A superpower in the past and a superpower of the present, Russia is undergoing a transition towards democracy but not American style democracy but a Russian style democracy as Russia wants to be its own government to the world and remain a global superpower.
This was the general understanding about Russia at a seminar titled ‘Russia’s Transition towards Democracy and Market Economy: The EU’s Responses’, organised by Area Study Centre for Europe (ASCE), University of Karachi (KU), in collaboration with the Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF), Islamabad, at the LEJ Digital Library of KU on Wednesday.
Director Dr Axmann compared Russia with a casino where people with money and power could come and play games to their hearts content. “Corruption and mismanagement is on the rise and it seems that Putin’s Russia is unknown to me. Over 22 government security agencies are controlling the country and all of the officials are, in one way or other, connected to Putin. Cronyism is rife there. The biggest country in the world that occupies nine per cent of the earth surface, Russia is super and mega. It will come to the fold of real democracy in the course of time,” he added.
Associate Professor and Head of Department Strategic & Nuclear Studies department of the National Defence University, Islamabad, Dr Noman Omar Sattar spoke on ‘Russia’s transition from a reluctant power in 1990s to an aspiring world power of the new millennium: with focus on its foreign policy”. He pointed out that Russia had many hurdles in achieving this objective, stating: “The identity crisis and struggle between the democratic and anti-democratic forces in the country were the major factors that were de accelerating the progress of the country. Relation with USA, the sole superpower, was a challenge and Russia was facing it with various pacts and acting wisely during Balkan and Kosovo crises. Russia fears that the USA is making inroads in its backyard in the garb of war on terrorism.”
An Associate Professor, at the Institute of Business Administration (IBA Karachi), Dr Mahnaz Fatima spoke about “Economic and Trade Relations between Russia and the European Union: Problems and Prospects” and informed the audience that there was an imbalance in trade between Russia and EU from 1999 to 2009. It was 19037 million Euros in 1999 and 49706 million Euros in 2009. This entire deficit for EU coming from the import of petrol and gas from Russia. And EU is concerned about this dependency.
Dr Shabbir Ahmed Khan from the Area Study Centre, University of Peshawar, discussed the “Challenges to Democracy and Political Reform in contemporary Russia: The EU’s response to successes and failures” and pointed out that President Yelstin was interested in changing the centralised economy to market-based economy for Russia and for that he took many steps that were considered inappropriate at the time but later they proved to be right. A widely prevalent perception in the west is that there has been no genuine political and democratic transformation in Russia.
This issue has become a major obstacle in the establishment of closer relations between the EU and Russia.
Earlier, Dr Naveed Ahmed Tahir, Director ASCE, talked about the Russian concept of USA and the west and reminded the audience that Russia sees USA as an innovator but not a model for democracy.
Showing posts with label Soyuz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soyuz. Show all posts
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Russia moving superpower airforce into right direction
Earlier this year, the Obama Administration, under the suggestion of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, canceled the further production of the Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor. The world’s first 5th Generation air superiority fighter was seen as unnecessary since it had no rivals. Well, think again! Russia test flew their new Sukhoi T-50 jet fighter. The plane has many similar features as that of the F-22, including stealth, sustained supersonic flight and a high degree of maneuverability due to movable, ‘gimballed’ exhaust nozzles.
Side by side, one can see many similar features in the airframes of these two jet fighters. This reinforces the potential that the new Sukhoi T-50 Russian jet may be a formidable opponent to the F-22. The T-50 is a joint project between Russia, India and Israel. Like the F-22, the T-50 will carry a wide range of current and advanced, future weapon systems inside internal bays, adding to the plane’s stealthiness. The cockpit features advanced avionics, much like the F-22 and F-35 Lighting II, consisting mostly of computer touch-screens as opposed to analog dials and instruments.
Like the F-22, the T-50 will be able to travel at sustained speeds of Mach 2+, but will have double the range of the American version. The new jet fighter is expected to enter service with the Russian Air Force first within the next two to three years. Russia plans on building 150 to 200 for their own national defense. India is committed to buying 200 and will begin to take delivery by 2015. How many Israel will buy remains unknown. However, Russia is already preparing to market the T-50 for worldwide sales by 2017. At a cost of $100 Million dollars each, the plane will be significantly less expensive than the American F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, also intended for international sales. Russia believes the Sukhoi T-50 will capture at least one-third of the world’s jet fighter market. China’s version of a 5th Generation stealth fighter is still several years away.
Side by side, one can see many similar features in the airframes of these two jet fighters. This reinforces the potential that the new Sukhoi T-50 Russian jet may be a formidable opponent to the F-22. The T-50 is a joint project between Russia, India and Israel. Like the F-22, the T-50 will carry a wide range of current and advanced, future weapon systems inside internal bays, adding to the plane’s stealthiness. The cockpit features advanced avionics, much like the F-22 and F-35 Lighting II, consisting mostly of computer touch-screens as opposed to analog dials and instruments.
Like the F-22, the T-50 will be able to travel at sustained speeds of Mach 2+, but will have double the range of the American version. The new jet fighter is expected to enter service with the Russian Air Force first within the next two to three years. Russia plans on building 150 to 200 for their own national defense. India is committed to buying 200 and will begin to take delivery by 2015. How many Israel will buy remains unknown. However, Russia is already preparing to market the T-50 for worldwide sales by 2017. At a cost of $100 Million dollars each, the plane will be significantly less expensive than the American F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, also intended for international sales. Russia believes the Sukhoi T-50 will capture at least one-third of the world’s jet fighter market. China’s version of a 5th Generation stealth fighter is still several years away.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
T-50 fighter jet makes another test flight
Russia’s fifth generation fighter jet T-50, also known as the Russian stealth fighter, has made another test flight at the aircraft industry centre in the city of Zhukovsky outside Moscow. It is also known as the Russian stealth.
Sukhoi T-50 is a monoplane with far apart engines and two fins which are strongly deviated from the axial axis. The Russian fighter jet is up to par with and even surpasses the American jets of the same class, such as F-22 Raptor and F-35, especially in manoeuverability, says the former head of the air force, General Anatoly Kornukov.
“The T-50 is capable of making manoeuvers at any engine regime,” says Anatoly Kornukov. “In fact, not all jets can do so. There is a concept known as the acceptable minimum speed, which is the lowest for this jet. For one, Sukhoi-27 can fly at the speed of a car, which is something that Americans have yet to achieve. They cannot keep the plane flying at large attack angles without draft. The Russian plane can do this. This is good for dodging and manoeuvering. The jet is unlike to wage a close fight, and this will do so at medium or long ranges. Firstly, a long-range missile will be launched and then a short-range one will be fired. When all missiles have been launched, the cannon will be used. In this case, the most manoeuverable plane can attack from the back,” Anatoly Kornukov said.
In fact, super- maneouverability is one of the key tasks set by the American Defence Department before the designers.
The T-50 fighter jet can hardly be detected by radars, and it is also impossible to locate by its heat emissions. This has been achieved by using composite materials and special coating, and a special design of the plane and measures aimed at lowering the jet’s visibility at various frequencies. When T-50 made its maiden flight in January, foreign military experts said that the U.S. monopoly on stealth was over. According to experts, American F-35 has problems competing with Russia’s Su-35 whose radius of radar reflection is the size of a tennis ball. Most likely, T-50 has a much smaller area than this.
T-50 fighter jet will complete its test programme by 2015, says the head of the Sukhoi Company, Mikhail Pogosyan. “I believe that experience gained by the company in developing the Su-30 and Su-35 fighter jets will be a good basis for promoting the programme successfully,” Mikhail Pogosyan said.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin arrived in Zhukovsky to watch the T-50 test flight. Talking with the test-pilot Sergei Bogdan, he said that the fifth generation fighter jet will be 2.5 to 3 times cheaper than its foreign analogues. The new Russian jets will determine the potential of the country’s air force in the next decades.
Sukhoi T-50 is a monoplane with far apart engines and two fins which are strongly deviated from the axial axis. The Russian fighter jet is up to par with and even surpasses the American jets of the same class, such as F-22 Raptor and F-35, especially in manoeuverability, says the former head of the air force, General Anatoly Kornukov.
“The T-50 is capable of making manoeuvers at any engine regime,” says Anatoly Kornukov. “In fact, not all jets can do so. There is a concept known as the acceptable minimum speed, which is the lowest for this jet. For one, Sukhoi-27 can fly at the speed of a car, which is something that Americans have yet to achieve. They cannot keep the plane flying at large attack angles without draft. The Russian plane can do this. This is good for dodging and manoeuvering. The jet is unlike to wage a close fight, and this will do so at medium or long ranges. Firstly, a long-range missile will be launched and then a short-range one will be fired. When all missiles have been launched, the cannon will be used. In this case, the most manoeuverable plane can attack from the back,” Anatoly Kornukov said.
In fact, super- maneouverability is one of the key tasks set by the American Defence Department before the designers.
