Image is of the American military during their occupation of Haiti at the beginning of the 20th century, taken from this NYT article from 2022: Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged.


In the aftermath of the assassination of Jovenel Moïse in 2021 and his replacement by Western comprador Ariel Henry, the situation in Haiti is the most dire it has been in decades - by some metrics, even worse than the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake (CW: rape, violence including against children). Millions do not have enough food. Outbreaks of disease are rampant. The government - such that it still exists, which is becoming increasingly debatable - has only a minority control over the capital city, with some estimates putting the influence of armed groups at 80%.

America’s search for somebody, anybody, to intervene in Haiti has ended, with Kenya answering the call. President Ruto has announced that he will send 1000 police officers to Haiti. Kenya’s Foreign Minister has tried to sell this intervention as pan-Africanism. Other Caribbean states, like the Bahamas and Antigua and Barbuda, have offered to send police officers too.

I can’t really say it any better than the Black Alliance for Peace’s own statement:

Kenya has offered to deploy a contingent of 1,000 police officers to help train and assist Haitian police, ostensibly to “restore order” in the Caribbean republic. Yet, their proposal is nothing more than military occupation by another name; an occupation of Haiti by an African country is not Pan-Africanism, but Western imperialism in Black face. By agreeing to send troops into Haiti, the Kenyan government is assisting in undermining the sovereignty and self-determination of Haitian people, while serving the neocolonial interests of the United States, the Core Group, and the United Nations.

There is an urgent need for clarity on the issue of occupation in Haiti. As described in a recent statement on Haiti and Colonialism, Haiti is under ongoing occupation. No call for foreign intervention into Haiti from the administration of appointed Prime Minister Ariel Henry can be considered legitimate, because the Henry administration itself is illegitimate. BAP has repeatedly pointed out that Haiti’s crisis is a crisis of imperialism. Haiti’s current unpopular and unelected government is propped up only by Haiti’s de facto imperial rulers: the unseemly confederacy of the Core Group countries and organizations, as well as BINUH (the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti), and a loose alliance of foreign corporations and local elites.

Henry and the UN have made a mockery of sovereignty by mouthing the slogan “Haitian solutions to Haitian problems,” yet finding the only solution in violence through foreign military intervention. After repeated failed attempts to organize an occupying force to protect their interests and impose their will on the Haitian people (including appeals to the multinational organization, the Caribbean Community [CARICOM] for troops), they have now found a willing accomplice in Kenya, an east African country with its own set of internal problems.

Indeed, what’s in it for Kenya? An opportunity to both train and enhance the salaries of local police forces and garner a patina of prestige, or at least bootlicking approval, from the West. And for Haiti? White blows from a Black hand and a further erosion of their sovereignty.


And, by the way, here’s the Black Alliance for Peace’s statement calling for no intervention by ECOWAS in Niger, calling the organization a Western comprador organization similar to CARICOM’s role in Haiti.


Welcome to our friends throughout the Lemmyverse!

Here is the map of the Ukraine conflict, courtesy of Wikipedia.

This week’s first update is here in the comments.

This week’s second update is here in the comments.

This week’s third update might not happen because I’m busy dunking.

Links and Stuff

The bulletins site is down.

Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists

Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Add to the above list if you can.


Resources For Understanding The War


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.

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.


Telegram Channels

Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.

Pro-Russian

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

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.


Last week’s discussion post.


  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah. They were doing peace talks in turkey and had a signed draft. Russia started to pull back and then Bojo showed up. Deal got nuked and a few days later they were all claiming Russia genocide Butcha even though there was a video of Ukrops walking around executing people for not wearing a blue arm band.

    • jimbojambo [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you! It’s sad and dumb how close we could have been to the war being over sadness Although I guess Ukraine could have just bought time to build up their military for a couple of years.

    • dinklesplein [any, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s pretty cope to say with retrospect that the russian army was legitimately in a position to threaten kiev though. bojo definitely scuppered the peace don’t get me wrong, just that had the war continued they would’ve needed to pull out of kiev regardless so it wasn’t a true goodwill gesture.

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is not so much whether Russia can threaten Kyiv or not, but the mere presence of a large Russian army in the area is enough for you to divert significant portion of your forces away from other fronts to defend the capital city.

        There was the infamous 40-mile convoy sitting there just doing nothing. If Russia had not pulled back, then you will be forced to defend the area in case there are sudden movements from the Russian side, which means your fighting strength is lowered elsewhere with less chances of achieving military successes on the other fronts.

        • ChapoKrautHaus [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There was the infamous 40-mile convoy sitting there just doing nothing.

          This shit happens in every single mechanized war and means absolutely nothing except that frontline fighting takes up an insane amount of ammo that logistics planners constantly underestimate for some reason.

          Even the text book blitzkrieger Guderian had his 40 mile convoy moment outside Sedan in 1940. It’s basically WW2 canon that had the Allies found and bombed the largest traffic jam in history up to that point, France wouldn’t have fallen like it did,like half the German armor was in that convoy.

          If you prefer a more recent US example, there was a lot of vehicles stuck outside Nasiriyah in 2003. Happens all the time and it’s infuriating how everybody had their dumb take on that stupid convoy.

        • dinklesplein [any, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          i mean you can certainly post-hoc say that the thrust had utility as a diversionary thrust but like their intention was 100% to do a fast decapitation strike and when that failed they pivoted to using it as a feint. both can be true imo.

          • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course both can be true, but there is nothing to “cope” about as you commented above.

            We may never know the full details obviously, but from what can be reconstructed from openly published information: Ukraine mobilized significant force towards the eastern front (Donbass), Ukraine increased shelling of the area by 10 times and the signs of an impeding invasion - the question is: how do you divert that force away from the eastern front?

            The fact is that the Kyiv axis did divert significant force away from the Donbass front and allowed the Russians to establish their foothold from the south in Kherson, then in Melitopol and eventually towards Mariupol.

            I’ll give you another example: during the 1942 Soviet counter-offensive in Stalingrad, the offensives were carried out simultaneously along two axes: the Rzhev axis (Operation Mars) in the north and the Stalingrad axis (Operation Uranus) in the south.

            To ensure the success in Stalingrad, Stalin leaked the Rzhev offensive plan to the Germans, which led to substantial amount of German army being diverted away from Stalingrad and towards Rzhev. The Rzhev offensive failed, but Paulus’s 6th Army was annihilated in Stalingrad. (Because Stalin did not tell Zhukov about the leak, for Stalin, Rzhev was a feint, but for Zhukov it was a real operation fully intended to crush the Germans - both can be true because of this)

            Sure, it would have been nice to have the Rzhev axis succeed too, but is it “cope” just because the Rzhev offensive failed even when you have achieved strategic victory of the overall campaign?

      • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        They might not have been able take over Kiev but they were more than capable of threatening Kiev. They were only 31 km away. They could easily have set themselves up to bombard Kiev the way the Ukrops fire mines over Donetsk.

        If they had dug in Ukraine would have had to send troops to push them out and the Russians could have taken way more on the southern front. It would have probably lead to significantly higher losses for Russia.

        Who knows if hard aggression like that would have lost support for Russia from the international community or gotten NATO involved more directly but Kiev was definitely under threat.

        • dinklesplein [any, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          you’re speaking in terms of future hypotheticals (that i agree with) but i’m talking about what was happening when the SMO started and whilst the logistical issues were largely overblown and used as a stupid cudgel to attack russian military competence i also don’t think its unreasonable to say that the force they had gathered was not sufficient to do the task because it was done on such short notice.