The problem with threats like this is the west hasn’t and never will face the plethora of well armed and trained, organized, and intel supplied insurgencies that Russia and others in the axis of resistance face because the west are the ones who have spent years, decades cultivating them.
I’ve often thought of this but let’s say you want to hit the US. There are no groups you could give it to. The cartels in Mexico would never provoke the US like that and they’re the closest to a non-west affiliated armed organization (with greater than a few dozen members who could easily be killed) operating within 3000 miles of the US. Same in Europe. Most Russia could do without starting a war by handing them to a group not currently fighting and telling them to start would be to target the Zionist occupation of Palestine by handing such weapons over to groups in that region.
So it’s an empty threat without years of groundwork and millions of dollars. The only real options Russia has are to put more weapons into the Middle East that will stay and be used there or to directly strike without hope of denial or obfuscation at the west or their client states directly which looks like escalation.
I don't think that's a given at all actually. Look how Yemen was able to defeat US navy in the Red Sea with the weapons supplied by Iran. Now imagine that Russia starts sending advanced weapons to Iran and Syria. US and Israel won't be able to bomb Syria anymore. Iran will start using modern jets like Su35, etc. Russia is also actively collaborating with countries in Africa to clean up US backed terrorists and push out AFRICOM. Also, consider Russia helping strengthen DPRK against the regime in the south. This will put a lot of pressure on US resources in the region. Same goes for Russian military cooperation with China.
Russia doesn't need to start a war with US, simply to make it increasingly expensive for US to maintain its global military presence. US is far more extended than Russia in this regard. So, Russia can have an asymmetric response to what US is doing in Ukraine that's going to be just as damaging.
Oh, I hadn't seen the bleed-them-dry angle yet. Yeah, this makes the required defensive capabilities much more expensive across the whole network, and it creates opportunities for guerillas to keep 'em guessing and constantly have minor threats that require evaluation to determine full extent.
Don't assume Western means USA in this case. Also don't assume Western targets means USA homeland. It is clear to me that Russia has been cultivating resistance groups in Europe, Africa, and potentially AsiaPac, and that all of these groups would benefit from the ability to deter and ultimately demolish USA forward bases and forward deployments.
The problem with threats like this is the west hasn’t and never will face the plethora of well armed and trained, organized, and intel supplied insurgencies that Russia and others in the axis of resistance face because the west are the ones who have spent years, decades cultivating them.
I’ve often thought of this but let’s say you want to hit the US. There are no groups you could give it to. The cartels in Mexico would never provoke the US like that and they’re the closest to a non-west affiliated armed organization (with greater than a few dozen members who could easily be killed) operating within 3000 miles of the US. Same in Europe. Most Russia could do without starting a war by handing them to a group not currently fighting and telling them to start would be to target the Zionist occupation of Palestine by handing such weapons over to groups in that region.
So it’s an empty threat without years of groundwork and millions of dollars. The only real options Russia has are to put more weapons into the Middle East that will stay and be used there or to directly strike without hope of denial or obfuscation at the west or their client states directly which looks like escalation.
I don't think that's a given at all actually. Look how Yemen was able to defeat US navy in the Red Sea with the weapons supplied by Iran. Now imagine that Russia starts sending advanced weapons to Iran and Syria. US and Israel won't be able to bomb Syria anymore. Iran will start using modern jets like Su35, etc. Russia is also actively collaborating with countries in Africa to clean up US backed terrorists and push out AFRICOM. Also, consider Russia helping strengthen DPRK against the regime in the south. This will put a lot of pressure on US resources in the region. Same goes for Russian military cooperation with China.
Russia doesn't need to start a war with US, simply to make it increasingly expensive for US to maintain its global military presence. US is far more extended than Russia in this regard. So, Russia can have an asymmetric response to what US is doing in Ukraine that's going to be just as damaging.
Oh, I hadn't seen the bleed-them-dry angle yet. Yeah, this makes the required defensive capabilities much more expensive across the whole network, and it creates opportunities for guerillas to keep 'em guessing and constantly have minor threats that require evaluation to determine full extent.
indeed
Don't assume Western means USA in this case. Also don't assume Western targets means USA homeland. It is clear to me that Russia has been cultivating resistance groups in Europe, Africa, and potentially AsiaPac, and that all of these groups would benefit from the ability to deter and ultimately demolish USA forward bases and forward deployments.
Is that IRA/ETA music that I'm hearing?