Image is from this article in the New York Times.
A magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Morocco on September 8th, with the epicenter 73 kilometers away from Marrakesh.
At least 2500 people have died as of September 11th, most outside Marrakesh, with more people being pulled out of the rubble every day, making it the deadliest earthquake in Morocco since 1960, and the second-deadliest earthquake this year (first being, of course, the one in Turkiye-Syria in February, which killed nearly 60,000 people). While the deaths are the most horrific part, damage to historic sites has also been very significant - including buildings dating back to the 1000s.
Morocco is situated close to the Eurasian-African plate boundary, where the two plates are colliding. The rock comprising the Atlas Mountains, situated along the northwestern coast of Africa separating the Sahara from the Mediterranean Sea, are being pushed together at a rate of 1 millimeter per year, and thus the mountains are slowly growing. As they collide, energy is stored up over time and then released, and faults develop. The earthquake this month originated on one such fault, as did the earthquake in 1960. The earthquake hypocenter was 20-25 kilometers underground, with 1.7 meters (or 5 and a half feet) of rock suddenly shifting along a fault ~30 kilometers (19 miles) long.
Earthquake prediction is still deeply imprecise at best, and obtaining decent knowledge and forewarning of earthquakes is highly dependent on dense seismometer arrays that constantly monitor seismic activity, such as in Japan, and detailed understanding of the local and regional tectonic environment. The best way to prevent damage is to build earthquake-resistant infrastructure and establish routines for escaping buildings and reaching safety. All of these, of course, are underdeveloped to nonexistent in developing countries, particularly in poorer communities inside those countries.
The Country of the Week, in honour of Allende’s death 50 years ago (the only bad geopolitical event that has occurred on September 11th, of course), is Chile. Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
Here is the map of the Ukraine conflict, courtesy of Wikipedia.
The weekly update is here!
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.
CJ here put together a good list of examples of the anti Russian actions executed while trump was the US figurehead that undermines the idea that trump would be somehow better for peace than Biden, whoever gets a second term. I appreciate the preamble where she notes that these are all material actions and not mean things that make baby lanyards cry
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia-ada915b07f97
Here’s the list; I’m gonna group some of these together for the sake of brevity:
Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance toward Russia, which CNN itself called “its toughest line yet against Russia’s resurgent nuclear forces.” Withdrawing from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Ending the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed both sides to conduct reconnaissance flights over one another’s territories. Putting sanctions on Russia in response to “human rights violations” and their actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, as well as “interference in the US elections”. Then more sanctions which targetted various high-up Russian officials and oligarchs, which Vice says were “the most aggressive sanctions yet.” Then two rounds of sanctions in response to the Skripal poisoning, and expelling 60 Russian diplomats. Then more sanctions due, again, to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Then yet more sanctions, this time on Prigozhin and friends. Then secondary sanctions on China and Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400s. Forcing RT and Sputnik to register as “foreign agents”. Refusing to admit that Crimea is part of Russia.
Threatening sanctions on Germany if they build Nord Stream 2.
Arming Ukraine, in which Trump was actually more hawkish than Obama was. Selling ~$5 billion worth of Patriot missiles to Poland, and 1000 troops. Sending Abrams tanks to Estonia. Putting NATO warships in the Black Sea. Training Polish and Latvian forces to “resist Russian aggression”.
Bombing Syria, a Russian ally, for the chemical weapons allegations. Occupying Syrian oil fields, explicitly stating that it’s to deny Syria financial resources. Killing Russians in Syria; the exact number is unknown but it could be from a handful to hundreds.
Withdrawing from the Iran Deal to try and hurt Iran, a key Russian ally.
Staging coup attempts in Venezuela, another Russian ally.
This dates back to November 2019, so it doesn’t even cover all of Trump’s presidency. It’s pretty clear that Trump was much more hawkish on Russia than Obama, and it only seems like Trump was less hawkish on Russia because Biden has been such a bloodthirsty, reckless warmongerer even by the standards of US presidents that he catapulted us to the edge of nuclear war.
The Trump narrative is based on his inconsistency, so arguing based on his historical record is already a contradiction and doesn’t realy change much.
The second point is that Ukraine and NATO was never anywhere close to a relevant topic in US politics and even this is arguably already back down from the 2022 peak. So you can underestimate how far Trump will go to spite libs and everyone else he personaly doesn’t like. If libs continue to continue this war at all costs then it is easy to say Trump will just take the easy political win here.
My personal theory is Trump likes all of these traits like “the negotiator”, “the business man”, “billionaire”, “big deal guy”, “tough guy”, the boss etc.
