The Iraqi WMDs and the Russian Military Strategyin the Middle East

Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History.

Bump for a great read.

I have no way of knowing if this article is true or not. Don't really think anyone here knows for sure either. That being said, I do not think Russia is a trustworthy all-weather ally of the United States. And even though Bush and Rice may have made statements to the effect that Russia is now an ally, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe that for themselves. They may think it beneficial for future political considerations to call Russia an ally, rather than refer to them as a continuation of the "evil empire". They may simply believe Russia would be more helpful in the war on terror if Russsia wasn't continually refered to as part of the "axis of evil". In the end, every country (or dictator) does what is best for their own self interests. And politics is a complicated chess game.

The Russians are the fox in the Middle East hen house.

Yes and No.

While the Soviets facilitated the development of WMD's in Iraq, particularly nuclear, the current problem is not one of official endorsement, but of Russian military officers and scientists who are selling goods and services to the highest bidder.

The Iraqis never needed much help in the chem/bio department, though it was provided, since these weapons are not hard to make as long as you have lots of money, competent scientists, and a place to work. Plus, all the equipment is dual use. The same equipment needed to make baby formula, yogurt or fertilizer can make bio/chem weapons, and vis-versa.

The nuclear is a different story. There the Iraqis needed, and received, help from both France and the Soviet Union. After the collaspe of the Soviet Regime, countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others began courting Russian and other former Bloc scientists. Not hard to do since most were no longer receiving paychecks from their governments. The same with a lot of generals with access to sensitive materials.

Post Soviet governments, whether Yeltsin or Putin or whoever, had very little control over this. Things were complete chaos under Yeltsin. Things are marginally better now that Putin is in charge. Official government policy means littel were there is massive unemployment and hard currency can buy anything that is not nailed down (and much that is).

See posts #21 & #23.

"Post Soviet governments, whether Yeltsin or Putin or whoever, had very little control over this. Things were complete chaos under Yeltsin. Things are marginally better now that Putin is in charge. Official government policy means littel were there is massive unemployment and hard currency can buy anything that is not nailed down (and much that is)."

Exactly. And that's what's a bit scary. People who will steal such materials to make $$$$. And they don't care who will get hurt. The same type of person who would sell to Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc., would also sell to the Chechens. All they care about is money. The current state of the Russian military doesn't give one much hope to think that they have good control over their WMD.

There's one big thing you're missing. Bush and Rice have never gone as far as calling the Russians "Allies" in the traditional sense. They refer to them as "partners" in certain areas. This is an important distinction.

Hey, Bush and Rice also think that China is a friend. What is the big deal here???

Condi Rice will work with anyone who they can, except those who pose an immediate threat to US intrests. Russia and China do NOT pose an immediate threat to US intrests, like Iran does.

They use the same stragety for the People's Republic of China, Venezuela, and other undesirable countries. They have to sound diplomatic, even when it goes against the long term security of the US.

What have you been reading, PRAVDA?

Here's something the Putin Propaganda Machine won't touch.

Mideast Watch: A Russian-Syrian Alliance.

by Mark N. Katz
Washington (UPI) Sep 05, 2005
Despite their many common interests (including opposition to American "hegemony" in general and the American-led intervention in next-door Iraq in particular), Russian-Syrian relations have not been particularly close during most of the Putin era.

Russian-Israeli relations, by contrast, have become very close under both Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Since Syrian President Bashar Assad met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in January 2005, however, Russian-Syrian relations have improved dramatically. Russia has even agreed to sell an advanced air defense missile system to Syria over both American and Israeli objections.

Far from signaling a serious downturn in Russian-Israeli relations, though, Putin has been pursuing close ties with Israel and with Syria simultaneously. What is more, he appears to be succeeding at this delicate balancing act.

