Skip to comments.
Russia to repay South Korean debt with arms
THE TIMES OF INDIA ^
| TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 12:30:17 PM
| REUTERS
Posted on 08/14/2002 10:31:52 AM PDT by Destro
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
I guess the cold war really is over!
1
posted on
08/14/2002 10:31:52 AM PDT
by
Destro
To: Destro
I'll bet that deal really frosted the gonads China and North Korea! Especially the LCACs!
2
posted on
08/14/2002 10:36:46 AM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: PsyOp
money talks, comrades walk.
3
posted on
08/14/2002 10:49:17 AM PDT
by
Destro
To: lavaroise; belmont_mark
Enjoy
4
posted on
08/14/2002 10:50:38 AM PDT
by
Destro
To: Destro
![](http://www.vietnamrehab.org/images/treating_patient.jpg)
Maybe they really mean arms.
To: Destro
Good now they don't have to invade North Korea to get the Russian Arms.
6
posted on
08/14/2002 11:10:07 AM PDT
by
YOMO
To: Destro
We should do the same damn thing instead of letting them default on loans. All the power to us, we need armament bad.
7
posted on
08/14/2002 12:23:33 PM PDT
by
lavaroise
To: Destro
I suppose they are taking the stuff for training purposes, and just so that they get "something" (better than nothing) for the loans that have probably been written off as worthless.
8
posted on
08/14/2002 12:23:41 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: Destro; belmont_mark
Well, I guess throating down your weapons sales by threatening default is better than nothing. Still obvious of the rough tactics of the Russians. They get away with a lot.
9
posted on
08/14/2002 12:25:12 PM PDT
by
lavaroise
To: lavaroise
I see no evidence arms twisting here - hehe
10
posted on
08/14/2002 12:32:41 PM PDT
by
Destro
To: glorgau
You don't train a force mainly armed with American weapons with Russian T-80 tanks, LCAC hovercraft assault ships, KA-32 transport helicopters, BMP-3 armoured vehicles, etc. These are not throw away weapons systems either.
11
posted on
08/14/2002 12:36:37 PM PDT
by
Destro
To: lavaroise
Why would you want to buy/take in exchange arms
which are clearly substandard?
Mad Vlad
12
posted on
08/14/2002 12:37:12 PM PDT
by
madvlad
To: lavaroise; glorgau; Destro
We should do the same damn thing instead of letting them default on loans. All the power to us, we need armament bad. The following is an interesting link (copy and paste):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695515/posts
When you get there click on the other link at the top to Flight Journal for the original article.
13
posted on
08/14/2002 2:15:52 PM PDT
by
spetznaz
To: Destro; Stavka2; JanL; lavaroise; bat-boy; Jeff Head; rightwing2; Orion78; Noswad
There is something very Machiavellian here. I wonder what the real angle is from the standpoint of the DPRK-loving Kremlin? The last time there was a state visit (by train!) of the DPRK to Russia, it was a veritable love fest. There must be something hidden in this that does not meet the eye. "Booga, booga, booga!" (from the depths of my bunker, wreathed in tin foil, shouting "yee haw" in unison with the bomb riding General....Belmont Mark out...)
To: madvlad
First off, the article doesn't tell us much about which variant of the T-80 they are recieving. So its hard to make a properly informed judgement.
Why would you want to buy/take in exchange arms which are clearly substandard?
Because they are better than the ones they already have. They currently field the M-48 (which rolled into service in the U.S in 1953!!) although it is upgraded, and the K1 (indigenous)whos competitors are the T-72 and Germany's Mark 3, they are developing a K1A1 but they have yet to start serial production of them and they are also having difficulty with the 120mm gun as opposed to the K1's 105 mm gun.
I've read that they already have T-80's but i'm unsure if this is true and in what quantity. Either way, the T-80 is more capable than any of their tanks they currently field. So while it is sub standard compared to the new stuff it is still capable.
As for the other equipment, I couldn't say. Still, they're aren't stupid and wouldn't take the equipment if it was crap.
15
posted on
08/14/2002 7:03:57 PM PDT
by
enrg
To: belmont_mark
While you are at it, go ask why Klintoon and Bush Jr. both suck up to N. Korea and build nuclear plants for them, that they damn well know they will never be able to inspect. The US is openly propogating nuclear technology to psychotic dictators...stew on that with your endless conspiracy theories.
16
posted on
08/14/2002 11:10:54 PM PDT
by
Stavka2
To: madvlad
Go educate yourself on Janes or any other good weapons books about these "substandard" system.
17
posted on
08/14/2002 11:14:29 PM PDT
by
Stavka2
To: Destro
Good. Keeps the weapons out of the hands of the looters in Russia:
At the end of 2001, the chairman of the Russian Audit Chamber (an independent parliamentary watchdog organization the controls the spending of budgetary funds), Sergei Stepashin disclosed that of the $3.7 billion Russia earned on arms exports in 2000, government coffers got only $7,000 . http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol12/felgenhauer2.html
To: LarryLied; Stavka2
At the end of 2001, the chairman of the Russian Audit Chamber (an independent parliamentary watchdog organization the controls the spending of budgetary funds), Sergei Stepashin disclosed that of the $3.7 billion Russia earned on arms exports in 2000, government coffers got only $7,000 . http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol12/felgenhauer2.html .Ay yi yi!
If this is true then it is beyond corruption.
Hey Stavka, i know about the Oligarchs and the 'rule of seven bankers,' however can the oligarchs be this powerful (having the ability to skim 3.7 billion and leave only 7 grand)?
19
posted on
08/15/2002 6:35:25 AM PDT
by
spetznaz
To: Stavka2
Limp wristed appeasement is of course inexcusable. A book titled "While America Sleeps" by Kagan and Kagan details both the 1994 initial appeasement as well as following episodes. Not unlike the position of the US Gov vis a vis both the Kremlin and the Forbidden City. We are working to change all that and you will someday not like what you see.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson