No Stopping Russian Arms

moscow times ^ | 7/27/04 | Pavel Felgenhauer

[Flavius]

Russia came in for harsh criticism last week when state-owned jet producer MiG delivered 12 MiG-29 planes to Sudan. Amnesty International suggested that the jets could be used against civilians in Sudan's western region of Darfur, where attacks against indigenous black tribes by the government-backed Arab janjaweed militia over the last 15 months have left at least 30,000 people dead, forced villagers into refugee camps and left some 2 million people without sufficient food and medicine. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton blasted MiG for selling modern weapons to a government the United States considers a sponsor of international terrorism.

This is certainly not the first time that Russian arms exports have raised hackles in Washington. There is hardly a local war or conflict in the world where Russian arms are not extensively employed because they are reliable, relatively cheap and often specifically designed in the Soviet era for use by poorly trained and educated conscript soldiers.

Massive Russian arms shipments to China have also distressed the Pentagon, especially the sale of warplanes and sea-based weapons that could be deployed against Taiwan. The United States has pledged to defend Taiwan in case of an attack from the mainland. Were such a conflict to occur, Russian-made weapons would undoubtedly play a major role.

Washington has denounced Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran, nations it accuses of sponsoring terrorism. Last year the Pentagon claimed that Russian-made Kornet guided anti-tank missiles had been smuggled from Syria into Iraq and used to knock out U.S. armor. State-owned KBP Tula, which produces the Kornet, has been hit with U.S. sanctions for doing business with Syria and Iraq. Several other Russian companies have also been sanctioned, mostly for deals with Iran.

KBP peddles its wares in China and the Arab world, and U.S. sanctions have not directly affected its business. But an executive at one defense firm now hit by U.S. sanctions told me that Washington's wrath is a financial burden. Most arms contracts are calculated in U.S. dollars, and over the last decade or so wire transfers into Russia have been handled by U.S. banks, in particular the Bank of New York.

"We were warned that wire transfers going through New York could be frozen because we are under U.S. sanctions," the executive told me. "We resorted to alternative mechanisms for wiring the money into Russia, but had to pay a much higher fee -- up to a few percent of the total value of the contract."

Still, the potential profit to be made selling arms to so-called "nations of concern" is too great for the threat of U.S. sanctions to be a serious obstacle. The main MiG assembly plant at Lukhovtsy, south of Moscow, had some 200 MiG-29 fighters on hand when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, most of them ready to ship. MiG is still in the process of selling off this Soviet hardware to nations like Algeria, Yemen and Sudan.

Yevgeny Ananyev, a banker connected with MiG in the 1990s, went into hiding after Italian authorities issued an international warrant for his arrest. He stands accused of bribe-taking and money laundering in connection with the sale of three MiG-29s to Peru in 1998. In 1998 Ananyev, then chief of state-owned arms-trade monopoly Rosvooruzheniye, told me that at the Lukhovtsy facility Soviet-made MiG-29s were dismantled and then reassembled under the supervision of foreign customers' representatives and sold as new.

The so-called production of arms using Soviet designs and equipment, a Soviet-trained workforce and Soviet-made weapons repainted to look like new is typical in the defense industry today. This keeps production costs low and profits high, while the veil of secrecy surrounding the arms trade allows firms to avoid taxes almost entirely.

In Russia, a single arms contract can make you rich overnight. The chance of cashing in and becoming a millionaire is a temptation that no criticism from Amnesty International or the State Department can do anything to discourage.

Foreign customers, especially in rogue states, are also happy to do business with Russia. They get quality fighter jets at a very good price. Soviet-era planes are not exactly cutting-edge, of course. Iran in 1991 and Yugoslavia in 1999 deployed MiG-29s against Western aircraft without much success. But in regional conflicts in Africa and Asia, Russian, or Soviet, weapons will do the job for years to come. They will be readily available, and there is nothing the West can do about it.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So where's Putin in all this?

[Askel5]

Military Deals "Way of Influencing World Power Shifts", Says Putin

That Pootie-Poot ... such a great sense of humor for a GRU/KGB man.

