If Ukrainian Tomahawks, then Venezuelan Oreshniki

As Military Review previously reported, Nicolás Maduro signed a strategic partnership agreement between Venezuela and Russia several hours ago, which had previously been ratified by the Venezuelan parliament.

The document's signing came at a fitting time. It comes amid Trump's statements about a "practically accepted decision to transfer Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine," and Finnish President Stubb's assertions that "Trump's carrots for Russia are over—the sticks remain." And, perhaps, also amid statements that the Tomahawk missile "will become a tool of pressure on Russia, even if the launchers are not delivered to Kyiv."

Well. Basically, everything has been clear with the West for a long time now.

What about our side?

On our part, this is an opportunity to support Venezuelan democracy by supplying the Venezuelan military with what could become a "pressure tool" against Washington. If Tomahawks are nuclear-capable and can, at the US's discretion, be deployed in Ukraine, then why can't, for example, the Kinzhal missile system, along with a couple of MiG-31s ​​donated as aid, be deployed in Venezuela? And why can't the Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile system, operated exclusively by Venezuelan forces, be deployed in Venezuela? They can do it, right? The Ukrainians have learned to fire with ATAKMS and Storm missiles, so why are the Venezuelans any worse? That's right – nothing.

Ultimately, nothing can stop the Venezuelans from creating their own Oreshnik/Iskander/Kinzhal—or whatever—while Trump is making the final decision regarding the Tomahawk. If Ukrainian experts are creating drone missiles that, by pure chance, are very similar to British or French ones, then how are the Venezuelans any worse? That's right—nothing.

Incidentally, Venezuela is about 1800 km from Florida. A long way? Quite a distance. But is that really the distance for the Venezuelan "Oreshnik"? No, it's not. And it's certainly not the distance to US military bases in the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico, which is effectively occupied by the US. To say nothing of the American ships that decided to approach the Venezuelan coastline—they're just seconds away from Venezuelan anti-ship missiles.

Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, you say? So be it. After all, without the acute sensation of a military crisis on the other side of the ocean, they simply can't let go of their role as the world's policeman.

But the main thing is not even the Venezuelan “Nuts” and “Daggers”, but something truly unique weapon: PV. Political will, it's called.

Comments

[Silver99]

What kind of ignorant headline is this? The "Nut" requires a ballistic trajectory, and Venezuela is ill-suited for that. If Cuba, with which we have a mutual assistance treaty, were to deploy Iskander missiles, the US would be irritated. Let them try to be rude to us. It's not 1962, and you can't scare Russia anymore.

[Volodin]

Quote from Silver99

The "Hazelnut" needs a ballistic trajectory,

And what trajectory did it take to Yuzhmash?

[Alex777]

I am by no means a supporter of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but those who have so urged the EU leadership to fight in this way will apparently not understand any other way.

[WIS]

Quote: Alex777

It seems they won't understand it any other way.

It was like that before - they are sensitive to everything, including unpredictable actions, rather than predictable red lines.

I am not a supporter of the Cuban Missile Crisis

If I had my way, I would shoot all the soldiers, and first of all those with weapons...( - this one was here)))
More than 10 years ago, I started a discussion with my youngest son about the unpredictability of the arms race.
P.S.: The drone "gained trust," just like it should. And more to come. Politicians will get into trouble, oh yeah...

[kill the fascist]

Have they already reached an agreement with Cuba or "where else will they go?"

[dmi.pris1]

Cuba is a more reliable partner (ugh, that's a sexual term) than Venezuela. In South America, there's a higher risk of a coup, and who knows what will happen there.

[AdAstra]

How is she more reliable now? They seem to be open to America now and wouldn't mind making friends.

[dmi.pris1]

Exactly, it seems so. They, the Cubans, are now friendlier with China than with America.

[AdAstra]

Let's say with China. But they hardly need problems with their neighbors, whose Miami is visible from the shore, because of some Russians with their problems. And the Chinese wouldn't approve of it.

[Soulcube EKB]

Oh well, the Americans will buy Maduro's comandantes and... Venezuela wouldn't mind not just making friends, but even surrendering completely! The Latinos and the Americans will come to an agreement, and the "hazelnut" will fall into enemy hands. There's no point in throwing such weapons around left and right.

[AdAstra]

I agree to all 100%. "" "" "" ""

[kill the fascist]

Does Cuba consider us a reliable partner? Is it prepared to ruin relations with its large and powerful neighbor for Russia's sake?

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Kill the fascist

But Cuba considers us a reliable partner?

Of course not. The USSR betrayed them in the most vile way. We betrayed them, so what's there to be ashamed of? Although many thousands of Cubans (residents of a small island with a small population) laid down their lives for an idea we rejected. And then we abandoned them.
And that is why the Cubans, like the Vietnamese, treat us with justifiable contempt.

[kill the fascist]

The question was rhetorical, i.e. it did not require an answer.

[Mikhail3]

So, this was, as usual, a flood? Very respectful of the other visitors and the site. Do they pay for flooding?

[kill the fascist]

This is a polite invitation to go to hell with your opinion - because I'm not interested in it.

[Mikhail3]

Then I politely suggest you leave the site, at least the discussions. This is a public site. So, if you post something here, be prepared to get a response, including one that won't be pleasant to you. This is the internet; they won't kiss your ass here.
In general, I treat the spammer with contempt)

[kill the fascist]

I have already said everything before and have nothing to add.

[parma]

I was at the World Cup in February. I don't know about the political leadership, but the local population loves Americans to the point of exhaustion, literally. In the last five years alone, 5-7% of the population has emigrated to the States, while the lion's share of the rest simply haven't saved up enough yet.

[Andrey_i_K]

I agree completely. They are tired of playing war games and the "ideological" generation has been replaced by a "consumer" one.

[parma]

The issue isn't with the consumer generation, but with the state system itself. Almost nothing is produced or grown on the island, so there's nothing worthwhile, and everything is rationed. The official exchange rate is 7-10 times lower than the actual rate. There are three types of stores:
1) card shops where there is nothing
2) shops selling local cash, where there is practically nothing
3) foreign currency stores for tourists, where the selection is like in our supermarkets, but the prices are slightly higher than in the States (as Canadian tourists said).
Parasitism is prohibited in the country, so the hotel had almost as many workers as tourists, and due to low salaries (officially, if you convert it at the bank exchange rate, it's $400 a month, in reality, it's not even $50), I don't do much, but for a pack of common analgin or "no-spa" you can get personalized service... On the streets of Havana, there are piles of garbage as big as a three-story building, every fifth house is falling apart before your eyes, new ones are almost never built, and therefore people still live in houses with collapsed walls.

[skeptic]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

Cuba is a more reliable partner (ugh, that's a sexual term) than Venezuela. In South America, there's a higher risk of a coup, and who knows what will happen there.

Maduro offered Trump oil, gold mining, and a renunciation of relations with Russia in exchange for keeping his head and his job. Do you think he'll get what he wants by handing over the latest developments to Russia (as an added bonus)?

[Ture-Dog]

The problem is not that Russia "can't be scared anymore," but that thanks to the red line drawer, people have stopped fearing it the way they feared and respected the Soviet Union.

[Serg koma]

Quote: Ture-Dog

Thanks to the red line artist, people stopped fearing her like they feared and respected the Soviet Union.

But the "red line" exists only in his head, Kellogg pointed out,

As long as we continue to draw, only the rhetoric for internal use in the Russian Federation will change.


06 2024 June

"We think that if someone considers it possible to supply such weapons to a combat zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, then why don't we have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where strikes will be carried out on sensitive targets of those countries that do this to Russia?" Putin said.

More than a year ago... Did Iran have our missiles? Who, besides Belarus, were supplied? Where and when were the "strikes on sensitive targets of those countries that are doing this to Russia"?
For such "threats" we get Leopards, Phantoms, and Tomahawks in response...

"Are you a paper tiger?" Trump said.

[bk316]

"Oreshnik" needs a ballistic trajectory,

What kind of beast is this "ballistic trajectory"? "

[Fan-fan]

This is when a missile propels a warhead into space, which then falls from there onto a target. Generally speaking, a thrown stone also follows a similar trajectory. But I wanted to point out something else here: the treaty prohibiting the transfer (sale) of missiles with a range greater than 300 km to other countries is still in effect, and this has been observed so far. Therefore, it's unclear how they'll transfer the Tomahawks to Ukraine, given that they fly much further. If they do, it would free our hands, and we could theoretically transfer such missiles to countries hostile to the West, even though we ourselves are short of missiles.

[boriz]

Cuba is too close to the US. From Cuba to Florida is a good distance for the Iskander. But the return trip isn't a problem either; it's about 200 km by sea.
Venezuela also raises doubts. The Caribbean Sea there is clogged with all sorts of American garbage. Delivering Oreshnik is problematic, recalling Operation Anadyr.
Nicaragua, though, is a good option. Ortega keeps inviting us, just like before. He's inviting us to host our bases and missiles. And the Oreshnik missiles could be delivered there from the Pacific Ocean. From there, practically the entire US would be covered. Or maybe they're already there?
And yes, from Kapyar to Yuzhmash is about 900 km. Surely they didn't miss the mark?

[Soulcube EKB]

The Americans won't draw any red lines with the "hazelnut" in Nicaragua... they'll take immediate action. Just remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy's reaction to the Soviet nuclear weapons deployment in Cuba.

[Ingvar7401]

The problem is how to deliver them there in the required quantity.

[Yehim]

This is largely a technical issue; the problem lies in political will, as the author noted.

[Winnie76]

Quote: Ingvar7401

The problem is how to deliver them there in the required quantity.

IMHO, Venezuela has plenty of Geraniums. The range is decent, and the bodies can be assembled locally. They can be supplied in kit form. Cheap, efficient, and effective.

[shikin]

The problem is, what will they do there? "Oreshnik" without the SBC in Venezuela would only irritate the US and provoke its capture for study. And Venezuela has very little chance of surviving a serious confrontation with the US, with or without Oreshnik.
And several dozen Oreshniki with SBCs are currently difficult to deliver covertly. And several hundred specialists to service them.

[Soulcube EKB]

Venezuela has absolutely no chance.
For this weapon to cause "shock and awe," we need to not draw lines or babble in Valdai, but actively use it in Europe... in a non-nuclear version, of course.

[Lemon]

The idea is valid. Let the Americans scratch their heads.))

[multi-category]

Why can't Venezuela, for example, accommodate a Kinzhal missile system with a couple of MiG-31s ​​donated as aid? And why can't Venezuela accommodate an Oreshnik IRBM, operated exclusively by Venezuelan military? They can do it, right? The Ukrainians have learned to fire with ATAKMS and Storm missiles, so how are the Venezuelans any worse? That's right – nothing.

This sounds like hysteria. That's the point: there are differences. Look at the history of the late USSR, how thoughtlessly enormous resources and reputations were squandered for "general" and political reasons, and how history unfolded in Afghanistan and in a number of African countries.
Here you are calling for repeating the same mistake.
If you really want to actively interfere in foreign policy by force, don't do it like a bull in a china shop. They tried that in the North Caucasus Military District. We've been cleaning up someone's incompetence for four years now.
Such activity requires a completely different level of oversight; our country simply doesn't have the structure to handle it adequately. What we have is tears.
But to start a movement with completely unpredictable complications with a country that is no worse than us at resetting life on the planet, well, create your own personal country and experiment at your own risk as you like.

[Volodin]

Well, yes, well... That is, Tomahawks and Atacamas for Ukraine are not hysteria and not at all "unpredictable complications", but as a symmetrical response from Russia, those who immediately say: "What are you talking about, you can't do this, this is hysteria, this will lead us in the wrong direction, they will reset us."

[multi-category]

"They" have at least two agencies that have specialized in this type of thing for over half a century—the CIA and MI6. They can organize such an event with precision and control.
If we try to do something similar, we will invariably end up with a collective farm, because there are no people, and there are no ready-made, thoroughly worked out methods for doing this.
And just throwing around weapons like New Year's gifts—well, please, we're past kindergarten age. Not to mention Venezuela won't have the money to buy them.
To be able to do something like this without harming yourself, a lot of preparation is needed.
And it's better to start small—not with ballistic missiles and expensive interceptors, but with something simpler. For example, by producing, at competitive prices, mini-submarines, which the drug mafia so loves to use to smuggle drugs into the US. Learn how to do this from the Chinese. And gradually, step by step, learn to intervene at a higher level, profiting from everything along the way. If we've already taken up capitalist methods of struggle.
The Americans have lost the agility of the unforgettable British Empire and are acting clumsily. But unlike us, they rely on far more powerful instruments of intervention and can afford to be careless. We can't. It's beyond our capabilities.

[Volodin]

Quote: multicaat

I won't even mention that Venezuela won't have the money to buy it.

Everything in your comment is funny, but this is the funniest. Sorry, but really.

[fiv]

As S.P. Korolev said, "Those who want to do something look for ways, those who don't look for reasons."

[Lako]

What kind of nonsense is this? I mean, mini-submarines for drug trafficking? And I haven't heard of China doing anything like that.

