this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
121 points (100.0% liked)
news
24814 readers
427 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: 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 the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
121
Image is of rescue efforts at a damaged residential complex in Caracas on June 25th.
Weekly preamble in spoiler tags below.
preamble
The situation regarding both Iran and global oil markets is getting even more complicated, and that's without even including the regular injections of disinformation from people like Barak Ravid and Trump himself. In my current estimation, the negotiations are proceeding as if both sides would rather see a deal than not. At the very least, there have certainly been enough blatant violations of the MoU articles that Iran would be fully justified to end negotiations altogether, and yet they are not, which must mean that they really do want a deal. Until a few days ago, these were mainly issues that Iran has been prepared to show... "flexibility" on (others might say "cowardice"), such as Zionist aggression against southern Lebanon. Both at the start of the April ceasefire and at the start of the MoU, they made Lebanon out to be a red line issue, but ultimately seemed convinced by the US saying to them, via backchannels, that they'll yank the leash back on their mangy, rabid dog. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that Iran, in practice, either only symbolically cares about Lebanon as the number of buildings destroyed by the Zionists is now climbing into the tens of thousands, or is confident in Hezbollah's ability to withstand assaults and eventually push back the Zionists to the border.
However, very recently, the fighting has once again come closer to home for Iran, with renewed, albeit limited, exchanges of fire in the general area of Hormuz. This all stems from an unfortunate contradiction that Iran has wandered into with regard to Oman. In short: their legal argument for why they should be able to extract tolls/service fees from shipping through Hormuz relies on the concept of Hormuz being part of their territorial waters and not international waters, which is literally true. However, it is also possible to transit Hormuz entirely through Oman's territorial waters too, and, critically, Oman has not shown any serious interest in charging a toll, and is letting shipping pass freely. Oman is also much less able to seriously withstand foreign assaults than Iran, meaning their position is precarious - side with Iran, and risk a Western military assault that destroys them; side with the US, and risk Hormuz never truly reopening because the IRGC will not tolerate ships bypassing their authority. So, Iran is now legally stuck: to have a toll, it must find a way to argue that territorial waters are important when it applies to them, but aren't important when it applies to Oman. Or, of course, to somehow convince Oman to set up their own toll, in face of the dangers.
So far, the result of this has been Iran asserting, both verbally and through drones and missiles, that transit through the Oman channels is, at least during the period of the MoU, illegitimate. This has squashed hopes by many analysts that Hormuz flows would return to normal very soon - after a very brief peak, these numbers now seem to be descending to near-wartime levels. This is happening as the US's reserves continue to drain at a frightening rate. That being said, Iranian oil tankers are getting out in large numbers and reaching foreign markets, so it's not as if Iran is solely being disadvantaged by the current situation. It's even possible that Iran is waiting for enough of these ships to reach Eastern Asia before they plan to restart the war. I'm unsure if this is actually likely, but I've seen several others suggest it, and it does make sense to at least make the most of the current lack of blockade while you figure out if the US is actually going to give in to any of your demands.
Over in Ukraine, the situation seems to be slowly heating up. It's always hard for me personally to figure out the seriousness of the statements of the Ukrainians and the Russians - you'll look back on a year of exaggerated threats and bold statements and promises of grand offensives and threats of nuclear war and yet, on the battlefield, all you see is fairly standard attrition and positional warfare. Anyway: there's been much ado about Ukrainian attacks into Russia proper over the last few months and whether it's having an impact on their economy (not particularly), wartime production (not at all), and social fabric (kinda). However, the rumors of Belarus getting more directly involved in the war - whether they want to or not - are increasing in intensity, with Ukraine threatening that they'll fire on Belarusian border military equipment if it isn't withdrawn. Also, the Russian hardliners seem to really want to start attacking European military production supplying Ukraine, though Putin appears to have squashed those desires. But at the end of the day, the attrition and territorial advancements continue to convincingly favor Russia.
And lastly, the numbers of the aftermath of the recent earthquakes in Venezuela are rolling in, with ~1500 dead, ~750 buildings damaged and collapsed, and many thousands of people affected and being assisted by the government. From the footage I've seen, it's quite disturbing, and obviously not coming at a great time for Venezuela geopolitically either.