The T-50 fighter jet can hardly be detected by radars, and it is also impossible to locate by its heat emissions. This has been achieved by using composite materials and special coating, and a special design of the plane and measures aimed at lowering the jet’s visibility at various frequencies. When T-50 made its maiden flight in January, foreign military experts said that the U.S. monopoly on stealth was over. According to experts, American F-35 has problems competing with Russia’s Su-35 whose radius of radar reflection is the size of a tennis ball. Most likely, T-50 has a much smaller area than this.
T-50 fighter jet will complete its test programme by 2015, says the head of the Sukhoi Company, Mikhail Pogosyan. “I believe that experience gained by the company in developing the Su-30 and Su-35 fighter jets will be a good basis for promoting the programme successfully,” Mikhail Pogosyan said.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin arrived in Zhukovsky to watch the T-50 test flight. Talking with the test-pilot Sergei Bogdan, he said that the fifth generation fighter jet will be 2.5 to 3 times cheaper than its foreign analogues. The new Russian jets will determine the potential of the country’s air force in the next decades.
Putin boasts new stealth jet fighter better than any U.S. plane
Putin watched a test flight of a "fifth-generation" stealth fighter, dubbed the T-50 and billed as Russia's first all-new warplane since the the Soviet Union in 1991 as Russia's stance for superpower status in the 21st century.
"This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range," Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.
Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.
Successful development of the fighter, built by Sukhoi, is crucial to showing Russia can challenge U.S. technology and modernize its military after a period of post-Soviet decay.
Russia also plans to manufacture T-50s jointly with India.
The F-22 raptor stealth fighter first flew in 1997 and is the only fifth-generation fighter in service. Fifth-generation aircraft have advanced flight and weapons control systems and can cruise at supersonic speeds.
According to the government website, the test pilot told Putin the controls of the T-50 allowed the pilot to operate most of the plane's systems without taking his hands off the joystick, which he said would be very useful under high forces of gravity.
"I know, I've flown," Putin replied. Sukhoi has said the plane should be ready for use in 2015.
by Steve Gutterman
"This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range," Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.
Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.
Successful development of the fighter, built by Sukhoi, is crucial to showing Russia can challenge U.S. technology and modernize its military after a period of post-Soviet decay.
Russia also plans to manufacture T-50s jointly with India.
The F-22 raptor stealth fighter first flew in 1997 and is the only fifth-generation fighter in service. Fifth-generation aircraft have advanced flight and weapons control systems and can cruise at supersonic speeds.
According to the government website, the test pilot told Putin the controls of the T-50 allowed the pilot to operate most of the plane's systems without taking his hands off the joystick, which he said would be very useful under high forces of gravity.
"I know, I've flown," Putin replied. Sukhoi has said the plane should be ready for use in 2015.
by Steve Gutterman
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Russia strengthening its superpower status by extending its relations with Ukraine
This week Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made his first state visit to Ukraine. After five years of cold relations between the two countries, this trip was meant to cement much warmer ties with Ukraine’s new, Moscow-friendly leader.
“Finally,” Mr. Medvedev told journalists, “there is a worthy Ukrainian partner.”
Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Economic Studies
In case you haven’t noticed, Russia is making progress in bringing former Soviet satellites closer to its orbit. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia has worried about Western encroachment on its geographic “sphere of influence.”
Part of this concern has to do with feelings about lost empire. That’s understandable. Britain, too, struggled with diminution when the sun set on its empire, and there’s much hand-wringing in the US about the limits of its superpower clout.
Another Russian worry is deeply-rooted anxiety about strategic vulnerability. That’s understandable, too. It’s hard to forget the gruesome battle of Stalingrad, or even a cold war.
Still, there’s nothing for Russia to fear in former client states choosing membership in the democratic European Union or NATO alliance, which includes Russia in a special joint council. Moscow, however, still thinks otherwise, and that perspective drives its foreign policy.
To what extent is becoming clearer by the day. By taking advantage of situations or through strong-arm tactics – using its political, petroleum, or even military clout – Russia is getting its sphere back.
The latest example is Ukraine, which in 2004 joined the democratic “color revolutions” that included Georgia in the Caucasus region and later, Kyrgyzstan in central Asia.
Since 2004, though, Ukraine’s democratic leadership succumbed to fierce political infighting, and its economy has been slammed by corruption and world recession. This year, elections gave rise to a new president, Viktor Yanukovich, who is much more friendly to Russia. He dropped Kiev’s interest in joining NATO, and last month extended the lease for Russia’s naval base in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol until 2042.
“Finally,” Mr. Medvedev told journalists, “there is a worthy Ukrainian partner.”
Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Economic Studies
In case you haven’t noticed, Russia is making progress in bringing former Soviet satellites closer to its orbit. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia has worried about Western encroachment on its geographic “sphere of influence.”Part of this concern has to do with feelings about lost empire. That’s understandable. Britain, too, struggled with diminution when the sun set on its empire, and there’s much hand-wringing in the US about the limits of its superpower clout.
Another Russian worry is deeply-rooted anxiety about strategic vulnerability. That’s understandable, too. It’s hard to forget the gruesome battle of Stalingrad, or even a cold war.
Still, there’s nothing for Russia to fear in former client states choosing membership in the democratic European Union or NATO alliance, which includes Russia in a special joint council. Moscow, however, still thinks otherwise, and that perspective drives its foreign policy.
To what extent is becoming clearer by the day. By taking advantage of situations or through strong-arm tactics – using its political, petroleum, or even military clout – Russia is getting its sphere back.
The latest example is Ukraine, which in 2004 joined the democratic “color revolutions” that included Georgia in the Caucasus region and later, Kyrgyzstan in central Asia.
Since 2004, though, Ukraine’s democratic leadership succumbed to fierce political infighting, and its economy has been slammed by corruption and world recession. This year, elections gave rise to a new president, Viktor Yanukovich, who is much more friendly to Russia. He dropped Kiev’s interest in joining NATO, and last month extended the lease for Russia’s naval base in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol until 2042.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Syria asks Russian Superpower to lean on Israel
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has been in the headlines, first for describing his predecessor Joseph Stalin as a "totalitarian dictator" and then for making the first state visit to Syria by a Kremlin chief since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
Medvedev met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal during his Syria visit and in an unprecedented move wrote a front-page editorial for Syria's daily al-Watan on how important bilateral relations are between Damascus and Moscow.
During the two-day visit, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian counterpart agreed a 14-point declaration which included periodic presidential visits as well as cooperation on tourism, education, military affairs, investment and trade and prevention of the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
A strongly worded statement was also issued calling for peace in the Middle East based on United Nations resolutions and the restoration of the June 4, 1967 borders of Israel, which would return all occupied land to the Arabs. It also called for a solution to the Palestinian refugee question and the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
At the summit there were calls for Russia to use its influence to convince the Israelis - who the Syrians insist are not interested in peace - back to the negotiating table. This has long been an objective of the Kremlin.
Damascus also called on Medvedev to get the US, "which is not doing enough", to jump-start serious peace talks on restoring the Golan Heights to Syria. Assad called on Medvedev to use Russia's influence - given that it was one of the co-chairs of the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 - to "convince Israel of the necessity of peace".
For his part, although promising to do his best, Medvedev did not sound optimistic that any breakthroughs were on the horizon. He mention an "increase in tension" that might, he prophesized, "lead to a catastrophe". If that happens, he said, "Moscow will not stand with arms folded".
Russian pressure on Israel - depending on who one talks to in the Middle East - might or might not lead to any breakthrough. The Israelis have never trusted the Russians - not during the Cold War nor since - claiming the Russians always take the side of the Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since his landmark visit to Paris in the summer of 2008 the Syrian president has been urging world capitals to play a serious role in bolstering regional peace talks. The US administration of George W Bush was not interested and today the Barack Obama administration is seemingly unable to apply any real pressure on the Israelis, thanks to a troublesome congress at home and a hardline government in Israel.
The Israelis apparently never forgave Obama for his speech in Cairo in June 2009, in which he promised to bring the Palestinians justice and end Israeli settlements in their lands. Earlier this year, they threw dust in the eyes of Vice President Joseph Biden by announcing that they were about to construct 1,600 new settlements in Jerusalem during his high-profile visit to Israel to begin "proximity talks".
United States Middle East envoy George Mitchell has met with both nation's leaders in an attempt to rekindle peace talks but few are optimistic they will lead anywhere. Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas at best only represents 50% of the Palestinian street in the West Bank as the other half, controlled by Hamas in Gaza, is categorically opposed to any talks as long as the Israeli siege of the strip continues.
The fact that Abbas cannot abandon certain rights related to Jerusalem and refugees - and the likelihood of new war erupting between Israel and Hezbollah this summer - makes it highly doubtful that any breakthrough can be made in the Middle East, no matter how hard the Russians try.
Real progress, however, can be made in economic matters between Syria and Russia. The Syrians are focused on becoming a regional hub in terms of gas, oil and transportation, building on their excellent relations with countries like Russia and Turkey.