[parma]

Are you serious? Really? It's not a question of "political will," but of the proportionality of desires and capabilities. We have perhaps only one parity with the Americans—nuclear—but we lag behind in everything else. We have a smaller economy, a smaller population, a smaller army, fewer allies, and so on and so forth. And if the Americans can inflict a defeat, albeit a tactical one, on us with just a single arms supply (Kharkiv and Kherson are reminders of their own), then we can't do the same. Physically. Every time we forget this, we get a stick. It's not sad, but—Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi (from Latin—"What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the bull").
P.S.: Iran has already signed a bunch of papers about strategic partnership, but somehow it hasn't saved them... Iran has already received a few copies of our modern environment - it hasn't helped. Assad has also signed a lot of things and even let the military in, but "he lives in Rostov"... Such hysteria really does sound funny and sad.

[Volodin]

Is this your second account?

[Evil_critic]

But you missed the mark with Iran! It's not a good example.

[parma]

So why wasn't it a success? Let's leave aside the military aspect for now – Iran lost politically and in terms of reparations. Israel eliminated part of its military leadership and produced footage of objective control, while the Iranian military "fired somewhere" and couldn't produce any evidence of any effectiveness (except for the drones). It all ended (at least in the media) with Iran offering to stop if Israel agreed.
Did the agreements with our country help in any way? No. Did the "unseen analogues" of the Su-35 help? No (and they couldn't have, too few, and you can't fight with just our planes, which is why they apparently didn't even take off to intercept). The beating of Iranian proxies is completely forgotten.

[matwey]

Every time we forget about this, we get a stick.

Yes, you're right about that... Only after the one who hit you with the stick gets it in the neck. But it's people like you that give us problems; better on your knees, but at least you get some soup.

[parma]

Who, when, and how got their asses handed to them, let alone for a retaliatory strike, or even for spitting in our direction? Has Azerbaijan already responded for the Mi-24 or the killed peacekeepers? I don't think so – we backed away, letting them take whatever they wanted… or maybe the Turks responded for the Su-24? And I won't even mention how we wrecked NATO cities for supporting Kyiv. It's a shame it's only on Kiselyov's program and the DAM Telegram channel…
But the funniest thing is, I'm the one to blame for this—not the leaders who promoted darts and biathlon instead of modernizing the army, nor their other colleagues who overlooked the "soft power" policy in neighboring countries or flushed 20 years of oil revenue down the drain. It's me, the commentator from the VO, who's actually getting hit with this "stick." Or do you think that's how it should be—that the elites should walk around "deceived but proud," and that the people should get the stick for it?

[Soulcube EKB]

The United Russia members won't be scamming where they've saved up their money, the sluts and brats have settled down

[vBR]

Well, you were right. Do you have a navy that can repel the Americans? They'll sink anything 1000 km from South America, and you won't be able to transport anything there. In fact, the Maduro regime needs help, not with hazelnuts, but with anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles. The problem is delivery.

[Evil_critic]

Your answer is strange. So, we can't deliver the hazelnuts because they'll sink, but we can't deliver the anti-aircraft missiles or anti-ship missiles (we just don't know how to deliver them)?!

[multi-category]

Quote: Evil_critic

Your answer is strange. So, we can't deliver the hazelnuts because they'll sink, but we can't deliver the anti-aircraft missiles or anti-ship missiles (we just don't know how to deliver them)?!

I don't know who you're replying to, but a hazelnut missile is an offensive weapon with a decent range, which is potentially dangerous to US forces right at their bases, while a SAM system is purely defensive, so the attention paid to them is therefore different.

[AdAstra]

The Assad regime was also supported. Do you remember how it all ended?

[Adrey]

Quote: Volodin

Well, yes, well... That is, Tomahawks and Atacamas for Ukraine are not hysteria and not at all "unpredictable complications", but as a symmetrical response from Russia, those who immediately say: "What are you talking about, you can't do this, this is hysteria, this will lead us in the wrong direction, they will reset us."

Author, would you mind answering a few questions on the topic you raised?
1. What volume of weapons do you propose to supply to Venezuela?
It's just that if it's 10 Oreshniks and 20 Kinzhals, the US doesn't really care. But if it's more, where will we get it all and how long will it take? (We'll leave delivery issues out of the equation.)
2. Are you suggesting limiting ourselves to convection warheads or spitting on the NPT and handing over nuclear weapons?
3. How do you think the US will react? Will they suddenly become fearful and cower in a corner, or, on the contrary, will this push them to attack Venezuela under a plausible pretext?
The Venezuelan government, teetering on the brink of foreign invasion and street unrest, predicting the consequences described above, will definitely proceed with the acquisition of these weapons?
4. How long can the valiant Venezuelan army resist the cowardly Yankees?
The Ukrainians didn't receive serious weaponry right away. They started with helmets and first aid kits. Only when it became clear the SVO was here to stay did they start getting real weapons.
5. Will Maduro really "go boom"? Or will our weapons go unharmed to the new government and the Americans?

[Alien ...]

No "someone's incompetence.", but a very concrete gesture of goodwill.

[multi-category]

Quote: Alien ...

a very concrete gesture of goodwill.

And who will pay for this gesture? You or me?
And where will this will lead?

[multi-category]

Quote: Alien ...

good will

kind whom will? Do you think that there is no one within our country to give this money to?
Why should this be given to Venezuela? Maybe, for example, AvtoVAZ could use this money to build a cluster of high-quality parts suppliers, so the rampant tariffs and other levies would stop and the price of cars would drop by half? No, no need? Is it more important to give it to Venezuela?

[Dilettante grandfather]

Why should this be given to Venezuela? Maybe, for example, AvtoVAZ could use this money to build a cluster of high-quality parts suppliers, so the rampant tariffs and other levies would stop and the price of cars would drop by half? No, no need? Is it more important to give it to Venezuela?

Why should we give it up? Because otherwise the Yankees will tear it apart. And do whatever they want there. We'll lose an ally in the process.
And also because missile deployment games can and should be played by two people. And if their missiles are deployed in Europe, then ours should be present in South America. It's called "parity." And if the Yankees give the Ukrainians axes, then there's no other option.

[multi-category]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Why should she give it up? Because otherwise the Yankees will tear her to pieces.

The Yankees are tormenting about 80 countries all over the world. The navel will be untied and will give it to everyone.

[Dilettante grandfather]

The navel will be untied to give to everyone.

Well, firstly, it won't unravel. Hazelnut isn't used in the Air Defense Forces, which means its production is continuing, increasing the number of units. Secondly, no one is talking about "giving it to everyone." Only countries in close proximity to the US, and only those with populations and governments adequate to the situation. Cuba, Venezuela, and that's about it, I guess. In reality, they don't need many missiles; two regiments per country would terrorize the entire southern US.
Thirdly, I already understand the reason for your indignation. So, you can live perfectly well without a personal car, if you can't afford one.
" Maybe, for example, AvtoVAZ could use this money to build a cluster of suppliers of high-quality spare parts, so that the bacchanalia with duties and other levies would stop and the price of cars would drop by half."Calculate how much it costs to maintain a car and subtract that amount from your salary.