Unlike the leaders of most countries who have either criticized Putin's policy toward Chechnya or been unwilling to endorse it, Sharon has expressed wholehearted approval for Putin's tough approach - describing it as being as "necessary" as his own vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

The two leaders have developed a genuine rapport, and Putin has expressed concern on numerous occasions for the safety and wellbeing of Israel's large Russian-speaking population. Trade between Russia and Israel is much greater than that between Russia and Syria. Important security cooperation has also developed between Russia and Israel - which increased even further after the 2004 Beslan tragedy.

In light of this, the sudden improvement in Russian-Syrian relations at the beginning of 2005 appeared to threaten the Russian-Israeli relationship. Israeli politicians and observers were especially upset that Putin was going ahead with the sale of air defense missiles to Damascus after Israeli and American leaders had repeatedly asked him not to do this.

Yet despite the genuine unhappiness expressed by Israeli officials over Putin going ahead with this missile sale, both governments acted to contain and minimize their differences. A longtime Russian observer of Moscow's relations with the Middle East, Georgiy Mirskiy of Moscow's Institute for the World Economy and International Relations, predicted that "deliveries of Russian missiles to Damascus will not prompt a row" with Israel.

Yevgeniy Satanovskiy - president of Moscow's Institute for the Study of Israel and the Near East and one of Russia's strongest proponents of close Russian-Israeli ties - said that the sale of Russian missiles to Syria would have "precisely the same effect on relations with Israel as the Americans' arms exports to Saudi Arabia, that is, simply none at all."

Putin's visit to Israel (as well as Egypt but not Syria) in April 2005 and repeated expression of his concern for Israeli security while he was there indicated that the Russian-Israeli relationship was still close despite the sale of Russian air defense missile systems to Syria. The recent improvement in Russian-Syrian relations, then, does not appear to presage a firm alliance between Moscow and Damascus, but something much less instead.

Indeed, the real question about recently improved Russian-Syrian relations is: What's in it both for Damascus and for Moscow? Up until recently, Syria did not have much incentive to pursue improved relations with Moscow.

But the American-led intervention in Iraq, and - even more - the combined European, American pressure on Syria over Lebanon have heightened Damascus's sense of insecurity, thus increasing its incentive to turn to Moscow.

This is exactly the position that Putin wants Syria to be in. While Russia may not be willing or able to defend Syria, the combination of Syria's heightened sense of insecurity and its isolation from the West is what has induced Damascus to give the Russian arms and petroleum industries preferential access to Syria. (There have even been reports of negotiations between the Russian atomic energy industry and Syria, but nothing has come to fruition yet in this realm.)

Moscow does not want Syria to have improved relations with the West or make peace with Israel. For under these circumstances, Russian firms might have to compete with Western ones for Syria's business - something which they do not want to have to do.

On the other hand, Moscow does not want a hostile Sunni fundamentalist regime to come to power in Damascus since Russia would undoubtedly lose whatever contracts, investments, and other benefits (including continued Russian naval access to Tartus) it gains from the current regime. The present situation in Syria, then, is best suited for Putin to advance Russia's relatively modest, commercially motivated interests there.

Nor does this threaten to seriously damage Russia's relations with either Israel or the U.S. For Moscow understands that while both the U.S. and Israel have little reason to love Bashar Assad, their fear that he will be overthrown and replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist one give them both an interest in Moscow helping to prop him up.

Unfortunately we were too quick in celebrating the demise of the evil empire.

Reagan knocked it out, but Bush41 celebrated instead of pounding the stake. Then guess who performed CPR (Communist Proletariat Resuscitation) on his old vacation spot?

"Things are marginally better now with Putin in charge"

Under Putin, we have the advancement of Iraqi chem-bio , the Iranian power plant, big involvement in the oil / food debacle.

Vlad Putin is showing next to zero under his watch.
Actually this is not correct, if it were it would be an improvement to the actual undermining of the United States.

Yours is a position I agree with, see post #23.

Post Soviet governments, whether Yeltsin or Putin or whoever, had very little control over this. Things were complete chaos under Yeltsin. Things are marginally better now that Putin is in charge. Official government policy means littel were there is massive unemployment and hard currency can buy anything that is not nailed down (and much that is).