When addressing one of the numerous Syrian-Turkish business forums, Assad once spoke of an "economic space" that "one day will be complete, [where] we will then be linking the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Arab Gulf". He added, "When we link these four seas, we will become the obligatory connector for this entire world, in terms of investment and transport."
Syria could serve as a hub for joint investments in energy, industry, agriculture, telecommunications, banking and technology as well as a route for Arab and Asian oil and gas to European markets via the Mediterranean. Turkey could then become a connecting point for electricity networks between Europe and the Arab and Asian regions.
Transportation of goods by rail is already underway from the Iraqi port city of Um Qasr in the Arabian Gulf to the Syrian port city of Latakia, which lies on the Mediterranean. There is also a project to bring the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline into operation with a capacity of 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). Another pipeline is in the works, with a capacity of 1.4 million bpd that will link the Iraqi gas plant in Akkas to a Syrian plant linked to the Jordanian and Egyptian plants which would branching out to Lebanon and Europe.
During a 2009 visit by Greek President Karolos Papoulias to Damascus, he raised the same topic with Syrian officials. His country, he said, could serve as a connecting point between the Black Sea, the Adriatic Ocean and the Balkan Peninsula, where 4,000 Greek and Russian companies are already in operation. A Russian company is currently working on two gas factories in the Syrian midland, with a production capacity of 10 billion cubic meters of gas per day, while a Russian oil company is undergoing excavation works in the Abu Kamal region, near the Syrian border with Iraq.
The Syrians believe they are capable of becoming the arrival and distribution point for goods coming from the Mediterranean, the Gulf and neighboring countries, something raised before the Turks at a summit in Istanbul on May 8, and with Medvedev during his recent visit to Damascus on May 11. To do that, the Syrians need peace in the Middle East, something that is becoming increasingly far-fetched given the inability of the Obama administration to apply any pressure on Israel. This is where Russian diplomacy can come into play.
The two sides have a long history of sound relations dating to the 1940s. Veteran Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov famously visited Damascus in the summer of 1944, refusing to recognize the French Mandate over Syria or meet any French official during his stay, insisting that his only interlocutors were elected Syrian officials.
Two years later, the Soviets used their veto power at the UN Security Council to drown a European initiative to extend the French Mandate over Syria and in 1956, during the height of the Suez Crisis, then-Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli landed in Moscow to start a formal relationship that has been uninterrupted for the past 54 years, followed by his defense minister Khaled al-Azm in the summer of 1957, where he signed economic and military treaties with the Soviets.
Back then, Quwatli pleaded for support of the "great Russian army that defeated Hitler" in saving Egypt from a British-French-Israeli war over the Suez Canal. The relationship was further cemented with strong Russian backing for Syria during the war of 1967, taking a new turn when president Hafez al-Assad came to power in 1970.
Although Assad refused to sign a friendship agreement with the Soviet Union throughout the first 10 years of his presidency, he nevertheless relied on Soviet experts to train and arm the Syrian army, build roads, bridges and the famous Euphrates Dam. Since he came to power in 2000, Bashar al-Assad visited Russia in 2005, 2006 and in 2008, less than two weeks after the US-backed Georgian army rumbled into South Ossetia, which infuriated the Kremlin.
Sending a strong message to the Russians ahead of his 2008 trip, Assad spoke to the Russian Kommerstant newspaper: "The Caucasus and Europe are impossible without Russia ... I think that after the crisis with Georgia, Russia has become only stronger ... It is important that Russia takes the position of a superpower, and then all the attempts to isolate it will fail."
His words were music to the ears of officials at the Kremlin, who saw a good ally in Assad, a man who realizes that the Russians are back and intends on using this strong reality to advance his own country's interests, vis-a-vis stability of the Middle East and restoration of the occupied Golan Heights to its rightful owners.
Medvedev met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal during his Syria visit and in an unprecedented move wrote a front-page editorial for Syria's daily al-Watan on how important bilateral relations are between Damascus and Moscow.
During the two-day visit, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian counterpart agreed a 14-point declaration which included periodic presidential visits as well as cooperation on tourism, education, military affairs, investment and trade and prevention of the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
A strongly worded statement was also issued calling for peace in the Middle East based on United Nations resolutions and the restoration of the June 4, 1967 borders of Israel, which would return all occupied land to the Arabs. It also called for a solution to the Palestinian refugee question and the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
At the summit there were calls for Russia to use its influence to convince the Israelis - who the Syrians insist are not interested in peace - back to the negotiating table. This has long been an objective of the Kremlin.
Damascus also called on Medvedev to get the US, "which is not doing enough", to jump-start serious peace talks on restoring the Golan Heights to Syria. Assad called on Medvedev to use Russia's influence - given that it was one of the co-chairs of the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 - to "convince Israel of the necessity of peace".
For his part, although promising to do his best, Medvedev did not sound optimistic that any breakthroughs were on the horizon. He mention an "increase in tension" that might, he prophesized, "lead to a catastrophe". If that happens, he said, "Moscow will not stand with arms folded".
Russian pressure on Israel - depending on who one talks to in the Middle East - might or might not lead to any breakthrough. The Israelis have never trusted the Russians - not during the Cold War nor since - claiming the Russians always take the side of the Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since his landmark visit to Paris in the summer of 2008 the Syrian president has been urging world capitals to play a serious role in bolstering regional peace talks. The US administration of George W Bush was not interested and today the Barack Obama administration is seemingly unable to apply any real pressure on the Israelis, thanks to a troublesome congress at home and a hardline government in Israel.
The Israelis apparently never forgave Obama for his speech in Cairo in June 2009, in which he promised to bring the Palestinians justice and end Israeli settlements in their lands. Earlier this year, they threw dust in the eyes of Vice President Joseph Biden by announcing that they were about to construct 1,600 new settlements in Jerusalem during his high-profile visit to Israel to begin "proximity talks".
United States Middle East envoy George Mitchell has met with both nation's leaders in an attempt to rekindle peace talks but few are optimistic they will lead anywhere. Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas at best only represents 50% of the Palestinian street in the West Bank as the other half, controlled by Hamas in Gaza, is categorically opposed to any talks as long as the Israeli siege of the strip continues.
The fact that Abbas cannot abandon certain rights related to Jerusalem and refugees - and the likelihood of new war erupting between Israel and Hezbollah this summer - makes it highly doubtful that any breakthrough can be made in the Middle East, no matter how hard the Russians try.
Real progress, however, can be made in economic matters between Syria and Russia. The Syrians are focused on becoming a regional hub in terms of gas, oil and transportation, building on their excellent relations with countries like Russia and Turkey.
When addressing one of the numerous Syrian-Turkish business forums, Assad once spoke of an "economic space" that "one day will be complete, [where] we will then be linking the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Arab Gulf". He added, "When we link these four seas, we will become the obligatory connector for this entire world, in terms of investment and transport."
Syria could serve as a hub for joint investments in energy, industry, agriculture, telecommunications, banking and technology as well as a route for Arab and Asian oil and gas to European markets via the Mediterranean. Turkey could then become a connecting point for electricity networks between Europe and the Arab and Asian regions.
Transportation of goods by rail is already underway from the Iraqi port city of Um Qasr in the Arabian Gulf to the Syrian port city of Latakia, which lies on the Mediterranean. There is also a project to bring the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline into operation with a capacity of 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). Another pipeline is in the works, with a capacity of 1.4 million bpd that will link the Iraqi gas plant in Akkas to a Syrian plant linked to the Jordanian and Egyptian plants which would branching out to Lebanon and Europe.
During a 2009 visit by Greek President Karolos Papoulias to Damascus, he raised the same topic with Syrian officials. His country, he said, could serve as a connecting point between the Black Sea, the Adriatic Ocean and the Balkan Peninsula, where 4,000 Greek and Russian companies are already in operation. A Russian company is currently working on two gas factories in the Syrian midland, with a production capacity of 10 billion cubic meters of gas per day, while a Russian oil company is undergoing excavation works in the Abu Kamal region, near the Syrian border with Iraq.
The Syrians believe they are capable of becoming the arrival and distribution point for goods coming from the Mediterranean, the Gulf and neighboring countries, something raised before the Turks at a summit in Istanbul on May 8, and with Medvedev during his recent visit to Damascus on May 11. To do that, the Syrians need peace in the Middle East, something that is becoming increasingly far-fetched given the inability of the Obama administration to apply any pressure on Israel. This is where Russian diplomacy can come into play.
The two sides have a long history of sound relations dating to the 1940s. Veteran Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov famously visited Damascus in the summer of 1944, refusing to recognize the French Mandate over Syria or meet any French official during his stay, insisting that his only interlocutors were elected Syrian officials.
Two years later, the Soviets used their veto power at the UN Security Council to drown a European initiative to extend the French Mandate over Syria and in 1956, during the height of the Suez Crisis, then-Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli landed in Moscow to start a formal relationship that has been uninterrupted for the past 54 years, followed by his defense minister Khaled al-Azm in the summer of 1957, where he signed economic and military treaties with the Soviets.
