Skip to comments.Russia Set to Send 36 Jets to Syrian Government
Posted on 05/07/2014 12:26:06 PM PDT by PoloSec
The Syrian government will receive 36 Yakovlev Yak-130 jet trainers from the Russian state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport.
According to Defense News:
Russias state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport will deliver the first batch of nine Yakovlev Yak-130 jet trainers to the Syrian government by the end of this year. The contract for 36 aircraft is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2016, a source close to the deal told local business daily Kommersant.
Under the plan, Rosoboronexport will deliver 12 aircraft in 2015, and a further 15 jet trainers in 2016.
Thus, we will fulfill the obligations under a previously signed contract, the source was quoted as saying.
Last year, Damascus transferred an advance payment of about US $100 million to Russia following the signing of the deal. The jet trainers will be manufactured by Irkutsk aviation plant, a subsidiary of Russian defense giant Rostec.
Sure the Syrian opposition is a bunch of blood thirsty heathen mooselimbs, but come on.
Well, if Assad eventually wins out after 20 years of bloody war and is left with a bankrupt broken country, that can only be good for Christians and Jews, compared to the alternatives.
This all about and only about the money. Putin’s defenders claim he’s a Christian, which only proves that former commies can dupe people on the right the same way the commies used to dupe people on the left.
Oopsie! Obama thought Putin was too busy with Ukraine to be concerned with Syria, so he started cranking up the war machine by shipping arms to the “moderate” jihadi factions. How’s that working out for you, Obuttboy?
Another “In Your Face!” to Obama...
“we will fulfill the obligations under a previously signed contract”
Apparently delivery was delayed in August of last year due to non-payment. That Russia would go ahead and start sending them now, for use against the Obama-backed rebels, can’t be seen as anything else.
But, remember kiddies! “It’s just a regional power”.
Russian actions are all about Russian interests, but that doesn't preclude overlapping interests.
The Syrian rebels are islamist scum bags, and Christians and Jews are for the worse if they win. Assad is a totalitarian scum bag, and Christians and Jews are for the better if he is in charge, but horribly weakened.
Better to have an emasculated tyrant than an empowered islamist state.
Good. Six years ago, I would have said that Assad was one of the worst national leaders in the world. Now that Obama has put some of his friends in power, I see just how much worse it can be when the US puts brutal terrorists in charge of unstable countries. I’d just as soon have Assad stay in power, at least until we have a real president (and even then, it’s not for the US to decide).
I see that the Yak 130 fighter trainer/ light fighter is powered by Progress turbofans made at the Motor-Sich plant in Ukraine. Must wonder if the current turmoil will have a negative effect on engine deliveries.
This announcement likely means Syria will get the planes slowly over the next few years when they can pay.
AFAIK, Ukraine is going to kill Motor-Sich, banning their exports to Russia.
How does Russian determine its interest? Right now, it’s determined based on what the ex-KGB oligarchy says. As a non-free nation, that’s a dubious affirmation of interests.
When I say "Russian interest" the implication is their perceived interest. And the "they" refers to the people in charge, as it always has.
Tell me, did the United States react to the attack in Benghazi in Obama's perception of best interest, or in a manner that would have been consistent with the majority view of Americans?
Putin wants Russia to be powerful and more dominant. For himself, he wants glory and the respect of his people.
What does Obama want for the United States, and what does he want personally?
As much as I hate to say it, Obama was elected in free and fair elections. I think anyone who believes President-for-Life Putin is the same as a US President in defining his nation’s interest or as the true indicator of the national will is ignoring the reality and nature of Russia under the gangster statesman Putin.
So you reject the notion that Elizabeth I or Bismark took actions in their nations interest, because they weren’t democratically elected?
What do you make of Putins popularity among Russians?
As for Putins putative popularity, I think thats difficult to verify. Russia today is not a free and democratic country. Free assembly is denied, as is a free press. The press not only cannot criticize Putin they must praise him, similar to North Korea. Its more an allegation than a proven fact that Putin is popular. And, even if true that he is popular, its nothing more than a passing phenomenon much like Hitlers popularity when he achieved his initial successes at low costs.
Even someone elected with 60% of the vote cannot claim to be carrying out the wishes of all their countrymen. So what of that? Aren't they only 60% legitimate?
What we concede to the majority, much of the world concedes to the strong. We may not agree with the wisdom of their choice, but it is nevertheless their choice. They would rather have a strong ‘king’ than a weak prime minister, and they would rather have a little repression than mandatory homosexual instruction and islamification.
