Posted on 02/16/2005 12:18:22 PM PST by Bald Eagle777
Russia's decision to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria is a "wrong deal to the wrong country at the wrong time," a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said on Wednesday.
Sharon revealed on Tuesday that he had received a letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin informing him of Russia's decision to go ahead with the sale of SA-18 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.
Both Israel and the U.S. had voiced their strong opposition to the sale.
"We are not pleased with the sales of weapons to Syria, particularly sophisticated weapons that Russia intends to sell to Syria, weapons that may end up in the hands of terror organizations," Sharon told reporters in Jerusalem.
Sharon said he had discussed the issue with Putin more than two years ago and was given assurances that the SA-18 would not be sold to the Syrians because of the possibility that the weapons could be passed on to Hizballah in southern Lebanon or Palestinian terrorist groups.
The SA-18, known in Russia as the Igla, is lightweight and small enough to be smuggled in a suitcase even into Israel.
In the letter he received, Sharon said that he was assured that the weapons sold to Syria would not find their ways into the hands of terrorist organizations.
"We worry about that," Sharon said. "We are in constant contact with the Russians in order to settle this issue and to ensure that these weapons do not reach terrorist organizations in Lebanon. Lebanon is the center of terrorism and regional instability."
Israel is still hoping that Russia will not go through with the sale, Sharon's spokesman Dr. Ra'anan Gissin said.
If it falls into the hands of terrorists, it could be used against low-flying aircraft in Israel but also in Iraq, Gissin said.
"It's the wrong deal to the wrong country at the wrong time," Gissin said.
The Russian Defense Ministry denied on Wednesday that it intended to sell the shoulder-fired missiles to Syria, which presumably would be more attractive to terrorists.
The Defense Ministry said in a statement that talks were underway to sell to Syria "Strelets air defense short-range missile systems."
The Strelets missiles are not "man-portable" and can only be used if they are attached to a heavy vehicle, the statement said.
Putin and President Bush are due meet in Bratislava next week where they are supposed to sign an agreement to control the sale of shoulder-fired missiles.
Analysts have noted that beyond the issue of the kind of weapons Russia wants to sell to Syria, that any sale signals a political shift. This is the first time in 14 years that Moscow has been willing to sell weapons to Damascus, its former Cold War ally.
Moscow is keen on reestablishing its influence in the Middle East. Syrian President Bashar Assad visited Moscow last month, and Russia agreed to write-off a large part of its Soviet-era debt.
If Russia's weapons sales are purely for economic reasons, as you seem to suggest, why are their weapons sales always to countries that are enemies of the United States??
Do you seriously believe that Russia sees no strategic considerations to counter the US with these arms sales?? Is everything just about hard currency?? And even if it is, what's your point?? Even if you are right and their motives are purely economic, the net result is that they get more hard currency with which to put back into new weapons and they thwart US strategic aims in the region at the same time.
Russia makes excellent weapons that are world class and on par, if not better than many US systems, despite their sob stories and Potemkin explanations regarding their "poverty and backwardness." These are weapons systems that even wealthy nations would love to have. If your theory is correct, why aren't the Russians offering to sell their highest quality, top of the line weapons to nations with some real ability to pay top price, like Great Britain, or even the US?? If everything is just about how much money they can get and "weapons sales are so yesterday" as another poster said, why not just sell their best stuff to us and other western allies?? No restrictions, nothing. If their concerns are economic, they whouldn't have any security concerns whatsoever with selling their very top of the line weapons, even to the US.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia has geostrategic interests that are counter to the United States and they are pursuing them like any other nation?? And we should pursue our interests which run counter to Russia's. That is the way the world works because States have competing interests. Any world that is made up of sovereign States has geostrategic conflict that goes beyond mere economics, even if that is "so yesterday dude." Deal with it. It may not fit some Utopian Economic Paridise scheme, but its reality.