[multi-category]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

only with a population and government adequate to the situation

Does Venezuela have a reasonable population and government? Seriously? Visit the country and you'll have fewer illusions. Generally speaking, South America is home to a lot of support for social justice, but in reality, the opposite is true. Argentina is a prime example. And in Venezuela, "things aren't so clear-cut."

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

I already understand the reason for your indignation. Well, you can live perfectly well without a personal car, if you can't afford one.

I have two cars, a small yacht with a dinghy, and an inflatable boat. I'm learning to scuba dive and will probably buy that equipment too. It's strange that you think you know people well. You clearly don't. You completely misunderstand my motives, and probably not only mine. So stop pretending to be some great expert.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Does Venezuela have a decent population and government? Seriously?

Yes seriously.

I have 2 cars, a small yacht with a dinghy and an inflatable boat, I'm learning to scuba dive and will probably buy this equipment too.

Even if you have a helicopter and a couple of Bentleys and Rolls-Royces... The tram still moves around the city much faster.
What was the point of all that talk about AvtoVAZ and high-quality spare parts? Or are two VAZ cars already cool?!
Don't keep making me laugh, okay? What do cars have to do with it? What do VAZs have to do with it? Yachts, scuba gear... Even an island in the ocean. Your business, your concerns.
And the closer we place missiles to the US, the easier it will be to negotiate with the future American administration. With a gun to their head. And with the "retired pensioners" at the MBU in Venezuela, ready to push buttons.

[multi-category]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

What was the point of all that talk about AvtoVAZ and high-quality spare parts? Or are two VAZ cars already cool?!

The AvtoVAZ example is an example of cumulative economic development and the direct effect of creating a ton of much-hyped "jobs for specialists."
instead of incomprehensible gifts.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Or is two VAZ cars already cool?!

The fact that you constantly focus your questions on me means that this is cool for you. For me, a car is a tool, like pliers. For specific tasks, not pointless show-offs. Both are for going out of town, to the sea. I take the metro to work. There is no place for the concept of "cool" here.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

And the closer we place missiles to the United States, the easier it will be to talk to the future American administration.

Really? Well, maybe you should read about how "easy" it was when Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba. So easy that some diplomats and military personnel turned gray within days.
The United States has not forgotten this incident and is trying to prevent any attempts to establish a stable outpost near its borders, and in an extremely aggressive manner.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Really? Well, maybe you should read about how "easy" it was when Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba. So easy that some diplomats and military personnel turned gray within days.
The United States has not forgotten this incident and is trying to prevent any attempts to establish a stable outpost near its borders, and in an extremely aggressive manner.

1. Why should I read something that was read a long time ago?.. My father was sitting on a plane during the Cuban Missile Crisis, waiting for orders.
2. It was mainly American diplomats who went grey.
3. First, consider why Operation Anadyr began. This, by the way, has long been described in detail, and there are films that explain the entire situation step by step.
4. We shouldn't be concerned with American desires. We should be concerned with our own interests. I don't care whether the Yankees are trying to defuse the situation or not. Deploying missiles in Cuba or Venezuela is just a retaliatory move. America has long surrounded us with its weapons on all sides; we should do the same. And ideally, if they dare to interfere in Venezuela, we should retaliate by attacking Poland. Through Belarus. Or attacking American ships off the coast of Venezuela.
There is no place for American soldiers on the territory of other countries.

[multi-category]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

First, think about why Operation Anadyr began.

It's better to think about why China didn't need Operation Anadyr; they dealt with the similar problem of deploying missiles in Korea without resorting to such a method.

[AdAstra]

Let me repeat myself. Syria and Assad were helped and helped, and how come they weren't torn to pieces?

[Dilettante grandfather]

They helped and helped Syria with Assad, and how come they weren't torn apart?

I don't understand the idea. Rephrase.
Yes, we helped Syria. And? If you're talking about Assad being overthrown, that's not really relevant. Our contingent wasn't there to defend Assad with all our might and means.

[AdAstra]

"Why should we give it up? Because otherwise the Yankees will tear it apart."
They gave it to Syria and it wasn't torn apart?
Then why was our contingent there?
And what would be the biggest negative impact on us if the Americans "torn apart" Venezuela? For some, would the cocaine supply from this eternal summer country decrease, and that's absolutely unacceptable, or what?

[Dilettante grandfather]

Then why was our contingent there?

To maintain balance between us and the Americans. If you require more information on this matter, please contact the FSB.

And what will change for the worse for us if the Americans "tear apart" Venezuela?

The number of countries where our missiles can be deployed in close proximity to the United States will change. It's strange that you don't understand this.

For some people, the volume of cocaine supplies from this country of eternal summer will decrease, and this cannot be allowed, or what?

Do you have official statistics on the volume of drug shipments from this country? If so, show them. If not, don't pollute the airwaves.

[AdAstra]

The number of countries won't change unless, of course, new ones emerge or old ones cease to exist. It's all about countries' willingness to deploy our missiles, not their numbers. Why should I give statistics on cocaine shipments? I asked what specifically would harm us and gave an example through the question.

[Grancer81]

You're being hysterical... How much money do I have to give you? Or maybe you're just chickening out?

[Alien ...]

Lord have mercy. What kind of people do we have to deal with? A good ho-ho-ho. Smoke some fundamental material. Or stop being hypocritical/acting like you don't understand what gesture you're talking about...

[osp]

Quote from Silver99

What kind of ignorant headline is this? The "Nut" requires a ballistic trajectory, and Venezuela is ill-suited for that. If Cuba, with which we have a mutual assistance treaty, were to deploy Iskander missiles, the US would be irritated. Let them try to be rude to us. It's not 1962, and you can't scare Russia anymore.

Chukotka would be better suited for these purposes.
The "Portal" facility had long existed there for "Pioneers" that were aimed at American submarine bases on the US Pacific coast.

[Volodin]

The American mentality is key here. A submarine base is a "warning signal" for the military. But for Trump, Mar-a-Lago, the beaches of Miami, and so on are a far more frightening picture. And they even have a spaceport there...

[osp]

And by what means will you transfer all this to South America?
Against the backdrop of the fact that the US is now setting up a near-naval and air blockade of Venezuela.
By sea or by air?
But the Americans aren't fools. Their intelligence and agents are always on the lookout.

[Volodin]

To establish a real naval blockade of Venezuela (just look at the map), three-quarters of the US Navy would need to be deployed there. An air blockade is also out of the question. Aircraft land safely at the country's airports. So, "everything is solvable." And after all, it's written: "local engineers will create everything themselves."

[multi-category]

Quote: Volodin

To establish a real naval blockade of Venezuela (just look at the map)

To blockade Venezuela, you need to look not at a map, but at the location of ports and major sea routes. There are only five major ports, and the US Navy could easily establish a close blockade of all five with superior forces, as well as a long-range blockade, which would require far fewer forces. Moreover, the US has about 20 mothballed destroyers at bases in the Gulf of Mexico, not counting other types, and if necessary, they can be mobilized in a matter of weeks. Furthermore, the US already has a permanent coastal fleet there, actively patrolling the Gulf against illegal shipping. Therefore, three-quarters of the fleet wouldn't be needed for a blockade. I think three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one attack submarine, and about 20 other smaller ships would be sufficient for a serious blockade. They might also deploy maritime patrol aircraft.
Finally, the mere presence of 2-3 ships nearby in neutral waters, which do nothing at all except observe, will already put a lot of pressure on the Venezuelan authorities.
I would add that Venezuela's neighbor, Trinidad and Tobago, supports US actions and can provide, at the very least, intelligence data and a base for small surveillance ships.

[Grancer81]

Why do you think they need to be transferred there? What, Venezuela can't have a military base in Russia?

[multi-category]

Everything here revolves around a stronghold right next to the US. That was Cuba once, and the Americans remember well what a pain in the ass it was, so they'll do everything to prevent it from ever reappearing. Recently, there was a stir in Panama against the Chinese base there. And there will be a vigorous reaction in Venezuela as well. Let me remind you that the US entered WWI immediately after learning, through wiretapping, of the Kaiser's plans to draw Mexico into the war as a base for German operations and an ally.

[Grancer81]

In both the First and Second World Wars, the United States almost immediately sided with the British Empire. As for the base, only time will tell...

[multi-category]

Quote: Grencer81

The United States almost immediately began to play on the side of the British Empire

It's a huge mistake to think that way. Yes, they were friends, but they had their own side.
Read how the US plucked England in two wars. They caused more damage than the Germans.

[Grancer81]

So they pinched from everyone they could.

[Andobor]

In principle, Russia could make "prohibitive" arms deliveries to Venezuela, but do we really need that? Maybe let them fight. Venezuelan oil would disappear from the market, which would further tie China to Russia, China being the main consumer of Venezuelan oil. And if the regime finds itself on its own two feet and quickly collapses, that won't lead to a quick increase in oil supply.

[kill the fascist]

Given the political will and desire, we have something to "thank" the Pindos with. And in my non-expert opinion, it's time to start doing so. Trump has stopped playing good cop and is likely to continue escalating the situation. So it's time for us to show our teeth, and we have strong ones. We have partners in the Middle East, South America, and the Far East who we can help with in their struggle.

[sdivt]

Why can't, for example, the Kinzhal missile system be deployed in Venezuela, along with a couple of MiG-31s ​​donated as aid? And why can't the Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile system be deployed in Venezuela?

Are we so confident in Venezuela?
Are we so sure that our most advanced (no sarcasm!) weapons will not fall into the hands of potential adversaries?

[Russian_Ninja]

Well then, from “Venezuelan brothers” and “fighters against American imperialism,” they will receive the derogatory nicknames of “pro-Western puppets” and “South American traitors” on political talk shows.

P.S.
Sarcasm

[Belisarius]

No need for loud words - they shake the air, not the interlocutor.
There will be no Hazelnuts in Venezuela.
This is just meaningless rhetoric.

[Denisg sotnick]

Nothing of ours will appear there... If there was political will, drones with ammunition from democratic... Libya... for example, would have fallen on Europe by now... Underwater cables would have been cut and tankers with liquefied gas from the USA would have been sunk... But as it is, it's all blah blah blah...

[goscha]

But the main thing isn't even the Venezuelan "Oreshniki" or "Kinzhal" missiles, but a truly unparalleled weapon: the PV. It's called political will.

And that's the most important thing! Without the presence of the PV, the Cuban/Venezuelan Oreshniks and Kinzhals will not only not fly anywhere, they won't be there at all. And with the Fabergé, that is, the PV, some people have problems...

[multi-category]

I think that such political motives were last relevant about 150 years ago and are now very outdated.

[South Ukrainian]

Why bother with the Oreshnik missiles if you can share the Kalibr missiles with Venezuela? They fly the same 2500 km as the Topor missiles. But what's with the launchers in the shipping containers?

[Mishka78]

But the main thing isn't even the Venezuelan "Oreshniki" or "Kinzhal" missiles, but a truly unparalleled weapon: the PV. It's called political will.

Yeah. Or, excuse me, eggs.
Some of our elderly leaders turned out to be a bit flabby when it was time to move from talk to action.

[tralflot1832]

Let's just see how China will fight the US over its Venezuelan oil. One of PDVSA's offices is in Moscow anyway. Maduro can buy whatever he needs from Moscow for yuan, and possibly at a special price. Take Oreshnik, for example, but in a non-nuclear version. 500-600 thousand barrels of oil per day from Venezuela to China is a lot of money. The Oreshnik, Kalibr, and Iskander will not be Russian, but Venezuelan. Just like the West likes.

[BAI]

In Venezuela, the missiles could be seized by the United States. Strong options include North Korea, China, and Iran.
You can go to Cuba.

[zontov79]

Yes, but our leader of the peoples will not have enough determination and will.

[gribanov.c]

I wrote in 2014:
To counter the US and NATO, it is necessary to create a defensive military alliance of Third World countries. This differs from NATO in that Russia must contribute to the creation and functioning of this alliance, short of direct participation. Initially, it should include the following countries (groups of countries grouped by region):
1. Iran, Syria;
2. DPRK, Vietnam;
3. Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia.
They must conclude a treaty containing a provision similar to the NATO collective defense treaty.
It is necessary to create a defensive line on the territory of each of these countries, consisting of the following components:
- Air defense (and later – missile defense);
- coastal (and later sea-based) anti-ship strike missile weapons;
- stationary complex of electronic reconnaissance, target designation, guidance, and electronic warfare systems;
- a stationary complex of secure long-distance communications and data exchange facilities that allows all countries of the alliance to coordinate their actions;
-command.
In addition to receiving weapons and technology from Russia, the alliance countries should combine their efforts to develop modern weapons, primarily ballistic missiles (Iran and North Korea already possess the technology to create them). Ultimately, the alliance should adopt a ground-launched ballistic and/or cruise missile with a range of 1500-2000 km, of their own production.
Once the entire defense system of the alliance has been created, brought to combat readiness, and has begun to function, the countries of the alliance may unilaterally adopt nuclear weapons of their own production as a deterrent (without notifying the world community).

