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:
Russia’s 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.
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 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?
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 that’s 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 Mao’s 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.