Posted on 06/25/2024 9:31:57 AM PDT by EBH
Kremlin propagandists have claimed that countries in Latin America, including Mexico, could host missiles that can strike American targets.
(snip)"Russians on Kremlin State TV yesterday declared that Mexico was their military ally and they are wanting to place their missiles on Mexican territory so Mexico can attack the United States," Jake Broe a former U.S. Air Force nuclear and missile operations officer, posted on X next to a screen grab. "This is insane."
Mexico has condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine but has adopted a policy of neutrality and refused to participate in sanctions against Moscow. Newsweek has contacted the Mexican foreign ministry for comment.
One guest, Alexei Fenenko, a research fellow at Moscow's Institute of International Security Studies, asked Popov: "I keep thinking, when will we finally show a map of where our missiles can strike the U.S. and not where their American missiles are striking us?"
This proposed map could show how "Anchorage, Honolulu, Seattle, Guam and San Francisco are within our reach. Why don't we show them this kind of a map?"
"They will scream that Russians are villains and scoundrels," Fenenko said. "Yes, you are risk of a retaliatory strike."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Scroll down through the article, at first it feels like nothing until you get below the fold.
The clock is ticking closer to midnight than ever before.
Nothing like a world war to justify unlimited spending & emergency election procedures...
We went to war with Germany for less in 1917.
Idiots. If they are targeting only the United States you need an IRBM in Mexio.
Inept media sabre rattling there.
Somehow I think the interests of the Mexican gov’t are divergent from those of Russia.
Remember, the ruskies have a nuke sub in Havana.
Why would the Russians feel the need to put intercontinental ballistic missiles on the same continent?
ICBM? So close In Mexico?
I guess they can base them in Mexico and target Barrow Alaska or something?????
Headline doesn’t make sense
Yeah, the Mexicans have already made America their bitch so why try to attack your own bitch?
Rockets? why? just drive them over on a Mexican truck. Didnt’t they see the really bad Clancy movie— that was done by “Nazis” of course not Hamas or Islamofascists fronting for Communists.
The re-write was “white supremacists” backed by a russian oligarch- sure, thhhaaaats the ticket. What crap.
We went to war with Germany for less in 1917.
———-
Sinking of the Lusitania by Germany….loaded with arms to England…the US lied, said it was not carrying arms…..but finding the wreck decades later showed arms…..the U.S. lied, ( again) and many people died….exhibit A: the non effective and dangerous MRNA clot shots…..
We went to war with Germany for less in 1917.
———-
Sinking of the Lusitania by Germany….loaded with arms to England…the US lied, said it was not carrying arms…..but finding the wreck decades later showed arms…..the U.S. lied, ( again) and many people died….exhibit A: the non effective and dangerous MRNA clot shots…..
Mexico is a narco-state and much of it is actually governed by cartels not the official Mexican government. Russia would be dealing with drug cartels and could offer military assistance in exchange for hosting Russian nukes. It’s possible.
Why would they deploy ICBMs in Mexico. That’s about the dumbest strategic move I’ve heard. Now were they deploying IRBMs like Cuba in ‘62 that would at least make some sense. Though in ‘62 USSR only had about 40 ICBMs of dubious quality.
The 10s of millions of illegal aliens and cartel violence and drug smuggling are killing 100,000 Americans a year. A nuke is the least of our problems with Mexico.
Why waste the resources. They already have nuke subs, rail/road-mobile and silo-based ICBMs. They don’t need to base them next door (just like we don’t need to). Total smoke and mirrors.
And the Zimmerman telegram was taken seriously for a while.
Somehow I think the interests of the Mexican gov’t are divergent from those of Russia.
><
The Mexican cartels agree with you.
Pleased to see guys here understand ICBM vs IRBM. It does matter. ICBMs have a treaty restricted number on both sides.
Something I note often here on FR — and again — OIL IS EVERYTHING.
If you get past US propaganda you learn that Eisenhower refused to let German POWs return to Germany AFTER THE SURRENDER WAS IN PLACE. It was weeks he did not release them. And in Japan, they were . . . not “forced” to surrender by atomic weapons. There was a much different reason.
Food. Germany had no food. Shipping POWs home would have worsened the situation. Japan had no oil and therefore no transportation for food. They were forced to surrender because the populace starved.
And so, if you want to attack the US, the optimal target is the Houston area. That is 70% of US refinery capacity. There are a few scattered around elsewhere, and they could get targeted casually.
Result? Food can’t move to shelves because OIL IS EVERYTHING and diesel trucks feed you.
The cities will starve. It only takes a few weeks to starve. Alternative food delivery . . . from whom? Who is going to donate diesel and gasoline to move food from Iowa to NYC?
Right. Nobody.
Why would they put a weapon with a 5,000 mile range in Mexico?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.