The press in Russia is far from being like North Korea. In fact, it is very much like the press in the U.S., with the vast majority of supporting propaganda being totally voluntary, from like-minded and adoring journalists. The vast majority of our media is nothing but the communication arm of the socialists. They don't need to be controlled. They just need to be fed. In fact, kick the fairness doctrine and a few more Democrat/media ideas up to speed and you'll have almost the same thing here. In fact, within 5 years, you would have exactly the same things.
The average Russian state of mind supports Putin, and supports cracking down on dissent. Like the standard German on the street in 1905, they personalize the power and glory of their leadership and their communal stature as a great nation; willing to trade individual liberty and dignity for the glory and dignity of the nation. Tell me, which is worse, trading individual freedom for national strength or an EBT card? You can argue that such rationale isn't truly in the national interest, but the same applies to the rationale of those who voted for Obama.
I'm not a fan of Putin or any authoritarian, but you make a huge mistake in not understanding the mindset of the typical Russian. If he has their support, it doesn't really matter how or why. One of the mind-boggling things about Stalinist Russia was the ability of Russians to take pride in the strength and power that Stalin brought to Russia, while simultaneously being crushed by that same state.
Carrying out the wishes of the entire nation and carrying out the national interest cannot be the same. No nation of any size will have 100% agreement. The key constraint should be the law and the support of the nation as determined in elections.
As for the press in Russia being like the US press, I don't know of any journalist shot and killed by the US government. If Putin were so popular and secure, he would not have to behave like a reactionary. He would not be in a de facto alliance with the mad mullahs in Tehran. Any credit you give Putin for opposing islamification should keep in mind how close Putin and his secret police are to the Iranian tyrants.
I believe the Russian masses are far more fickle than you think and would turn on him at the first chance they get. That's why he is such a reactionary. That's why they do not allow mass demonstrations. That's why the Putin press is constantly presenting Putin as some sort of demigod.
I don't want the homosexual agenda either. But the support for Putin based on this position seems to ignore the fact that Putin's not just opposing the gay agenda. Everything about the guy is cynical. I've no doubt that he's tailored that position the same way he and his father served the Soviet state as secret policemen and how he now has transitioned to an ultra-nationalist, like Milosvic did. They needed a new gig. If Putin were in the US, he could easily be a Democrat promoting the gay agenda as long as it got him power.
Finally, I would not ever be agreeable to achieving conservative ends through a dictator or phony president like Putin. The loss of your liberty doesn't usually achieve the goal promised and doesn't do anything but empower the tyrant. I'm reminded of how the Bolsheviks came to power and how other tyrants do it. First, they promise the goal if all power can be granted to them indefinitely. You have to be pretty naive to believe that's going to work. Accountability is gone. And if you give them power they'll, make everyone "equal" (or maybe everyone becomes a conservative Russian Orthodox Christian). As the party (or oligarchy, as it is in Putin's Russia) centralizes its power more and more liberty goes away, you don't see the end state promised. And the solution is always more power to the Soviets, more power to the Party, more power to the central committee, more power to one man. Putin was shaped and formed by that mindset and he's transparent. He hijacked Russia's transition from communism to democracy and exploited it for his own vanity.
I don't like dictatorial governments, whether they be monarchies, strong men, or democracies. Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive. In fact, its a greater threat to your liberty when a majority of people want to take it away. I do not concede my God given rights to a majority vote.
Your argument is over legitimacy to make a decision, but my point was on the value of the decision itself. You may not believe that Alfred the Great had legitimate authority to make decisions, but that doesn't mean that his decision to build a navy and drive off the vikings wasn't in England's best national interest.
Making decisions that are or are not in the national interest is not tied to the legitimacy of the person making the decision, and a majority of people can all agree to do something tremendously stupid and extremely harmful to the national interest. The majority backing of that decision doesn't make it a good one.
Most people in the world have made the decision that they would rather be ruled by one strong man/group that maintains order, because they don't think the alternative is an ordered free state, they think the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness. I think the majority of Russians fall into that category.
What is my takeaway? That we aren't going to easily drive a wedge between Putin and his power base, or stir up the Russian masses, when the majority of those masses think he's acting in their national interest, because they like him better than what they see as the alternative.
