this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)

news

23464 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Image is of coup supporters in Niamey, waving the flag of Niger and Russia.


While the coup in Niger is an obvious reason for this megathread's subject, the inspiration to focus here rather than somewhere else in the world this week came from @solaranus@hexbear.net's comment here.

Anyway, as a quick introduction to Niger - the country won independence from the French in 1960 and has since been in an alternating cycle of military governments and more democratic arrangements. In 2010, a junta took over the country from the military junta already ruling it, and then successfully transitioned the country to democracy within a year. President Issoufou was elected and then re-elected in 2016. President Bazoum was democratically elected in 2021, and has just been overthrown last week. General Tchiani looks to be the new head of state.

Like many countries that were previously colonies, outright colonialism by its imperial country has been replaced by neocolonialism by that same country. France issues their currency, thus allowing France to do what the US does with its dollar around the world but in miniature. The country is incredibly poor, surviving on subsidence agriculture, with much of its exports being minerals like gold and uranium, which many children under the age of 14 are employed in extracting. Also like other previously French colonies, the new guys in charge appear to be flipping them the bird, with Burkina Faso and Mali relatively recently asking them to fuck off. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that this is happening as internal dissent inside France itself continues to boil. Given the Russian flags being waved and Putin's promises to supply free grain to some African countries (and though Niger isn't mentioned, Burkina Faso and Mali notably are), one imagines that Russia also might have a hand in things.

Burkina Faso's president, Traore, has been talking with Mali and Guinea, and now Niger - all ruled by military governments - and asking if they're interested in federation, with Mali showing some interest. Traore follows in the tradition of Thomas Sankara, and has appointed a Prime Minister who is similarly aligned. Traore has recently met with a Chinese representative and has firmly aligned himself with Russia, saying that Burkina Faso has "one and the same outlook" on building a new world order, saying:

"Russia made great sacrifices to liberate Europe and the world from Nazism during World War II. We have the same history,"

"We are the forgotten peoples of the world. And we are here now to talk about the future of our countries, about how things will be tomorrow in the world that we are seeking to build, and in which there will be no interference in our internal affairs,"

"However, a slave who does not fight [for his freedom] is not worthy of any indulgence. The heads of African states should not behave like puppets in the hands of the imperialists. We must ensure that our countries are self-sufficient, including as regards food supplies, and can meet all of the needs of our peoples. Glory and respect to our peoples; victory to our peoples! Homeland or death!"


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

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

No update on Wednesday because I am still busy.

Friday's update is here in the comments.

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.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Teekeeus@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

With China in sights, New Zealand signals major defense policy shift

New Zealand apparently wants to run with the pack now countering China — and may seek to join AUKUS, too.

Those are the key takeaways from a barrage of new plans to reshape New Zealand’s defense policy. Not just one, but three new reports were released simultaneously on Friday morning by the country’s Minister of Defence, Andrew Little.

These include New Zealand’s inaugural National Security Strategy, along with a military-focused Defence Policy and Strategy Statement. A third document, the “Future Force Design Principles,” spells out some further general recommendations for reconfiguring New Zealand’s military.

Collectively, the publicly released plans – which run to over 12,000 words on 82 pages — add up to the biggest shake-up for New Zealand’s foreign and defense policy in a generation.

New Zealand currently spends around 1.4 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on its military, according to figures from the World Bank. But spending is already on the way up: Labour announced a $NZ747 million cash injection in its recent May budget — a significant boost in the context of New Zealand’s $NZ5.3 billion annual defense outlay and the country’s population of just five million people.

The pace of change is also accelerating: the Defence Policy Review panel that the Labour Government appointed in 2022 to assess the country’s military capabilities was not originally scheduled to report back until mid-2024. Andrew Little fast-tracked the review after he became defense minister earlier this year, following then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s resignation.

The new defense blueprint has not come entirely out of thin air. A hawkish new assessment was released in 2021, which was followed by New Zealand’s guest participation at NATO summits in 2022 and 2023.