[Askel5]

See above.

[Paleo Conservative]

There is hardly a local war or conflict in the world where Russian arms are not extensively employed because they are reliable, relatively cheap and often specifically designed in the Soviet era for use by poorly trained and educated conscript soldiers.

Translation: While Soviet era weapons are adequate for dictators to against their own people or realatively backward neighbors, they are easy targets for US weapons.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So what possibly benefit can Pootie get from beefing up the tyrants of Sudan? Are they keeping some kind of Muslim threat in check... or the reverse?

[Askel5]

=== So what possibly benefit can Pootie get from beefing up the tyrants of Sudan?



Perhaps its the same benefit the former Soviets saw in beefing up Saddam, using Syria as a staging ground for weapons or outfitting Iran with nuclear power. All of these work nicely for yanking Uncle Sam's chain as they please.

I don't know ...

I can't help thinking such a move saves China the trouble of acting as middleman to protect her pipeline interests. She sure as hell doesn't need the sort of bad press that ensued during the "airbridge" to the pipeline hey-day of initial depopulation and fabrication efforts.

More often than not, I'm thinking the question to be asked is not "what do the former Soviets want" but "what does China want" out of the deal.

[barkeep]

Hate to mention this, but while that theory may fly in general, the 29 is actually a damned good plane. Matches up well or better than our rather ageing airframes in the hands of a good pilot. Only thing curiouses me is while it is very good against other high tech targets, what the hell does the Sudan expect to do with 20 of these birds? The use of, say a heat-seeking missile against an "enemy" that has trouble finding kindling to cook a meal when they have food has to be somewhat limited.

Obviously, the intent is to discourage foreign intervention by forces that do have good weapons.

[Paleo Conservative]

Obviously, the intent is to discourage foreign intervention by forces that do have good weapons.

Considering they don't have anything like AWACS and proficient pilots, I doubt they would be anywhere nearly as effective as they would be in the hands of Russian pilots in eastern Europe. I think they'd make a an excellent adversary squadron at Nellis AFB

[Sam the Sham]

The Su-30 and Mig-29 are superb planes which, given equal pilot quality, can more than hold their own against the F-15 and F-16.

But I was wondering what the heck good a Mig-29 would be in a low intensity ground war. You would be better off getting choppers for that (like the new KA-25 which is highly praised).

[RussianConservative]

There is hardly a local war or conflict in the world where Russian arms are not extensively employed because they are reliable, relatively cheap and often specifically designed in the Soviet era for use by poorly trained and educated conscript soldiers.

Well, I would then say, that this is good capitalism..you give customers good designed product at good cost...what is the problem?

Let us see some great nations US recently sell weapons to: Saudi Arabia (master of terror), Pakistan (master of terror), PLO (channeled through Israel by way of Barak), Bosnia, Egypt (military regime, persecutes Christians), Turkey (mass murder of Kurds & Cypriot Christians), KLA, Indonesia, Argentina (during military rule), Albania.

You, throw big stones and live in the crystal keep of number one arms seller in the world.

[RussianConservative]

<![if !vml]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

HOME  DV NEWS SERVICE  ARCHIVE  SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT  ABOUT DV

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

US Dominates Arms Sales to Third World

by Jim Lobe

Dissident Voice

September 30, 2003

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

The United States retained its dominance of the Third World arms market for the eighth year in a row in 2002, according to the latest in an annual series of reports produced by the Congressional Research Service.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Washington accounted for close to one-half of all new arms transfer agreements concluded during the year, as well as actual arms deliveries. Altogether, arms sales from all sources to developing countries made up about two-thirds of arms sales worldwide during 2002, according to the report, which is based on the most comprehensive data compiled by the US government.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

New arms agreements with developing nations totaled US$17.7 billion, a 10 percent increase over new deals in 2001. Of that total, US sales came to $8.6 billion, or almost 48 percent of all arms transfers to Third World countries, up from 41 percent the previous year.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Washington was followed by Russia, which sold $5.7 billion worth of arms; Ukraine ($1.6 billion); Italy ($1.5 billion); and Germany and France ($1.1 billion each).