I think the flaw in what you wrote in your last post is this: "Most people in the world have made the decision that they would rather be ruled by one strong man/group that maintains order, because they don't think the alternative is an ordered free state, they think the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness. I think the majority of Russians fall into that category." I have to ask you if you came to that conclusion based on the results of the plebiscites that were taken where most people in the world voted not to be able to choose their rulers, or is it circular logic that if they have a strong man, then they must have supported the strong man to have one? Your suggestion is much like how kings argued that their rights were divine. Since they were king, God obviously intended it. Do you not see my point?
I presume that people desire what they are willing to fight for. Most, if not all, of the current rebellions in the world support my premise.
What are the Ukrainian separatists fighting for? Jeffersonian democracy? I don’t think so. I think they are fighting to be part of Russia, as it currently exists.
I’m observing the world as it exists, not as I wish it existed.
And you’re cherry-picking your observations to support cheesy multiculturalism, which in this case supports Russian-empire building and Putin autocracy. That’s how you confirm your own bias. Here are a few observations: 1) If fighting for something made it what people want, then we’d have to assume the French wanted to be conquered by the Nazis. They only fought for six weeks during the invasion. You assume that all who are conquered shared the values of those who conquer them using this logic. 2) Many other nations were quickly rolled over. Did they not want to be free of the Nazis? 3) The most belligerent people on the planet right now are the Islamists fighting for sharia law and the return of the Caliph. Do you that because they are among the most willing to fight for it that that’s what most people in the world also want? 4) For about 75 years in the 20th Century communist worldwide fought to spread their one-party rule. Most were supported by the Soviet Union. Do you believe because of their willingness to fight that most people wanted to be communists? Do you recall that when the Soviet Union collapsed most of these insurgencies throughout the world also went away? Coincidence? 5) In many places and times in the last 100 years, a militant minority of men with guns have taken over with guns and violence (the vanguard of the proletariat, the fascists parties in Europe). Did these minorities truly represent the desire of the people? 6) Using a willingness to fight for something as proof of anything about the general will of the people only supports Mao’s opinion that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Oh Lord, we're headed down this path? Oh well. Obviously I've said nothing supporting multiculturalism, mainly because our discussion has nothing to do with multiculturalism, which happens to be the belief that a culture is strengthened by being a mosaic of other cultures and rests on the underlying premise that all cultures are equal.
...which in this case supports Russian-empire building and Putin autocracy.
I've said nothing supporting Russian-empire building or Putin's autocracy. I've simply stated that the majority of the Russian people support Russian-empire building and Putin's autocracy. Confusing the two helps your argument appear to be on the higher ground, but it is a straw man. You are arguing against a position I never took, because its easier than arguing against the position that I did take.
Here are a few observations: 1) If fighting for something made it what people want, then wed have to assume the French wanted to be conquered by the Nazis. They only fought for six weeks during the invasion. You assume that all who are conquered shared the values of those who conquer them using this logic.2) Many other nations were quickly rolled over. Did they not want to be free of the Nazis?
The French fought,and lost over 100,000 men, in 1940. That supports my statement. I said nothing about ability to fight, just the will. But a better case would be Poland. Poland fought harder than France and large numbers of Poles escaped to continue fighting. But what were they fighting for? Poland was not a free country. The government in 1939 was a strong man who espoused Polish nationalism. What the Poles were fighting for was the right to have their strong man instead of a foreign strongman in charge. And they Poles were right, their strongman was much better for their welfare than Hitler and Stalin.
3) The most belligerent people on the planet right now are the Islamists fighting for sharia law and the return of the Caliph. Do you that because they are among the most willing to fight for it that thats what most people in the world also want?
Its clearly what the Islamists want, and the vast majority of muslims want it. Note that given a democratic choice, the Iraqis have established an islamic state. In Egypt, the Brotherhood wasn't the popular brand of autocracy, but they haven't rejected an islamicly based constitution. Let's cross our fingers and hope, but history doesn't suggest a rosey outcome.
For about 75 years in the 20th Century communist worldwide fought to spread their one-party rule. Most were supported by the Soviet Union. Do you believe because of their willingness to fight that most people wanted to be communists? Do you recall that when the Soviet Union collapsed most of these insurgencies throughout the world also went away? Coincidence?
