In the objectively existing reality in which International Relations are unfolding, Russia has proven its reliability as an ally to the five countries that comprise the CSTO, while popular claims that it’s Syria, Venezuela, and/or Iran’s ally are bonafide “Potemkinism”, or nothing but an alternative reality.
I think the "multipolar project" is pretty much folding and dying. Whether Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Cuba or any other countries are allies, friends or partners to Russia and/or China, they are being taken out one by one, until no country will be left other than Russia and China (Russia to be taken out first before China). Russia and China are not helping Iran more, not because Iran is only a friend, not an ally, but because they cannot do more than what they have done and are already doing (Believe it or not, there are real military, economic and political limits to what both countries can do to help). yet the alternative media is still cheering and talking about how the multipolar world is growing day by day and defeating the evil West.
Agreed, in fact, the clock might be ticking for Putin to cut a deal with Trump before Trump visits Xi at month's end, during which time Xi might cut a deal with Trump and thus result in more pressure being placed on Putin; likewise, if Putin cuts a deal with Trump before that, more pressure would be placed on Xi.
Regardless of however one might judge the US' domestic, economic, and/or foreign policies, Trump 2.0 is masterfully dividing-and-ruling the US' adversaries, particularly the Russia-Iran-China triangle (not to be confused with the Russia-India-China one popularly known as RIC, but even India just cut a deal with the US, though it's not a US adversary).
I think Trump 2.0 is really good at using brute force rather than dividing and ruling to accomplish his goals. As you say, India is not the best example since it was never a US adversary. Even though I very much think the multipolar world is folding, I still think China and Russia have no choice but to stick together if they want any chance to survive this (and it's only a chance because they will most probably go down as well). The problem with cutting deals with the US is that the US is agreement incapable. (Case in point: the nuclear deal with Iran) so cutting a deal with the US will not also guarantee these countries' sovereignty and thus survival. But who knows? I may be wrong about this and you right about the need to cut a deal.
That is a myth (despite the "indian treaties" story): as long as the USA oligarchs profit from a treaty or it is costly for them to break it they will respect it, but not one minute more. Same for the business contracts they sign. In the USA culture respecting a contract or a treaty that is unprofitable just because it has been agreed is just for suckers and losers.
Newt Gingrich "A new look at environmental policy" NAEP News, 1995:
«For most Americans the speed limit is a benchmark of opportunity. This is not a light insight. If you have a society where almost every middle class person routinely fudges the law, that’s telling us something. We have laws that matter – murder, rape, and we have laws that don’t matter. The first thing that every good American says each morning is “What’s the angle?” “How can I get around it?” “What does my lawyer think?” “There must be a loophole!”»
So in other words, 'agreement incapable' or dishonest. It's ok to just admit it. The US already had the disadvantage of short leadership cycles, but this development, which has happened since the end of the Cold War, sort of invalidates the premise. Who cares about leadership cycles when everyone is lying? We knew how to keep an agreement before 1991.
It's late stage empire stuff, really. When you are unreliable, the inability to trust your words is infectious. People will actively find ways around you and your power will drift away.
Trump read Pentagon is dividing these allies because they are weak allies and always have been. They are both self-interested in serving their own countries while climate change has become a batttering ram laying waste to C'hina farmland And now Europe. In that since the multipolar world theme amongst another group of capitalist countries has shown itself to be useless when it comes to big wars launched by the west. China and Russia willnot join hands to together confront Trump around the theft of Venezuelan oil! That says it all IMO.
It seems "multipolar" has become whatever people want it to mean. I think there was a unipolar moment circa 1990, but that long since has evaporated. At least after 2001 it was clear the US could just deal with two conflicts at once -- everyone else was able to do whatever they wanted essentially.
What did change after the fall of the USSR was there was less ideological hot air, that either system could solve all the social problems that come with the human condition. (This was pretty hard on a lot of boomers...and still is.)
That said, Russia is still an important pole in the global system, I think.
