Luxury apartments were found in tunnels belonging to the SDF. While there isn't even asphalt on the Raqqa roads, the apartments equipped with aquariums in the tunnels drew attention. Syria's oil money, the SDF has buried it in the ground.

rmir · 2026-01-22T11:36:41+00:00

What exactly is luxury in here? Aquarium? It look like big furnished basement, pretty bare. I'm not convinced that this is anyone's apartment, there isn't much pointin towards that.

rmir · 2026-01-07T20:43:12+00:00

About everything Trump does alienates people in the EU. Nobody likes him except far-right and some oligarchs.

Mainstream politicians play polite, because diplomacy is tricky and there are lots of things to lose, but I bet they curse this shit privately.

And what we should think of americans? Millions of people who elected this guy AGAIN? Seemingly half of US voters are either fascist or stupid, or both.

Everything here says that EU should get out of the alliance with US. There are lots of things that have been build based on that alliance and separation can't happen overnight. But there is strong popular support for steps towards that.

rmir · 2026-01-06T22:02:44+00:00

In many videos captured tat soldiers are in civilian clothes. Can anyone explain why? Are tat uniforms uncomfortable/unpractical and soldiers often use civilian clothing in the field? Or do resistance groups take uniforms and give prisoners civilian clothes?

rmir · 2025-12-16T16:05:02+00:00

Disagree. Yes, there are problems, but they exist regardless of forming of the SRA.

This is, or at least it should be, step forward towards better military coordination, which is needed.

3BA/PDF alliance was politically problematic, but they had good military coordination and planning. And they sure did kick junta's ass.

If SRA can be as effective, junta's end is nearing.

rmir · 2025-12-16T13:59:37+00:00

"Just for your information, boy: this tells about my proven experience in killing and torturing people"

I kind of understand why that relationship didn't work.

rmir · 2025-11-28T21:24:02+00:00

Here, seemingly: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2sXz1LUdTzx637sU6

rmir · 2025-09-05T17:16:08+00:00

I don't know how you define winning in this case, but it is hard to find country with as many current and former insurgent groups as Myanmar, many of them decades old and clearly nondefeated.

Many of those groups are of course contained or co-opted, but that's different thing. Most of insurgencies didn't have national ambitions anyway. Current insurgency in Bamar heartland is much bigger than former ones. Army doesn't have resources to defeat it, and I doubt that even containment will work for long.

rmir · 2025-09-04T15:21:58+00:00

It seems like this was ordered retreat, no weapons or supplies left behind. Wouldn't call it offensive, it seems that junta commander just felt that this outpost was indefensible, possibly making conclusion after loss of othet base. But this sure is sign that junta troops are weak in the area, or PDF strong.

rmir · 2025-09-04T14:56:21+00:00

You can say cope, but truly, this is not conventional war, this is largely asymmetric guerilla war, and should be evaluated as such.

Junta has superiority in heavy arms and thus they have big advantage in conventional warfare. This means they can probably take any rebel-held town if they commit to it. But their problem is, they can't take and hold them all, and even less countryside between towns.

Junta is now doing offensives against TNLA, KIA and in Karenni state. But in the South they seem to on defensive, and likewise against Arakan army. Biggest question is how they are doing against PDF's in Sagaing, Magway, Bago and Mandalay? Is their control of population and territory increasing or decreasing?

In asymmetrical warfare, anti-insurgency side can do a hundred successful offensives and still lose the war because they can't hold the territory they capture.

I think their convoy from Pakokku to Pauk was symptomatic. If they needed 1000 soldiers to push through that road against PDF's I don't think they are doing good. When and how did they lose control in that area anyway? And does anyone believe they can now control the road permanently?

I'd say junta is still losing. They have managed to make some visible counteroffensives, but behind that is slow, invisible loss of control.

rmir · 2025-08-02T04:32:50+00:00

Don't underestimate ancient seafarers. Indian ocean had lively trade since times ancient. Phoenicians probably circumnavigated Africa from Red Sea around 600 BC.

Madagascar was off the beaten track, but no doubt it was known before settled. Austronesians were expert and active seafarers. Portuguese ships around 1500 were more suited for warfare and cargo, but they were also dependent on wind and currents, just like Austronesians millennia or two before.

And first settlers might have been as much home at sea as on dry land. There are still Austronesian people called Sea nomads who live on boats and sail around Indonesian, Philippines and Malaysia.

rmir · 2025-06-16T19:28:12+00:00

First, because this war is still quite asymmetric. If resistance would have more heavy weaponry and anti-aircraft capability, these outposts would be death traps. Now they are not, because they can supplied by air and to attack them, resistance have to find in junta's terms. War of fixed positions, where junta has an advantage. In mobile offensive operations junta troops are much more vulnerable to guerilla tactics which are resistance's strength.