Back then, Quwatli pleaded for support of the "great Russian army that defeated Hitler" in saving Egypt from a British-French-Israeli war over the Suez Canal. The relationship was further cemented with strong Russian backing for Syria during the war of 1967, taking a new turn when president Hafez al-Assad came to power in 1970.
Although Assad refused to sign a friendship agreement with the Soviet Union throughout the first 10 years of his presidency, he nevertheless relied on Soviet experts to train and arm the Syrian army, build roads, bridges and the famous Euphrates Dam. Since he came to power in 2000, Bashar al-Assad visited Russia in 2005, 2006 and in 2008, less than two weeks after the US-backed Georgian army rumbled into South Ossetia, which infuriated the Kremlin.
Sending a strong message to the Russians ahead of his 2008 trip, Assad spoke to the Russian Kommerstant newspaper: "The Caucasus and Europe are impossible without Russia ... I think that after the crisis with Georgia, Russia has become only stronger ... It is important that Russia takes the position of a superpower, and then all the attempts to isolate it will fail."
His words were music to the ears of officials at the Kremlin, who saw a good ally in Assad, a man who realizes that the Russians are back and intends on using this strong reality to advance his own country's interests, vis-a-vis stability of the Middle East and restoration of the occupied Golan Heights to its rightful owners.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
America’s Rapidly Shrinking Nuclear Arsenal does not effect Russian global Superpower
Most Americans believe that the massive nuclear arsenal that the U.S. military accumulated during the Cold War is still sitting there today - silently protecting them as they pursue the American Dream. But that is NOT the case. In fact, the United States currently only has a small fraction of the nuclear warheads that it did during the 1960s and the 1970s, and Barack Obama wants to make further substantial cuts. If you are an American, what you are about to read should seriously upset you. The weapons that have protected our freedom since the end of World War II are rapidly being dismantled at a time when the geopolitical situation around the world is becoming increasingly unstable. Iran is feverishly working on developing nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them and it is only a matter of time until terrorists get their hands on some, and yet Barack Obama keeps insisting that radical nuclear disarmament is a great idea and nobody out there (including the Republicans) is putting up much of an objection.
Once upon a time, even the number of nuclear warheads that the U.S. possessed was top secret information. But not anymore. Barack Obama has decided to "set an example of transparency" by releasing that information.
So how many nukes does the U.S. currently have?
The United States now has only 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, which represents an 84 percent decline since a peak of approximately 31,255 in 1967.
And now Barack Obama wants to cut that number even further.
Soon after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Most analysts dismissed such talk as "pie in the sky" rhetoric that would never amount to much.
But Barack Obama was apparently serious. He has been aggressively seeking agreements with other nations that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the globe.
In fact, on April 8th of this year, Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new START treaty in Prague. According to this new treaty, both the United States and Russia will only be allowed a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads. Both sides will also be restricted to 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles that carry warheads.
Only 1,550 deployed U.S. warheads?
Down from over 31,000 warheads in the 1960s?
What kind of national security policy is that?
To get an idea of how rapidly our nuclear arsenal is shrinking, just check out the following chart
But isn't the "Cold War" over?
Now that we have peace with Russia and China, is it not a good thing to be getting rid of these horrible weapons?
No, the Cold War is NOT over and the truth is that we need these weapons more than ever.
The Russian Bear is back in a big way. Russia is now the number one oil producer in the world and their economy is booming. Not only that, they are rapidly modernizing their military and developing new weapons systems. The truth is that Russia is more of a threat today than it ever has been.
In addition, China is now a burgeoning superpower. Thanks to extremely favorable trade agreements, China has become the second biggest economy in the world. This new economic muscle has also allowed Beijing to dramatically reform and modernize the Chinese military. In recent months China's tone towards the United States has become increasingly aggressive and U.S. relations with both Russia and China are becoming alarmingly strained.
Not only that, but as mentioned earlier, Iran is racing towards becoming a nuclear power and North Korea already has nukes. So what will Barack Obama do when each of them has several hundred nuclear weapons?
Also, as you read this leftist revolutions are sweeping across South America. The reality is that the entire continent is turning hard to the radical left. Most Americans simply do not realize the danger that represents.
And then there is the ever present danger that terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons. For many terrorist organizations around the world, the thought of acquiring nuclear weapons is the ultimate dream. One terrorist with a small nuke could take out an entire city in the blink of an eye.
The threats are multiplying and America needs a strong nuclear weapons program more than ever.
But not only does Barack Obama want to slash America's nuclear arsenal down to next to nothing, he also wants to tell the Russians exactly where all our nuclear weapons are so that the Russians can "verify" that the U.S. is keeping its end of the treaty.
Do you understand what that would mean?
It means that someday if the Russians wanted to hit the United States with a surprise first strike, they would know exactly how many nuclear weapons the United States has and exactly where they are.
That would make a first strike SO much easier.
Most Americans think that Russia launching a first strike against us is absolutely impossible, but such a scenario could play out something like this....
Russia (probably allied with China) decides that war with the United States is inevitable. They know that their best chance for success is to launch a devastating surprise first strike. So, they sneak their cutting edge "super silent" subs close to our coasts and they launch a massive wave of nukes. These nukes would get to our bases and cities in about 5 minutes. Thanks to Barack Obama, the Russians know where all of our nukes are located and so they know where to strike. The United States responds by launching the very limited number of nukes that survive the first strike. Afterwards, Russia and China combine forces to launch a ground invasion with their much larger conventional military forces.
Think it can't happen?
Wait and see.
You just might be surprised what is possible once you disarm the most powerful nation on earth.
Once upon a time, even the number of nuclear warheads that the U.S. possessed was top secret information. But not anymore. Barack Obama has decided to "set an example of transparency" by releasing that information.
So how many nukes does the U.S. currently have?
The United States now has only 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, which represents an 84 percent decline since a peak of approximately 31,255 in 1967.
And now Barack Obama wants to cut that number even further.
Soon after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Most analysts dismissed such talk as "pie in the sky" rhetoric that would never amount to much.
But Barack Obama was apparently serious. He has been aggressively seeking agreements with other nations that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the globe.
In fact, on April 8th of this year, Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new START treaty in Prague. According to this new treaty, both the United States and Russia will only be allowed a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads. Both sides will also be restricted to 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles that carry warheads.
Only 1,550 deployed U.S. warheads?
Down from over 31,000 warheads in the 1960s?
What kind of national security policy is that?
To get an idea of how rapidly our nuclear arsenal is shrinking, just check out the following chart
But isn't the "Cold War" over?
Now that we have peace with Russia and China, is it not a good thing to be getting rid of these horrible weapons?
No, the Cold War is NOT over and the truth is that we need these weapons more than ever.
The Russian Bear is back in a big way. Russia is now the number one oil producer in the world and their economy is booming. Not only that, they are rapidly modernizing their military and developing new weapons systems. The truth is that Russia is more of a threat today than it ever has been.
In addition, China is now a burgeoning superpower. Thanks to extremely favorable trade agreements, China has become the second biggest economy in the world. This new economic muscle has also allowed Beijing to dramatically reform and modernize the Chinese military. In recent months China's tone towards the United States has become increasingly aggressive and U.S. relations with both Russia and China are becoming alarmingly strained.
Not only that, but as mentioned earlier, Iran is racing towards becoming a nuclear power and North Korea already has nukes. So what will Barack Obama do when each of them has several hundred nuclear weapons?
Also, as you read this leftist revolutions are sweeping across South America. The reality is that the entire continent is turning hard to the radical left. Most Americans simply do not realize the danger that represents.
And then there is the ever present danger that terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons. For many terrorist organizations around the world, the thought of acquiring nuclear weapons is the ultimate dream. One terrorist with a small nuke could take out an entire city in the blink of an eye.
The threats are multiplying and America needs a strong nuclear weapons program more than ever.
But not only does Barack Obama want to slash America's nuclear arsenal down to next to nothing, he also wants to tell the Russians exactly where all our nuclear weapons are so that the Russians can "verify" that the U.S. is keeping its end of the treaty.
Do you understand what that would mean?
It means that someday if the Russians wanted to hit the United States with a surprise first strike, they would know exactly how many nuclear weapons the United States has and exactly where they are.
That would make a first strike SO much easier.
Most Americans think that Russia launching a first strike against us is absolutely impossible, but such a scenario could play out something like this....
Russia (probably allied with China) decides that war with the United States is inevitable. They know that their best chance for success is to launch a devastating surprise first strike. So, they sneak their cutting edge "super silent" subs close to our coasts and they launch a massive wave of nukes. These nukes would get to our bases and cities in about 5 minutes. Thanks to Barack Obama, the Russians know where all of our nukes are located and so they know where to strike. The United States responds by launching the very limited number of nukes that survive the first strike. Afterwards, Russia and China combine forces to launch a ground invasion with their much larger conventional military forces.
