting government officials / police to roam free without any crack down. That's the whole point - to provoke a reaction then point the finger to the regime that needs ''democratic shock therapy'' and intervention. It provides a casus belli for by the hegemon not wanting defiance and challengers to the system they dominate in. Big Uncle Sam crying at its fading primacy and trying to fold any last holdouts of defiance into its imperial blobby bitch tits. ''We're still men'' is metaphor for ''we're still great aren't we?'' Zionists must be crying now because the regime change seems to have calmed down or flopped. Islamaphobe's boners must have also gone limp because ''evil Islam'' hasn't crashed and burned to be replaced by liberal utopia. Passport bro's also pissed cos they can't go after Persian baddies.

Hard to get proper information on Iran and it's quite polarized - apparently its on average a third (prob less) who are pro regime, another third anti-regime, and a middle third who fear total collapse and civil unrest so are the undecided middle. Don't think its close to regime change yet just by going on past history. In the revolution in 1979 the entire oil sector was shut down which impacted the state functioning. Protests were across classes, age groups and country wide. This seems to be more urban youth led but seems to be gaining traction? The regime can tolerate mass protest and riff raff via harsh policing but once state machinery starts getting affected and defection / walk outs from the IRGC (military) start happening is when things really break. The combination of a teetering undecided middle who hate chaos and fear what would come next + a loyal maybe 20-30% (or less who knows) + the IRGC being intact so far means the regime will most likely remain despite street level tensions. Oil sector boycott / strikes have to happen + IRGC defections. There's clearly economic grievances massively induced by Western sanctions + demands for reforms and loosening up of theocratic governance or for it to be abolished all together, maybe only remaining symbolically. I think that's what was sort of happening as Masoud Pezeshkian was a reformist voted in in 2024. Hijab enforcement wasn't there according to street vids: A country can be badly run (repressive, mismanaged etc) but also badass for resisting or not subordinating to Western imperialism (Venezuela, Iran). A lot of the conditions are unilaterally imposed via sanctions which are basically financial WMD. There's 3 kinds of WMD - kinetic (nukes), financial (SWIFT sanctions), geographic (choke points). The US and West have monopoly on financial WMD which is why BRICS+ is looking for a exit / optionality / off ramp / hedge against that veto. Iran has the straight of Hormuz as a important veto chokepoint - if it hadn't perhaps it would have been engaged with earlier in a military sense. Odd timing to have Bibi and Trump last month around new year speaking on Iran and how they need to get attacked if Iran is pursuing more missiles. It's as if the pre-text is being set up for action and so obviously amplifying the protests which seem to be hijacked by a media eco system of the West and on the ground provocateurs confirmed by Israeli media and Mike Pompeo himself saying Mossad's on the ground. They could be hoping for this to topple the government and if not, attack while the state is distracted and fractured internally. A lot of people talking of imminent attack and even Iran pre-emptively attacking Israel as to not be on the back foot. I still don't see how they could if 25% of Israel's interceptors got finished in 12 days last time showing how vulnerable Israel is. It takes millions + time to procure more interceptors. If Iran piles down missiles on Israel for 30 days they could be sitting ducks with no interceptors left. Two videos to get a decent sense of Iran. First - the bad of it ie theocracy (I know both of them have bias's but its still pretty decent: Second, the geopolitics of it in which its being boxed in by Western imperialism: Obviously also biased by omitting Iran's proxy strategy in the region. But the large structural driver is Western subordination coming to heads with a nation wanting to resist that - they have experience and memory of the past (1953 coup) which led to the revolution. Iran has a strong civilizational identity to rally around and a geography that protects them from easy invasions. The thing with giving a country hard times via economic warfare is that you entrench the hard liners under a seige mentality and give their resistance narrative fuel. The best way to loosen a country up is to create conditions of stability that lead to prosperity. That doesn't mean they become exactly like the liberal West, but they function at a higher level that's sensitive to their own culture. Why the global south and BRICS is even a thing.

lol true there are colonial leftovers. But now go over current US vassals. https://files.libcom.org/files/Michael Hudson - Super Imperialism - New Edition_ The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance (2003).compressed.pdf What European island today has more impact on the world than the US dollar along with its financial WMD ie sanctions it can unilaterally impose on countries unwilling to subordinate - that a subordinate European continent tags along with? US’s global leverage is maintained through a monopolised financial system backstopped by force or the threat of it via US naval policing and 700+ bases. That’s the imperial arrangement. Both Europeans and Americans are scapegoating each other as the “real” imperial culprit, when in reality they co-created, benefited from, and enforced the same world order for decades. Moral finger wagging at each other is to blameshift and maintain their self image - because majority of the world can see this arrangement clearer than ever and more importantly - actually have some teeth and leverage to extricate themselves from it. That order no longer maps onto material reality. It’s being structurally challenged by rising powers making it brittle rather than dominant. Former European great powers, already post-imperial, are now tagging along a fading superpower that is trying to prevent decline. The US is moving from leadership to consolidation due to pressure and increasingly willing to cannibalize allies to preserve primacy. That’s why transatlantic unity is fracturing. It’s 15% of the world fighting to maintain primacy and privilege vs a 85% that are now contesting it.

Precisely brother This guy actually has a good vid on a plausible EU army operating without US approval (he still doesn't say who will lead the command though) political will is still a major issue but that could get there with both Russia and now the US acting the way it is: Ritter: ''The Camel’s Bloody Nose The other day I wrote a post which made use of an analogy involving a camel and a tent—in short, to keep the camel from entering the tent once it stuck its nose under the tent, one needed to smack it on its nose. Last night Russia punched the camel in the nose. The use of the Oreshnik missile against strategic energy targets located near the western Ukrainian city of Lvov, combined with a massive strike on energy infrastructure targets in Kiev, represents a crystal clear response to the west’s ongoing targeting of Russian energy infrastructure, including CIA-backed drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and US Naval seizures of Russian-flagged oil tankers. The Russian Ministry of Defense likewise linked the Russian attacks to the Ukrainian drone strike that targeted President Putin’s residence late last month. The use of the Oreshnik is always a major escalation not fully appreciated by those who casually encourage its employment. It is only the second time in history that an intermediate range nuclear-capable strategic missile has been used in combat (the first was the initial use of Oreshnik back on November 21, 2024.) This time, the Oreshnik struck a target close to the Ukrainian-Polish border. The signal this attack sent to NATO nations is clear—Russia has the ability to strike NATO nations with impunity using non-nuclear conventional weaponry. NATO has no ability to defend against such an attack. It was interesting that Russia opted to fire the Oreshnik from the Kaputin Yar missile test facility. Russia and Belarus recently announced that an Oreshnik-equipped brigade was put on combat duty at a base in Belarus. But the attack did not originate from this unit. Russia has indicated that it is fielding additional Oreshnik-equipped brigades. Kapustin Yar is a location where the combat equipment of the Oreshnik missile system is married with the personnel operating it for the final training and technical preparation necessary before a unit can be deemed combat ready. The recent Oreshnik launch on Lvov may have been an operational training event repurposed for the purpose of sending a message to the west. This was not a launch from a strategic asset that has been placed on combat duty. This was an operational training event. There is a difference. Russia once again appears to be sending a message to the west that it seeks to limit escalation. This time the camel got a bloody nose. The next time—if there is a next time—the camel may not survive. Let’s hope the west is sophisticated enough to comprehend the message Russia appears to be sending.''

Biggest obstacle beyond a domestic military industry is unity and leadership that isn’t contested: How US neutered domestic Euro military sovereignty: