The New Soviets

[onedomino]

Very industrious of the new Soviets take time from selling nuke technology to the Iranians so they can transfer medium-range missiles to a terrorist state that harbors Iraqi Baathists and allows Saudi-Wahhabi murder money to flow to Iraq "insurgents." The new Soviets think they are better off allied with Damascus than with Washington. Perhaps we should sell medium-range missiles to the former Soviet captive state of Georgia. Having a good time in Chechnya, Putin? Expect no help from the US.

U.S. Opposes Russian Arms Sale to Syria

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050112-062554-5316r.htm

Washington, DC, Jan. 12 (UPI) -- The State Department said Wednesday the United States is opposed to an expected arms deal between Russia and Syria.

"U.S. policy on this is very clear: We're against the sale of weaponry to Syria, against the sale of lethal military equipment to Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism," department spokesman Richard Boucher told a briefing in Washington.

According to media reports Syrian President Bashar l-Assad, who is slated to visit Russia later this month, is expected to sign a deal for buying SS-26 missiles from Moscow.

The medium-range missiles could hit any target in neighboring Israel, which has strongly protested the proposed sale.

"We think those kinds of sales are not appropriate. The Russians know about this policy. They know about our views," said Boucher.

He said there were U.S. laws that call for imposing sanctions on countries that sell weapons to such states but he refused to speculate if they would apply to Russia.

"Let's see what does, in fact, happen and then we'll apply the law accordingly," Boucher said.

--

 

[Comrade]

Ouch, it might be time to unload my Russian stocks! (which, btw, have gone GANGBUSTERS over the last few years).

I can only imagine Putin approving of this transaction for two reasons. One, perhaps he's trying to win concessions from the Syrians for a pipeline deal. Two, he's looking for some quick cash.

If it's all about the money, I suggest that we offer him favorable economic terms on a future transaction equal to the profits his government might make on such a sale to Syria.

I have no doubt we could buy out the Syrians.

 

[wolvie20m]

Hmmm....wonder if he's trying to provoke another cold war of sorts...I think he's hurt cause he feels we influenced the elections in Ukraine.. :bangheads

 

[Comrade]

Hmmm....wonder if he's trying to provoke another cold war of sorts...I think he's hurt cause he feels we influenced the elections in Ukraine.. :bangheads

He has to be more shrewd than that. I think he's doing this to get some sort of concession from the U.S.

After all, what exactly would he gain from a U.S. embargo and heightened tensions with our forces. He's got no budget to rebuild his military, and certainly cannot ignore domestic rumblings from such an approach. I think he's looking for a payoff.

 

[onedomino]

-
All this time, I thought Breshnev was dead.

The Israelis may preemptively destroy the SS-26 missiles on the ground in Syria. What would constrain them? Russia? The UNSC? Amusing. Putin does not want US money this time. If so, why is the missile threat exposed in the press? Now, someone unnecessarily loses face if Putin gets bought out. Rather, Putin is arming a client that in the west borders Iraqi-American interests. Iran, another Russian client is in the east and an increasingly hostile Saudi Arabia is in the south.
-

 

[Comrade]

-
All this time, I thought Breshnev was dead.

The Israelis may preemptively destroy the SS-26 missiles on the ground in Syria. What would constrain them? Russia? The UNSC? Amusing. Putin does not want US money this time. If so, why is the missile threat exposed in the press? Now, someone unnecessarily loses face if Putin gets bought out. Rather, Putin is arming a client that in the west borders Iraqi-American interests. Iran, another Russian client is in the east and an increasingly hostile Saudi Arabia is in the south.
-

I agree there is more than money at stake over this brinkmanship between US and Russian interests. As I pointed out in theory #1., there is also a national energy interest that drives this interest and whether or not a bribe from the USA could override such an arms sale, is up to how much we're willing to sacrifice in return.

Think about what kind of backroom concession from the US administration could reverse this sale... certainly we could offer enough to stop it. But certainly there is a price we won't pay, to preclude this sale, knowing that these missiles would not necessarily affect our military capability in the region.

But while we muse on that, here's an interesting article on the subject, in which future energy concerns drive the interests of the worlds major powers.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/library/cw-pressure.htm

American-Russian relations, presenting energy challenges?
by Dr. Cyril Widdershoven
International energy supply and security has been largely dependent on the mutual understanding of the two superpowers, USA and Russia, still dividing several regions in the world to their power-political games.

Overall, after the fall of the Soviet empire, international consultants have reverted their attention to American foreign policy to see where security arrangements were necessary. The diminishing influence of the Soviet Bear, the opening of the Caspian and Central Asian states for foreign investment and the liberalization of the Arab economies gave food for the theory that the USA is ruling, Uncle Sam’s word is law. The last months this dictum has however come under growing pressure. Russia’s new president Putin, slowly but steadily, has built up a more assertive Russian foreign policy, first concentrating on its own neighbor countries, at present with renewed attention for the second circle of influence, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. This will and already has influenced the security of energy supply of the Western countries. Until now, analysts have not presented new answers but studies will have to be done to readdress these questions.