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

China was the leading recipient of conventional arms transfers in 2002, accounting for $3.6 billion in purchases; followed by South Korea ($1.9 billion); India ($1.4 billion); and Oman ($1.3 billion).

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Of the 10 top recipients, five were in the Middle East - Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, in addition to Oman - and four in Asia, with Malaysia ranking eighth behind China, Korea and India.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Chile, which ranked tenth on the strength of a major purchase of advanced fighter jets from the US, was the only country outside the other two regions, which have been the developing world's biggest customers for conventional arms for the past decade.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

While the Middle East proved the bonanza market of the 1980s - particularly when warring Iran and Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia, were making huge purchases - Asia, particularly China and India, has been the big buyer of the past seven years, according to the report, "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002".

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

In that period, China ranked number one, with $17.8 billion worth of purchases; the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked second at $16.3 billion; and India third at $14.1 billion, suggesting the emergence of a new arms race between the world's two most populous nations that could dominate the market for some time, particularly if purchases in the Middle East continue to decline in relative terms.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

The US, which has sharply upgraded its military relationship with India in the past several years, particularly since the beginning of Washington's "war on terrorism", has made little secret of its hopes of integrating Delhi into a containment strategy against Beijing.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

The 84-page report, whose graphs and tables are ritually pored over by intelligence analysts around the world to glean key trends and possible future military threats to their governments, tracks both actual deliveries of arms, as well as new agreements that will result in eventual deliveries. The time between the signing of an agreement and actual delivery can stretch beyond a decade, depending on many factors.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

In addition to covering the value of sales and deliveries each year and over periods as long as seven years, the report also tracks the transfer by various countries and categories of countries of specific weapons systems.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

It found, for example, that a total of 60 surface-to-surface missile systems were transferred last year, none of which was supplied by the US, Russia, China, the four major West European countries (France, Britain, Germany, and Italy) or "all other European countries".

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Suppliers of the missiles were found in a category called "all others", which includes North Korea, South Africa and Israel.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

The report does not identify the individual suppliers in a category because that information remains classified.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

In the introduction, Richard Grimmett, who has authored the report since it was first published some two decades ago, stressed that the overall trend in arms purchases by the developing world has been downward since the early 1990s, when countries that could afford them bought large quantities of advanced US weapons systems that were displayed during the 1991 Gulf War.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

While arms transfers were up in 2002 compared to the previous year, the $17.7 billion in new agreements was still the second lowest in the last seven years.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Grimmett stressed that it was still too soon to assess the impact, if any, of the "war on terrorism", including the ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and this year's war in Iraq.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Economic conditions in specific countries as well as the state of the world economy continued to be a major factor constraining arms buying, according to Grimmett. "Economic as well as military considerations have factored heavily in [developing country] arms purchasing decisions, a circumstance likely to continue for some time," he wrote.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

This has benefited both wealthier developing countries vis-à-vis their rivals, as well as those arms suppliers that can provide credit or are willing to provide offset arrangements or joint-production ventures with buyer states in what has become a more competitive market.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

The report noted that Russia, which has encountered strong competition for the number two spot on the arms suppliers' list since 1995, intends to offer more flexible credit and payment arrangements than it has in the past in order to secure its ranking.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

While China has been the fourth biggest supplier over the same period, "its role is more as a consumer than a buyer," Grimmett told Inter Press Service, noting that over the past seven years the combined sales of the big four European suppliers rival Russia's sales.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Indeed, as a group, the four countries claimed 12 percent of total sales in 2002, up from 5 percent in 2001.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Two major buyers of the past decade - Saudi Arabia and Taiwan - are fading as consumers in more recent years, the report says. Riyadh has faced financial constraints and, in fact, is still absorbing weapons systems worth some $64.5 billion that it purchased in the early 1990s.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Taiwan, which ranked second to Saudi Arabia with respect to deliveries since 1995 ($20 billion) has dropped out of the top 10 in purchasers, much to the frustration of anti-China hawks in the Bush administration.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Different suppliers also penetrated different regional markets over the same seven-year period. Asia - particularly China, India and Malaysia - accounted for 82 percent of Russia's arms sales, or about one-half of all arms sold to the region.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