A major theme of the new Defence Policy and Strategy Statement is a drive for New Zealand’s military to become “combat-capable” and expand its activities in the contested Pacific region located immediately to New Zealand’s north. It’s clear from the text that “improving the effectiveness of our combat and other military capabilities” will mean spending a lot more on both personnel — which received the bulk of the boost in May — and new military hardware. New Zealand recently took possession of the last of four Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft that were ordered in 2018, at a total cost of over $NZ2 billion.

China, meanwhile, is mentioned by name in the new documents only around a dozen times, but it’s crystal-clear that Beijing is the main target of New Zealand’s updated blueprint.

According to the National Security Strategy, “China’s rise is a major driver of geopolitical change.” The authors argue that Beijing is becoming “more assertive and more willing to challenge existing international rules and norms” — and is employing “economic coercion” to achieve its aims.

By U.S. or Australian standards, this might seem par for the course — even on the mild side — when it comes to characterizations of Chinese foreign policy. But for Wellington, which has largely kept on good terms with Beijing even as China’s relations with the West have deteriorated, the words and the overall tone and substance of the documents reflect an historic shift.

For decades, New Zealand has prided itself on what has become known as an “independent foreign policy.” The positioning emerged in the 1980s after the United States suspended its obligations to New Zealand under the ANZUS Treaty (made up of Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.), in retaliation for the introduction of a nuclear-free policy by the Fourth Labour Government that then held power.

Fortuitously, the end of the Cold War was just around the corner, and for the next three decades, New Zealand took full advantage of the resulting new opportunities that opened up everywhere, from Beijing to Bogotá.

That era now seems to be over.

A key theme threading through the just-announced plans is the idea that New Zealand needs to “partner” with “like-minded countries.” The National Security Strategy suggests these are predominantly Five Eyes and Western nations, including Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, EU members, Japan, and South Korea.

Unsurprisingly, China does not make the cut.

New Zealand’s backing of more hawkish Western foreign policy positions comes despite China being the country’s biggest trading partner by a significant margin. Over a quarter of New Zealand’s exports head to China every year.

One of the biggest talking points from the new roadmap is an apparent green light for New Zealand to join ‘Pillar Two’ of the AUKUS pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and United States. That is signified by the line, “AUKUS Pillar Two may present an opportunity for New Zealand to cooperate with close security partners on emerging technologies,” which is buried deep in the Defence Policy and Strategy Statement.

Little, the defense minister, appeared to open the door to AUKUS in March when he said New Zealand would be “willing to explore” joining a new chapter of the pact that is focused on advanced technologies.

Until then, New Zealand’s position has been to steer clear of AUKUS because of its nuclear dimension — which would cross the red line set in the 1980s by the nuclear-free policy — but also because joining the deal would run counter to the spirit and letter of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.

But there seems to have been a tug-of-war of sorts inside the Labour Government over AUKUS.

Nanaia Mahuta, the foreign minister, has been far less keen on New Zealand’s involvement — when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently visited Wellington, the minister told local media “I’ll be really clear, we’re not contemplating joining AUKUS.”

Chris Hipkins, the Prime Minister, has been somewhere in the middle. In May, he said the question of New Zealand joining AUKUS was “purely hypothetical.”

But during his press conference with Antony Blinken, the Prime Minister said New Zealand was “open to conversations” about AUKUS membership.

With New Zealand’s general election to be held on October 14, any decisions on AUKUS will be for the next Government to take.

There is an irony that a Labour Government is now paving the way for New Zealand to join AUKUS, three decades after it effectively elected to take the country out of ANZUS. After all, it has always been Labour that has flown the flag for New Zealand’s “independent foreign policy” most strongly.

Helen Clark, a Labour Prime Minister who served from 1999-2008, reacted furiously to the hawkish new plans released on Friday. She wrote on Twitter that the blueprint suggested New Zealand was “abandoning its capacity to think for itself and is instead cutting & pasting from Five Eyes partners,” and that there was an “orchestrated campaign” to join the next stage of AUKUS.

With no final decisions made on AUKUS, there is certainly still time for New Zealand to change course and take a different path more in keeping with the independent foreign policy tradition. This could include taking a role focused more on de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy in an effort to lower the geopolitical temperature as tensions build in the Indo-Pacific.

New Zealand’s new National Security Strategy describes itself as “just the beginning.” It is certainly the opening salvo, but it is unlikely to be the final word.

anglos being anglos