When Russian jet fighters swooped down over the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan, recently, the American crew did not see them coming until it was far too late. If the Russian pilots would have harbored hostile intent, the carrier would have been sunk! Several incidents, such as the above, in the recent weeks have shown that for all America’s enormous complacency, its former Cold War rival can still present a military challenge. There is a general agreement in Washington that since president Boris Yeltsin stood down last March, US-Russian relations have been on the slide. Washington found in Yeltsin a biddable partner. The much younger and more energetic Putin, aged 48, is increasingly taking on the US around the world. Since becoming president of Russia, Putin has recommended arms sales to Iran. He has been assiduously rebuilding commercial links with America’s greatest foe, Iraq, helping to develop its oilfields in defiance of UN sanctions. And thirdly, he has intervened in the US-led Middle East peace process, recently hosting Arafat in Moscow and courting Arab opinion.

The Russian leader is also challenging the USA in Asia, by courting directly with India, signing lucrative arms deals. Additionally, he has cemented the ties with China, increasing the military and weapons exports to this country, already identified by President-elect George W. Bush as the biggest potential 21st century threat to American (Western security).

Last November, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov announced already in Beijing his government’s open support for an axis consisting of Russia, China and India, whenever these states wanted it. The main driver behind this political program is a comprehensive and global opposition to American global policy.

Of importance is the combined Russian-Chinese policy to exclude the United States from the Central Asian region. Both countries want to monopolize the huge energy resources located there, stifle democracy and opposition. The latter largely under the pretext of addressing terrorism, while placing pro-Moscow appointees in charge of those states ”militaries and police, integrate them with Russia’s and China’s forces, integrate those states’ resources and defense industries with their own, and mobilize political support for anti-American agendas.”
The anti-American approach, would benefit both parties. To the extent that the international agenda can be focused on Islamic separatism, terrorism, and United States’ threats to international order as expressed in the Kosovo operation, China and Russia could shift the spotlight from a focus on their own continuing imperial and aggressive revisionism.

Another motive for the tripartite cooperation (Russia, India, China) would be the shared opposition to nationalist or religious Muslim assertion in Kashmir, Central Asia and Xinjiang (Chinese province). All this could divert international/American attention from the underlying policy, ENERGY.

All in all, international political considerations related to the border states of Russia, or former Soviet Union, are and will be related to the energy resources. Growing dependency and energy requirements of the Western countries, higher oil prices and instability in the Middle East are proponing the thesis of the importance of Caspian and Central Asia. The build up of an anti-American/Western block in Asia and the Caspian, with enormous potential of a renewed anti-western front in the Middle East, would indefinitely threaten energy security of supplies in the coming years. The world should watch out for a renewed East-West confrontation, this time related to energy resources that are dwindling. The time is right to act, the possibility of a new Iron (Oil/Gas) curtain is possible. For Europe and the USA with the energy resources needed on the wrong side of the curtain.

Points that are still in the USA’s favor are however the facts that Russia still needs IMF, World Bank and private sector western loans and capital investment if Russia’s still dire economic situation is to improve. There is still much room for leverage in this area – although it may diminish as Putin’s global search for trade, exports and business proceeds. A more pro-active approach of these questions, with in depth attention for the developments around Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Caspian is needed.

I realize it's dated, but still provides some background to the situation Russia finds itself since the Iraq invasion.

 

[onedomino]

Now this:

Russian Defense Minister Ivanov Denies Missile Talks With Syria
Created: 13.01.2005 10:14 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 10:14 MSK, 1 hour 30 minutes ago

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/01/13/ivansyria.shtml

Russia is not holding talks to sell the Iskander missile system to Syria, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov said in Washington on Wednesday, Russian RIA-Novosti news agency reports.

The minister made this statement after a report about diplomatic tentions between Russia and Israel over missile proliferation.

“There are no talks under way between Russia and Syria concerning shipment of such missiles. Such talks are not taking place,” Ivanov said.

Washington raised the issue of missile talks between Russia and Syria after several Russian and Israeli media reported that Russia was planning to sell the Iskander missile system to Syria. The range of the Iskander missile allows Syria, if it uses it, to hit targets on virtually all of Israel’s territory, media said.

Ivanov linked the speculations to the Syrian leader’s upcoming Moscow visit. “This is not the first time such information has been thrown in on the eve of a visit not only of a Syrian leader, but of any Middle Eastern leader to Russia. We have got used to this,” the minister said.

Meanwhile, Ivanov noted that the sales of the missile in question did not come under any international restrictions. “These missiles are not covered by any restrictions or international obligations taken up by Russia. There are no restrictions on their supply to foreign states,” he said.

Also: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=317ade74-2778-48fb-aadb-1097788288b9

-

 

[Comrade]

And now, the only thing to dwell upon is what kind of concession was made through the backdoor and outside of the media's prying eyes to so easily reverse Putins' decision on this matter.

Unfortunately, we can only speculate. :cof: