Russia is unwilling to spark World War III over the Houthis, lacks the logistical ability to clandestinely support them even if it wanted to, and pragmatically prioritizes ties with the wealthy Gulf Kingdoms over that impoverished Yemeni rebel group. Anyone who claims otherwise is maliciously setting others up for inevitable disappointment.
Why on Earth would Russia support illegal attacks on merchant shipping? Russia itself has an objective interest in maintaining security of shipping being herself vulnerable to closure of her rather constrained ports and shipping lanes through the Black and Mediterranean Seas and Baltic and Barents Seas.
I agree, it's completely illogical, but it shows you how brainwashed some folks are. Here, check out the reactions to my article under McGregor's tweet about Yemen:
Of course. For one thing, Russia, China and India have an interest in keeping the Red Sea and Suez Canal open to merchant shipping. For another, all they have to do is sit back and wait for the headline "US SHIP SUNK," which may well happen, and then see just what type of reaction that generates in the American heartland.
It's 2024, not 1994. That reaction will have a lot more anti-imperialism in it than in similar past incidents.
US is doing a fine job alienating the entire Arab world all by itself. Still, there's an undeniable opportunity for tit-for-tat response vs
(1) plainly illegal US actions in Syria, including occupation, oil theft, and sponsoring terrorists
(2) US/UK participation (at a minimum, targeting; likely more) in sinking of Russian warships in the Black Sea
(3) US/UK complicity in Ukrainian terrorism vs Russia
There's no need to supply an entire army as the US is doing in Ukraine. But if the US policy people are having a hard time getting the message on the subjects above, it is a deniable and low-cost way to stimulate the learning process. An unprecedented proportion of the regional population would be quite happy to help, at this point in time.
Why on Earth would Russia support illegal attacks on merchant shipping? Russia itself has an objective interest in maintaining security of shipping being herself vulnerable to closure of her rather constrained ports and shipping lanes through the Black and Mediterranean Seas and Baltic and Barents Seas.
I agree, it's completely illogical, but it shows you how brainwashed some folks are. Here, check out the reactions to my article under McGregor's tweet about Yemen:
https://twitter.com/AKorybko/status/1745872699329515955
Folks are convinced that this is all part of some "5D chess master plan" that Putin cooked up to trap the West or whatever lol
Of course. For one thing, Russia, China and India have an interest in keeping the Red Sea and Suez Canal open to merchant shipping. For another, all they have to do is sit back and wait for the headline "US SHIP SUNK," which may well happen, and then see just what type of reaction that generates in the American heartland.
It's 2024, not 1994. That reaction will have a lot more anti-imperialism in it than in similar past incidents.
US is doing a fine job alienating the entire Arab world all by itself. Still, there's an undeniable opportunity for tit-for-tat response vs
(1) plainly illegal US actions in Syria, including occupation, oil theft, and sponsoring terrorists
(2) US/UK participation (at a minimum, targeting; likely more) in sinking of Russian warships in the Black Sea
(3) US/UK complicity in Ukrainian terrorism vs Russia
There's no need to supply an entire army as the US is doing in Ukraine. But if the US policy people are having a hard time getting the message on the subjects above, it is a deniable and low-cost way to stimulate the learning process. An unprecedented proportion of the regional population would be quite happy to help, at this point in time.