[Aleksandr21]

Quote from gribanow.c

I wrote in 2014:

Much water has flowed under the bridge since then... Syria can be safely excluded from this list. Vietnam is a good trading partner for the US, and it is not interested in such a military alliance (against the US)... There are also many questions about Cuba and Bolivia, how interesting are they?

In fact, only three countries remain (Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela) that are genuinely interested in forming an alliance and strengthening their defense capabilities. All three have had, or are likely to have, a conflict with the United States. And we come to the most important question: who will pay for this "banquet" of strengthening these countries' military capabilities? In theory, they are all connected to China through trade (Iran and Venezuela supply energy to China), and North Korea, as a neighbor, likely has many ties with China.

And here, first and foremost, the Chinese should play a leading role, protecting their investments in these countries and protecting the sea routes through which energy resources flow. But even the recent conflict between Iran and Israel and the United States shows how passive China has been. It could have sent a fleet to the shores of Iran and undertaken many other measures, but then the United States simply wouldn't have dared to strike Iran, fearing a conflict with China. But they didn't do that... Now, military-technical cooperation between Iran and China seems to be gaining momentum, and there seems to be some progress... but if history repeats itself, China will again back off.

As for Russia, we don't have such large investments in Iran or Venezuela to waste our limited resources on such military-technical support. Although there has been progress with Venezuela's assistance... But if, say, the US strikes Venezuela tomorrow and decapitates it, will our investments simply go up in smoke? It'll be a repeat of Syria. The situation with North Korea is different, though. They provided assistance to us in the North Korean War, helping liberate the Kursk region, and we are simply obliged to repay them for that service. A military alliance between Russia and North Korea could very well come about and has good prospects, but more globally, there are questions...

Ideally, China should become the core that can create "islands of resistance" to the US/NATO; they have the military/economic resources to support and implement these initiatives, but in reality, "a wise monkey won't get down from a tree, and its allies will be snapped... with the exception of Russia and the DPRK, and then they will simply come and cut down the tree it sits on."

[gribanov.c]

Exactly! Fear is the main weapon here. The essence of this alliance is very simple: Iran and North Korea are jointly producing a nuclear-tipped missile, setting up mass production in their respective countries. The missiles are delivered to allied countries in the Western Hemisphere, installed, deployed, and placed on combat alert. Naturally, the same missile is also deployed in Iran and North Korea. As soon as NATO countries attack even one of their countries, nuclear strikes are immediately launched from every country in the bloc, targeting targets within range of each country. These targets are NATO countries and their bases. The missiles are within range of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, respectively.
So let the NATO countries live in such fear. But don't attack! This is a weapon of deterrence, a policy of deterrence.
I wrote about it like this:
"So what is the purpose of such an 'Anti-NATO' military bloc? Certainly not to create a one-to-one military counterweight to NATO countries, from these small countries! Anti-NATO's weapons aren't atomic bombs and missiles; they're merely a means, although they are absolutely necessary. Its real weapons are threat, danger, and influence on minds.

As is well known, NATO's strategy is that "NATO fights with money." So, NATO countries must be forced to spend massive amounts of resources to overcome the ever-increasing threats that Anti-NATO will continually pose. New missiles—anti-missiles (in terms of quality and quantity); submarines—anti-submarine weapons; intelligence for Anti-NATO as a whole. And so on. Therefore, Anti-NATO's task is to constantly create such threats and allow "information leaks" about them. This is where Russia and China could help like no one else. Without joining the bloc, they could assist it and guide its military-technical development. A single important military technology, transferred at the right time, could help the bloc "run" the distance that these countries would have traveled independently over many years.
Another goal is for the Anti-NATO bloc, by its very existence, to make the NATO alliance itself very expensive, dangerous, and membership in it "toxic" and highly undesirable. Because any NATO country could be hit at any moment because yet another crazy American president decided to attack yet another small, "non-democratic" country to boost his domestic political approval ratings.

The declaration of the Anti-NATO alliance is as follows: If any NATO country attacks any Anti-NATO country (and they can't help but attack, because NATO countries are known for periodically attacking countries and killing their citizens), then an attack by one NATO country will be considered an attack by all of NATO. And then, in response, the Anti-NATO countries will launch nuclear strikes against NATO countries and destroy them. And good. Because

"No NATO countries - no NATO. And no NATO - no problems."

And all of this must be constantly kept in mind by Western politicians and societies. This threat must hang over them like the sword of Damocles. They must constantly think that America, too, is no longer safe. That at any moment, a missile could be launched from a Korean or Iranian submarine in the Caribbean, whether based in Cuba or Venezuela. Ten minutes, and Washington is gone. Or New York. And this threat doesn't come from Russia, with which it was once possible to reach an amicable agreement. You can't negotiate with the anti-NATO.
And let the US public, sensing this threat, evaluate the decisions of its politicians quite differently. And let it demand that they conduct their foreign policy more cautiously and refrain from military adventures, even if there is the slightest risk of clashing with anti-NATO powers.

And, seeing its effectiveness, other countries will want to join the Anti-NATO, too. They have a long list of grievances against the US and NATO!

So what is Russia's role? To assist and guide. To provide weapons and military technology, satellite guidance, and so on. And in the UN Security Council, to respond to all Western attempts to block the development of an anti-NATO bloc, to veto all Western resolutions and say: "No one can limit the right of countries to create military blocs, or to join an anti-NATO bloc—it's an internal matter for those countries!" (And so on, these Western tropes are already familiar to everyone.)

[multi-category]

Quote from gribanow.c

I wrote in 2014:
To counter the US and NATO, it is necessary to create a defensive military alliance of third world countries. Its difference from NATO is that

Firstly, no one will sign up for anything without a leader.
Secondly, such an alliance of direct confrontation will be quickly crushed piece by piece, because the advantage in global deployment is simply colossal for the United States and its satellites.
Therefore, there is no point in creating any analogues of direct confrontation like the Warsaw Pact, especially one so logistically torn apart.
On the contrary, here, to my surprise, I fully support the line of the current Russian administration, which is creating a non-military group of friendly countries - soft influence is much more rational.
Finally, your idea of ​​mass nuclear proliferation is simply appalling. You probably didn't live through the Cold War and don't remember the fear generated by even the theoretical possibility of a nuclear war that could break out at any moment. Few people want to remember that tension.