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
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.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
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.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
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 Telegram Channels:
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.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"important signal by China to Europe"
substack post content
The social media account Yuyuantantian, operated by China’s state broadcaster CCTV and created in 2019 during China's first trade war with the US specifically to signal China's position, just wrote a long article (mp.weixin.qq.com/s/lO6L…) on the brewing trade war between China and Europe.Most notably they say the EU's current strategy of dealing with China "can only produce a paper tiger" (meaning it cannot hurt China) and that China is "not afraid" of a "freezing point" in trade and economic relations with the bloc - meaning presumably a complete halt of trade.
This sentence is eerily similar to what China told Trump when he unveiled the tariffs on China (and the whole world) in April 2025. At the time China's Ministry of Commerce said that "if the U.S. insists on its own way, China will fight to the end" (english.mofcom.gov.cn/N…).
The context is that the EU is currently working on a series of extremely hostile new legislation packages against China, such as the so-called "overcapacity instrument" on which I wrote a long post at the beginning of the month (see quoted note).
This instrument is basically a legal tool that says that if China is competitive globally in a given sector in such a way that it exports a lot, that's proof of overcapacity, and legally it'd mean that the entire sector can be restricted from the EU market.
In essence, it's a law that says: if your products are good enough that people want to buy them, that's grounds for banning them. Which is pretty insane!
There's also a so-called "diversification instrument" being developed alongside it, which - according to Maroš Šefčovič, the EU's trade chief himself - is modelled on how the EU reduced its reliance on Russian energy after the Ukraine invasion (scmp.com/news/china/dip…) and is developed with China in mind.
In their article, Yuyuantantian say that all of this is part of a "escalate first, de-escalate later" strategy - essentially bullying - that the EU borrowed from watching the US, but without any of the leverage to back it up.
As the article puts it: the actors who can pull off extreme pressure tactics can only do so if they have "absolute leading positions in key areas or irreplaceable international influence." The EU, it notes, has neither, hence them concluding that the EU "forcibly pursuing 'escalate first, de-escalate later' can only produce a paper tiger."
Another very consequential framing in the piece is that they characterize Europe as becoming - essentially - a rogue actor in the international system, that doesn't care about rules anymore. Which they say is suicidal for Europe in several ways.
First of all, as they write, the EU's international identity in the international system - its USP, if you will - rests entirely on being a "normative power," a rules-based institutional actor that you can do business with precisely because it won't move the goalposts on you. That's what made European standards worth complying with and European markets worth the entry cost.
As they explain, the EU had gone against China in the past but always within the rules of the WTO (with tools like anti-dumping and anti-subsidy), and always in a way that was somewhat justified and predictable, basically the cost of doing business.
However, the new approach is designed to be essentially unpredictable and arbitrary- and as such makes Europe less and less attractive and more and more risky.
They point out the irony of Europe on one hand saying it wants more investment and industrial cooperation to learn from China but at the same time "constantly raising the bar for attracting investment and maintaining industrial cooperation."
As they write: "the greater the uncertainty, the less likely long-term capital and supply chains will dare to enter, ultimately harming Europe's own sources of growth."
Secondly, the article exposes what is arguably the most self-destructive contradiction in the EU's entire approach: the EU's stated justification for all these new tools is its "unsustainable" trade deficit with China. But when China came to the negotiating table and said "fine, we'll buy more from you," the EU had nothing to offer - because what China wants to buy is high-tech products, and those are exactly what Europe restricts under its export controls policy (largely at the behest of the US).
In essence, Europe's approach is purely punitive, shutting every door simultaneously: you can't export to us (overcapacity), you can't invest here (unpredictable and arbitrary legal risk), and we won't sell you what you want to buy (export controls).
Now you understand why China is becoming frustrated to the point it's contemplating a "freezing point" in trade and economic relations with Europe. When the party on the other side of the table punishes you for exporting, blocks you from investing, and refuses to sell you what would fix the problem they're complaining about, there's not much left to talk about.
My personal opinion is that it is undeniable that Europe is suffering from grave economic problems, but it's mistaking symptoms for cause: it's doing the equivalent of wanting to punish the runner who overtook you instead of asking why you're getting overtaken.
