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.
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.
Didn't congress just also ban Tik-Tok? So when the USA surveils us, it's keeping us safe, but when China does surveillance, it's literally 1984 evil communist dystopia? Are they aware that Orwell (fed snitch btw) said that 1984 was based on his experience working for the BBC?
Enemy governments can’t do shit to me, an American, if they spy on me. It’s literally meaningless to my life.
The American government can kill me, arrest me, or arbitrarily ruin my life with criminal proceedings. American government spying on me is life-or-death serious.
It’s so pathetic that most Americans are so pigheaded they can’t see this
i honestly am starting to think some fraction of the intense bootlicking is telegraphed (and the following applies more to blue maga libs then anyone else:)
people know they are being deeply surveilled. it's like a prayer: "look daddy look how loyal and patriotic i am please don't blackbag me in the night"
same with much of the cop worship. slap a sticker on the car, publicly suck off cops, and hope you get put on a list of "good ones" or at least not arbitrarily murdered.
literally all the stuff "evil 1984 communist dictatorship" makes the people do
I'm no particular fan of Christopher Hitchens, but he did have this to say about Orwell, and it seems to ring pretty true: Orwell On Trial
For one thing, Orwell named no names and disclosed no identities. The papers show quite clearly that he gave only his opinion, and only that about people already in public life. Furthermore, they show that he gave it only to a woman whom he regarded as a trusted friend and to whom he had once proposed marriage. Finally, he said no more in “private” than he had long been saying in public.
...
Nothing that Orwell discussed with his old flame was ever used for a show trial or a bullying “hearing” or a blacklist or a witch-hunt. He wasn’t interested in unearthing heresy or in getting people fired or in putting them under the discipline of a loyalty oath. He just wanted to keep a clear accounting in the battle of ideas.
Take it as you will, but IMO the portrayal of him as a snitch seems a bit...overblown.
The problem with that quote is that its from Christopher Hitchens who is a Reddit-tier debate bro who just makes shit up.
Orwell’s snitch list was prepared for and delivered to a British intelligence service - the British government propaganda office that Orwell worked for that is - and he didn’t just snitch on communists, he also snitched on homosexuals.
Orwell wasn’t just a snitch, he was a paid propagandist. A homophobe. A colonial policeman who believed in the British empire as a force for good up until his death, which can only mean also a white supremacist.
Orwell’s snitch list was prepared for and delivered to a British intelligence service - the British government propaganda office that Orwell worked for that is - and he didn’t just snitch on communists, he also snitched on homosexuals.
There was pushback back then, against the illegal and unprovoked invasions, against the expansion of the surveillance state and it did exactly nothing to stop the descent into fascism. It can't come as a surprise that people today remember this and ask themselves "why bother?" when they're doing the same shit once again.
Two points, first this possibly just Democrats trying to pander to right wingers but not realizing the people that want government surveillance, concentration camps for immigrants etc simultaneously believe the "big government bad" narrative and they don't care about what is the newest Dem fascist/rascist stance, they still hate Democrats no matter what, they don't care wtf the NYT is saying, they would [redacted] that place if they could.
So who is this for? If you want a conspiracy I suspect this quite possible a deliberate attempt at reading the room and seeing how much they can push the blue MAGA realy. Personally it wont be so easy, its too cartoon evil. Libs will embrace and try to minimize real existing Nazism(Ukraine) but there needs to be a catalyst, that time it was defending democracy against "evil" etc. But without that catalyst? Its a bit too soon and obvious. Or you can read the comments over there, its surprisingly majority negative and the positive comments must be bots or something, either way who would unironically write on the NYT comment section lol.