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.