Morocco (Al Maghrib), or more officially the Kingdom of Morocco (Al Mamlaka al Maghribiya), is a country located in the northwestern edge of the African continent. The name Morocco comes from the Spanish name Marruecos, which itself comes from the name of the city of Marrakesh. In Turkish for example, Morocco is known as Fas, mainly because Turks knew the land of Morocco through the city of Fes. Morocco is regarded as part of the Arab World and Arabic is the main language amongst the population, with French and Berber languages also widely spoken in the country.
Morocco was the home of mostly Berber tribes until the Muslim conquest and the subsequent Arab migrations in the 700s under the Umayyads drastically changed the character of the country. A Berber commander, Tariq ibn Ziyad, would later cross the Strait of Gibraltar (Jabal Tariq) from the northern shores of now-Morocco and conquer Andalusia, which remained under Muslim rule for nearly 800 years. The country emerged as a significant regional power during the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties in the medieval period, known for their contributions to architecture, philosophy, and trade across North Africa and southern Europe. The current ruling dynasty of Morocco, the Alaouite dynasty, came to power in the late 1600s. The Alaouites claim descent from the Prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hasan ibn Ali, giving them religious legitimacy and political authority in the region. Despite the Shia-coded claim to legitimacy, the Moroccan royal family and the population mostly follow the Maliki school of Sunni Islam.
In the early 20th century, the Treaty of Fez (1912) created the French Protectorate of Morocco, negotiated largely without input from the Moroccan people. Moroccan lands were completely divided under French and Spanish zones, with thousands of colonists pouring into the country. The royal family frequently collaborated with colonial powers, suppressing local resistance movements and prioritizing European interests. Prominent anti-colonial uprisings, like the Rif War (1921–1926), were met with brutal crackdowns, enabled by Western-backed forces. Post-independence in 1956, Morocco maintained close ties with its former colonizers, fostering economic dependence on France and Spain. The monarchy’s alignment with Western geopolitical interests often undermined Pan-African and Arab unity movements.
During the Cold War, Morocco positioned itself as a staunch ally of the West, marginalizing leftist and nationalist factions within the country. The Green March of 1975 was a Moroccan state-organized movement to assert control over Western Sahara, a territory decolonized from Spanish rule but still awaiting self-determination. This march, supported by Western powers, particularly the United States, is often criticized as a colonial expansion disguised as a popular movement. By settling Moroccans in the disputed territory, the march disregarded the Sahrawi people's right to sovereignty. U.N. resolutions on Western Sahara have seen limited enforcement, largely due to Morocco’s Western alliances shielding it from accountability. Western-backed security and intelligence partnerships continue to be the cornerstone of Morocco’s repressive nature towards any anti-colonial and leftist movements. In 2021, Algeria again severed diplomatic ties with Morocco, citing hostile actions and concerns over Morocco's ties with Israel, which Algeria views as a betrayal of pro-Palestinian solidarity. The two countries have mostly clashed over the issue of Western Sahara other than a short war in the 60s over a border dispute, with Algeria continuing to support the Sahrawi independence movement.
Morocco's relations with Israel have historically been discreet but significant, rooted in the presence of a large Moroccan Jewish diaspora in Israel. Former King Hassan II played a significant behind-the-scenes role in fostering covert ties between Morocco and Israel during his reign. King Hassan II is reported to have allowed Israeli intelligence access to critical information from a meeting of Arab leaders in Casablanca in 1965, which may have helped Israel prepare for the Six-Day War in 1967. His government provided a platform for discreet diplomatic exchanges and intelligence-sharing, including Morocco’s facilitation of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel in the 1970s. In 2020, Morocco formally normalized ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States, in exchange for U.S. and Israeli recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Diplomatic and trade relations have since deepened, with agreements in fields like defence, agriculture, and technology. Despite official ties, Moroccan public opinion remains largely sympathetic to Palestinians, but such opinions are rarely considered by the royal family.
Morocco's future is split between ambitious global aspirations and permanent domestic issues. The country’s co-hosting of the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Spain and Portugal is seen as a significant opportunity to showcase its shiny infrastructure and global presence. However, these achievements are often overshadowed by criticisms of its political culture, including the monarchy's ceremonial practices, such as the humiliating tradition of publicly kissing the crown prince's hand. Allegations surrounding King Mohammed VI's personal behavior, including incidents of public drunkenness and alleged homosexuality continue to be a hot topic within opposition circles.
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.
Could be bullshit but this is flying around, I find the last bullet point particularly interesting:
The West plans to introduce 100 thousand so-called peacekeepers to Ukraine - SVR
To solve its problems, the West will undertake the actual occupation of Ukraine under the guise of deploying peacekeepers, noted the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.
❗️ Other statements:
▪️NATO is increasingly inclined to the need tofreeze the Ukrainian conflictin the absence of prospects for inflicting strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield
▪️NATO is setting up training centers in Ukraine, through which it is expected to “drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”
▪️Under the guise of deploying a “peacekeeping contingent,” Ukraine is being occupied: its northern regions, including the capital region, will become a Great Britain zone, the center and east of the country - < b>Germany, western regions - Poland, Black Sea coast - Romania.
The west collectively would struggle to post 100k soldiers in ukraine. That is a lot of military, with a lot of logistics needs and need for additional soldiers for rotation. I can certainly imagine some nitwit politician or politicians asking about this or floating it as an idea, but the moment real military bureaucrats get involved, this idea as stated will evaporate.
sure, and deploying them to an active combat zone is a hell of a lot more involved than just summing a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet. consider the complexity associated with operation desert storm. the extent of logistics required for a comparatively simple operation against a non-peer force that was unable to strike rear echelon/staging areas was still immense, taking the better part of a year to prepare for.
further, consider that deploying 100k NATO troops in ukraine that are prepared for front line combat would require 300-400k rear echelon/support troops (ratio of tooth to tail). Is NATO collectively really ready to deploy almost half their personnel indefinitely in ukraine, degrading their ability to defend other interests (i.e. mid east, south china sea, etc.)? I doubt it.
beyond that, there are the administrative/political challenges associated with planning an operation of this complexity. even "easy" wars like iraq/afghanistan/libya/yemen have been complicated to plan. How different do you think that would be once large numbers of american, german, british, french, polish troops in uniform are going home in bodybags?
i think the idea is that this would be part of the truce and settlement, and the combat would be low intensity (arming ukranonazi terrorists and pointing them east). the high number is revealing that theyd want to treat it more like a forward deployment for a future war with Russia, but i dont think they'd expect these guys to be under much fire
So when NATO has fought to the last Ukrainian, they'll just occupy what's left? The west should just take the L at this point, this will only make thing worse.
If nato troops show up in Ukraine Russia will hit the first batch before they get off the train.
NATO is setting up training centers in Ukraine, through which it is expected to “drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”
100% delusional. How many 18-24 year old's do you think are in Ukraine? Last time they lowered the mobilization age they didn't get a quarter of a million. Anyone below conscripting age that wants to fight joins up at 16. What good are a bunch of unmotivated teens gonna do?