Bulletins and News Discussion from March 10th to March 16th, 2025 - The New World Struggles To Be Born; Now Is The Time Of Proxy Wars - COTW: Myanmar

Image is from Wikipedia's article on the war..

I've wanted to cover Myanmar for a while now but haven't had the needed knowledge to write much more than "This situation really sucks." After doing a little reading on the situation, I feel even more confused. A decent analogy is the Syrian Civil War, at least while Assad was in power (though it's still pretty true today) - many different opposition groups, some co-operating with the United States, others not. The main government supported partially by an anti-American superpower, but who could live with that government collapsing if there are deals to be made with the group coming into power. A conflict kept going and exploited at least partially by the United States and other imperial core powers, though with plenty of genuine domestic animosity and desires for political independence.

Recently, the Myanmar government - the mainstream media uses "junta", which is probably accurate despite the connotations - has promised elections at the end of 2025. This doesn't seem likely to happen, and even if it did, how this would work in a country as war-torn as Myanmar is unclear. The government is losing territory and soldiers at a quick pace; they now hold only 21% of the country, though that 21% does at least comprise many of the cities. It's difficult to get a handle on the number of people affected because civil wars and insurgencies have been ongoing in some shape or form for decades, but we're talking at least millions displaced and thousands of civilians killed.

Here's a comment by @TheGenderWitch@hexbear.net from fairly recently that covers the situation in Myanmar:

Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.

You're viewing a single thread.

1K comments

I'm just going to comment on the leaked alleged "100 day US peace plan for Ukraine", because as events unfold, it is looking scarily accurate.
The leak was published first by Ukrainian outlet Strana Today, and dismissed by Ukraine as "Russian disinformation". But for supposed disinformation, it's looking more and more like accurate information.
So, according to the "schedule," Trump is said to be planning a phone call with Putin in late January or early February. In early February, he is planning to discuss the plan with Ukrainian authorities.
This has already happened. Trump had a phone call with Putin and communicated with Ukraine.
In February - the first half of March 2025, it is proposed to hold a meeting between Trump, Zelensky and Putin (a trilateral meeting or two bilateral meetings will be decided separately). The meeting should approve the main parameters of the peace plan, and then continue working on the agreement at the level of special representatives.
This happened, in two separate bilateral meetings in Saudi Arabia, albeit with delegations, and not Trump, Putin and Zelensky personally.
While negotiations are underway and hostilities continue, Trump does not block the sending of military aid to Ukraine.
From April 20, 2025 (Easter, which this year all Christian denominations celebrate on the same day) it is proposed to declare a ceasefire along the entire front line. At the same time, all Ukrainian troops must be withdrawn from the Kursk region.
We are here currently. A ceasefire across the entire frontline has been proposed. However, to help facilitate the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Kursk, the US had to pause the sending of military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine. Now that Ukrainian troops have been removed from Kursk so that the plan can move forward, the military aid and intelligence sharing will resume, as it has been reported.
At the end of April 2025, the International Peace Conference should begin its work, which will record an agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on ending the war with the mediation of the United States, China, a number of countries in Europe and the Global South.
I can see this happening. Zelensky is set to meet with the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, this month, so that's the " Global South" participation there.
At the end of April, the exchange of prisoners will begin according to the formula "all for all".
Explains Zelensky's comments on a prisoner exchange. No comments on the "children kidnapped by Russia" in this leak though.
By May 9, the International Peace Conference is expected to issue a declaration on ending the war in Ukraine based on agreed parameters.
After May 9, Ukraine is offered not to extend the martial law regime and mobilization.
Presidential elections are held in Ukraine at the end of August, and parliamentary and local elections at the end of October.
This explains Zelensky's panic, and the posturing of certain members of parliament. Zelensky could be out of the picture as soon as August.
Now for the actual plan to end the war:
The proposed parameters of the agreement to be concluded within the framework of the International Conference:
Ukraine will not be a member of NATO and declares neutrality. The decision to ban Ukraine from joining the Alliance must be approved at the NATO summit.
Ukraine will become a member of the EU by 2030. The EU undertakes obligations for the post-war reconstruction of the country.
Ukraine does not reduce the size of the army. The United States is committed to continuing support for the modernization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories. But does not officially recognize the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over them.
Some sanctions against the Russian Federation will be lifted immediately after the conclusion of a peace agreement. Some - over the course of three years, depending on Russia's compliance with the parameters of the agreement. All restrictions on the import of Russian energy resources to the EU will be lifted. But for a certain period of time, Europeans will be subject to a special duty, the proceeds of which will be used to restore Ukraine.
Parties that advocate for the Russian language and peaceful coexistence with Russia must be allowed to participate in elections in Ukraine. All actions against the UOC and the Russian language must be stopped at the state level.
The point about the European peacekeeping contingent after the end of military actions is highlighted as particularly problematic. On the one hand, Kyiv demands this as a guarantee of security. On the other hand, the Russian Federation is categorically against it. Separate consultations between all parties should be held on this point.
There is already progress on point 1 and 4 (Hegseth - Ukraine cannot join NATO or take back the occupied territories). Zelensky also just made a comment on point 4, in line with not recognising Russian control over them, but carefully worded as far as not fighting back to take them anymore. The EU will likely be strong armed into point 2, 3 and 5. As for point 7, I could see peacekeepers from China and the Global South being used.
To be honest I think Russia will accept such a deal, if territory in the four oblasts not currently under Russian control is up for negotiation, and there are conditions set on arms supplies to Ukraine over the 30 day ceasefire. The big obstacle is Kherson city, though I could see Russia allowing Ukraine to keep it, provided that they get the territory in the other three oblasts not currently under Russian control.
- I dont see this one happening
  Ukraine does not reduce the size of the army. The United States is committed to continuing support for the modernization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
  The whole war was about stopping a militarized ukraine
  
