Replies

All of these are from `95. Two things to keep in mind.

1. This was when Yeltsin was in charge, and if the reports are correct, the man was probably blitzed.

2. These Komet ATGMs that turned up in Iraq are apparently NOT part of a Russian deal. The article itself says that the defense officals are blaming "Ukrainian arms dealers and possibly some entrepreneurial Syrian generals or the Syrian government itself."

It's easily done. We KNOW the Syrians have been smuggling oil out for Iraq for a long time. It would be a simple matter for them to over-order Komet-E ATGMs, and ship off a portion of the missile shipment to Iraq.

The absence of venom towards Russia on the part of officials is also big. Some old song lyrics hit the mark here: "Silence speaks a thousand words."

The officials aren't blaming Russia. They're casting an eye towards... Syria.

I gave you a direct link to UN documented for weaponery. If you take the time and study that entire database, you will see that the Putin administration has also been violating sanctions with Iraq. THEN, if you study the documentary of the US information, there is even more incidents that we cited outside of the UN documentation. Here is one example:

October 27, 2000

GILMAN, HELMS DEMAND ANSWERS ON SANCTIONS-VIOLATING FLIGHTS INTO IRAQ

WASHINGTON (October 27) – U.S. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (20th-NY), Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, sent the following letter today to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright concerning sanctions against Iraq:

October 27, 2000

Dear Madam Secretary:

We suspect that you are extremely concerned, as we certainly are, about the increasing number of sanctions-violating flights into Iraq. Needless to say, it is not surprising that these flights have been initiated by Russia and France, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council.

Following the lead of Russia and France, other countries have likewise flown into Iraq. Among these countries are recipients of significant amounts of U.S. foreign aid.

This, Madam Secretary, is outrageous.

Since August, Russia has permitted three direct commercial flights to Baghdad, requesting permission for only two of those flights from the U.N. Sanctions Committee. We understand that Russia does not view these flights as sanctions violations.

In your testimony last month before the Foreign Relations Committee, you emphasized that this is not the U.S. position; specifically, you made clear that the United States believes "that these flights need approval, and . . . I think that absent any new kind of consensus, the [Sanctions Committee] will continue . . . to operate under practices of the last 10 years, that these flights require approval, not just notification."

Sanctions are a vital tool in denying Saddam Hussein the funding and supplies necessary for him to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Vigilance is all the more urgent, given the absence of weapons inspectors in Iraq for nearly two years.

Being fully committed, as we are, to ensuring that this despot does not develop the weapons to threaten the United States, our allies, or our interests, we acknowledge that this will be increasingly difficult if Saddam’s neighbors (and our allies and aid recipients) continue to violate the sanctions intended to protect them.

Madam Secretary, two points: 1) In your view, absent permission from the sanctions committee, do these flights constitute sanctions violations? And (2) Under the terms of Section 534 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2000, do you agree that no assistance should be provided to nations in violation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq?

Please let us hear from you as to how Section 534 applies to the countries in violation of UN sanctions, and in particular to Russia and Egypt, two flagrant violators who receive billions in U.S. foreign aid.

We urgently need your response, Madam Secretary.

Sincerely,
(signed) (signed)
JESSE HELMS BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

The absence of venom towards Russia on the part of officials is also big. Some old song lyrics hit the mark here: "Silence speaks a thousand words."

The officials aren't blaming Russia. They're casting an eye towards... Syria.

Never mind the Kornet-E. The Russian missile system to REALLY worry about is the AT-11b Refleks-m a 125-mm laser-guided antitank missile that can be fired through the smoothbore gun tube of any tank with a 125mm main gun, including the Republican Guard T-72s and the Iraqi T-55s upgraded with a 125mm gun, believed to be 350 or so of them, with a 90% probible hit range against another tank at 4000-5000 meter distances.

The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000 meters, gives the T-90 the ability to engage other vehicles and helicopters before they can engage the T-90. The computerised fire control system and laser range-finder, coupled with the new Agave gunner's thermal sight, permit the T-90 to engage targets while on the move and at night.

Also used by the Ukranians, there's a better than excellent chance that Saddam has some. The question is, how many. And had the Russians or others supplied Saddam's forces with Refleks-m/SNIPER, or worse, 9M123 Krizantima, we'd really have problems to be worried about.

AT-11b Sniper B, 9M119M Refleks-M

Remarks:125mm gun fired
Guidance: SACLOS – Laser beam rider
Range: 5000 metres
Speed: 1700 metres/5 seconds
Warhead: Tandem with 700 mm or 650mm after detonating ERA.
Weight: 28 kg
In service: 1993