The broader notion that multipolarity means that all midsized countries can have essentially absolute sovereignty...that's not holding water.
Its also worth noting I think, that the "major power space" is a zero sum game for the most part. I don't know that even Russia really wanted a nuclear Iran. As far as Russia (and even China) holding the hand of these midsized players -- it's a case of the hand that's holding you is also the hand that is holding you down.
One must remember that Poutine himself told that he proposed a defensive military alliance to Pezeskian and that's Iran which refused it. One must remember too that Pezeskian refused to go to Kazan BRICS's summit.
It seems that notorious "analysts" PRNR, received in Moscow like stars, living quietly in France or London while governments of these country is hunting dissident bloggers , it seem that those actors of russian potemkinist "soft power" have tricked Russia in a foolish position.
Probably Russian's heads are too proud to recognize it and will keep on receiving them like stars
And absolutely, it's my deeply held belief that the top NRPR influencers who almost ritualistically paraded around Moscow have reaffirmed "Potemkinist" beliefs among Russian policymakers and thus further tainted their already broken feedback loops.
It's also incredibly suspicious how they can meet top, including Western-sanctioned, figures while returning home without any publicly disclosed legal problems, thus suggesting "debriefing" (likely at the airport) at the very least and threats of prosecution if they reveal it.
Essentially, some of these folks might therefore be operating as (even if only coerced) "agents of influence" for their governments, if not outright "agents". After all, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
What would the West think if so-called "dissidents" from Russia, China, and/or Iran freely traveled to their sphere, met with high-level officials sanctioned by their home governments, yet returned home without any publicly disclosed legal problems? They'd obviously accuse them of working with their intel agencies in some capacity.
It might therefore be that Russia naively considers these people to be "double agents (of influence only?)" in the sense of cooperating with their intel agencies for self-interested reasons but still nonetheless promoting Russia all the same.
Whatever it might be, the unintentional consequence has been that the Russian policy influencers and policymakers who meet with these top NRPR influencers who suspiciously have no legal problems whenever they return home are always told to "trust the plan", "Russia has experienced no setbacks", etc., which is very troubling.
The worst(sic) of them Ritter I think suffered repercussions recently and previously also but I wholeheartedly agree with your comment Andrew otherwise. All very suspect to say the least, even deceitful really. It leads one to think the Russian officials involved seem complicit or worse not just glib!
Despite my own "objective" view of reality, I love the conversation happening here. I like dialogue that gives one food for thought rather than what's already in the box that we must get out of for the benefit of the entire world.
True, although you forgot about North Korea, which is now also a formal ally in the full sense. So if North Korea were indeed attacked and Russia didn’t come to her aid, such critics might have a point. Also, I read a convincing account that Russia did offer Iran a formal alliance a year or two ago, but the latter essentially said “thanks, but no thanks.”
Here's how I responded to someone on X who asked me about that too:
Officially, yes, but it hasn't been tested, the stakes a completely different since it's a nuclear-armed country, and the scale of support as judged by North Korea's to Russia in Kursk might be limited to ammo and some troops fighting within North Korea's internationally recognized border (but I don't believe that North Korea is short on troops, would ever realistically be since any conflict would probably quickly go nuclear or be over soon due to brinksmanship).
I also consider the RF-DPRK mutual defense pact to be different than the CSTO since neither is integral to the other's security like Belarus and Kazakhstan at least are for Russia.
Don't get me wrong, they get along perfectly well and truly seem to trust one another, but I don't foresee Russia going to war with Japan, South Korea, and/or the US over North Korea.
Likewise, while the personnel and equipment that North Korea provided for Russia are deeply appreciated here, it too didn't pick a fight with the three aforesaid states to get pressure off of Russia.
So we see that there are indeed some limits to their mutual defense pact, agreed-upon limits that is, not in the sense of one side (in this case the DPRK) declining to do the above after being asked (which didn't happen).