  I don't think Russia is in the position on the battlefield to demand a de-militirised Ukraine. To do that, Russia would have to be knocking on Kiev's door again. Putin also said in July last year that Russia would be willing to enter negotiations if Ukraine agrees to withdraw from the four oblasts, with an emphasis on Donetsk and Luhansk.
  
  Maybe Putin will accepted if the west+kiev recognize crimea and the 4 oblasts as russian territory
  I think a militarized ukraine point is so important that unless they offer putin something big in return he will simply not accept
  Because it doesnt matter if Ukraine is not part of NATO if they are still supplied and trained by them
  
  This is just Minsk 3 to allow a stall for more build up if number 3 is accepted
  
  If Putin accepts this, then admits defeat. This is essentially just another Minsk and that means another war five to ten years max and this time it will be a war against the rest of europe.
  
  Not part of NATO but absorbed directly into the US command and control structure instead
  And Europe pays for all of it, of course
  Making Germany pay war reparations even when they weren’t directly party to the war lmao just doing it for old times sake
  
  Lol the Imperialism reading group coming in handy today
- Ukraine will become a member of the EU by 2030. The EU undertakes obligations for the post-war reconstruction of the country.
  Ukraine does not reduce the size of the army. The United States is committed to continuing support for the modernization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
  I really don't think Russia would accept these. Ukraine aligning itself further towards the West in any way, even if it's just the EU and not NATO, is bad for Russia. Add on the fact that the EU has recently been talking about having a military, and it might as well be the same as Ukraine joining NATO.
  And Ukraine keeping its army at size plus modernizing makes things even worse.
  
  Plus the valuable intel and experience they'd have after fighting russia.
  
  An EU military (without US support) is not equivalent to NATO because it does not have the conventional capabilities or nuclear umbrella of NATO, which mostly belongs to the United States. It would take the EU decades to build the industry required to even attempt to replace what the United States brings to the table. Sure it's not ideal, but it's not close to what NATO offers.
  
