Image is of Assad’s presidential palace in 2013. There’s more images of it in this article, though the words in it aren’t worth reading.
Here is Assad’s version of events. I like to imagine he’s making one of those Youtuber apology videos where they sigh at the start and talk in a chastised yet somewhat defensive tone of voice.
As terrorism spread across Syria and ultimately reached Damascus on the evening of Saturday 7th December 2024, questions arose about the president’s fate and whereabouts. This occurred amidst a flood of misinformation and narratives far removed from the truth, aimed at recasting international terrorism as a liberation revolution for Syria.
At such a critical juncture in the nation’s history, where truth must take precedence, it is essential to address these distortions. Unfortunately, the prevailing circumstances at the time, including a total communication blackout for security reasons, delayed the release of this statement. This does not replace a detailed account of the events that unfolded, which will be provided when the opportunity allows.
First, my departure from Syria was neither planned nor did it occur during the final hours of the battles, as some have claimed. On the contrary, I remained in Damascus, carrying out my duties until the early hours of Sunday 8th December 2024. As terrorist forces infiltrated Damascus, I moved to Latakia in co-ordination with our Russian allies to oversee combat operations. Upon arrival at the Hmeimim airbase that morning, it became clear that our forces had completely withdrawn from all battle lines and that the last army positions had fallen. As the field situation in the area continued to deteriorate, the Russian military base itself came under intensified attack by drone strikes.
With no viable means of leaving the base, Moscow requested that the base’s command arrange an immediate evacuation to Russia on the evening of Sunday 8th December. This took place a day after the fall of Damascus following the collapse of the final military positions and the resulting paralysis of all remaining state institutions.
At no point during these events did I consider stepping down or seeking refuge, nor was such a proposal made by any individual or party. The only course of action was to continue fighting against the terrorist onslaught.
I reaffirm that the person who, from the very first day of the war, refused to barter the salvation of his nation for personal gain, or to compromise his people in exchange for numerous offers and enticements is the same person who stood alongside the officers and soldiers of the army on the front lines, just metres from terrorists in the most dangerous and intense battlefields. He is the same person who, during the darkest years of the war, did not leave but remained with his family alongside his people, confronting terrorism under bombardment and the recurring threats of terrorist incursions into the capital over 14 years of war. Furthermore, the person who has never abandoned the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon, nor betrayed his allies who stood by him, cannot possibly be the same person who would forsake his own people or betray the army and nation to which he belongs.
I have never sought positions for personal gain but have always considered myself as a custodian of a national project, supported by the faith of the Syrian people, who believed in its vision. I have carried an unwavering conviction in their will and ability to protect the state, defend its institutions, and uphold their choices to the very last moment.
When the state falls into the hands of terrorism and the ability to make a meaningful contribution is lost, any position becomes void of purpose, rendering its occupation meaningless. This does not, in any way, diminish my profound sense of belonging to Syria and her people – a bond that remains unshaken by any position or circumstance. It is a belonging filled with hope that Syria will once again be free and independent.
Please check out the HexAtlas!
The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week’s thread is here.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel’s 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.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
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.
Khamenei is wrong about women in general, as a fairly obvious religious mysogynist, but entirely correct that the west gave in to women’s rights activists only around the time that their labor was needed due to war and “women’s work” was also partially proletarianized instead of just entirely unpaid social reproduction. The one presented the solution tot the other for the ruling class.
women calculators were a thing in like 1920s? or more relatedly, lots of textile work in general was for a long time a woman (paid) job (weaving/seaming/laundry etc) (aside from social reproduction work obviously)
women worked since the beginning of dawn, a lot of it wasnt just “official” bureaucratized work. With the rise of early capitalism, women were forced out of a lot of positions, for example in the medieval age daughters or wives could take up the work if their husband/father had no male members to inherit their positions, so you had female bakers, butchers, blacksmiths, tailors, etc… It was the pressure to expand the market base during the 60-80s that lead the bourgeoisie to relent and “grant” women rights.
So that’s not entirely true like even before women had many rights they already were working for pay in various industries, I could give one very specific example but this is true throughout industries. Waltham (US Watchmaker) really drove down prices of watches by a fixation of ‘interchangebility’ not just of the mechanical pieces but more importantly immigrant workers and way more importantly women workers. This basically made them 30% more money over a decade so from 1860s to 1870s and that huge gain was seen by other companies who rapidly took that same idea of ‘interchangebility’ and soon lots of women were working in factories all over the world. They were often kept separate from the other workers and given ‘simple’ work to obfuscate the fact that women were paid way less than their male counterparts. Early labor movements would often talk about women being forced into factories to help make money for the household.
Assemblé des Travailleurs de Sonvilier, Enquête ouvrière 24.02.1867 “But, they will say to us, what about the worker’s wife? Ah, yes, this being to whom nature assigns the care of the household, the early education of the children, and who is often already overburdened with tending to a large family, must still take up tools to help her husband provide bread for their children. Yes, it is a sad necessity! The father of the family can no longer provide the necessary bread for his children unless the wife helps him. And so, how many neglected households and sick children do we see because the mother is forced to devote her time and strength to the workshop.”