In my assessment, the RF-DPRK mutual defense pact is more about Russia transferring high-tech military equipment to North Korea with respect to its part of the deal, not troops or ammo if hostilities re-erupt there.
So I consider it qualitatively different and not at the same level as the support that Russia provides to its CSTO allies, though still nonetheless significant, but I didn't want to ironically pull a "Potemkin" and inadvertently mislead folks about their alliance lol
As for talk of Russia offering Iran a mutual defense pact, it would probably have only been along the lines of the mutually agreed-upon limits that I believe define the North Korean one, aka high-tech military equipment transfers.
I also suspect that it would have come with political strings attached with respect to the condition that Iran cut a deal with the US over its nuclear program (including transferring uranium to Russia) before Russia implements the pact.
I arrived at these conclusions based on Russia's consistent desire to avoid war with Israel in West Asia and the US in Europe, and I can't imagine it waging on over Iran when it won't wage one over Ukraine, which is more important to it.
Andrew, I've read the Poutine's interview about this topic. He said vert clearly that he proposed to Iran a defensive alliance " the same that Korea alliance".
Yes, but as I explained, I believe that the DPRK alliance is more about Russia transferring high-tech military equipment (including satellite technology and possibly ballistic missile technology) in exchange for DPRK providing ammo and troops for Kursk. I really don't think that Russia envisaged fighting Japan, South Korea, and the US for the DPRK and the US and Israel for Iran.
«I really don't think that Russia envisaged fighting Japan, South Korea, and the US for the DPRK»
But that obligation is what they signed and V. Putin is a legalist. Also it is of note that the main ally of the DPRK in the 1950s war was the PRC but the PRC has no alliances or mutual defense pacts with anybody not even with the DPRK (which would be a problem under Article 56 of the UN Charter).
Anyhow if the DPRK in next on the list and the RF reneges on "by all means" the RF sphere of influence which is already small and weak will simply evaporate.
«and the US and Israel for Iran.»
I suspect that V, Putin offered a mutual defense pact to Iran only because he was sure they would refuse. Different with the DPRK which was setup and initially managed by the USSR.
I think Russia has been doing the logical, smart thing, which is develop geopolitical equity where and when it can. Its uniquely positioned to do this, after all -- intelligence services, military power, economic independence, military tech/sales.
They've been a partner that allowed the countries, if smart, to get the best deal possible...again, if they were smart. Of course, at the end of the day, many of these countries turn out to be low IQ, corrupt, top heavy structures. They're not interested in sovereignty, just rent seeking and milking their people.
Don't understand your "spin" on being an ally. There are many different ways to be an ally, just ask the Mossad. Putin is an excellent leader, who I personally think really cares about the population of his people and their history. The fact he has KGB background is wonderful in a leader who cares about his country because he knows things even the population he cares about does not know; and that is how the real world works; to deceive and take without questions. I think most of the pundits in these comments underestimate the power in the people and leadership of Russia. Read your WWII history of the true heroes against the destruction of the Jews by Hitler. Other countries do not have that and certainly not the people of the USA who never seem to have representation much less enough backbone. You cannot "delete" a culture and nation that has a 5000 year old history. USA is a fool's thought on a bad day when he couldn't get down and pray.
Thanks for the feedback, Paula, but it wasn’t “spin”; it was a fact check reminding folks of the reality that Russia has no mutual defense obligations to Iran and all those who hitherto claimed it did lied.
It’s precisely because Putin cares for his people that he doesn’t want Russians dying for Iran. He believes, whether rightly or wrongly, that Russia can manage the fallout even from the worst-case scenario of Iran’s total defeat and “Balkanization”.
I agree that there are other ways to be an “ally”, but that’s not what Russia does. It’s important for folks to acknowledge this political reality as it objectively exists, which doesn’t equate to endorsing it if they don’t want to, just incorporating it into their own analyses afterwards if they truly want to accurately reflect reality.