  But it creates a potential progression of war with Ukraine -> war with EU -> war with NATO.
  And there will likely be some sort of skirmishes popping up in the coming years (e.g. terrorist attacks from Ukronazis) that could be escalated into war, especially if Ukraine feels empowered by the above.
- Ukraine will become a member of the EU by 2030. The EU undertakes obligations for the post-war reconstruction of the country.
  I just don't see this happening voluntarily, so you're right that the EU will have to be strong armed into accepting a country they likely have no realistic plan to integrate (probably can't just plug that shit into the german car industry), it's not even a "when ukraine is ready to be fully integrated" situation it's BY 2030, if ukraine is still a shitshow that will need nearly 100% of EU structural funds to integrate that's gonna be hugely problematic for the EU, the process can also be derailed by ukranian politics (whenever that comes back).
  Also who knows in what state the EU will be in by that time, austerity driven rearmament compounded by all EU money going to a single state would cause major issues to enough countries for a structural crisis
  
  yeah im not sure that the EU wants a Poland/Greece/Romania/Hungary in one packag
  
  It's, like, its citizens for sure won't want that, and if there's a referendum on it there are a couple of countries which would vote against for sure (france legally used to have to have referendums on EU countries joining, but they've since ammended it so that it only needs a parliamentary vote), and its leaders do want it because they probably see themselves as world historic figures building the best thing ever, "the european project", so they're ideologically motivated.
  Sadly since the EU isn't really a democratic institution for several reasons (including the kinds of elections it has) europeans likely won't have much say in the matter and ukraine will join in a sorry state with god knows what consequences. Probably more orban or georgescu like figures breaking the centrist party systems that still exist.
  
  All restrictions on the import of Russian energy resources to the EU will be lifted. But for a certain period of time, Europeans will be subject to a special duty, the proceeds of which will be used to restore Ukraine.
  The EU will not be allowed to recover, helped by cheap energy. Instead they're going to pay reparations.
  
  German car industry is dying and is there really a will to rebuild Ukraine? Nope, especially the more fiscal-conservative states will not stand for it. You think Poles will accept not getting the largest slice? And to pro-Bandera Ukraine?
  It will cause major instability amongst EU countries.
- Number 3 is unacceptable. De-militarized Ukraine is one of the goals of the SMO and Russia has stated hundreds of times that all goals will be met
  
  What Russia states, and what can be accomplished, are two different things. Unless Russia can get themselves in a battlefield position to demand the de-militirisation of Ukraine, there can't be any de-militirisation. Russia was last in this position in early 2022, which is why Russia demanded Ukrainian de-militirisation in the Istanbul peace talks back then. Getting into such a position again will either require a rapid collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines over the next few months (basically what happened in Kursk over the past few days, but across the entire front), or years more of war, with Russia grinding Ukraine down until Ukraine is forced to accept the demand of de-militirisation.
  Given that the frontlines outside of Kursk are not collapsing and US military aid and intelligence sharing have resumed, is Russia prepared to fight the war until 2026, or 2027, or even longer until Ukraine collapses? Or will Russia accept the deal that they can get now, and try to negotiate some more concessions? That is the most important question to ask right now...
  
  If Russia negotiates right now without Ukrainian demilitarization then this will be merely be launching point of the imperialist WW3 in a few years. Putin will grind them into dust
  
  Well Putin has fallen for/went along with such shit before. We must keep his interests in mind, and it's likely still his dream to be accepted as an equal on peaceful and profitable terms. I hope he's not going to do it again, but I see no reason to believe he's fundamentally shifted in the past 10 years. His interests have shifted his alliances but those can be shifted again
  
  but I see no reason to believe he's fundamentally shifted in the past 10 years.
  we are in the midst of a bloody three year war that he initiated proactively. the west has acted perfidiously repeatedly under all leaders. he's been through minsk 1 and 2. I just don't think he'll do the same thing, he snapped in 2022
  