Think it can't happen?
Wait and see.
You just might be surprised what is possible once you disarm the most powerful nation on earth.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Russia's Soviet shuttle may fly again to bail out NASA
The Soviet-era Buran space programme, mothballed 20 years ago, may be revived. With NASA about to retire its ageing fleet of space shuttles, there is a pressing need for viable space transport
Two decades ago the Soviet space shuttle Buran blasted off on its first and only orbital flight. Just a few years later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the programme was shelved.
The Buran was the Soviet Union's answer to NASA’s space shuttle programme. On November 15, 1988, the shuttle was propelled out of the Earth’s atmosphere by the specially designed Energia booster rocket from the Baikonur launch pad in Kazakhstan.
Pavel Sharov from Cosmonauts News Magazine explains the advantages the Soviets had over their rivals in the U.S.
“The USSR surpassed the Americans in technology – U.S. shuttles can only be landed by humans, while the Buran lands automatically,” Sharov said.
Magomet Talboev was one of the pilots who test-flew the shuttle without going into orbit. He said the Soviet authorities had high hopes for the multi-billion dollar spacecraft.
The Energia-Buran programme was started to get the capability to attack the United States, just like the shuttle was able to attack the USSR. We also wanted to take the Skylab space station from orbit. Buran was supposed to put it in its cargo bay and deliver it back to Earth for studies,” Tolboev said.
But the project was scrapped before these plans could be fulfilled. They sank aalong with the Soviet regime. The Energia-Buran became one of the Soviet Union's last super-projects. Billions of dollars were invested and more than a 1.5 million people worked to design and build it. Nevertheless, the Buran went into orbit only once before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
After nearly a decade in a hangar, the only Buran that went into space was destroyed when a roof collapsed at Baikonur launch facility in 2002.
Although the Buran project ended prematurely, not all the ideas from it were left buried. Some of the technologies developed at the time are now used in everyday life. Fore example, several heat-resistant materials used to make deep-fryers are a direct result of the research done during Buran's development.
Buran technologies may make an unexpected return to the space industry as well.
Because NASA will soon retire its ageing space shuttle fleet, some American and Russian scientists are beginning to think of ways to revive the Buran programme.
It may be more economical than developing an entirely new spacecraft from scratch.
Two decades ago the Soviet space shuttle Buran blasted off on its first and only orbital flight. Just a few years later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the programme was shelved.
The Buran was the Soviet Union's answer to NASA’s space shuttle programme. On November 15, 1988, the shuttle was propelled out of the Earth’s atmosphere by the specially designed Energia booster rocket from the Baikonur launch pad in Kazakhstan.
Pavel Sharov from Cosmonauts News Magazine explains the advantages the Soviets had over their rivals in the U.S.
“The USSR surpassed the Americans in technology – U.S. shuttles can only be landed by humans, while the Buran lands automatically,” Sharov said.
Magomet Talboev was one of the pilots who test-flew the shuttle without going into orbit. He said the Soviet authorities had high hopes for the multi-billion dollar spacecraft.
The Energia-Buran programme was started to get the capability to attack the United States, just like the shuttle was able to attack the USSR. We also wanted to take the Skylab space station from orbit. Buran was supposed to put it in its cargo bay and deliver it back to Earth for studies,” Tolboev said.
But the project was scrapped before these plans could be fulfilled. They sank aalong with the Soviet regime. The Energia-Buran became one of the Soviet Union's last super-projects. Billions of dollars were invested and more than a 1.5 million people worked to design and build it. Nevertheless, the Buran went into orbit only once before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
After nearly a decade in a hangar, the only Buran that went into space was destroyed when a roof collapsed at Baikonur launch facility in 2002.
Although the Buran project ended prematurely, not all the ideas from it were left buried. Some of the technologies developed at the time are now used in everyday life. Fore example, several heat-resistant materials used to make deep-fryers are a direct result of the research done during Buran's development.
Buran technologies may make an unexpected return to the space industry as well.
Because NASA will soon retire its ageing space shuttle fleet, some American and Russian scientists are beginning to think of ways to revive the Buran programme.
It may be more economical than developing an entirely new spacecraft from scratch.
Thawing out 'Cold War II' Russia remains a Superpower
Trust, but verify, was Ronald Reagan's approach to the Soviets as they worked on arms control during the cold war. The phrase showed his hopes for the relationship, but also acknowledged the limitations. Four presidents later, his mantra still applies – even as Washington seeks a fresh start with Moscow this week.
When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva on Friday, they will begin talks while at the lowest point in US-Russian relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. No question, it's time to "press the reset button," as Vice President Biden said at a security conference in Munich last month.
Russia, under Vladimir Putin, shares most of the blame for this low point. The Kremlin has cracked down on political and civil freedoms at home and waged war – both economic and military – in its "near abroad." It has demagogued, turning Russians against the West.
But the US and its allies are not without fault. Their mistake was not in their principles, but in their PR – expanding NATO and the European Union in a way and at a speed that alarmed Russia, putting Moscow on the defensive and, more recently, offensive. Russians also didn't take well to lecturing on democracy and capitalism.
"Cold War II" has produced serious fallout. Threats of common concern – a nuclear Iran, a Taliban comeback, energy insecurity, loose nukes and other weapons issues – have suffered from lack of attention, even obstruction.
Several factors can help improve ties, which Moscow says it wants.
One is willingness on both sides for a new round of nuclear arms negotiations, which will be the main subject of Friday's talks. This is a manageable topic that also reaffirms Russia as a superpower. In the past, the step-by-step process of such talks helped build trust that also led to progress in human rights.
Another factor is a change in US tone. In Mr. Biden's Munich rollout of a new foreign policy, his commitment to "listen [and] consult" met a warm response from European allies and Moscow alike. Willingness to rethink an anti-Iranian missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – an acute irritant to Russia – should also help.
And an economic crisis just might change Moscow's tone, introducing a new humility.
In Washington, some go so far as to suggest deepening US commercial ties with Russia as a way to slowly build a partnership. This may work, yet Germany has gone this route, and Moscow repays Berlin by holding it hostage to natural gas disputes with Ukraine.
Indeed, that response points to the limitations of the reset button. Is it possible to be partners when one side conducts internal and foreign policy through diktat and arm twisting, while the other values democratic persuasion? The Obama team rightly says that issues such as sovereignty and freedom to choose alliances (read: Georgia and Ukraine) are not up for debate.
In the end, it has to be remembered that while Russia is not the Soviet Union, its "managed democracy" is not democracy. The Obama team deserves encouragement for its new openness with Moscow. But it must also be open-eyed about the possibilities.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board March 3, 2009
When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva on Friday, they will begin talks while at the lowest point in US-Russian relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. No question, it's time to "press the reset button," as Vice President Biden said at a security conference in Munich last month.
Russia, under Vladimir Putin, shares most of the blame for this low point. The Kremlin has cracked down on political and civil freedoms at home and waged war – both economic and military – in its "near abroad." It has demagogued, turning Russians against the West.
But the US and its allies are not without fault. Their mistake was not in their principles, but in their PR – expanding NATO and the European Union in a way and at a speed that alarmed Russia, putting Moscow on the defensive and, more recently, offensive. Russians also didn't take well to lecturing on democracy and capitalism.
"Cold War II" has produced serious fallout. Threats of common concern – a nuclear Iran, a Taliban comeback, energy insecurity, loose nukes and other weapons issues – have suffered from lack of attention, even obstruction.
Several factors can help improve ties, which Moscow says it wants.
One is willingness on both sides for a new round of nuclear arms negotiations, which will be the main subject of Friday's talks. This is a manageable topic that also reaffirms Russia as a superpower. In the past, the step-by-step process of such talks helped build trust that also led to progress in human rights.
Another factor is a change in US tone. In Mr. Biden's Munich rollout of a new foreign policy, his commitment to "listen [and] consult" met a warm response from European allies and Moscow alike. Willingness to rethink an anti-Iranian missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – an acute irritant to Russia – should also help.
And an economic crisis just might change Moscow's tone, introducing a new humility.
In Washington, some go so far as to suggest deepening US commercial ties with Russia as a way to slowly build a partnership. This may work, yet Germany has gone this route, and Moscow repays Berlin by holding it hostage to natural gas disputes with Ukraine.
Indeed, that response points to the limitations of the reset button. Is it possible to be partners when one side conducts internal and foreign policy through diktat and arm twisting, while the other values democratic persuasion? The Obama team rightly says that issues such as sovereignty and freedom to choose alliances (read: Georgia and Ukraine) are not up for debate.
In the end, it has to be remembered that while Russia is not the Soviet Union, its "managed democracy" is not democracy. The Obama team deserves encouragement for its new openness with Moscow. But it must also be open-eyed about the possibilities.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board March 3, 2009
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Russia finally outstrips the USA in arms exports
Experts of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute have prepared another report about the export of arms in the world. The specialists calculated that Russia has become world's largest exporter of weapons during 2000-2004. The Swedish experts based their report on the military value of the delivered weaponry. Judging upon the income, which Russian exporters have received during the mentioned period, the country ranks only third or fourth on the list.
