Bulletins and News Discussion from February 17th to February 23rd, 2025 - The Sankara Renaissance - COTW: Burkina Faso

Image is of the Memorial of the Martyrs (or, the Monument of National Heroes), conceived of by Thomas Sankara and constructed in the early 2000s, honouring those who died in the revolution.

The government of Burkina Faso has done that thing that imperialist nations most dread - land reform.

The Council of Ministers has adopted a bill which means that the nation's land now belongs to the state, in order to regulate land use and make it more sustainable, as well as to solve land conflicts. It's important to note that they are respecting the importance of customary rights in rural land for Burkina Faso nationals. Meanwhile, foreigners can no longer acquire titles of property on rural land.

This new law is part of a series of improvements to Burkina Faso implemented by the country under Traore (who, of course, faces assassination attempts on a regular basis). For example, the state has recently recognized the status of chiefs through the country, putting them under a clearer legal framework and involving them more in public affairs. Late last year, Burkina Faso also nationalized two gold mines, Boungou and Wahgnion, owned by foreign corporations. Burkina Faso is the 13th largest gold producer in the world despite its relatively small size, and yet most of the wealth produced is - or, was - siphoned off to the imperialist core. And, after years of research and development, they've made a new electric car - the Itaoua - which can travel up to 330 kilometers after only 30 minutes of charging.

Socialism cannot be stopped - only delayed.

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.

614 comments

Ben Aris at BNE Intellinews with some cogent analysis. He's been about as realist as one can get while still being vehemently anti-Putin and even he is coming around on what an achievable peace settlement might look like. Lo and behold:
A more sophisticated and satisfying option would be to abandon the Cold War set up of Nato vs Russia and do a new pan-European security deal that takes in the interests of both Russia and Ukraine. This would tick everyone’s boxes: the Kremlin has already proposed this and wants it. Moreover, Lavrov has said he is also interested in restarting all the Cold War missile control deals, which would be in everyone’s interests.
Zelenskiy’s demand is to join Nato, which provides protection against Russia, but a new pan-Europe deal would be a security deal with Russia, so that Zelenskiy gets the same “ironclad guarantees” that Russia is asking for, as does Europe. If you add in not only Trump’s mineral concessions deals, but also restarting gas deliveries to Europe from Russia, that will solve the growing energy crisis, then there is loads of common ground and this sort of deal should be easy to do. Well, easy-ish anyway.
https://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-a-new-pan-european-security-deal-would-unblock-ukraine-ceasefire-talks-368410/?source=blogs
Aris isn't a policy maker so I don't want to pick on him, but as more thoughtful people come around, I hope at some point there is some reflection on the instinctive disregard for the concept of indivisible security when the russians proposed it in their dec 2021 ultimatum, before the start of the SMO.
- Moreover, Lavrov has said he is also interested in restarting all the Cold War missile control deals, which would be in everyone’s interests.
  It's not in the interests of China though, and any future missile treaty would have to have China as a partner. There is no ways that the US and Russia are going to limit their ballistic missile development while world powers like China, and even regional powers like Iran and Israel (in Israel's case with long range air launched ballistic missiles like "Golden Horizon" that they developed under the guise of testing their arrow missile defence systems with the sparrow test missiles) are making advanced long range MaRV capable ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons. So China would have to sign on here at minimum. But I could see the USA and Russia agreeing on a future missile treaty, and then China being strong armed into a trilateral agreement here due to the USA and Russia having a mutual interest here. I could see the same play out in a trilateral nuclear arms reduction deal between the USA, China and Russia. Iran is a seperate issue that would require a seperate agreement, with regards to nuclear and missile capabilities. And Israel is a state that has always operated without diplomatic legitimacy. Israel have had MIRV capable nuclear ICBMs in Jericho III, that can hit any point on earth for over 15 years, and it's not even officially acknowledged by anyone. Even the leaked documents on Israeli military capabilities only mention Jericho II and not Jericho III.
  
  Missile control deals are usually about medium range (and hopefully maritime based), the ones you might not have time to react to, and thus giving first strike capabilities, china would be jumping at the opportunity if maritime are included, cause they are very exposed from the sea, russian urals is at least plausibly far away. And even then if it’s purely arsenal size, they are the ones who are significantly under (450 to like 5k, around 1 k strategic?)
  
  When Lavrov talks about restarting cold war era missile control agreements, the big one is the INF treaty. The INF treaty actually does not cover sea based or air launched weapons, only ground based weapons. The INF treaty is essentially a complete ban on all (both nuclear and conventional) ground based ballistic and cruise missiles and their launch platforms with ranges of 500–5,500km, even banning testing and development. I cannot see a sea based clause being added onto the agreement to sweeten it for China, both the USA and Russia would object, that would essentially be a complete ban on Tomahawk and Kalibr cruise missiles respectively. And a ban on the USA's "Dark Eagle" and the Russian Zircon, both hypersonic weapons that get launched from ships.
  Yeah with nuclear arsenal size, China has significantly less warheads. But they are capable of producing hundreds a year. So a trilateral agreement limiting arsenal size could prevent China from potentially equalising or overtaking Russia or the USA in the coming decades, while still giving China room to make more nuclear weapons now.
  
  I mean russia took inf cause gorbie is a moron who was dreaming the word pershing between pizza slices. Russians might insist on maritime, and not get it and take land based restrictions coupled with launchers positions restrictions. Considering americans demented plans in japan and phillipines, china might take that as well
  (what i mean is, three carriers groups can happily park in baltic sea, armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles and not break inf, it's exact same as putting missiles in germany, only carrier group can move around)
  
  I can't see Russia accepting or arguing for any sea based launch restrictions. That would be a ban on the Russian Zircon, Kalibr and Oniks missiles. Russia has used all three against Ukraine. Without those weapons, the Black Sea Naval fleet's power projection capabilities take a significant hit. And the USA would never accept it either, and we're not even mentioning submarines yet. That's the whole reason sea based restrictions were never part of the INF in the first place.
  
  Russia would argue but wouldn't get is my point tbh (they'll happily lose zircons, whatever, over this, if it happened), america would have to be in civil war for that to happen with admirals in some defiance of the state.
  (if i were to rate black sea fleet capabilities it's 1/5, can't do shit, no blockade, no beachheads, small rocket ships would have been genuinely more useful, cheaper to lose, easier to repair. And they aren't naval power in any case, never were, probably never will be)
  
  If it's not in the interests of China, why would China agree then? Bilateral talks between USA and Russia have no power over China
  
  When Lavrov refers to restarting previous cold war missile control agreements, he's likely referring to the INF treaty between Russia and the USA, which the US withdrew from in 2019, citing alleged Russian violations. This was a treaty that prohibited both countries from possessing, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles and their launch platforms with ranges of 500–5,500km. The treaty covered both nuclear and conventional weapons. So in my eyes the "Russian violations" were a ruse, and the real reason for withdrawing from the INF treaty was that China (and to a smaller extent Iran) was not a part of it, and developing advanced weapons in these categories. I do not see how the INF treaty can be restarted in it's current state without China at minimum being a signatory to it.
  If there is going to be bilateral treaty only between Russia and the USA, then I think it would have to differ significantly from the INF treaty. Such an agreement would have to only focus on banning the deployment of weapons in the European sphere, and not their development or testing. I cannot see the USA and Russia agreeing to ban the development of these weapons for themselves, while China, Iran and North Korea continue developing these weapons.
  I hope that clarifies my thinking.

614 comments