«those forty leaders were in alert and probably very cautious»
Khamenei was accepting martyrdom that is a Shii value, I doubt that most of the other were as sincerely committed, more likely that it was in part the usual unreliability and disorganization of the iranians (in this iranian culture does not seem so different from arab and mediterranean and indian culture).
One question for Andrew. The US clearly took out Iran's leader and was negotiating while building up a bruit force, some speak of just buying time while planning to cut off the snake's head. How is Russia supposed to trust anything the US agrees upon?
Well, what. an one say? Iran is dumb. They should have gotten the bomb years ago and nobody would have touched them.
After NATO killed Gaddafi like a dog, after he had surrendered all his weapons of mass destruction, everyone knew, working with the West is a hoax. This time around we saw it very clearly, someone negotiates to buy time for an attack...How ignorant are the Iranians please?
«Russia has proven its reliability as an ally to the five countries that comprise the CSTO.»
Indedd but what about vice-versa? The RF is under constant attack by an invader since the DPR and LPR applied and obtained membership of the RF in 2022 and even more so during the Kursk situation but none of the other CSTO member states provided so far any significant military assistance (I reckon that making a lot of profit by laundering western products towards the RF does not count as military assistance).
The CSTO just seems to be a way for the other 4 member states to count on RF force to protect their ruling elite until they get purchased by the USA, and the RF seems to be willing to provide that service because they are terrified of USA encirclement and try to delay the time when the other members defect.
I think the "multipolar project" is pretty much folding and dying. Whether Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Cuba or any other countries are allies, friends or partners to Russia and/or China, they are being taken out one by one, until no country will be left other than Russia and China (Russia to be taken out first before China). Russia and China are not helping Iran more, not because Iran is only a friend, not an ally, but because they cannot do more than what they have done and are already doing (Believe it or not, there are real military, economic and political limits to what both countries can do to help). yet the alternative media is still cheering and talking about how the multipolar world is growing day by day and defeating the evil West.
Agreed, in fact, the clock might be ticking for Putin to cut a deal with Trump before Trump visits Xi at month's end, during which time Xi might cut a deal with Trump and thus result in more pressure being placed on Putin; likewise, if Putin cuts a deal with Trump before that, more pressure would be placed on Xi.
Regardless of however one might judge the US' domestic, economic, and/or foreign policies, Trump 2.0 is masterfully dividing-and-ruling the US' adversaries, particularly the Russia-Iran-China triangle (not to be confused with the Russia-India-China one popularly known as RIC, but even India just cut a deal with the US, though it's not a US adversary).
I think Trump 2.0 is really good at using brute force rather than dividing and ruling to accomplish his goals. As you say, India is not the best example since it was never a US adversary. Even though I very much think the multipolar world is folding, I still think China and Russia have no choice but to stick together if they want any chance to survive this (and it's only a chance because they will most probably go down as well). The problem with cutting deals with the US is that the US is agreement incapable. (Case in point: the nuclear deal with Iran) so cutting a deal with the US will not also guarantee these countries' sovereignty and thus survival. But who knows? I may be wrong about this and you right about the need to cut a deal.
«the US is that the US is agreement incapable»
That is a myth (despite the "indian treaties" story): as long as the USA oligarchs profit from a treaty or it is costly for them to break it they will respect it, but not one minute more. Same for the business contracts they sign. In the USA culture respecting a contract or a treaty that is unprofitable just because it has been agreed is just for suckers and losers.
Newt Gingrich "A new look at environmental policy" NAEP News, 1995:
https://aspace-uwg.galileo.usg.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/124552
«For most Americans the speed limit is a benchmark of opportunity. This is not a light insight. If you have a society where almost every middle class person routinely fudges the law, that’s telling us something. We have laws that matter – murder, rape, and we have laws that don’t matter. The first thing that every good American says each morning is “What’s the angle?” “How can I get around it?” “What does my lawyer think?” “There must be a loophole!”»