John.
related:
Crisis in Israel-Russia Ties
Jpost
Posted on 01/12/2005 8:06:39 AM PST by Alex Marko
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319205/post
Israel condemns Russia arms plan
BBC news information | BBC news information
Posted on 01/14/2005 2:41:17 PM PST by anonymoussierr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1321069/posts
Putin promises Israel not to sell missiles to Syria
Middle East Online | January 24 2005
Posted on 01/24/2005 2:16:30 PM PST by knighthawk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327560/posts
Putin says he would only sell 'defensive' missiles to Syria
Jerusalem Post | 1-26-05 | DAVID HOROVITZ
Posted on 01/27/2005 5:27:10 AM PST by SJackson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329669/posts
Russia, Syria work super-weapons deal
worldnetdaily.com | January 21, 2005 | FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Posted on 01/21/2005 4:31:25 AM PST by ovrtaxt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1325278/posts
Russia denies Syrian missiles deal
al Jazeera | January 13 2005
Posted on 01/13/2005 1:55:57 PM PST by knighthawk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320246/posts
Russia-Syria arms deal alarms Israel
Aljazeera | 12 Jan 2005 | By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Posted on 01/12/2005 2:35:58 PM PST by Cornpone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319492/posts
Syria eager for missiles, experts say
Jpost | Jan. 13, 2005 | NINA GILBERT
Posted on 01/12/2005 11:41:41 PM PST by F14 Pilot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319789/posts
Syrian Missile Sale Slots into Secret Russian Air Defense System for Iran
(Our "ally" in action)
Debka | January 24, 2005
Posted on 01/24/2005 6:46:21 PM PST by TapTheSource
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327739/posts
Syrian president to visit Russia on reported missile shopping trip
AFP | 01-12-2005
Posted on 01/12/2005 1:13:32 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319437/posts
U.S. and Russia Seeking Limits on Portable Antiaircraft Missiles
NY Times | January 12, 2005 | THOM SHANKER
Posted on 01/12/2005 4:17:36 PM PST by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319563/posts
U.S. demands Russia cancel proposed missile sale to Syria
Ha'aretz | 13 January 2004 | Ha'aretz Service
Posted on 01/12/2005 2:50:05 PM PST by anotherview
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319501/posts
somewhat related:
Sources: Syria hosted terror wedding
WorldNetDaily.com | Wednesday, January 12, 2005 | Aaron Klein
Posted on 01/11/2005 11:05:56 PM PST by JohnHuang2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318979/posts
Please - you misunderstand. Russia's arms sales are based on a number of factors. The improved cash flow and lucrative aspects are important elements but not the most important elements in the decision. Normal strategic requirements apply just as they do for all weapons exporters, US & UK included.
As to "...why are their weapons sales always to countries that are enemies of the United States??" I would argue that they aren't only to those countries, but it's only those sales that cause a fuss and public recriminations between the major powers.
Many of their sales do deliberately target such nations however, with the obvious aim of providing the US some complicating factors in their path. From Russia's point of view this is highly sensible - every delay in US policy progress caused by the presence of advanced weapons systmes here or an well-equipped insurgency here is a day in which the US is less able to focus on whatever they would rather focus on. And another day's breathing space for Russia to recover their position. It's perfectly understandable for a nation in their position and that attitude is growing rapidly. No matter how much the US may be trusted, no nation can rest easy knowing they could be crushed easily by another country without at least trying to acquire a protective deterrent.
As to your comments on their weapons systems qualtiy - I do agree, with minor reservations. As to why they are not offering to sell it to nations such as the UK or US, perhaps this is for the same reason that the US would not sell the Russians their most advanced gear. Both sides would reverse-engineer and negate the efficiencies inherent in the equipment the moment they had a working copy.
As to your third pasragraph, I'm not going to bother arguing with it because, as I have already said, you are mistaken in thinking I believe only economic criteria determine these sales. They're simply a healthy additional incentive. We're actually in complete agreement on that.
This in no way excuses some of the deals they have made, or are planning to make, yet they have customer needs equal to or greater than the U.S.
Your reply of "no one" is rather weak. Russia has economic needs just like the U.S. To foster their new capitalistic society and grow democratic prosperity is something the U.S. should support, not cut at the jugular like you have suggested.
Again, provide a list of acceptable nations Russia could sell arms to. You will find them in direct competition with the U.S., thus a threat of another dimension.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.