  Seems idealistic to think this. His interests haven't changed, but how he can/if he can materially gain benefits in those interests has changed. And I shouldn't even focus on him, this is about the ruling class of Russia. Just because the relationship between the current situation and their material interests has shifted doesn't mean that those interests have. His "snapping" was due to a realization that those interests were no longer in line with actions in line with Western Empire. That can still shift quickly and easily if the US really chooses to change those conditions. Using the word 'snapping' and making this claim insinuates some discontinuity which I just see no evidence for.
  
  you have no explanation then for why he started the war against the west
  
  I absolutely do, though I don't think he "started the war against the west" in those terms. I resent being accused of such for a claim I'm not convinced you even understand.
  Putin and Russia have interests in security on their borders and national security in general, because that stability is in the ruling class interests. For a long while, the assumed greater stability in these interests was to be found in going along with the west instead of confronting them. Due to the west's continued antagonism, due to Ukraine's position geographically, politically, and economically relative to Russia, and due to a growing possibility to find stability outside of the unipolar Western Empire (e.g. with China), the greater stability was clearly to be found in negotiating a more advantageous position for Russia through war against the party being used against those interests. The fact that the interests eventually pointed in direct opposition to the Western Empire is not due to any discontinuity in these material interests, but in a slow shift in the effects and future effects of the policies of the west on those material interests.
  This is clearly no fundamental shift, and it doesn't make him some ideological hero (or hero in any real sense), just the representative of a set of interests which became aligned against the west. The US could today guarantee, with material backing (I can't imagine how at the moment, but I need no example for something that has happened so often in the past) that the interests of the ruling class will be brought in line by a policy shift of the west. And with that guarantee, I'm entirely unconvinced that Putin and the Russian ruling class will maintain your "war against the west".
  I'm no pessimist about this, I think that the US is unlikely to do this and that the interests of the two ruling classes are too fundamentally, in the bases, opposed. The West would have to do some Cold-War level concession-giving, which is too forward thinking than the West is used to at the moment. But that is very different than thinking Putin himself had some fundamental shift.
  
  Material interests material interest material interests. Materialism isn't just saying material interests over and over again, you are reverse engineering your 'materialism' to contort and fit into what you want to believe already (which of course is anti-Russia doomerism because you are a Westerner, and all Westerners have to have this worldview for some reason). This has no predictive power. You just lay out a timeline of what happened then say "A was because of Material Interest then B was because of Material Interest, and A and B seem contradictory but material interests changed" doesn't add anything to analysis. You can't predict anything. You failed to predict the war. You failed to predict the outcome of the war. You will continue to fail to predict anything using this lazy tailism of history.
  
  I named 2 material interests and left the economic one, too obvious to need naming, of profitable (for the ruling class) trade unnamed but clearly implied. I then shifted to speaking, generally, about the phenomenon without reference to any specific interests, because the analysis can work in any case replacing the interests with any other set that still fits the dynamics (what if Russia cared about the land question instead of national security? Same analysis, new basic material interest). I'm not proving something will happen here, I'm arguing that no discontinuity is needed to understand what happened. I'm limiting the conversation to only 'interests' to make a specific point. I don't think you understand this difference.
  I also have the same prediction as you, with the stated caveat that the US absolutely has the possibility to change it (likely won't because of its own ineptitude despite it likely being a good scenario for US interests). You clearly cannot see past your hero-worship of Putin to see the current shift of alliances as malleable at all. It's naive idealism, with the result that you won't see the blindsiding of a betrayal coming, even if that one isn't happening now
- Russian porkies would be happy, who cares about a million army on your border financed by eu and then integrated into eu expeditionart unit, that's not a q2 problem.
  
  They would certainly be happy to be able to sell their energy to Europe again, and for the sanctions to be over.

1003 comments