Fake News Alert: Russia Isn’t Arming The Houthis
There’s no evidence that President Putin was ever seriously considering this.
The Alt-Media Community (AMC) refers to the diverse group of non-Mainstream media outlets, influencers, and enthusiasts, some of whom overreact and misreport news that conforms with their wishful thinking expectations or even sometimes deliberately mislead their audiences. Such was the case with the popular X account “BRICS News”, which has over half a million followers and is verified as affiliated with a US-based crypto site, but some wrongly assume that it’s affiliated with BRICS.
They tweeted the following on Tuesday: “JUST IN: Russia to arm Yemen's Houthis with anti-ship ballistic cruise missiles.” Their audience, many of whom wrongly assume that “BRICS News’” gold check confirms its status as BRICS’ official news account unless they click that symbolic to see who it’s really affiliated with, took this claim for granted. In reality, however, it’s actually an example of “BRICS News” either misreporting what these two articles claimed or deliberately misleading their audience about them:
* 28 June: “US officials concerned Israeli offensive on Hezbollah could drag in Russia”
* 1 July: “Putin Mulls Arming Houthis With Cruise Missiles: Report”
The first was from the UK-based but reportedly Qatari-financed “Middle East Eye” (MEE), which cited an unnamed “senior US official” who told them that “President Vladimir Putin has considered providing Houthi rebel fighters with anti-ship cruise missiles” but the Saudi Crown Prince allegedly vetoed it. The second news item, meanwhile, was simply Newsweek reporting on the aforementioned claims. Neither report says that Russia will indeed arm the Houthis unlike what “BRICS News” tweeted.
Here are three background briefings which explain why Russia is reluctant to do this:
* 18 March: “Why’d the Houthis Twist the Truth by Claiming To Have Ties With Russia, China, and BRICS?”
* 18 May: “Russian Investments in Yemen Could Incentivize Moscow to Mediate a Resolution to its Conflict”
* 7 June: “Who Might Russia Arm As An Asymmetrical Response To The West Arming Ukraine?”
They’ll now be summarized for the reader’s convenience.
The first documents the objectively existing reality of Russian-Houthi relations by relying on official sources, which disprove the claim among many in the AMC that those two are military allies. Russia has publicly criticized the Houthis at the UNSC, while Foreign Minister Lavrov has criticized them on other occasions, each due to their objections to that group’s attacks against civilian vessels. Political ties exist, mostly for pragmatic reasons related to the group’s control of North Yemen, but that’s the extent of it.
As for the second, it documents the growing closeness between Russia and the UN-recognized Yemeni Government in Aden with whom the Houthis have been warring for nearly a decade already, which largely aligns with South Yemen. Russia usually prioritizes ties with legitimate governments over rebel groups, though exceptions exist such as its relations with Libya’s General Haftar. That said, Yemen is a case where it goes by the book, and it’s averse to sacrificing close ties with Aden by arming the Houthis.
The final briefing mentions near the end that Russia is unlikely to arm the Houthis because it doesn’t want to risk ruining relations with Saudi Arabia, which has also warred with that group for nearly a decade already and with whom Russia jointly manages the global oil market via OPEC+. While it’s possible that Russia’s speculative arming of the Resistance Axis in Syria and Iraq (under specific circumstances) might lead to arms indirectly flowing into the Houthis’ hands, it wouldn’t approve of this.
This insight helps to better understand what the MEE’s anonymous “senior US official” source allegedly told them regarding how the Russian leader “has considered providing” anti-ship cruise missiles to the Houthis but supposedly had his suggestion vetoed by the Saudi Crown Prince. While it can’t be known for sure given this subject’s opacity, it’s possible that their source is telling the truth, though with the caveat being that everything might not be as clear-cut as casual observers might assume.
To explain, MEE reported that “According to US intelligence, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman intervened to stop Putin from providing the Houthis with missiles…’Putin engaged Mohammed bin Salman who requested them [Russia] not to pursue the arrangement,’ the senior US official told MEE.” This suggests that the Crown Prince scheduled a call with the Russian leader to tell him not to go through with such a move, not that President Putin asked for permission but was turned down.
Mohammed Bin Salman’s administration might have either come across rumors about this online, such as those which have been pushed by the AMC since the Houthis began their blockade of the region’s waterway, or obtained intelligence from other sources that this was being discussed by some Russians. Regarding the second possibility, this piece here touches upon the recent emergence of a pro-Resistance Axis faction within Russia’s policymaking community, which is still subordinate to the pro-Israeli one.
Nevertheless, some communications might have been intercepted by the Saudis (or someone else who passed this along to them) from some of their members and/or they chatted about this with foreign colleagues who then passed it along to them, thus necessitating the Crown Prince’s call. Mohammed Bin Salman would have taken either sequence of events very seriously considering how costly his Kingdom’s nearly decade-long war against the Houthis has already been even without them having Russian arms.
