they've already weathered a decade of CIA drone strikes and Saudi air strikes. did anyone believe these recent strikes were anything but performative actions by a humiliated US administration?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/us/politics/houthis-yemen-us-airstrikes.html
Here's a pro tip: when a US media outlet says "This action did have an effect, but it achieved considerably less than expected," this is code for "It achieved fucking nothing. Actually, it probably weakened us more than it weakened them."
Prime example is all the articles over the last couple years talking about how sanctions on Russia are definitely doing something! They're not working as well as we want, but they are working! Meanwhile, Russia is essentially the best performing major economy in the European region, is distinctly not in a recession unlike, say, Germany, had its oil sold significantly above the oil price cap for half of 2023 (with a recent fall to "just" the price cap of $60 per barrel), with manufacturing and services PMIs doing great, record low unemployment (...well, you know what I mean...), and basically everybody who isn't a bot on Reddit is admitting is winning the war in Ukraine despite the combined military deliveries of dozens of countries throughout NATO.
Another example is of sanctions on China, perhaps best summed up by this:
(from January 2024 in CGTN)
Ah, well, nevertheless.
Simply put, if I didn't want Ansarallah in Yemen to become a battle-hardened, militant force in the region which has found ways to mitigate the impacts of western bombing campaigns, and is totally unwilling to even briefly consider US demands to stop blockading the Red Sea, I would have simply not fucking bombed them and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians for nine fucking years. Actions have consequences.
Propaganda cannot feed an army. It cannot fuel a battleship. It cannot be fired out of a missile launcher. But other than magically-conjured trillions of dollars, it's about the only thing that America can still make.
Understanding the nature of mass propaganda makes you realize that the average journalist is 90% similar to your average Facebook lib regurgitating what they hear without questioning...just with primary sources instead of secondary. Unlike Trump, the natsec apparatus is ✨ professional ✨ with their communications, therefore completely trustworthy to libs...so they regurgitate without question.
Anyone demonstrating an understanding of systemic/structural problems is a threat to capital, so capitalist-owned outlets simply never give them microphone/pen, guaranteeing natsec ghouls can pass their narratives to an amplification machine that gives the authority of a perceived unanimity by "independent" non-government institutions.
I'm sure many natsec fucksticks are aware of this phenomenon and exploit it feeding journalists whatever info is most likely to result in consent for whatever they want to do. Press statements from these officials should be looked at as their wishlist for public opinion rather than an informed scoop.
News reporting any intervention as ineffective won't be passed by an "official" source, thus never getting printed. Only reason to state as much to the press is if you need public support for new escalation. Hence why all these libs still think Ukraine is winning or only isn't because we haven't sent them enough weapons systems...last thing they heard is that Ukraine is one
javelinPanzerF16 away from winning or China is one sanction away from theireconomysemiconductor industry collapsing.