According to SIPRI, the first five positions of the list of world’s largest exporters of arms (with up to 81 percent of deliveries) are distributed between: Russia ($26.9 billion), the USA ($25.9 billion), France ($6.3 billion), Germany ($4.8 billion) and Great Britain ($4.4 billion).
The research shows that Russia has considerably increased the sales of its weaponry abroad and even managed to leave the USA behind (the USA was taking the leading position in the field before 2000). The gross arms sales profit of the USA reached $53.4 billion dollars at the end of the 90s, whereas Russia could boast of only $16.4 billion.
SIPRI’s statistics is based on a special method of calculation. The rating was made on the ‘military value’ of the delivered arms, but not on their actual cost. An expert with SIPRI said that the estimates of the institute based on the number of delivered planes, tanks, missile systems, etc, did not reflect exporters’ financial results. The Swedish experts have not used the cost of the delivered arms because it is very hard to receive the comparable data on account of different national calculation systems.
Russian weapons are usually cheaper than their Western analogues. Therefore, the financial outcome of a deal is a lot lower than the ‘military value’ of the sold military items. For example, in 2002 Russia sold about 60 Su aircraft and 25 MiG planes. SIPRI proceeded from the cost of each Su-30 plane equating it with the price of the US-made F-15 ($50 million), although the real price of a Russian pursuit plane can be under $35 million.
Konstantin Makiyenko, a spokesman for the Center for Strategies and Technologies, said that Russia followed the USA, France and probably Great Britain from the point of view of the income received from arms sales. The Russian defense industry has been developing very fast lately, which means that the volume of arms exports will continue to grow.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is one of the world’s leading centers analyzing the global defense market.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta Pravda.ru
May 29, 2006
According to SIPRI, the first five positions of the list of world’s largest exporters of arms (with up to 81 percent of deliveries) are distributed between: Russia ($26.9 billion), the USA ($25.9 billion), France ($6.3 billion), Germany ($4.8 billion) and Great Britain ($4.4 billion).
The research shows that Russia has considerably increased the sales of its weaponry abroad and even managed to leave the USA behind (the USA was taking the leading position in the field before 2000). The gross arms sales profit of the USA reached $53.4 billion dollars at the end of the 90s, whereas Russia could boast of only $16.4 billion.
SIPRI’s statistics is based on a special method of calculation. The rating was made on the ‘military value’ of the delivered arms, but not on their actual cost. An expert with SIPRI said that the estimates of the institute based on the number of delivered planes, tanks, missile systems, etc, did not reflect exporters’ financial results. The Swedish experts have not used the cost of the delivered arms because it is very hard to receive the comparable data on account of different national calculation systems.
Russian weapons are usually cheaper than their Western analogues. Therefore, the financial outcome of a deal is a lot lower than the ‘military value’ of the sold military items. For example, in 2002 Russia sold about 60 Su aircraft and 25 MiG planes. SIPRI proceeded from the cost of each Su-30 plane equating it with the price of the US-made F-15 ($50 million), although the real price of a Russian pursuit plane can be under $35 million.
Konstantin Makiyenko, a spokesman for the Center for Strategies and Technologies, said that Russia followed the USA, France and probably Great Britain from the point of view of the income received from arms sales. The Russian defense industry has been developing very fast lately, which means that the volume of arms exports will continue to grow.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is one of the world’s leading centers analyzing the global defense market.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta Pravda.ru
May 29, 2006
Putin's France visit renews fears over possible warship purchase
Russian premier Vladimir Putin met French leaders Friday on a visit aimed at boosting economic ties. But his trip sparked concern amid reports that Russia plans to buy a French warship that would significantly boost its military capabilities.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin concluded a raft of deals with French business leaders on Friday during a visit aimed at luring investment into Russia’s auto and energy industries. But his two-day trip has set off alarm bells in some parts of Europe amid reports that Moscow also has plans to purchase a French-made aircraft carrier that would significantly boost Russia’s military capabilities.
Russian and French officials have confirmed that the two nations are in continuing negotiations for the purchase of a Mistral warship and a licence to produce at least four others in an unprecedented transfer of military technology from a NATO power.
Moscow’s interest in the Mistral also marks a sea change in Kremlin policy, as Russia has long remained the sole producer of its military hardware.
The second-largest ship in the French fleet at more than 21,000 tonnes and almost 200 metres in length, the Mistral can carry 16 helicopters, up to 900 troops as well as landing craft and tanks. It is designed to transport an amphibious assault force to an area of conflict quickly.
The 'Swiss-army knife' of warships
“It’s nicknamed the Swiss-army knife because it has so many different functions,” FRANCE 24’s international editor, Armen Georgian, says of the ship, which also boasts a 69-bed on-board hospital.
The commander of the Russian navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, has noted publicly that if the Mistral had been used during Russia's August 2008 conflict with Georgia, the Black Sea fleet could have deployed its troops in 40 minutes instead of the 26 hours it took to do so.
Such a blunt assessment has sparked unease in several nations formerly under Kremlin control, with Baltic governments expressing concern this week over a revamp of Russian military capability. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet told journalists on Tuesday that his country wanted to know if a Mistral sale would include “top military technology". Lithuanian foreign ministry spokesman Rolandas Kacinskas told AFP on Wednesday that Vilnius was also seeking clarification from France, on "exactly what kind of equipment it plans to sell and what it can be used for".
French daily Le Figaro quotes Alex Rondell, president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, as saying that a Mistral purchase would merely be Moscow’s latest attempt to regain its status as a superpower and reassert control over its former Soviet satellites. He, for one, has no doubts as to Russia’s long-term plans for the ship.
“The Mistral is a formidable assault ship for attacking Georgia or the Baltic countries,” Rondell said, adding that the potential deal was like France “giving a gun to a bandit”.
“This is why we are afraid,” he said.
The Monday arrival of the Mistral in St Petersburg, just days before Putin's visit to France, fuelled fears that a deal was imminent. But the Russian premier said Friday that no decision had yet been made on the purchase.
Arms for arbitration?
France has tried to soothe these fears by emphasising that it would not be selling a fully weaponised, battle-ready warship.
Although clearly motivated by the financial benefits of the Mistral deal, France also does not view the sale as compromising Georgian or Baltic security, says George Frederick Jewsbury of the Centre for Russian, Caucasian and Central European Studies in Paris. He notes that as NATO members, the Baltic states are ostensibly protected by Article Five, which calls for the alliance to respond to an attack on one member as an attack on all.
As for non-member Georgia, Jewsbury says the French view a Mistral sale as doing little to heighten the risk of another Russian incursion. He says Paris is likely estimating that Georgia would be “as exposed before as it would be after the sale of the ship”.
“They’re exposed anyway,” he says.
Le Figaro quotes one French official close to the talks as pragmatically noting that certain concessions must be made if France, and the rest of the world, want the Kremlin’s cooperation on some thorny global issues.
The unnamed official said that Europe cannot hope to build a stable continent in partnership with Moscow and expect its help on the big questions, like dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and yet refuse to sell Russia arms.
By Khatya CHHOR
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin concluded a raft of deals with French business leaders on Friday during a visit aimed at luring investment into Russia’s auto and energy industries. But his two-day trip has set off alarm bells in some parts of Europe amid reports that Moscow also has plans to purchase a French-made aircraft carrier that would significantly boost Russia’s military capabilities.
Russian and French officials have confirmed that the two nations are in continuing negotiations for the purchase of a Mistral warship and a licence to produce at least four others in an unprecedented transfer of military technology from a NATO power.
Moscow’s interest in the Mistral also marks a sea change in Kremlin policy, as Russia has long remained the sole producer of its military hardware.
The second-largest ship in the French fleet at more than 21,000 tonnes and almost 200 metres in length, the Mistral can carry 16 helicopters, up to 900 troops as well as landing craft and tanks. It is designed to transport an amphibious assault force to an area of conflict quickly.
The 'Swiss-army knife' of warships
“It’s nicknamed the Swiss-army knife because it has so many different functions,” FRANCE 24’s international editor, Armen Georgian, says of the ship, which also boasts a 69-bed on-board hospital.
The commander of the Russian navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, has noted publicly that if the Mistral had been used during Russia's August 2008 conflict with Georgia, the Black Sea fleet could have deployed its troops in 40 minutes instead of the 26 hours it took to do so.
Such a blunt assessment has sparked unease in several nations formerly under Kremlin control, with Baltic governments expressing concern this week over a revamp of Russian military capability. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet told journalists on Tuesday that his country wanted to know if a Mistral sale would include “top military technology". Lithuanian foreign ministry spokesman Rolandas Kacinskas told AFP on Wednesday that Vilnius was also seeking clarification from France, on "exactly what kind of equipment it plans to sell and what it can be used for".