US sales to Middle Eastern clients has accounted for 76 percent of its total arms sales since 1999 and about the same percentage of all sales to the region in that period. It has also became the dominant supplier to Latin America in the past three years, primarily on the strength of the warplanes for Chile.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Germany (due to a big sale to South Africa) and Russia have been the biggest single arms sellers to Africa in the past three years, at 16 percent and 15 percent, respectively. By contrast, Washington accounted for only 1 percent of sales to that continent.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

On the other hand, "all other European" countries - mainly Central and Eastern Europe - accounted for a whopping 37 percent of total weapons transfers to Africa, giving a clue to the source of small arms that are fueling the region's many civil conflicts, according to Grimmett.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Jim Lobe is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He also writes regularly for Inter Press Service. He can be reached at: jlobe@starpower.net

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

Other Recent Articles by Jim Lobe

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

* Sharp Increase in US Military Aid to Latin America

* Is the Neocon Agenda for Pax Americana Losing Steam?

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>

HOME

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

[RussianConservative]

Many such nations, especially Arabs, do not buy such weapons to war with (not that they really know what is to be done in them) but as macho...to show off to neighbors and gain street credits.

[RussianConservative]

Same as US make in beefing up Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan: MONEY...unfortunetly as true of Putin as of Bush...their supporters often do not care of longer aims or good/evil..Christian/Muslim concept (note how that falls in withe each other) they care about one thing: MONEY and since presidents need it too and such support, they are pulled along with it.

Same reason why Bush go to bat for Khodorkovsky (he is also being sued in US for doing same thing as Enron and his 2nd in charge is up for multiple murder charges) because Exxon and Shevron were to make big bucks with Khodor and they support Bush.

Nasty thing politics of money.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Well,the Sudanese are not exactly flowing with money to buy the SU-39 attack jets or Mig-29SMT(the fighter bomber variant).I think the chopper you referred to here is not the Ka-25(which is a naval anti-sub helo, along with the ka-27/28 etc).The new Russian attack helo is the Ka-50/52 series which is as sleek(if not more) as the Apache &a new customised variant fitted with Israeli systems was nearly brought by Turkey & ofcourse for us oldtimers there is Mi-24/35 Hind series,which is going strong even afer 30 years with a series of Israeli,Russian,French&South African upgrade packages available,for which u need money though.

We are now witnessing a revolution of sorts in the Russian arms sector-greater international collaboration is being allowed esp on electronics systems &countermeasures, radically enhancing capabilities.For example India's new SU-30 MKI &upgraded Mig-21 carry Israeli&French electronic suites-Same with Malaysia who will use French avionics on their SU-30MKMs.Once the EU lifts its arms embargo on China,ul see greater European tech on Russian systems to China.The selection of Russian infantry fighting vehicles(with a French firecontrol system & ECM)&Multibarrel rocketlaunchers(MBRL) by the UAE & Kuwait ,2 staunch American buyers,should be worrying Washington no end.

[Sam the Sham]

Thanks for the correction re the helicopter.

The point you made about the days of sneering at Russian aircraft being over is worth stressing. Relations between Israel and Russia are quite cozy now (what with so much of the Israeli population being of Russian descent) with a considerable exchange of technology.

[barkeep]

My point precisely. These aircraft are not for the internal war, but they smell the possibility of European, NATO or God forbid Kofi Annan get off his arse, even UN intervention, and they want something to dissuade such. Key, of course is the point we both made "competent pilots", as good as these planes are, give them to bozo the Cessna jockey and you make very expensive craters. There may well be that large a pool of well trained, unemployed mercenaries in this particular field, one hears a lot of highly trained Russians are getting tired of driving busses and such for subsistence wage.