You are right in that it was the pressure to expand the market base but women certainly were working in factories, just not alongside men because there was often a deliberate separation to keep them as low wage workers.
And again this was happening in factories all over the world, this is just a specific subject I can quote from.
Oh I wasnt trying to imply that women didnt work in factories. Just that there wasnt a time when women didnt “work” or just worked in the household.
I must say I simplified a process of multiple steps into one to clarify a particular dialectical movement. This happened in several stages over several generations. Pushing women to work as proles and pushing other women to do social reproduction for the production women, this is still an ongoing process.
So you’re correct, I simplified without making that clear. The women calculators and weavers were earlier stages of this process and the results of those stages.
Women also historically did productive work, of course, in all stages. It’s the expansion/shifting within capitalism in the world war eras and post-ww2 eras that I’m specifying
Khamenei is wrong on both accounts, the proletarianization of women didn’t happen on account of capitalist class for profit motive but due to state-level national interest that overrode profit driven structural changes that were happening within Western economies. Now of course capitalist class not only can and often did mobilize state for profit motive but rather outright prefers to utilize state for its interest but wartime conditions that threatens survival of capital class created a different equation in which self-preservation was enough of a pressure.
One cannot accept the suggestion that women only acquired rights on clemency of capitalists to benefit of capitalists. Because not only is it false and gives into the exact sort of tautology that Khamenei spouts here that appears correct but also lets all sorts of reactionaries make false arguments about role of women (and minors, minorities and all types of exploited groups). All sorts of worker liberation is against capitalist self-interest and are only conceded with enough pressure in which the other outcome is worse for their class interest.
Women’s liberation follows capitalism destroying the livelihood of women by uneven proletarianization that subjugated women to exploited labor for benefit of capital class, in which if profit interest was followed they would rather women be extinct which is obviously against the interest of women in question and functioning society in general as profit interest usually is. Women managed to acquire enough of a leverage to change this state of affairs due to pressure of wartime conditions that made women even more essential and made profit interest a temporarily secondary concern.
Of course women’s rights are concession due to pressures from women and workers. But they are given in a way to maximize profitabilty and minimize impact on the social structure. So it was never about giving women freedoms but giving the minimum possible to prevent negative consequences to bourgeois interests.
Your last paragraph is something I cannot agree to. “Profit interest” is in destroying all women? In what world? In an entirely immediate sense, maybe, but in no realistic sense. Bourgeois interests are also in stability for their class. That doesn’t occur without women. And winning wars like WW2 is also beneficial to stability.
It’s unfortunate, but women didn’t just ‘earn’ their freedoms successfully in the West. They got concessions because the Bourgeoisie found it possible to give concessions to prevent revolution or social unrest by doing minimalist changes
The point is women’s proletarianization and emancipation didn’t happen to increase profits of the capitalist class and it certainly wasn’t granted to increase profits by paying them less in factories or wherever else. It happened because of changes in material condition due to industrialization and pressure from women to have equal part in their proletarianization. Wartime conditions made that more easily possible because interests of society, state and also preservation of capitalist order triumphed short term profit motives and found social support due to reality on the ground and “home front” but that’s exactly why it didn’t happen to increase profits.
It is true that capitalists conceded this to prevent revolution and indeed didn’t even fully concede it since a large part of unpaid labor was and still is rested on women, such as housework and child rearing or has its costs burdened by public while its profits are taken by state such as food aid, maternity aid, child benefits and other forms of welfare. However these are not because capitalists included women in labor pool to increase their profits but to cut costs of women in labor pool. Khamenei is promoting a common and false idea that women in workplace reduced the wages in general and was a ploy by the capitalists or something similar. It wasn’t and it wasn’t a minimalist change either.
As for profit interest, it is always short term. That’s also why destroying the planet might not seem realistic but it is ultimately what is happening. In case of women, industrialization and disenfranchisement of women destroyed women’s livelihoods and created conditions that allowed complete entrapment of women in households where before they were participants in if not equal. It would both figuratively and literally destroy women but that was ultimately not acceptable to society or women. That’s not because of any clemency or trick by the capitalists, the trick is making people believe women are allowed to work because capitalists made it possible.
Sorry this is getting very long and I don’t have the time at the moment, but I think a major point of disagreement is misunderstanding. I’m not claiming profits increased with women’s emancipation on a "day before"vs. “day after” basis, like comparing profits doesn’t probably show an increase. But it is a huge increase relative to the other option given when women (and supporters) would’ve taken even more drastic action. (no increase in absolute terms is necessary for a relative higher profit compared to a theoretical future) Compared to revolution, the choice that the bourgeoisie made as more profitable. And the form of the concession lent itself easily to continued profits in the future (when compared to the option of women’s emancipation and not proletarianizing the work that they were doing).