They warned the west. They said if they keep giving Ukraine weapons to strike deep into what’s internationally recognized as Russia that they’ll arm people to strike the west. Hope it’s true.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
46 points (97.9% liked)
World News
2221 readers
115 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Awesome if true, fake if not.
Weren't these same journalists claiming Russia is so desperate for ammunition that it's buying shells and rockets from DPRK?
lol yup
I expect this type pf shit from game journalists if anything
Good, I hope Russia arms Yemen to the teeth. And maybe, hopefully in the near future, Iran, Saudi Arabia (for balance), and if they want it- Syria and Yemen, should become nuclear-armed states; honestly if I were Putin all the above would likely be in the works, to empower the indigenous states of the region to deter western parasitism. If the west wants to push their tyrannical "nuclear umbrella" ever forwards, the global south- the majority of humanity, and the true forces representing humanity rather than everything inimical to it- should push back, and twice over, in turn.
honestly if I were Putin all the above would likely be in the works, to empower the indigenous states of the region to deter western parasitism
He's a lib. Why would he want to do that?
Never heard Putin called a liberal before. He's a reactionary right wing autocrat social conservative. Why he would want to do that is in the text you quoted:
"to deter western parasitism"
Empowering the targets of the USA to defend themselves would be a good strategic move for Russia. Keeping the US with its hands full etc.
I mean, he is a lib. Even all the "reactionary right wing" hysteria about him- while not entirely inaccurate- fails to mention that he's not really more conservative or reactionary (far, far less reactionary, actually, particularly when talking about economic and foreign policy) than the typical conservative in the west. And he's certainly far less reactionary than the western-backed alternatives (Navalny for instance, an out-and-about fascist)
Libs are reactionary, and they are right wing. And liberalism (which stands first and foremost for liberal economics) is entirely compatible with conservatism, and even fascism.
But libs pretend, even to themselves, to be progressives. Vlad does not.
Progressive and moderate libs do. Conservative liberals don't.
Please let them have Russian anti air, please let them have Russian anti air
And some hypersonic cruise missiles to sink some carriers
There is indication they already have hypersonics. They just haven't deployed them. I hope so much this is true.
Considering Russia's meek response to the west for their involvement in Ukraine so far I wasn't really thinking they would do this, despite them saying they would, but I guess I might have been wrong them.
Now what rests to see is what, if anything, was really sent there as I doubt they need AKs or ballistic missiles. So if such a transfer is as a response to the US them we might be seeing such things as:
Anti-ship missiles (from slow things to things that can take down US navy ships)
Cruise missiles (perhaps to attack the colonist entity directly and doing more damage than their last attack)
Anti-air (the Yemenis have taken down a couple drones but they could use better gear for dealling with fighters)
Ballistic missiles (if they want to have deniability of their use because the Yemenis already have some)
Drones (because drones are never enough)
Anything else that could be useful in their situation?
There's not much reason for Russia to escalate directly since the status quo favors them already. However, arming proxies is a perfect response that can result in severe consequences for NATO without directly escalating the current crisis. I imagine US military is going to be a lot more hesitant continuing pumping Ukraine full of weapons if this could result in their assets being attacked in West Asia and Africa.
There’s not much reason for Russia to escalate directly since the status quo favors them already.
While I agree with the overall idead of this statement, the US and its vassals seem to want to escalate very much even if Russia does nothing so I'm not sure if Russia not escalating is the best plan. It may be but it might not.
However, arming proxies is a perfect response that can result in severe consequences for NATO without directly escalating the current crisis.
I'd say this report by western media is already part of their escalation against any acts of Russian support to their advesaries by trying to get the population on board with whatever way they choose to escalate.
My reasoning is that if you're winning you want to keep the situation stable. Russian strategy is very straight forward, they're grinding out the AFU and all the western equipment along with it. They know that they have higher industrial capacity and can keep this going longer. Meanwhile, the economic war is also playing out in Russian favor.
The very reason the west is trying to escalate is because they see that they're losing, and they're forced to try new things. However, escalation also brings the risk of unpredictability with it. The west doesn't know when and how Russia will respond to them, so they're kept guessing whether their latest round of escalations might backfire in some unexpected way.
The western media is whinging about Russia sending weapons to western adversaries, but I don't expect that they'd be able to sell a direct conflict with Russia this way. And that's really the only card the west has left to play at this point.
Part of the reason why the us wants to escalated the crisis so much is that it would be bad for Russia. Right now the war situation is manageable for Russia, but with escalation, it could get out of control. This is exactly why Russian leaders have been hesitant to escalate.
For years now, pumping Ukraine full of weapons has been resulting in African countries getting pumped full of weapons. I cannot say for sure that certain African revolutionary movements are getting them, but western forces and their proxies aren't buying off the black market. The US seems to making just about every possible miscalculation and I'm not sure they even have the self awareness to hesitate.
Russia providing something like Iskanders to Yemen would be qualitatively different from things that float around on the black market.
Oh, absolutely. I just question the western military hubris that keeps backing itself into a corner where the only option they're willing to consider is increasing escalation.
It's pretty funny to watch honestly.
but they could use better gear for dealling with fighters
Is NATO currently using fighters in Yemen?
It seems the US is/was using carrier and land based F/A-18s for the bombings and submarines for cruise missiles but I'm not sure about the exact extent or equipment usage of their attacks.
Thanks!