In every one of those insurgencies in South America, Africa, and Asia, you had supporters of one autocracy fighting the supporters of another autocracy. When the people were generally happy their own autocrat, they won out over the communists, see Chili, when the people were mainly unhappy (or ambivalent) about their own autocrat, they lost out to the communists, see Vietnam. In some cases, our involvement was very positive and successfully introduced that third option of no-autocrat (Taiwan and South Korea being two such examples), "yea for us!".
5) In many places and times in the last 100 years, a militant minority of men with guns have taken over with guns and violence (the vanguard of the proletariat, the fascists parties in Europe). Did these minorities truly represent the desire of the people?
Does might make right? No, but that's off topic, as I never said it did.
What do most people want? To be left alone to live their lives in peace. But that doesn't translate into a willingness to pick up arms and make it happen, so strong men win out, and those same people make pragmatic choices. If an autocrat isn't bothering them, and is improving their lives, they see that as a good thing and prefer the stability of keeping him, over the risks taken in replacing him. You and I can see that they have a third option, but they reject the risks that come with that option, and they don't really even accept that the option exists.
6) Using a willingness to fight for something as proof of anything about the general will of the people only supports Maos opinion that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Generally speaking, power does come from the barrel of a gun. To argue that it doesn't is to argue with reality. Free peoples control who holds the gun, and ultimately they do so by threat of force.
You don't have to look far from home to find people who willingly vote for less freedom in exchange for a government that provides for their needs. When Obama runs on a platform of class warfare and socialist freebies, are his supporters choosing to be free, or are they choosing a strong man who they think will take away from others and make their condition better?
"The Road to Serfdom" is a wonderful book detailing the willing decisions people make to trade freedom for autocracy.
Lot's of Englishmen took personal satisfaction in the glory of the British Empire and of Queen Victoria's little wars. Russians are no different today with Putin.
Your mistake is in thinking that because I point something out, that I'm advocating it. That's more than a bit insulting. People disappoint me in the historical sense.
If you are going to effectively deal with Russian expansion, you'd better at least understand what their real pressure points are, and pointing out to Russians that Putin is an autocrat isn't one of them.
"I presume that people desire what they are willing to fight for. Most, if not all, of the current rebellions in the world support my premise."
"What do most people want? To be left alone to live their lives in peace. But that doesn't translate into a willingness to pick up arms and make it happen, so strong men win out, and those same people make pragmatic choices."
Question: Do you consider what you've recently posted when you write?
You appear to see some conflict in my posts. There is none.
People may wish for something that they also consider too risky, too unlikely, or even fantasy.
Let me explain in simple terms.
I want a government that stays out of my business. That would be my ideal.
Do I have that? No. So why aren’t I fighting for something different? Polically, I am, but I am not taking up arms, because I don’t consider the risk-reward matrix beneficial.
So, what do I really desire most? Apparently, I am willing to accept a certain level of oppression, over the alternative of civil war. In effect, I am NOT WILLING to take up arms to solve the current level of oppression.
Now, if I lived in Syria and I was a Christian, I would have likely supported Assad over the realistic alternatives. Why? Because he wasn’t oppressing me as bad as the other guys would, and during civil war my family would fair poorly, and no alternative government would treat me better than Assad.
I agree with you and see your point, but I still think that assessing the public’s will cannot be accurately judged by their willingness to fight. I believe the public, everywhere, like each of us, can be fickle and off two minds without being wicked because of that. Getting back to the orignial reason we started this discussion, I’m still not convinced that Putin’s support is solid and steadfast. Time will tell. Enjoy your day.
Lots of nice hard points for a trainer.
My thoughts exactly along with the fact that having a second seat is a handy starting point for a lot of modification "kits" other than having another pilot to teach a beginner the ropes.
Well, I agree with you in the sense that we shouldn’t just accept an unwillingness to fight, as de facto support. Changing perceived options is the key. Our foreign policy should be aimed at trying to promote more freedom, because free people are better trading partners and less dangerous. Plus, its the morally correct thing to do.
But we have to understand underlying motivations and inclinations. I think its an historical truism that people who can’t embrace individual freedom, embrace nationalism as a substitute, because everyone wants to feel a sense of pride, if not in themselves then in their group. Sadly, Russian hitory offers almost nothing else. We should avoid feeding that beast.
Thank you for the discussion. I wish you a nice day as well.
Oh, I recommend Eric Hoffer’s great book on mass movements to you - THE TRUE BELIEVER. The book is about 60 years old now. Still, he captures the nature or psyche of many of these movements and their adherents.