Aggression by American and British imperialists against Yemen was expected.
It is merely an extension of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
There are multiple dimensions to the unfolding expansion of the war.
The latest escalation resulting in US-UK missile attacks on Yemen requires analysis of another player’s role: Russia, and its political tactics.
It was quite clear that the UN Security Council resolution passed on January 11 was a prelude to initiating aggression against Yemen.
What was surprising is the fact that China, and more particularly Russia, did not block the UN resolution since its primary aim was to advance the western imperialist agenda.
There are likely two rationales as to why Russia did not use its veto.
The first is that Moscow wants to trap the US and its surrogates in a quagmire in the region.
From Kremlin’s perspective, if an enemy wants to commit blunder, why create obstacles in its way?
There is no better place to create a strategic geopolitical quagmire for western interests in the region than Yemen.
If Yemen and the Red Sea become a theater of expanded military operations, western economies and the regional western security architecture will be weakened further.
In this scenario, adversaries of western regimes and Israel do not need to outperform the US and its surrogates.
They simply need to keep the Red See and Bab al-Mandab hot enough to exert pressure on western and Israeli economies, as they are already doing, and inflict financial losses on them.
Once the Yemeni front heats up, Russia will also be able to supply Sana’a with much-needed hardware to create a “Ukraine” type of headache for western geopolitical interests in a strategically important region.
This will result in concrete leverages for Russia over its western opponents in the region.
The second rationale is likely rooted in Moscow signalling to western regimes that it is still willing to retain some form of western global order in place, provided its interests are accommodated.
By playing along with western political gimmicks at the UN, Russia is indicating that it is open to negotiations.
Moscow likely wanted to hint that NATO regimes should not view Russia as an implacable foe determined to overturn the western global order in its entirety.
It is most likely a combination of the two factors which prompted Russia not to veto the UN Security Council resolution that essentially provides political cover for one more western military aggression in West Asia.
Whatever its motives, Russia’s inaction at the Security Council will likely damage its reputation among the masses in West Asia.
It is also a sobering wakeup call for many Muslims.
It is another signal that in the emerging multipolar global order, Muslim states should formulate a political and economic strategy without being significantly attached to non-Islamic poles of influence.
This applies equally to the committed Muslims as well as to those that are only nominal Muslims.