So the easy win for him is to get soyboy little Putin(or maybe even make this about shitty “liberal” EU/NATO and getting them to do what he wants) to come to the negotiation table “against his will” or something and do a Vietnam and try to make this humiliating defeat into a big victory because Trump is actualy the peace guy if you didn’t know lol. Yes why not chuds will take the pro-peace route just to spite libs because he is tough and Putin respects him so that is Putin accepted a peace deal. You get the picture.
Also I should add there were already multiple MSM articles trying to push the narrative Russia wanted to destroy Ukraine so by failing to do this it means this is already a victory for the west. All of those articles about Putin trying to rebuild the the USSR or even the Russian empire, old news.
They tried to push this and failed because Ukraine’s maximalist approach, they want not peace but the whole Donbas and primarily Crimea back at all costs. So no shitty NYT article will convince the Nazis they’re actually winning if they simply survive. Anyway this is also why the US can’t “freeze” the war yet.
The TL;DR is libs made the mistake of turning the Ukraine war into part of their own personality, people with Ukraine flags even though they can’t point to it on the map(certainly not before last year anyway) so even though nothing is certain I don’t see why Trump will shake hands with libs on this issue. Putin would have to escalate against NATO, actualy use a nuke even for chuds to turn around and actualy believe Russia is the enemy.
Only problem with this theory is I just don’t think the rest of the repubs would let him, the MIC loves this war and they’re all in its pockets just like the dems are, as fun as it is to say he’s a political outsider he still needs the party’s support for something like this.
I think you are overestimating the power and influence trump has on the situation. It could be that 2025-2028 will see the US pull the pin on ukraine support or maybe not, but the material actions that occur will occur whether trump or Biden is in the big chair. Even though Russia is winning the attrition war and is weathering sanctions, there is a lot of juice left for the empire to squeeze out of ukraine. Worst case for the empire (say even more abject military failure from ukraine and a collapse of the West’s ability to influence the global south), continued destruction of ukraine is useful to the empire to solidify their control over Western vassals. Best case, Russia fucks up bigtime and the empire gets a mulligan in some ugly insurgency. Further, based on precedent in how the US uses other countries as proxies, it takes 5+ years to really wring out all the value of a people/nation state for moloch.
All that is to say that while the aesthetic presentation of whatever happens will definitely differ depending on who is present, both parties/candidates are beholden to the same military industrial complex forces that actually direct policy. Whatever a second term trump might do will definitely be presented by him as owning the libs, 100% agreed there. However, neither the dog brained libs or the hooting chuds that make up 95% of the American electorate actually understand anything about the situation, meaning that the rhetoric that is used to describe whatever the empire chooses to do doesn’t have to reflect any actual reality.
Setting aside the big picture forces that in my opinion are more relevant for setting the direction of the conflict, trump cultivates an unpredictable reputation but ultimately he is still an 80 year old man. I sincerely doubt he has gotten smarter or learned new tricks while stewing in maralago the last 4 years. I think his previous term as president is a good indicator of what he would be like in round 2. That is, the figurehead of an empire that is hard on Russia that is nevertheless attacked by
libs for being soft on Russia.
Now I’d be interested to see that play out. I think it’d be really funny if Trump stopped the war just to own the dems, but that would be a good thing happening so I doubt it. But if Trump does continue how are the Libs going to respond? Like if he sends over a few billion more dollars will Liberals have to become anti war or pro Trump? What particular kinda pretzel will they bend themselves into I wonder.
Oh sure, I agree it would be amazing if he became president deals and wrapped this up - I could give a shit who ends it as long as it ends or at least de-escalates. Assuming the war continues under trump, it will still be a losing proposition for ukraine. I expect that in that case we’ll see the stabbed in the back meme that nazis love so much.
This is Biden’s war through and through. He started it in 2014 and reignited it in 2022. If you think Trump isn’t going to end it just to spite Biden, you’re fooling yourself.
It’s gotten the hottest under Biden but ukraine has been fucked with by the USA since the beginning of the cold war. This is an American project, not a Biden project.
I would agree with both of your statements.
There’s going to be a ceasefire when neither side feels they can afford to make anymore gains on the ground. Both Ukraine and Russia aren’t interested in that right now. If that continues, I don’t believe Trump has any capacity to force a deal. I’m not a big understander of the American system, but it seems like congress could keep arms flowing to Ukraine with Trump in office. So even just cutting off supplies to Ukraine might be too much effort for Trump.
But that seems like the only viable option: cutting off Ukraine and just giving Russia what it wants. Which is still a hard sell for Trump. Especially if most of the people around him will pressure him against it.
If the war in Ukraine has progressed to the point where both sides are ready to make a deal, I don’t think it matters who’s in the white house.