I fully agree. The Russian government has little to do with some of the things we see transpiring, rather it is independent contractors attempting to make a fast buck.

Some people state Russian is in transition. Russia isn't in transition. Under KGB Putin Russia has arrived. This is it! This - chaos, Mafia, inflation, pauperism, lawlessness - is how it's going to be from now on, until Putin orders the Russian horde to march on Israel in conjunction with Moscow's allies Iran & Syria coupled with an SLBM sneak attack on the United States via Russian subs, directly off the East and West coasts.

Under Putin, we have the advancement of Iraqi chem-bio , the Iranian power plant, big involvement in the oil / food debacle.

Actually, under Putin, we have much the same thing we had under Yeltsin. Innefective government. After 70 years of communism, Russia is a country where no one trust anyone, everybody is pretty much out for themselves, especially in government. What fungible wealth the country had was stolen by its leaders during the collapse.

Trying to govern Russia right now is a daunting task. Broke Yeltsin. Putin, as I said, is doing marginally better. But he is like the captain of ship that has been stripped of its sails, has broken rudder, a mutinous crew, and no provisions. Oh, and the first mate stole the compass and sold it.

To get a handle on all that won't happen following parliamentary rules of proceedure. Like Lincoln during the Civil War, Putin is going to have no choice but to suspend parts of their Constitution and crack heads. He is trying to do this. This is the "back-sliding" we are seeing.

The question then is whether he is doing this for the good of the country, or for his own personal quest for power. There is plenty of room for argument. Most of what I have been able find on him indicates the former, but like you I remain a skeptic.

oil / food debacle.

Remember that under the old Soviet Union government was extremely compartmentalized. The left hand not only ignored the right, it often lied to it. That has not changed. A parliament may have been elected, but the old bureaucracy, with all of its paranoia and self interest remained and still runs the machinery of government.

While certain russian ministers were neck deep in the scandle, I'm still not sure how much, if any, was Putin's doing. I'm inclined to think he must have known something. But then he would simply have been putting the bests interests of Russia into play. His country is strapped for cash, Saddam owes Russia for lots of military equipment which we blasted in scrap during Gulf War one, and it needs the oil. Last but not least, Iraq was one of their client states going way back. What did anyone expect?

Iran is a different story, but not by much. Again, remember that Russia is broke. 70 years of communism left them with two major exports. Military hardware and nuclear technology. They also have lots of natural resources, but much of it is located in places rather inhospitible to human habitation, and you need money to develop them. This is why they are offering to build a nuclear power plant in Iran. They need the money. And they don't think it will be a problem. I disagree, as do you. But then we're not Putin who is faced with nearly insurmountable economic problems.

As for Bio/Chem, while Iraq received some assistance and guidance from the Soviets, they really didn't need it. Anymore than they needed our help. Biological and Chemical weapons can be easily manufactured by any competent chemist or biologist with only a little money (compared to a nuclear program), and a place to work. The equipment can be purchased off-the-shelf in a dozen countries since it is all dual use.

The hard part of Bio/Chem is delivery systems, and this is where the Soviets helped them the most. Scud missles and aircraft delivery systems which were sold to them (as were used against the Iranians and the Kurds). Remember, Soviet military doctrine considered Bio/Chem warfare as a given, and all of their equipment was designed to fight in this environment and to be easily modified to deliver these weapons.

My knee-jerk reaction to Putin was, initially, the same as yours, but things are not that simple. I politics they never are. In post-Soviet Russian politics it's something like Alice in "through the looking glass". I've been studying the Soviet Union, professinaly and academically for over 20 years. I don'tlike much of what I am seeing over there anymore than you do. But I also understand that things could be a lot worse, especially where US / Russian relations are concernend. You can count on them (as with anyone) to do what is in their best interests. The trick is to determine how they define than and understand that we are not going to define them the same way.

GREAT READING