[Kmet]

What a load of nonsense, not an article... But it's patriotic, that's for sure. I wholeheartedly support the author's idea—it would be a masterpiece and very concrete if they actually did it! However, the objective reality we have to observe is quite different. The "Oreshnik" is certainly a modern and highly effective weapon, but it's also the most advanced. Didn't the author of the article consider the fact that no one would hand over such an advanced weapon to... well, people who can't ensure its safety and secrecy, so that it doesn't fall into the hands of our "partners" for reverse engineering? Technologies, however... They don't share things like that... But those are minor details... Let's say it's not even "Oreshnik" or "Kinzhal-Onyx", but something else... less secret and something we wouldn't mind losing, but would really get on our "partners'" nerves... But then there were a couple of wars recently... Iran... Palestine... Lebanon... And everything somehow settled down in neutral territory. On the other hand, no one needs to open a second front, and that makes perfect sense. If we were still the Soviet Union, yes.. and in Cuba and Venezuela.. our systems would be stationed and on combat duty in many places, but the world has transformed from socialism to capitalism.. and - here's the result: "In the garden there's an elderberry, and in Kyiv there's an uncle.." Everyone agrees on targets: both this and that.. Where you can shoot, where you can't.. where whose business is, where whose lives, who's godfather, matchmaker, brother, children.. Just look at the US - "agreeing on targets that can be hit"??? What kind of nonsense is this??? Why are they allowed to do this?? Where, excuse me, is the UN?? I mean, you can hit ordinary people, but here's my little factory - you can't go there! Today, armed conflicts on the planet have become like pie-slicing before eating. So much so that there's little hope that things will ever return to the way they once were, and the standards for waging armed conflict haven't just changed—they've disappeared altogether. We've had many "red lines," and unfortunately, no one can say for sure when the "insolent" will finally be held accountable. As for what will happen, well, we'll see. The article is certainly inspiring, but it's about three years too late. In 2022, I'd still have faith and hope, but now...

[Hole puncher]

Why does the author think the Venezuelan military can resist the US? Or even want to? The author's desire is understandable, but these desires must be based on something.

[Hariton laptev]

This is all nonsense. The MiG-31 would be detected even on landing. And even more so on takeoff. No sane person would strike the US from Latin America. At most, Bastions and S-300s or S-400s with our crews will be deployed, or are already deployed.

[tolmachiev51]

Another "if anything happens, we'll show you..." The world has gotten used to our blah... blah...

[savage3000]

We haven't developed a PV in our country yet. Alas. Engineers are working, but it's not working...

[snow mountain]

Quote: Ingvar7401

The problem is how to deliver them there in the required quantity.

This is just a technical issue, and therefore solvable.

[smart ass]

This author seems to be a drone rocket))) A three-year-old wrote the article

[Vadim S]

Enough of these calls! We're running low on ourselves, the war seems to be ending nowhere in sight, and now one guy is planning to hand out air defense systems, another wants to help someone with planes, and here they want to give away missiles to someone else. For as long as I can remember, people have always helped others, but who's helping us now?
And besides, will the States allow our ships or planes there before the invasion? The most powerful army in the world will watch as its victim is pumped full of weapons? Don't use our weakling mentality on them; they think differently, they'll sink and shoot us down, and we'll be left with the shame again. Calm down, propagandists!!!

[Gomunkul]

If Ukrainian Tomahawks, then Venezuelan Oreshniki

The author wonders why expose an entire country to a US retaliatory strike. Any surface or underwater missile launch platform can be used to attack US territory, and then blame it on Al Qaeda*.
*An organization recognized as terrorist in Russia.

[FoBoss_VM]

Ha ha... Putin is afraid to supply the Houthis with onyx, and you want Venezuela to have hazelnuts. This will never happen; you can't upset and disappoint your Western partners like this; that's an uncrossable red line for the Kremlin.

[evgenii67]

So how will this affect the air defense system? Let's imagine that Ukraine was given several dozen or even a hundred Tomahawk missiles. What can Russia do to prevent these missiles from flying toward Russia? But if they were given them, that means they have permission to use them, and they will fly. So what can be done without sliding into a direct war with NATO, possibly involving nuclear weapons? We should probably continue drawing the same lines and hope and pray that the air defense system will cope. So, let's say they deliver Tomahawks, and then we'll deliver Kalibr, Iskander, and maybe even Oreshnik missiles to Venezuela. But if the Tomahawks delivered to Russia fly, will the Kalibr, Iskander, and Oreshnik missiles delivered to Venezuela fly to the US? I doubt it. What's the solution? I wrote a long time ago, back when they started delivering F-16s or even earlier, that with the drawing of lines, it might come to the point that one day they will deliver 404 tactical nuclear weapons with the words that this is a guarantee that Russia will not use such weapons against Ukraine.

[Ivan Kizim]

Regarding PV: you're probably suggesting, on behalf of free California, that we attack the good Koreans, just so that the Yars warhead with the stars and stripes markings near Pyongyang doesn't accidentally explode, but the evil Kim Jong-uns can no longer be stopped?

[gribanov.c]

Quote: multicaat

You probably didn't live through the Cold War and don't remember the fear generated by even the theoretical possibility of a nuclear war that could break out at any moment. Few people want to remember that tension.

Exactly! Fear is the main weapon here. The essence of this alliance is very simple: Iran and North Korea are jointly producing a nuclear-tipped missile, setting up mass production in their respective countries. The missiles are delivered to allied countries in the Western Hemisphere, installed, deployed, and placed on combat alert. Naturally, the same missile is also deployed in Iran and North Korea. As soon as NATO countries attack even one of their countries, nuclear strikes are immediately launched from every country in the bloc, targeting targets within range of each country. These targets are NATO countries and their bases. The missiles are within range of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, respectively.
So let the NATO countries live in such fear. But don't attack! This is a weapon of deterrence, a policy of deterrence.
I wrote about it like this:
"So what is the purpose of such an 'Anti-NATO' military bloc? Certainly not to create a one-to-one military counterweight to NATO countries, from these small countries! Anti-NATO's weapons aren't atomic bombs and missiles; they're merely a means, although they are absolutely necessary. Its real weapons are threat, danger, and influence on minds.

As is well known, NATO's strategy is that "NATO fights with money." So, NATO countries must be forced to spend massive amounts of resources to overcome the ever-increasing threats that Anti-NATO will continually pose. New missiles—anti-missiles (in terms of quality and quantity); submarines—anti-submarine weapons; intelligence for Anti-NATO as a whole. And so on. Therefore, Anti-NATO's task is to constantly create such threats and allow "information leaks" about them. This is where Russia and China could help like no one else. Without joining the bloc, they could assist it and guide its military-technical development. A single important military technology, transferred at the right time, could help the bloc "run" the distance that these countries would have traveled independently over many years.
Another goal is for the Anti-NATO bloc, by its very existence, to make the NATO alliance itself very expensive, dangerous, and membership in it "toxic" and highly undesirable. Because any NATO country could be hit at any moment because yet another crazy American president decided to attack yet another small, "non-democratic" country to boost his domestic political approval ratings.