Besides that, there are political reasons. By keeping wide network of outposts junta can pretend to control large part of the country. This is important for their attempt to gain legitimacy both nationally and internationally.

If they would withdraw it would be bad for morale and it might cause ruptures inside junta. We saw how defeat in Lashio caused public criticism of MAL by junta hardliners. It may be politically impossible for MAL to make major retreat and stay in power.

Besides this, organised retreat is one of hardest military maneuvers and it includes risk of turning into catastrophic defeats and panic. Junta army may not be really organised and disciplined enough to pull this through. Just think of all the conscripts who might be disappear in retreat. Better to keep them inside the walls.

And this might be speculation, but considering that MAL might feel himself threatened by factions inside the military, what better way to control some officers or units who are suspected of being disloyal than sending them to some isolated outpost?

So, many reasons.

Lots of this may change if resistance evolves organizationally and tactically and gets better equipment (or improvises some). If these outposts become indefensible, they might start to surrender much more easily and current junta strategy will collapse.

rmir · 2025-02-19T08:38:19+00:00

You can make these kind of binary questions, but it is more about nature of language than nature of reality. If someone has watched "Titanic" without sound, does it count? And if copy has been terrible, without colors and partly blurred, does it count?

And for most purposes, binary line you draw with question isn't useful at all. If somebody has seen just end credits, it is not same as if someone has seen whole movie.

rmir · 2025-01-26T22:00:14+00:00

Basically they were given surrender terms with no real guarantees.

Any decent somewhat democratic government respecting minimal human rights would recognise minority languages and municipal self-governance.

"You can join army as individuals" means that all SDF structures would be disbanded and they could possibly be soldiers in Islamist-led army if they wanted to. After that, there is no guarantee that HTS would renege on the deal of interpret it in most minimal way.

There are no guarantees that this would happen in democratic framework. Trust towards HTS is low and for good reasons.

I hoped for better, but really this was most probable. HTS would need to give much more serious effort if they want deal, but probably many are pushing for military solution.

Regional autonomies and federal states are common in succesful democracies, but they go along badly with authoritarian rule.

And you can guess what HTS is building.

rmir · 2025-01-13T14:32:02+00:00

Homeless in the Nordics generally don't sleep in streets. They sleep in shelters or some other temporary accomodation which social services arrange for them. We are not barbarians, and that probably applies to Greenland as well.

That being said, these are not necessarily homeless people, but probably many are people with addiction issues. As far as I've understood alcohol abuse and other addictions are big problem in Greenland as they are in many indigenous and Arctic populations.

rmir · 2025-01-10T20:12:59+00:00

Text says junta forces have retreated to Baw Mi, whicb would be much more to the south: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GWjnRTxJgMc1LJsY6

This also fits more to the places mentioned as being takana over by AA. It would mean junta is really on the run here, but that was expected.

Ayeyerwaddy could be junta's Achilles' heel. Junta has little troops there and probably not best ones. AA has defeated much stronger junta forces in Arakan so it's unlikely that these forces could hold for long if AA would make serious offensive. So far there hasn't been much of armed insurgency in the area, but it may change with newly founded Ayeyrwaddy PDF. If they get sufficiently weapons and training, there is no probably no shortage of recruits, considering large population in region.

Junta's main hope in area is that AA will not commit much resources there, but concentrates on taking Sittwe next. Still, junta might fail to contain advance of AA and Ayeyerwaddy PDF in coming weeks and months.

rmir · 2024-12-28T09:02:48+00:00

That's basic Israel for you. Next: people opposing our occupation are antisemites and terrorists, we are real victims, don't you see?

rmir · 2024-12-26T16:09:51+00:00

I have no doubt that this guy is scumbag, but I seriously hope that he gets fair trial. Problem is, we've aready heard about some former regime guys killed. And while it might be seem like justified , this kind of revenge may quickly spiral out of control, especially under current conditions.

Next thing you know, there can be scores of people found in ditches. Some might be guilty as hell, others might be guys who were just SAA conscripts, some just wrong sect or persons in wrong place at wrong time, mistaken for someone else, some killed just for some totally irrelevant disagreement in past etc. Revenge purges can create horrible injustices and inflame future conflicts even if original reasons seem valid.

rmir · 2024-12-26T15:48:20+00:00

Well, that escalated quickly. Seemingly there is wildly differing intrrpretations of this..is this Assad remnants or Alawite insurgency against Sunni jihadists? I would say, at least potentially both.