So in other words, 'agreement incapable' or dishonest. It's ok to just admit it. The US already had the disadvantage of short leadership cycles, but this development, which has happened since the end of the Cold War, sort of invalidates the premise. Who cares about leadership cycles when everyone is lying? We knew how to keep an agreement before 1991.
It's late stage empire stuff, really. When you are unreliable, the inability to trust your words is infectious. People will actively find ways around you and your power will drift away.
Trump read Pentagon is dividing these allies because they are weak allies and always have been. They are both self-interested in serving their own countries while climate change has become a batttering ram laying waste to C'hina farmland And now Europe. In that since the multipolar world theme amongst another group of capitalist countries has shown itself to be useless when it comes to big wars launched by the west. China and Russia willnot join hands to together confront Trump around the theft of Venezuelan oil! That says it all IMO.
You show that you are an American analyst: you project western zero-sum mentality onto China and Russia.
It seems "multipolar" has become whatever people want it to mean. I think there was a unipolar moment circa 1990, but that long since has evaporated. At least after 2001 it was clear the US could just deal with two conflicts at once -- everyone else was able to do whatever they wanted essentially.
What did change after the fall of the USSR was there was less ideological hot air, that either system could solve all the social problems that come with the human condition. (This was pretty hard on a lot of boomers...and still is.)
That said, Russia is still an important pole in the global system, I think.
The broader notion that multipolarity means that all midsized countries can have essentially absolute sovereignty...that's not holding water.
Its also worth noting I think, that the "major power space" is a zero sum game for the most part. I don't know that even Russia really wanted a nuclear Iran. As far as Russia (and even China) holding the hand of these midsized players -- it's a case of the hand that's holding you is also the hand that is holding you down.
True, America now bestrides the world like the New Colossus under Trump.
Although we never fully know what fate and history have in store for us. And how the collapse of the biosphere will affect geopolitics.
The US is not a formal ally of Israel, either, not that it matters.
Excellent point
One must remember that Poutine himself told that he proposed a defensive military alliance to Pezeskian and that's Iran which refused it. One must remember too that Pezeskian refused to go to Kazan BRICS's summit.
It seems that notorious "analysts" PRNR, received in Moscow like stars, living quietly in France or London while governments of these country is hunting dissident bloggers , it seem that those actors of russian potemkinist "soft power" have tricked Russia in a foolish position.
Probably Russian's heads are too proud to recognize it and will keep on receiving them like stars
I just addressed that point here:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/fact-check-russia-was-never-irans?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=221416966
And absolutely, it's my deeply held belief that the top NRPR influencers who almost ritualistically paraded around Moscow have reaffirmed "Potemkinist" beliefs among Russian policymakers and thus further tainted their already broken feedback loops.
It's also incredibly suspicious how they can meet top, including Western-sanctioned, figures while returning home without any publicly disclosed legal problems, thus suggesting "debriefing" (likely at the airport) at the very least and threats of prosecution if they reveal it.
Essentially, some of these folks might therefore be operating as (even if only coerced) "agents of influence" for their governments, if not outright "agents". After all, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
What would the West think if so-called "dissidents" from Russia, China, and/or Iran freely traveled to their sphere, met with high-level officials sanctioned by their home governments, yet returned home without any publicly disclosed legal problems? They'd obviously accuse them of working with their intel agencies in some capacity.
It might therefore be that Russia naively considers these people to be "double agents (of influence only?)" in the sense of cooperating with their intel agencies for self-interested reasons but still nonetheless promoting Russia all the same.
Whatever it might be, the unintentional consequence has been that the Russian policy influencers and policymakers who meet with these top NRPR influencers who suspiciously have no legal problems whenever they return home are always told to "trust the plan", "Russia has experienced no setbacks", etc., which is very troubling.
The worst(sic) of them Ritter I think suffered repercussions recently and previously also but I wholeheartedly agree with your comment Andrew otherwise. All very suspect to say the least, even deceitful really. It leads one to think the Russian officials involved seem complicit or worse not just glib!