The declaration of the Anti-NATO alliance is as follows: If any NATO country attacks any Anti-NATO country (and they can't help but attack, because NATO countries are known for periodically attacking countries and killing their citizens), then an attack by one NATO country will be considered an attack by all of NATO. And then, in response, the Anti-NATO countries will launch nuclear strikes against NATO countries and destroy them. And good. Because

"No NATO countries - no NATO. And no NATO - no problems."

And all of this must be constantly kept in mind by Western politicians and societies. This threat must hang over them like the sword of Damocles. They must constantly think that America, too, is no longer safe. That at any moment, a missile could be launched from a Korean or Iranian submarine in the Caribbean, whether based in Cuba or Venezuela. Ten minutes, and Washington is gone. Or New York. And this threat doesn't come from Russia, with which it was once possible to reach an amicable agreement. You can't negotiate with the anti-NATO.
And let the US public, sensing this threat, evaluate the decisions of its politicians quite differently. And let it demand that they conduct their foreign policy more cautiously and refrain from military adventures, even if there is the slightest risk of clashing with anti-NATO powers.

And, seeing its effectiveness, other countries will want to join the Anti-NATO, too. They have a long list of grievances against the US and NATO!

So what is Russia's role? To assist and guide. To provide weapons and military technology, satellite guidance, and so on. And in the UN Security Council, to respond to all Western attempts to block the development of an anti-NATO bloc, to veto all Western resolutions and say: "No one can limit the right of countries to create military blocs, or to join an anti-NATO bloc—it's an internal matter for those countries!" (And so on, these Western tropes are already familiar to everyone.)

[Zaurbek]

Ukrainian Tomahawks will fire at Russia as part of the Joint Strategic Defense. Are we going to fire at the US with hazelnuts?
I'm not even going to mention the problem of transporting and placing the OTRK in Venezuela.
And if Russia decides to attack the US military, there are a ton of US military bases within reach in the Middle East, Turkey, and the EU. Incidentally, there are also missile defense bases in Romania and Poland.
Why such a circus?

[bk316]

Why such a circus?

Why is quite clear.
There is no, and never has been, the possibility of a strike on US territory from that hemisphere. For America, this is a very sensitive issue.

[Zaurbek]

Again, why strike at US territory? There are plenty of large bases nearby that are more sensitive to Russia. And there's a lot of important stuff there.

[roosei]

But the main thing isn't even the Venezuelan "Oreshniki" or "Kinzhal" missiles, but a truly unparalleled weapon: the PV. It's called political will.

So, Putin has this notorious PV? He'd rather start drawing lines than decide on anything radical that could change the situation.

[AdAstra]

"If it's Ukrainian Tomahawks, then it's Venezuelan Oreshniki."
And Venezuela agrees, just to be sure?

[bk316]

A truly unique weapon: PV.

I completely agree. Do we have it?

[Kostadinov]

No need for hazelnuts. UAVs and ballistic missiles like those from Iran and Yemen will suffice.
UAVs can have as much range as needed.
Venezuela and especially Cuba will do the same as the Houthis in Yemen, but tens of times more.
UAVs and missiles can be supplemented by BEKs - surface and underwater.

[nznz]

I'll speak out. I won't argue with seasoned experts.
If the US is to be distracted from Russia by a conflict that consumes them, then a country is needed that will create a "Ukraine" for the US.
Formally, the Russian Federation should have nothing to do with this.
It would be better to give the Arabs (they have a wide choice, especially since they only need a launch by our specialists) something powerful and break Israel, then it would be a la Ukraine.
Russia will supply weapons through third countries.
Everything will be a mirror image of today.
Of course, the problem is who to choose and who to agree with.
But this may not be a country, but an organization already at war with Israel.
World: Israel has lost its reputation as a victim. It is a fascist country.
The world will gloat and rejoice internally as the arrogant Euro-Ashists (it's clear who we're talking about) are put in their place.
This is very sensitive for the States.
Europe, the Ukrainians and others will be forgotten. The main thing is to add fuel to the fire.
For that fought for it and ran.
There are many who want to take revenge on the fascist Jews.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Cuba and Venezuela suddenly becoming Iskander-equipped missile systems—that's not bad. But it would be much better if they suddenly acquired Kalibr-equipped submarines. And mobile Bastion missiles would appear on the shore.

[VSO-396]

The article feels like it was written by a schoolchild. Such pure naivety: give the Venezuelans the Oreshnik, and they'll sell it on to you-know-who in a week. Or set up missile production? Oh, my God, where are the missiles, and where is Venezuela? The author should have at least watched some films about South American countries.

[Andrey Andreev_2]

I heard the Venezuelans have created a Poseidon-type torpedo with a nuclear propulsion system and warhead. They're already putting it through state testing...

[Kostadinov]

Quote: VSO-396

Or, perhaps, launch missile production? Oh, my God, where are the missiles, and where is Venezuela? The author should at least have watched some films about South American countries.

Why is Venezuela worse than Yemen? Watch films about Venezuela and Yemen and share your observations with us. Yemen has established production of ballistic missiles, drones, BEKs, and decent air defense missiles. It has successfully launched strikes against Saudi Arabia and, today, Israel. It has sunk ships and continues to do so.
And what's stopping Venezuela from producing FPV drones from Chinese components?

[Andrey_i_K]

Great article! It's a shame Lavrov and the others have kids and wives there...they won't let them shoot!!! )))

[Fangaro]

Venezuelan democratic dictatorship?
Dictatorial bicameral parliament.

[victor_47]

Giving Maduro modern weapons is extremely dangerous. He's already expressed his willingness to give up all relations with Russia in exchange for cooperation with the US. So, what we give Maduro, he could easily give to the US.

[Arifon]

"Trump's carrots for Russia are over – only the sticks remain."
And what kind of gingerbread were they, I wonder?! If the kniuts are the same, then let them be—they're as much a whip for us as gingerbread for an elephant!
Trump the huckster decided to pull out a weak Tomahawk-style argument to invent a pretext for negotiations with Russia, which, in essence, would be pressure on us. He supposedly had no trump cards, but he came up with one. Typical trickster behavior... We need to come up with our own counter-trump card, a new Kuzka's mother.

[Tire fitter]

We need to deploy Oreshniki on the lunar base; that's the only viable option. I think China will follow suit. And all these "strategic partners," each one poorer than the last, don't inspire any confidence. Sometimes I'm simply shocked—where do we find such people?!