Him calling President Putin to discuss this (if it even happened, that is), wouldn’t have automatically meant that Russia was about to arm the Houthis but was then “vetoed” at the last minute like many in the AMC without knowledge of how things work might now think after reading those reports. In fact, there’s no evidence that the Russian leader was ever seriously considering this, with it being much more likely that the currently non-influential pro-Resistance faction was the only one in Russia to discuss it.
While Russia’s approach towards Israel might change if it arms Ukraine with Patriots via the US like the abovementioned hyperlinked piece about the pro-Resistance faction mentioned, there aren’t any emerging fault lines in Russia’s ties with Saudi Arabia to speculate about a change in policy towards it. The Houthis already have anti-ship cruise missile capabilities like they’ve repeatedly proven so the question of them receiving such from Russia in the future is irrelevant in any practical sense.
The only reasons why this news is still circulating is because some members of the AMC either wishfully believe that it’ll happen (or has already happened), they’re deliberately misleading their audience about this for whatever reason, and/or foreign spy agencies like Qatar’s and the US’ want to divide Russia and Saudi Arabia. Responsible members of the AMC are therefore advised not to share such reports or lend false credence to them since there’s no factual basis for believing that Russia will arm the Houthis.
https://youtu.be/AW90p_dMALY?si=YTX3Fp6FhGdjY88l
Palki Sharma Upadhyaye, anchor of Firstpost and a docile purveyor of anti-Russia propaganda scripted by her Zio-oligarchic purse-string-pullers, known in the west as PulkEye ShouMe UPaid Ya Eh, is expressing anguish by innuendo at the fact that Russian ships have remained unscathed from attacks in the Red Sea thus far. Her question namely 'whether Russia is immune to Houthi attacks' is in no less bad taste than the hypothetical question of whether Palki is immune to gang rape at the hands of American kids in New York. The same God who has protected Palki from rape, is protecting Russian ships. I believe there is an even more sinister connotation to Palki's uncharitable observation made in a tone of sardonic lament. Could it be that Palki is wishing the terrible to befall Russia, something the priest crafters call by the name "curse", or Alternatively could it be that Pickly is delivering a veiled or discreet warning to Russia on behalf of the Ziooligarchic Corpimperialist deep state of America, to join the bandwagon of anti-Iranian coalition of Pentagon and NATO navies or else face a Bay of Pigs style false flag bombing of Russian ships by the American side? What a terribly disgusting stance!
The product of grooming at missionary college and upbringing in a priesty household during formative years of her character, Palki Sharma Upadhyaye has this compulsive habit of picking on Russia at all times. Her pronouncements make no secret of her dislike for Russia. She is aghast that Russian ships are plying the seas unmolested in Asia in contradistinction to the aims of the European Union which is applying illegal coercion on foreign governments to ban Russian ships from sailing the seas and docking at their ports.
https://youtu.be/AW90p_dMALY?si=FxdN8cNunllR0vov
It is not unusual for Palki to air vicious opinions her podcasts, which are soul- revolting and outrage the sensibilities of many a sensible and virtuous person. For instance, she has bemoaned that Russian ships have been plying the seas unmolested while some other countries have not managed to remain unscathed from pirate attacks; and then she poses the vicious question as to whether Russia is selectively immune to attacks from Houthis. Palki is discreetly suggesting a nexus or collusion between Russia and Houthis in matters of alleged high-sea piracy. Not having been a victim is no ground for holding a person culpable for complicity in a putative crime. The malicious question posed by Palki is no less deprecable than the hypothetical question of whether Palki herself is immune to rape at the hands of male kids in New York. The mindset behind Palki's outbursts is disgusting, to say the least. Under such circumstances her sychophantic supporters inundate the netscape under a barrage of logically impertinent posts saying " Palki is a wonderful Brahmin woman.....She is the pride of the world.... We love Palki...She is the beacon of guidance for India..." and what not. All of these are prevaricative stratagems to deflect attention at times when Palki finds herself in dearth of logical arguments to buttress her case in face of protests and remonstrations from the audience against her immoral pronouncements. Intolerance for counter opinions is not new to the Pulki brigade. In fact, in her interviews, she has craftily postured herself as a victim of vendetta from the anti-establishment camp. She has spoken aloud saying her detractors must not be permitted to garner influence and attention in society. She has been feigning Hinduistic and nationalist Hindu and pro-establishment pretentions with the likely motive of endearing herself to the power centres and pitting the establishment against her detractors. In actual fact, she is neither a Hindutva afficionado nor a Hindu nationalist. For all I can recollect, she and her beau are stalwarts from segments of the press which have consistently maintained vitriolically anti-Modi postures over the years until very recently. The political establishment in India is not naive and knows much better than getting drawn into her politicking intrigues and becoming her handmaiden for 'fixing up' her detractors.
Why not tho?