French daily Le Figaro quotes Alex Rondell, president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, as saying that a Mistral purchase would merely be Moscow’s latest attempt to regain its status as a superpower and reassert control over its former Soviet satellites. He, for one, has no doubts as to Russia’s long-term plans for the ship.
“The Mistral is a formidable assault ship for attacking Georgia or the Baltic countries,” Rondell said, adding that the potential deal was like France “giving a gun to a bandit”.
“This is why we are afraid,” he said.
The Monday arrival of the Mistral in St Petersburg, just days before Putin's visit to France, fuelled fears that a deal was imminent. But the Russian premier said Friday that no decision had yet been made on the purchase.
Arms for arbitration?
France has tried to soothe these fears by emphasising that it would not be selling a fully weaponised, battle-ready warship.
Although clearly motivated by the financial benefits of the Mistral deal, France also does not view the sale as compromising Georgian or Baltic security, says George Frederick Jewsbury of the Centre for Russian, Caucasian and Central European Studies in Paris. He notes that as NATO members, the Baltic states are ostensibly protected by Article Five, which calls for the alliance to respond to an attack on one member as an attack on all.
As for non-member Georgia, Jewsbury says the French view a Mistral sale as doing little to heighten the risk of another Russian incursion. He says Paris is likely estimating that Georgia would be “as exposed before as it would be after the sale of the ship”.
“They’re exposed anyway,” he says.
Le Figaro quotes one French official close to the talks as pragmatically noting that certain concessions must be made if France, and the rest of the world, want the Kremlin’s cooperation on some thorny global issues.
The unnamed official said that Europe cannot hope to build a stable continent in partnership with Moscow and expect its help on the big questions, like dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and yet refuse to sell Russia arms.
By Khatya CHHOR
Friday, March 12, 2010
Russia Superpower: Syrian-Russian relations
Syrian-Russian relations have been developing at a steady pace in recent years. Since 2005, President Bashar Assad paid three visits to Moscow; the latest took place last week. It was intended to express Damascus’s firm support to Moscow in its military confrontation with Georgia and to explore means to revive the Cold-War era ties with Russia.
In the opinion of many analysts, the Russian-Georgian conflict provided Syria with a golden opportunity to convince Moscow of the importance of re-establishing their old partnership. The Russians were absolutely pleased by Bashar’s strong statement in support of the Russian position regarding the dispute over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. “We understand the Russian stance and the Russian military response as a result of the provocations which took place,” he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a summit in Sochi, the Russian Black Sea resort. He also rejected “the double-standard criteria and attempts to distort the facts to portray Russia as an aggressor country”.
In fact, despite their many common interests; including opposition to American hegemony in general and to the US-led invasion of Iraq in particular, Russian-Syrian relations have not been particularly warm during most of the Vladimir Putin era. Russian-Israeli relations, by contrast, were very close under both Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Since Bashar’s Moscow visit in January 2005, however, Russian-Syrian relations have improved dramatically. Yet, while increasing cooperation with Syria, Putin sought to maintain close ties with Israel.
The recently disclosed Israeli role in arming and supporting Georgia during the conflict over South Ossetia triggered a shift in Moscow’s policy. Russia seems to have ended its hesitation regarding co-operation with Syria and decided to take it to a new level. It has, reportedly, agreed to sell an advanced air defence missile system to Syria over both American and Israeli objections. Russian-Syrian cooperation is expected to further deepen in the coming months and years as relations between Moscow and the West continues to deteriorate.
Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Economic Studies
Russian commentators and senior officials have highlighted the merits of reviving the close Soviet-era relationship with Syria. They argue that friendship with Damascus would help Moscow restore Russia’s “superpower status” in international politics. Former defence minister, Sergey Ivanov, stressed that the Middle East is “crucially important” for Russian “geopolitical and economic interests” and cooperation with Syria brings “tangible economic and political dividends”.
Syria’s main objective of seeking close ties with Russia is also strategic. Damascus wants Moscow to provide a shield against the US pressure, which has been pilling up over the past few years. Under the bipolar mantle of the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the US sought regional clients to enhance their position vis-Ã -vis the other in a global struggle for world supremacy. In such a climate, the fall of a client state was considered as a set-back for the patron. Small powers benefited a lot from this system, wherein most had found a shelter under the wings of one of the superpowers. By leaning eastward, Syria believes that it can replay the alignment game of the Cold-War and hence ensure survival.
Russia’s rising power is making itself felt on the most of the world’s problems today and Syria might well be trying to benefit from the widening schism between Moscow and Washington in order to protect itself – a legitimate move in a turbulent world politics.
In the opinion of many analysts, the Russian-Georgian conflict provided Syria with a golden opportunity to convince Moscow of the importance of re-establishing their old partnership. The Russians were absolutely pleased by Bashar’s strong statement in support of the Russian position regarding the dispute over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. “We understand the Russian stance and the Russian military response as a result of the provocations which took place,” he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a summit in Sochi, the Russian Black Sea resort. He also rejected “the double-standard criteria and attempts to distort the facts to portray Russia as an aggressor country”.
In fact, despite their many common interests; including opposition to American hegemony in general and to the US-led invasion of Iraq in particular, Russian-Syrian relations have not been particularly warm during most of the Vladimir Putin era. Russian-Israeli relations, by contrast, were very close under both Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Since Bashar’s Moscow visit in January 2005, however, Russian-Syrian relations have improved dramatically. Yet, while increasing cooperation with Syria, Putin sought to maintain close ties with Israel.
The recently disclosed Israeli role in arming and supporting Georgia during the conflict over South Ossetia triggered a shift in Moscow’s policy. Russia seems to have ended its hesitation regarding co-operation with Syria and decided to take it to a new level. It has, reportedly, agreed to sell an advanced air defence missile system to Syria over both American and Israeli objections. Russian-Syrian cooperation is expected to further deepen in the coming months and years as relations between Moscow and the West continues to deteriorate.
Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Economic Studies
Russian commentators and senior officials have highlighted the merits of reviving the close Soviet-era relationship with Syria. They argue that friendship with Damascus would help Moscow restore Russia’s “superpower status” in international politics. Former defence minister, Sergey Ivanov, stressed that the Middle East is “crucially important” for Russian “geopolitical and economic interests” and cooperation with Syria brings “tangible economic and political dividends”.
Syria’s main objective of seeking close ties with Russia is also strategic. Damascus wants Moscow to provide a shield against the US pressure, which has been pilling up over the past few years. Under the bipolar mantle of the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the US sought regional clients to enhance their position vis-Ã -vis the other in a global struggle for world supremacy. In such a climate, the fall of a client state was considered as a set-back for the patron. Small powers benefited a lot from this system, wherein most had found a shelter under the wings of one of the superpowers. By leaning eastward, Syria believes that it can replay the alignment game of the Cold-War and hence ensure survival.
Russia’s rising power is making itself felt on the most of the world’s problems today and Syria might well be trying to benefit from the widening schism between Moscow and Washington in order to protect itself – a legitimate move in a turbulent world politics.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Reemergence of Russia as superpower
Reemergence of Russia as a superpower
By Musa Khan Jalalzai
Russia's resurgence as a strategic actor and a new cold war player is widely discussed in the United Kingdom and Asia. Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during his presidency made unbelievable economic and military progress. In UK intellectual circle, the resurgence of Russia in the international arena is considered a big issue of the near future. Russia's new policy direction - and particularly its nascent interest in alternative energy - is important because Russia is such a large energy exporter.
The re-emergence of Russia on international arena and more importantly Putin's intellectual approach to developing a foreign policy, has presented an issue for the world to think about.
Russia under the leadership of President Putin outlined a new policy for central Asian region. President Medvedev has recently enunciated five principles of Russian foreign policy. A number of contradictions are built into them. Medvedev, unlike Putin, is more willing to try to implement changes in world policy. He believes there is a lot to change.
During his Presidency, Vladimir Putin took several actions indicating that the country plans to reclaim its position as a military power on a global scale. Russian bombers were back on long range patrols, and a submarine crew recently planted a Russian flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. During the Putin years, Russian economy saw the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase 6 fold, climbing from 22nd to 11th largest in the world. In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of 1990.
The trip of President Medvedev to the G20 summit is expected to deliver any breakthroughs on troubled U.S.-Russian relations, as little movement is likely before current U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
On the war in Georgia, US and European leaders immediately condemned Moscow for flouting established borders. The challenge facing the next US president will be to manage Russia's emerging role as a powerful and alluring alternative to the West.
'Russian leaders are trying to wield the language of stability, humanitarianism, and prosperity. If the rift between Russia and the West widens, it will not produce a repeat of the Cold War. Instead, it will create a new and delicate rivalry over the ability of each political system to explain its own inconsistencies to its citizens and the wider world. Military sources say, Russia has around 5700 active nuclear warheads. Poland will contain just 10 interceptor missiles. The most likely strategic purpose of the missile defense programme is to mop up any Russian or Chinese missiles which had not been destroyed during a pre-emptive US attack.
