Iran Sent Russia $2.7 Billion Worth of Missiles Alone ... according to Bloomberg, making the survival of the regime important to Kremlin leaders

Proxywars, ctnd.

Bkmk

We should be dropping the equivalent in Iran by the plane load.

Are European Countries Prepared for Attacks by Russian Drones Using Starlink?
____________

Not needed.
It looks like Musk disabled Starlink for Russian missiles!

Musk disabled Starlink for non-paying users on unauthorized devices.

Even if true, we should have stayed neutral in the Ukraine conflict and not tried to turn Russia into our enemy. When we cease doing this, Russia (not a Muslim nation) will no longer need Iran.

Here we go. Mystery meat "military" sites beating war drums and stirring the s**t... again.

And useful idiot FReeper/boomer/droolers will eat it up. So will the foreign agents, internationalist hacks and Israel firsters who infest FR.

"Duh huh, *burp, fart* see SEEEE, Ruzzzzia is with ~~Israel's~~ America's enemy.... Iran.

Cue ""Bomb Iran" Beach Boys Parody

there is still nothing putin could do to prevent the iranian dictatorship’s self- destruction this time putin would be well-advised to select less crazy allies in future

Here we go. Mystery meat "military" sites beating war drums and stirring the s**t... again. And useful idiot FReeper/boomer/droolers will eat it up. So will the foreign agents, internationalist hacks and Israel firsters who infest FR.

As if Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea - all allied, as not actual threats to be recognized and deterred, and as if proxy wars as a result of not dealing with enemies when they could be at far less cost are avoidable. (Yet which can be and is chastsement as a consequence of being at war with God)

The question I have yet to see really answered by isolationists which oppose alliance building and its military assets: "What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?" Chess anyone? One answer:

The world and the West overall sins away its day of grace, awaiting judgment, for the greatest enemy of most of the West and of world is the God of the Bible, who often has used the wicked as His sword of chastisement - Psalms 17:13. Thus surrender to God is the victory it needs.
Yet as regards the interim, since typical isolationist posters (who never seem to provide details as to their position) argue as if the US should not be involved in forming and supporting strategic allies against China and Iran, etc., then I asked perplexity.ai:
What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?
If the United States adopted strict isolationism and withdrew all military forces globally, the world would undergo profound geopolitical shifts, leading to increased instability, power vacuums, and emerging threats. Below is a comprehensive analysis based on current geopolitical assessments and expert projections.
Global Geopolitical Shifts
Power Vacuum and Rival Expansion
Russia would likely expand its influence in Eastern Europe, testing NATO’s weakened defenses. Aggression against the Baltics, Ukraine, or Moldova could escalate, exploiting the absence of U.S. deterrence24.
China would accelerate territorial claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, potentially invading Taiwan without U.S. counterbalance. Beijing might also expand economic coercion through initiatives like the Belt and Road56.
Regional Powers (Iran, Turkey, North Korea):
Iran could dominate the Middle East, targeting Israel and Gulf states3.
North Korea might attempt unification with South Korea by force6.
Turkey could extend influence in the Mediterranean and Black Sea3.
Alliance Fragmentation
NATO would weaken significantly without U.S. leadership, forcing Europe to develop autonomous defense capabilities. However, political divisions and military underinvestment could delay effective coordination24.
New Blocs: Alliances like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) might gain prominence, promoting alternatives to Western-led institutions5.
Threats to the United States
Economic Risks:
The U.S. dollar could lose its status as the global reserve currency, leading to financial instability. Trade routes might face disruption from piracy or regional conflicts, increasing costs for goods5.
Security Threats:
Direct Aggression: Adversaries like China or Russia could test U.S. resolve in the Pacific or Arctic6.
Nuclear Proliferation: Allies like Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia might pursue nuclear weapons for self-defense, increasing global nuclear risks56.
Cyber and Asymmetric Warfare: State-sponsored cyberattacks (e.g., from China, Russia, Iran) would target U.S. infrastructure, with reduced capacity for retaliation67.
Loss of Global Influence:
International institutions (UN, IMF, WTO) could become dominated by China or Russia, eroding democratic norms and human rights standards5.
Regional Impact Summary (Hypothetical "Map")
Region Key Changes Primary Threats
Europe Russian expansion into Baltic states; NATO fragmentation Energy coercion, hybrid warfare, refugee crises2 4
East Asia Chinese annexation of Taiwan; North Korean attacks on South Korea Naval blockades, nuclear brinkmanship6 7
Middle East Iranian dominance; ISIS resurgence; Israel-Gulf insecurity Terrorism, oil supply disruptions35
Indo-Pacific Chinese control of sea lanes; territorial disputes Trade route instability, resource conflicts56
Global South Economic collapse in aid-dependent nations; regional power struggles Mass migration, authoritarian regimes5
Conclusion
A strictly isolationist U.S. would trigger a fragmented, multipolar world marked by heightened conflict, economic volatility, and diminished American security. Power vacuums would empower authoritarian states like China and Russia, while threats such as nuclear proliferation, cyber warfare, and disrupted trade would directly endanger U.S. interests. Without forward bases and alliances, America’s ability to project power or shape global norms would erode, potentially forcing costly re-engagement in the future. - https://www.perplexity.ai/search/
As stated 10 years ago,
Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea all play outsized roles in determining the future viability of the international order—from weakening the nonproliferation regime to establishing alternatives to the IMF and World Bank to violating international law. The next six years will be a critical juncture: Whether these “Big Four” choose to upend the international order, work within it, or create competitive arrangements will have lasting effects. - https://www.hoover.org/research/tomorrows-national-security-landscape