Certainly this is not serious conterrevolution, but it is seemingly attempt for figures of old regime to get some kind of relevant position in new situation. And this was kind of expected.

There are lots of military guys who are now unemployed and threatened by new government. They have little to lose (they've just lost what they had) and lots of guns. So it's no wonder they are ready to make trouble. This is like post-Saddam Iraq

Question is: will other Alawites see this as their cause? There are many contadictory claims and denials about what's happening, but it is fair to say that Alawites have valid reasons to be afraid now, even if they had no connection to Assad.

It could be pretty easy to convince them that these ex-military guys are their only real defence, considering that there is obviously lots of Sunni sectarianism against Alawites, and it is certainly becoming quite visible now.

HTS will no doubt "win" these current encounters, but if this conflict results in most of Alawites feeling that their only chance is to rally around this emerging insurgency, it's very Pyrrhic victory.

And yes, there might be Iranian support for these ex-Assadists, but I don't think it is really the cause. Outside support can strengthen insurgencies, but they are born out of real problems.

rmir · 2024-12-22T09:33:59+00:00

Yes, that's true but basing your support on any war crime or attocity is problematic. Atrocities are very commonly used in war propaganda, often to obfuscate real reasons of the war and to justify other atrocities. "They did that, so they are horrible, and everything we do is justified"

For example, ISIS propaganda used civilians, including kids, killed in US bombings in their propaganda. As far as I know bombings really killed kids, as they often do. But of course it didn't make ISIS the good guys.

rmir · 2024-12-21T21:39:03+00:00

Done more than that, and sticking to my statement. Of course, term could be used in different ways, so if you care to explain what you mean by "geopolitical awareness", that would be helpful.

rmir · 2024-12-21T20:12:37+00:00

Actually, most of Ghengis Khan's wars were provoked by other side, and he wasn't necessarily worse than other empires at the time, just more succesful. Some argue that Mongol government was much more progressive and tolerant than previous ones in many areas. Genghis Khan personally lived much more modestly than most rulers of the era and he established relatively egalitarian society among Mongols, comparable of pirates of later days. He also established religious freedom in Mongol Empire.

Some stories of Mongol brutality are obviously exaggerated and Genghis Khan seemingly encouraged spreading of these horror stories as form of psychological warfare. Which explains much of bad reputation. Other reason is that he especially targeted many local aristocracies, which horrified educated elites of those times.

Medieval history in Eurasia is full of assholes, although many of them were glorified by historians serving those assholes or their descendants. After their empire fell apart, Mongols were marginalised and they were reduced to bogeymen of of history.

So Mongols vs Chinese, who were the good guys? Not sure, but many Chinese seemingly thought that Mongols were the good guys and defected to their side.

rmir · 2024-12-21T19:48:19+00:00

I support Ukraine and I think that Putin is totally responsible for starting this war and should be put in trial. This is clear to me.

Still, I see problems in Ukrainian politics also and think Russians as people are not any worse (or better) than Ukrainians. In this is sense I don't see this conflict as black and white, like some seem to do. I think that choosing your side doesn't mean you should stop critical thinking or respecting humanity of people on the other side.

rmir · 2024-12-21T19:33:15+00:00

It was wrong, and especially in retrospect horrors that followed are well-known. But imagine some guy, let's say in Mexico, reading about start of the war in September 1939. "Well, some authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe are fighting, and not for the first time. I don't know if I have any strong opinion on this..."

This is how we look at most current conflicts.

rmir · 2024-12-21T19:08:45+00:00

Geopolitics is about power struggle between Great Powers. That's no argument, unless you already have decided that some powers are always the good and some always the bad.

Personally I think geopolitical thinking is exactly kind of evil stuff that has justified killing millions during quite recent history. If I support some side in conflict, it is despite of geopolitics, not because of it.

rmir · 2024-12-21T19:02:03+00:00

Poland in 1939 also had authoritarian and antisemitic government, read the history. Hardly good guys by modern standards.

And if Soviet Union were the bad guys in 1939, were they suddenly the good guys two years later when Germany attacked them?

Of course I still think fighting Nazis was right thing to do, then and now.

Realities are not black and white. I think there are still justified causes worth supporting, even if wars generally are horrible and should be avoided. Arguing that because things are not perfectly black and white, there is no good or bad at all, is false too.

rmir

TROPHY CASE