The politics of Missile defense has recently become one of the most acute problems of international politics. Plans by the United States to deploy a third position area in Eastern Europe for its national missile defense system triggered a sharp reaction from Russia, which threatened to take countermeasures.
Russia's strategic forces have conducted regular test launches of Soviet-built ballistic missiles to check their performance. The military has repeatedly extended the lifetime of Soviet-built weapons as the government lacks the funds to replace them quickly with new weapons. The basic factor of mutual distrust between Russia and US increased readiness of their strategic nuclear potentials in line with the task of mutual nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. is trying to convince Russia that the new missile defense system will not be directed against it. But Russia considers it as a military threat to its national defense. However, statements like this run counter to Washington's doctrinal approaches to its defense policy. Russia has repeatedly made it clear that Russia's territory allows for the building of a missile defense system with a structure that can best ward off missile threats from the south. A missile defense system can be effective only if it is capable of hitting a target at various phases of the trajectory of a missile or warhead.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in one of his statements rejected a Russian suggestion that both countries scrap plans to place missile systems in Eastern Europe. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a televised interview with French journalists broadcast that Moscow was willing to reconsider deploying Iskander missiles in its westernmost region of Kaliningrad if Washington did not place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic
Barack Obama, immediately, after his election as US President said it would be prudent to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe," in light of what he called active efforts by Iran to develop ballistic missiles as well as nuclear weapons.
Russia remains one of the world's leading military powers. It is second only to the United States in nuclear weapons, and Russia remains the strongest power in Europe and Asia in terms of its conventional ground, air, and naval forces. For more than a decade, Russian leaders have struggled to formulate security and defense policies that protect Russia's borders and project Russia's influence.
After attaining broad macro economic stability and high growth likely to exceed both India and China in 2008 as per the IMF, the focus is now on using the oil windfall to build and modernize infrastructure and create an environment conducive to business, particularly the non commodities exports.
There are still many financial crises in Russia but debates are under way on the growing Russian economic power. Today practically all socio-political groups and blocs in Russia are discussing the country's future along with opportunities of economical growth, but are suggesting very different ways of solving existing problems. On the Russian political and military influence, Moscow-based military expert Vladimir Mukhin says Russia has lost much of its position in Central Asia since then. But Russia still has troops and bases in Central Asia in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and in Kazakhstan.
However, analysts in Tajikistan analysts say that merely strengthening its military presence in Central Asia doesn't necessarily mean Russia's influence there will rise. On November 11, Russian President began a working visit to Kazakhstan to discuss the security situation in the region. The CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
By Musa Khan Jalalzai
Russia's resurgence as a strategic actor and a new cold war player is widely discussed in the United Kingdom and Asia. Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during his presidency made unbelievable economic and military progress. In UK intellectual circle, the resurgence of Russia in the international arena is considered a big issue of the near future. Russia's new policy direction - and particularly its nascent interest in alternative energy - is important because Russia is such a large energy exporter.
The re-emergence of Russia on international arena and more importantly Putin's intellectual approach to developing a foreign policy, has presented an issue for the world to think about.
Russia under the leadership of President Putin outlined a new policy for central Asian region. President Medvedev has recently enunciated five principles of Russian foreign policy. A number of contradictions are built into them. Medvedev, unlike Putin, is more willing to try to implement changes in world policy. He believes there is a lot to change.
During his Presidency, Vladimir Putin took several actions indicating that the country plans to reclaim its position as a military power on a global scale. Russian bombers were back on long range patrols, and a submarine crew recently planted a Russian flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. During the Putin years, Russian economy saw the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase 6 fold, climbing from 22nd to 11th largest in the world. In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of 1990.
The trip of President Medvedev to the G20 summit is expected to deliver any breakthroughs on troubled U.S.-Russian relations, as little movement is likely before current U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
On the war in Georgia, US and European leaders immediately condemned Moscow for flouting established borders. The challenge facing the next US president will be to manage Russia's emerging role as a powerful and alluring alternative to the West.
'Russian leaders are trying to wield the language of stability, humanitarianism, and prosperity. If the rift between Russia and the West widens, it will not produce a repeat of the Cold War. Instead, it will create a new and delicate rivalry over the ability of each political system to explain its own inconsistencies to its citizens and the wider world. Military sources say, Russia has around 5700 active nuclear warheads. Poland will contain just 10 interceptor missiles. The most likely strategic purpose of the missile defense programme is to mop up any Russian or Chinese missiles which had not been destroyed during a pre-emptive US attack.
The politics of Missile defense has recently become one of the most acute problems of international politics. Plans by the United States to deploy a third position area in Eastern Europe for its national missile defense system triggered a sharp reaction from Russia, which threatened to take countermeasures.
Russia's strategic forces have conducted regular test launches of Soviet-built ballistic missiles to check their performance. The military has repeatedly extended the lifetime of Soviet-built weapons as the government lacks the funds to replace them quickly with new weapons. The basic factor of mutual distrust between Russia and US increased readiness of their strategic nuclear potentials in line with the task of mutual nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. is trying to convince Russia that the new missile defense system will not be directed against it. But Russia considers it as a military threat to its national defense. However, statements like this run counter to Washington's doctrinal approaches to its defense policy. Russia has repeatedly made it clear that Russia's territory allows for the building of a missile defense system with a structure that can best ward off missile threats from the south. A missile defense system can be effective only if it is capable of hitting a target at various phases of the trajectory of a missile or warhead.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in one of his statements rejected a Russian suggestion that both countries scrap plans to place missile systems in Eastern Europe. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a televised interview with French journalists broadcast that Moscow was willing to reconsider deploying Iskander missiles in its westernmost region of Kaliningrad if Washington did not place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic
Barack Obama, immediately, after his election as US President said it would be prudent to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe," in light of what he called active efforts by Iran to develop ballistic missiles as well as nuclear weapons.
Russia remains one of the world's leading military powers. It is second only to the United States in nuclear weapons, and Russia remains the strongest power in Europe and Asia in terms of its conventional ground, air, and naval forces. For more than a decade, Russian leaders have struggled to formulate security and defense policies that protect Russia's borders and project Russia's influence.
After attaining broad macro economic stability and high growth likely to exceed both India and China in 2008 as per the IMF, the focus is now on using the oil windfall to build and modernize infrastructure and create an environment conducive to business, particularly the non commodities exports.
There are still many financial crises in Russia but debates are under way on the growing Russian economic power. Today practically all socio-political groups and blocs in Russia are discussing the country's future along with opportunities of economical growth, but are suggesting very different ways of solving existing problems. On the Russian political and military influence, Moscow-based military expert Vladimir Mukhin says Russia has lost much of its position in Central Asia since then. But Russia still has troops and bases in Central Asia in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and in Kazakhstan.
However, analysts in Tajikistan analysts say that merely strengthening its military presence in Central Asia doesn't necessarily mean Russia's influence there will rise. On November 11, Russian President began a working visit to Kazakhstan to discuss the security situation in the region. The CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Netanyahu calls Russia an important Superpower
Netanyahu calls Russia an important Superpower Voice of America News editor by Robert Berger Feb. 15, 2010
Israel's leader is heading to Russia to discuss an escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for tougher sanctions on Iran.
He was speaking to his Cabinet before heading to Russia, which has been reluctant to impose sanctions because of its strong business and military ties with Iran.
Mr. Netanyahu said Russia is an important "superpower" and an important friend of the state of Israel, and that Iran will top the agenda in his talks there. He said he would express Israel's view that "strong pressure" must be imposed on Teheran.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But last week, it began stepping up the enrichment of uranium to a higher grade, and Israel said the move is further proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
The Iranian nuclear threat has aroused deep concern in Jerusalem because Iran's president has threatened to wipe Israel "off the map." Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that they will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and that if international diplomacy fails, Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israeli media said Mr. Netanyahu would press Russia not to sell sophisticated weapons to Iran. Israel is especially concerned about Russian anti-aircraft missiles that would improve Iran's defenses against a possible Israeli attack.
Israel's leader is heading to Russia to discuss an escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for tougher sanctions on Iran.
He was speaking to his Cabinet before heading to Russia, which has been reluctant to impose sanctions because of its strong business and military ties with Iran.
Mr. Netanyahu said Russia is an important "superpower" and an important friend of the state of Israel, and that Iran will top the agenda in his talks there. He said he would express Israel's view that "strong pressure" must be imposed on Teheran.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But last week, it began stepping up the enrichment of uranium to a higher grade, and Israel said the move is further proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
The Iranian nuclear threat has aroused deep concern in Jerusalem because Iran's president has threatened to wipe Israel "off the map." Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that they will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and that if international diplomacy fails, Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israeli media said Mr. Netanyahu would press Russia not to sell sophisticated weapons to Iran. Israel is especially concerned about Russian anti-aircraft missiles that would improve Iran's defenses against a possible Israeli attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)