Region	Key Changes	Primary Threats
Europe	Russian expansion into Baltic states; NATO fragmentation	Energy coercion, hybrid warfare, refugee crises2 4
East Asia	Chinese annexation of Taiwan; North Korean attacks on South Korea	Naval blockades, nuclear brinkmanship6 7
Middle East	Iranian dominance; ISIS resurgence; Israel-Gulf insecurity	Terrorism, oil supply disruptions35
Indo-Pacific	Chinese control of sea lanes; territorial disputes	Trade route instability, resource conflicts56
Global South	Economic collapse in aid-dependent nations; regional power struggles	Mass migration, authoritarian regimes5

From Bild:

Russian forces have occupied 2,395 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory since the start of 2025—an area nearly the size of Luxembourg (2,586 sq. km)— German outlet Bild reported on July 18, citing assessments by Ukrainian bloggers and pro-Russian “war correspondents.”

kamikaze drones are not missiles.

It’s a few weeks late and a few planes short of guns to do something about Iran’s regime.

---- "Proxywars, ctnd."

And this site is Ukrainian, identifying the material as 'propaganda' from their side, just as Russians do it from theirs.

"Militarnyi is the most popular thematic media outlet in Ukraine. Our monthly audience is over 2 million unique users. A significant part of our audience is made up of citizens of partner countries (the US, UK, Germany, Poland, etc.). We are read and watched by representatives of the country's military and political leadership, commanders and soldiers, arms manufacturers and volunteers."
Source: Contact Us page

Messaging is ongoing on many sides in this war between Ukraine and Russia -- and proxies, as you state above.

Thanks. I was wondering about that site and hoping someone would explain it.

I am not proposing isolationism (Iraq turned-out OK); but the cold war era is over, and some of our old friends are now our socialist/LGBT/Pro-Muslim enemies.

--- "The question I have yet to see really answered by isolationists which oppose alliance building and its military assets: "What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?" Chess anyone?"

Thanks for the question. In part, here is an answer about chess:

"In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current 'regent,' which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower." Last paragraph of "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives," by Zbigniew Brzezinski , Basic Books, 1998.

"Strict isolationist" is a hard and fast term in a flexible world, but a fine rhetorical gambit. Perhaps there is a mid-point between "strict isolationist" and world's "regent?"

One could look to the number of men and materiel stationed worldwide by every nation, and then determine in some manner which Western nations are actually sharing the burden of it all. Further then, one could look via available source to the number of men and materiel of our opponents/enemies stationed worldwide, in order to do some sort of 'compare and contrast' examination of information by which to clarify.

In that regard, you didn't link to your source. "Below is a comprehensive analysis based on current geopolitical assessments and expert projections." Whose? Thanks in advance.

Being a curious type, I looked a little further, and back to the Bloomberg article as re-pub'd by MSN.

One finds: "Iran has sold nearly $3 billion worth of missiles to Russia to aid President Vladimir Putin's nearly four-year-long war in Ukraine, according to an assessment from a Western security official. " He was, in the article, an "official who spoke on condition of anonymity."

The Bloomberg article has be re-pub'd by several Ukrainian media. These included "Мілітарний."

So we are back to the very informative Mister Anonymous, being cited by a number of other sources. One notes that Bloomberg's "anonymous: source was stripped from re-pub reprints.

As the first post's comment says, "Proxywars, ctnd."

Are these gonna be like the 5000 missiles that Russia sold onto Venezuela? Those that totally failed to stop the Maduro raid?

Where did Iran get $7 billion worth of missiles to sell?

Shut up, heretic. Not reading any pre-loaded cut/paste trash yoday.