Putin vows to back Iran following US strikes on nuclear facilities

Daily Mail ^ | 6/23/2025 | JAMES REYNOLDS and MARK NICOL and HARRIET LINE and NATALIE LISBONA IN JERUSALEM and MATT STRUDWICK

[marcusmaximus]

Vladimir Putin today vowed to back Iran and condemned 'groundless' aggression against its ally after the U.S. joined Israel in striking nuclear facilities on Sunday.

'This is an absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran,' Putin told Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who travelled to Moscow seeking support in mediation.

Putin called recent strikes 'unjustified' and added that Russia was 'making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people.'

Araghchi on Monday thanked Putin for condemning U.S. strikes on Iran, telling him Russia stood on 'the right side of history'.

[rrrod]

To be objective, Putin may feel he has to say something to save face. But Iran is probably on its last days.
Russia has their own muzzle problems.

[Chad_the_Impaler]

On Friday, Putin was quoted on Friday as saying “Russia, as well as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), has never had any evidence that Iran is preparing to obtain nuclear weapons, as we have repeatedly put the Israeli leadership on notice.” But on Sunday, Medvedev said, “A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.” So why is Russia talking about supplying nuclear weapons instead of rebuilding the Iranian supposedly peaceful nuclear program?

[dangus]

That FreeRepublic has been taken over by so many neo-Soviet Putin-lovers makes me want to puke. By their logic (FDR is anti-democratic! France is corrupt!) they would’ve supported the Nazis in World War Two. But nooooo, Putin is just supporting freedom-lovers in Ukraine, just like North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, the PLO, the horn of Africa...

[Mouton]

I cannot believe Putin or China want another nuke tipped muzzle country near by.

[jonatron]

Why do people take what politicians or dictators say at face value?

Because they're not foreign policy experts, they're the type of people who think big-time wrasselin' is real.

[GingisK]

He is quite a collection of mixed signals.

[rrrod]

And Russian elections?? LOL

[Ancesthntr]

It is obvious that the irony is lost upon Putin about his speaking of “unprovoked aggression.“

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Looks like we are moving closer to WW III—Iran may invade Iraq and swarm over our bases—maybe with Iraqi help. Turkey might move o the Kirds and Syria. Egypt may join the fray. China may move on Taiwan and a North Korean Army help to crush Ukraine. We better not lose this one. We must intimidate our allies in Europe and the Americas to help counter the growing Axis of Evil. Looks like South Africa has joined the Axis. Look for terrorism to start to hit the Homeland. We live in interesting times.

[Vaduz]

Absolutely unprovoked aggression

From a guy thet has people tossed out of buildings and shot in the head if they don’t agree with his ways.

[Pete Dovgan]

Mr. Putin or ‘Vlad the Invader’,

Not everything has to be a conflict. You don’t have to invade all your neighbors. You don’t need to support insane individuals who want Nuclear Weapons. You can literally have safety, security, and prosperity better by not attacking everyone, and supporting evil regimes.

[frog in a pot]

The only long-term solution to Iran’s aggression is regime change.

Quite correct. Regime change is a direct product of "unconditional surrender," which should be the goal of any U.S. military usage and loss of life.

However, the anti-Western forces abhor any regime change they do not inspire; their agenda requires the preexisting chaos. For at least the past 75 years, it has accused, discredited, and shamed the U.S. for regime change and placed it on a par with being the "policemen of the world".

Indeed, it has done so with success. See, for instance, SoS Rubio's weekend news conference when he went to great lengths to expressly deny the U.S was regime changing.

If the circumstances in Iran warranted significant destruction by the U.S. with the attendant loss of life, why does it not warrant a regime change facilitated by the U.S.?

[Phoenix8]

“ Regime change is a direct product of “unconditional surrender,” which should be the goal of any U.S. military usage and loss of life.‘

Exactly the opposite of reality…at least that is what history has shown.

In WW2 the Germans and Japanese would have surrendered conditionally much earlier.

Japan for example put out peace feelers to Sweden (smart) and the USSR (dumb). Just with a guarantee of the sanctity of the Emperor they would likely have resulted in VJ in June ‘45. That would mean no A-Bombs dropped. No USSR invasion of Manchuria and thus possibly completely changing the future of Asia (The Soviets took all nearly all the considerable cache of weapons the Japnese surrendered in Manchuria and gave it to Mao and his blood thirsty hordes of commies who then won the Chinese civil war).

Germany is more uncertain with possible surrender in mid ‘44.

As about 6 million people died in 1945 even a relatively marginal earlier peace could have saved millions.

[Phoenix8]

Meant noiseman as the recipient.