Despite my own "objective" view of reality, I love the conversation happening here. I like dialogue that gives one food for thought rather than what's already in the box that we must get out of for the benefit of the entire world.
True, although you forgot about North Korea, which is now also a formal ally in the full sense. So if North Korea were indeed attacked and Russia didn’t come to her aid, such critics might have a point. Also, I read a convincing account that Russia did offer Iran a formal alliance a year or two ago, but the latter essentially said “thanks, but no thanks.”
Here's how I responded to someone on X who asked me about that too:
Officially, yes, but it hasn't been tested, the stakes a completely different since it's a nuclear-armed country, and the scale of support as judged by North Korea's to Russia in Kursk might be limited to ammo and some troops fighting within North Korea's internationally recognized border (but I don't believe that North Korea is short on troops, would ever realistically be since any conflict would probably quickly go nuclear or be over soon due to brinksmanship).
I also consider the RF-DPRK mutual defense pact to be different than the CSTO since neither is integral to the other's security like Belarus and Kazakhstan at least are for Russia.
Don't get me wrong, they get along perfectly well and truly seem to trust one another, but I don't foresee Russia going to war with Japan, South Korea, and/or the US over North Korea.
Likewise, while the personnel and equipment that North Korea provided for Russia are deeply appreciated here, it too didn't pick a fight with the three aforesaid states to get pressure off of Russia.
So we see that there are indeed some limits to their mutual defense pact, agreed-upon limits that is, not in the sense of one side (in this case the DPRK) declining to do the above after being asked (which didn't happen).
In my assessment, the RF-DPRK mutual defense pact is more about Russia transferring high-tech military equipment to North Korea with respect to its part of the deal, not troops or ammo if hostilities re-erupt there.
So I consider it qualitatively different and not at the same level as the support that Russia provides to its CSTO allies, though still nonetheless significant, but I didn't want to ironically pull a "Potemkin" and inadvertently mislead folks about their alliance lol
As for talk of Russia offering Iran a mutual defense pact, it would probably have only been along the lines of the mutually agreed-upon limits that I believe define the North Korean one, aka high-tech military equipment transfers.
I also suspect that it would have come with political strings attached with respect to the condition that Iran cut a deal with the US over its nuclear program (including transferring uranium to Russia) before Russia implements the pact.
I arrived at these conclusions based on Russia's consistent desire to avoid war with Israel in West Asia and the US in Europe, and I can't imagine it waging on over Iran when it won't wage one over Ukraine, which is more important to it.
Andrew, I've read the Poutine's interview about this topic. He said vert clearly that he proposed to Iran a defensive alliance " the same that Korea alliance".
Yes, but as I explained, I believe that the DPRK alliance is more about Russia transferring high-tech military equipment (including satellite technology and possibly ballistic missile technology) in exchange for DPRK providing ammo and troops for Kursk. I really don't think that Russia envisaged fighting Japan, South Korea, and the US for the DPRK and the US and Israel for Iran.
«I really don't think that Russia envisaged fighting Japan, South Korea, and the US for the DPRK»
But that obligation is what they signed and V. Putin is a legalist. Also it is of note that the main ally of the DPRK in the 1950s war was the PRC but the PRC has no alliances or mutual defense pacts with anybody not even with the DPRK (which would be a problem under Article 56 of the UN Charter).
Anyhow if the DPRK in next on the list and the RF reneges on "by all means" the RF sphere of influence which is already small and weak will simply evaporate.
«and the US and Israel for Iran.»
I suspect that V, Putin offered a mutual defense pact to Iran only because he was sure they would refuse. Different with the DPRK which was setup and initially managed by the USSR.
If that is true then Putin (and Russia) have a strange definition of that an alliance means. More inline with Article 5 BS.
Well put Andrew.
