Replies

The arms deals that I refer to are mostly against international agreements that Russia is a party to and are damaging in the long run to Russian interests. Selling advanced fighter aircraft to Singapore and India and an old carrier to India as well makes commercial and strategic sense, but selling ballistic missile and nuclear technology to A-bomb hungry Iran and North Korea is illegal and idiotic even when judged solely by Russian interests.

If Iranian or North Korean nukes go off, most of those explosions will be in Russia's neighborhood. Perhaps Russia expects the North Korean threat to spur Japanese rearmament and thereby help contain China, and that turmoil in the Mid East would bolster the prices for Russian oil. But can the Russians be so foolish as to think that trouble of that sort is not also a grave risk to them. High oil prices could spur direct Chinese aggression against Russian oil interests -- and especially so if a rearmed Japan threatens China's Pacific sea lanes.

Similarly, selling a squadron of advanced fighter bombers to Venezuela may generate cash, but it is directly against US interests. Russia does not seem to place a high value on American good will. Perhaps it is time to make major arms deals, grant swift NATO membership, and establish US bases in the Baltic Republics.

As a matter of national policy, Russia would be better served by reforming her military to cut personnel and add new weapons. As for foreign arms sales, Russia could let them be controlled by national interest rather than commercial considerations, which is the practice almost everywhere else. Any shortfall from reduced weapons sales could be readily made up through Russia's torrent of oil revenues.

Of course, corruption, profiteering, and cronyism are major influences in all Russian decisions. A prime component of many Russian arms deals is not support for her arms industry but the bribery that such sales generate, as the pricing of the Venezuelan and other transactions is taken as suggesting.

Russia is less an integrated nation state than a shark tank of Mafiya criminal gangs and corrupt businessmen and politicians, with the security services and Putin apportioning public office and the best opportunities for power and enrichment. The Russians will survive, but the Russian state may well disintegrate further. Continuity in its present form ought not to be assumed.

Iran is a vital startegic investment for Russia. Why? Because they are Shiite Muslims and as such they are different from Russia's mainly Sunni muslim population. The Russians are using Iran as a buffer state to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - both Waahbist nations that are allied to America (and Pakistan has nukes and missiles to carry them) and were used by America to launch Wahhbist inspired liberation movements not only in Russia but in the 'Stans as well and in China and India.

Syria is also antaginistic to Saudi and Wahhabist Muslim goals.

The world is not black and white, Rockingham. The same reason America supported Saddam is the same reason Russia supports Iran - as a counter weight to even more dangerous Muslims - our Saudi and Paki allies.

So you Rockingham fall into the camp that says that the only Russian policy that is to be applauded is a policy that is supposed to serve the interests of other countries but (not) Russia."