[BroJoeK]

Chgogal #11: "The USA has given about 75,000,000,000 dollars to Ukraine to help them kill Russians (not counting many billions more in non-military support).
Regardless of what side you are on no one should be surprised Putin would join with Iran."

For many years now, the modern Axis of Evil has included Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.
Iran, NoKo & China support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so Russia will help defend Iran against the US -- but how much?

Karl Spooner #13: "Russia has more nukes than us.
More modern, too.
Ours are moldy."

Nuclear warheads are classified as: 1) deployed, 2) active reserves, and 3) retired, scheduled for disassembly.
US & Russian numbers of these are said to be:

1. Deployed Strategic Warheads
   • 1,670 -- US
   • 1,710 -- Russia

   

2. Active Maintained Deployable Reserves
   • 1,938 -- US
   • 2,670 -- Russia

3. Retired, Scheduled for Disassembly
   • 1,336 -- US
   • 1,200 -- Russia

Ten years ago, the US spent around $40 billion per year to maintain our nuclear weapons inventory.
Today that number is $60 billion per year, budgeted for increase to almost $100 billion per year over the next 10 years.
The increases will replace obsolete warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, silos and other infrastructure.

Nuclear warheads require routine maintenance every few years, overhauls every 10 years or so.
The US spends tens of $billions on that.
How much does Russia spend?
What condition are Russia's warheads really in?

Forward the Light Brigade #29: "Looks like we are moving closer to WW III—Iran may invade Iraq and swarm over our bases—maybe with Iraqi help. "

I would not get over-excited about the likelihood of WWIII just yet.
What's required for world peace is strong American leadership -- Peace Through Strength -- and that is what Pres. Trump provides.
So the chances for a WWIII are now drastically reduced.

[kiryandil]

     

Nice one!

[HereInTheHeartland]

Doesn’t Pooti Poot have more innocent women and children in Ukraine to bomb?

[catnipman]

Vladimir Putin today vowed to back Iran ... with words ...

[Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi]

I guess he doesn’t read the Bible then

(Russia, Iran and their Muslim allies eventually attempt to invade Israel but get fried courtesy of Almighty God Who tends to get somewhat angry at those who monkey with His people.)

[BroJoeK]

Phoenix8: "In WW2 the Germans and Japanese would have surrendered conditionally much earlier.
Japan for example put out peace feelers to Sweden (smart) and the USSR (dumb)."

There's a lot of disinformation in those sentences.
In fact, the only serious peace feelers Japanese put out went to Moscow, not Sweden, in June 1945 and Moscow never forwarded Japan's conditions to Washington.
Washington knew of them only through MAGIC intercepts.
Japan's conditions included:

1. No overthrow of the Emperor
2. No occupation of Japan
3. No foreign disarmament (Japan disarms itself)
4. No loss of territories in Korea, Manchuria & Taiwan
5. No war crimes trials

The Soviets did not consider such proposals serious and did not forward them to Washington or London.

As for Sweden, no preliminary Japanese peace proposals were forwarded through Sweden, so that was a non-issue.

In the end, after the two A-bombs, Japanese reduced their conditions to just one, transmitted to Washington through Swiss and Swedish embassies: keep their Emperor, Washington accepted, and so peace was concluded August 15, 1945.

Phoenix8: "That would mean no A-Bombs dropped.
No USSR invasion of Manchuria..."

The Soviets had already agreed at Yalta (February 1945) to invade Japan within three months of German surrender (May 8, 1945), and so were uninterested in Japanese peace proposals in June & July, and did not forward them to Washington.
As per agreements, the Soviets invaded Japan on August 8, 1945.
Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945.

Phoenix8: "Germany is more uncertain with possible surrender in mid ‘44."

As for Germany, there were no German government peace proposals before the May 1945, leading to surrender on May 8, 1945.
Sure, plenty of German officials approached Allied or neutral diplomats, including Adolf Hess (1941), Ambassador Hassell, in Italy in (1943), diplomat Adam von Trott zu Solz in Switzerland (1944) and Heinrich Himmler to the Swedes (April 1945), but all of these were just individuals freelancing in hopes of playing a role in the post-war period.
None were approved by Hitler or taken seriously by the Allies.

Phoenix8: "As about 6 million people died in 1945 even a relatively marginal earlier peace could have saved millions."

The Second World War -- from September 1939 to August 1945 -- cost the lives of around 75 million people, roughly half military, half civilians.
If 6 million of those died in 1945, that is 8% of the total, and includes around 1 million who died between Germany's surrender on May 8, 1945 and Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945.

So the real issue in the first half of 1945 was whether the Allies intended to eradicate the root cause of those 75 million WWII deaths, or give up the effort in order to save those last millions?
They chose the former, and the world as we know it was the result.