The car industry is a really good case in point: Chinese EVs really are better than German cars at this stage, and it's NOT because of subsidies (quite the contrary in fact, see this: x.com/RnaudBertrand/sta…). As such, how does punishing China for their competitiveness help the German car industry, specifically? What would help are rather initiatives to learn from the best: stuff like technology partnerships and welcoming Chinese factories on European soil.
The notion that if you ban China the problem goes away is exactly what the Ming dynasty - in 17th century China - did and that's what directly led to the century of humiliation because it became backwards technologically: it's what we call in French the "policy of the ostrich" ("la politique de l'autruche"), putting your head in the sand and hoping that makes things better.
And timing-wise it couldn't possibly be worse: having cut itself off from Russian energy, caved to American tariffs, and destabilized its own industrial base - the logical next step was apparently to pick a trade war with your largest trading partner and the last remaining great power with genuine goodwill towards you.
Because that's the real tragedy of the China-Europe relationship: there is a genuine and frankly almost touching desire for engagement and cooperation from the Chinese side and Europe is doing everything in its power to squander it.
This reminds me that I miss xiaohongshu's posts. This has a lot of the talking points. Like, China's export oriented economy being forced into a trade war with Europe by the US tariffs was one of the big things they pushed.
still suspect that user was full of shit with respect to local government debt, because I have been totally unable to corroborate their contention that local governments in China hold lots of dollar-denominated debt and it was crucial to their arguments. also why would they borrow dollars when most of their expenses are in yuan
EDIT: in my defense, I'm gonna blame the Epstein-adjacent Sergey Brin's search engine which has declined in quality so much that my efforts did not find LGFV when I looked before (also it seems pretty impossible to realistically gauge the scale of the problem without hard numbers on the true amount of debt)
They are called Local Government Financing Vehicles and they absolutely exist. They essentially set up an investment fund in Hong Kong that they own, and the investment fund issues the debt, so it's technically off the local government's books. They borrow in dollars because it allows them to bypass certain banking and credit regulations in China, the credit pool in dollars is also just more liquid and larger, and it offers a source of dollars to refinance/payoff existing dollar-denominated debt they already have. Dollar-denominated bonds and loans also usually offer longer terms than Chinese debt. Beijing has been cracking down on them pretty significantly over the past decade, but some local/regional governments are still circumventing the new regulations, and which means doing so at higher interest rates/riskier terms.
thanks, knowing this will be helpful for finding out more. local governments taking on dollar-denominated loans without also laying in a currency swap line seems wildly foolish to me
They do enter into cross-currency swaps (swap lines are for central banks), usually with a domestic investment bank. But the debt is still dollar denominated and has to be paid back in dollars. Any issue with obtaining dollars or a significant appreciation in the dollar versus the RMB can cause issues for the LGFV or the investment bank they went to for the swap.
The x link above is broken, should be https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2065354449225424925?s=20
This just reads like an argument for deregulation, or at least that's the "lesson" western leaders would take from this. Sure, it shows China's adaptability through different economic circumstances, but no westerner will look at this:
and think "we need to be more adaptable to our material circumstances and less ideologically dogmatic in our commitment to liberalism." The opposite, in fact.
Edit: though I realize that isn't the main thrust of this thread; the main point is Europe's self-inflicted economic doom, but still.
What I think the author is missing is that sure, the private owned EVs that came out on top were not part of the plan, however, what the SOE's did was provide a floor for product quality. If your private enterprise is too shit to compete against the SOE, you will fail. If you don't actually produce a product, you will fail.
Compare this to Tesla, who has made far more money on the potential of reducing pollution than actually selling the cars that reduce the pollution.
And yes, when you allow government reinvestment into the community, the community tends to do better. And having the businesses exist between the cracks is good, because it means that if something goes extremely wrong, you can immediately crack down on it.
One does not fuck with the Chinese. Only bad things happen when you piss the Chinese off.
I'm increasingly wondering if all the economic verbiage from European decisionmakers about China is simply cover for plain old-fashioned racism.
maybe it's just pareidolia but international relations often feels like interpersonal relations
Lots of these decisions are made interpersonally I suppose. The base and superstructure do also tend to shape and influence eachother.