I think Russia has been doing the logical, smart thing, which is develop geopolitical equity where and when it can. Its uniquely positioned to do this, after all -- intelligence services, military power, economic independence, military tech/sales.
They've been a partner that allowed the countries, if smart, to get the best deal possible...again, if they were smart. Of course, at the end of the day, many of these countries turn out to be low IQ, corrupt, top heavy structures. They're not interested in sovereignty, just rent seeking and milking their people.
Fat lot of good it does, as the Americans topple them one by one.
Iran is Russia's neighbor and Russia will always look favorable thowerds Iran. The term ALLY can have a variety of meanings.
In the geopolitical game you have no friends only interest !!!
Don't understand your "spin" on being an ally. There are many different ways to be an ally, just ask the Mossad. Putin is an excellent leader, who I personally think really cares about the population of his people and their history. The fact he has KGB background is wonderful in a leader who cares about his country because he knows things even the population he cares about does not know; and that is how the real world works; to deceive and take without questions. I think most of the pundits in these comments underestimate the power in the people and leadership of Russia. Read your WWII history of the true heroes against the destruction of the Jews by Hitler. Other countries do not have that and certainly not the people of the USA who never seem to have representation much less enough backbone. You cannot "delete" a culture and nation that has a 5000 year old history. USA is a fool's thought on a bad day when he couldn't get down and pray.
Thanks for the feedback, Paula, but it wasn’t “spin”; it was a fact check reminding folks of the reality that Russia has no mutual defense obligations to Iran and all those who hitherto claimed it did lied.
It’s precisely because Putin cares for his people that he doesn’t want Russians dying for Iran. He believes, whether rightly or wrongly, that Russia can manage the fallout even from the worst-case scenario of Iran’s total defeat and “Balkanization”.
I agree that there are other ways to be an “ally”, but that’s not what Russia does. It’s important for folks to acknowledge this political reality as it objectively exists, which doesn’t equate to endorsing it if they don’t want to, just incorporating it into their own analyses afterwards if they truly want to accurately reflect reality.
One must considerate something: in the first 24h, US and Israeli strikes have killed Khamenei, the head of GRC and forty other big shots.
That leads to two réflexions at least:
- those forty leaders were in alert and probably very cautious. Who gave their perfect location to US ?
- you can notice that Pezeskian is not on the kill list.
«those forty leaders were in alert and probably very cautious»
Khamenei was accepting martyrdom that is a Shii value, I doubt that most of the other were as sincerely committed, more likely that it was in part the usual unreliability and disorganization of the iranians (in this iranian culture does not seem so different from arab and mediterranean and indian culture).
Would be interested to hear your analysis on the current state of Russia-Israel relations, with perhaps a contextualizing of recent history.
One question for Andrew. The US clearly took out Iran's leader and was negotiating while building up a bruit force, some speak of just buying time while planning to cut off the snake's head. How is Russia supposed to trust anything the US agrees upon?
Well, what. an one say? Iran is dumb. They should have gotten the bomb years ago and nobody would have touched them.
After NATO killed Gaddafi like a dog, after he had surrendered all his weapons of mass destruction, everyone knew, working with the West is a hoax. This time around we saw it very clearly, someone negotiates to buy time for an attack...How ignorant are the Iranians please?
The others were right about you, and your negativity is just unbelievable... UNSUB.
Philo-Semitism..?
«Russia has proven its reliability as an ally to the five countries that comprise the CSTO.»
Indedd but what about vice-versa? The RF is under constant attack by an invader since the DPR and LPR applied and obtained membership of the RF in 2022 and even more so during the Kursk situation but none of the other CSTO member states provided so far any significant military assistance (I reckon that making a lot of profit by laundering western products towards the RF does not count as military assistance).
The CSTO just seems to be a way for the other 4 member states to count on RF force to protect their ruling elite until they get purchased by the USA, and the RF seems to be willing to provide that service because they are terrified of USA encirclement and try to delay the time when the other members defect.