T-90S
Posted on 11/24/2007 7:28:56 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Putin meets top Saudi official as Russia eyes arms sale 17 hours ago
MOSCOW (AFP) — Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz held talks here Friday with President Vladimir Putin expected to pave the way for the first purchase of Russian weapons by the kingdom, a close US ally.
Greeting the crown prince at the Kremlin, Putin said discussions would address a range of an international issues, while the prince described Russia as a "friend", news agencies reported.
Neither side made any public statement following the Kremlin talks.
A Russian diplomat in Riyadh, speaking earlier this week, said he expected the Moscow talks to produce a "framework agreement for military cooperation" that would open the way for Saudi Arabia to buy Russian arms.
Speaking earlier this year after Putin visited Riyadh, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said the desert kingdom was in talks with Russia over the possible purchase of Russian weapons.
"On the armament front, there have been discussions between the two countries.
"They are taking place in accordance with the kingdom's requirements in terms of armament and with what Russia can provide of the kingdom's needs for such equipment," he said.
Saud did not give details, but a diplomatic source in Riyadh had earlier said that Putin's visit there in February was expected to lead to a "verbal understanding" on the sale of about 150 Russian T-90 battle tanks to the kingdom.
The source said tests were carried out on the T-90 in Saudi Arabia last year to determine the tank's suitability for harsh desert conditions, and that Russia was also looking to sell Mi-17 helicopters.
Saudi Arabia has traditionally purchased US and other western military equipment but has signalled that it is looking at other suppliers to diversify its arsenal.
Putin's plan to meet with the crown prince was made public only at the last minute. Prior to meeting Putin, the prince, who is also defence minister, held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
In an interview with the state-run ITAR-TASS news agency, Sultan turned his attention to the Middle East and said both Saudi Arabia and Russia had roles to play in stabilising the situation in Iraq.
"We see violence, murders and destruction in Iraqi land, which contradicts common sense and logic," the prince was quoted by the agency as saying.
Russia and Saudi Arabia "should work together at regional and international levels for security and peace in Iraq."
A joint Russian-Saudi statement, published by the Russian foreign ministry, said that "the sides spoke in favour of creating an independent and viable Palestinian state and called on the international community to give additional aid to the Palestinian people."
The agenda also included the situation in Lebanon, with "both sides calling on all political forces and Lebanese society on all levels to step up dialogue and work on reaching accord."
Officials in Moscow had declined to provide further information on the agenda for Sultan's talks with Putin.
Lavrov said the prince's meeting with Putin would focus on implementing agreements that were penned when the Russian president was in Riyadh.
He said Russia-Saudi ties had entered a phase of "intense development."
The prince said "we are satisfied with Russian policy and we hope that it will continue".
T-90S
Russia has given us so much over the years.
Not only did they give us Korea and Vietnam, but they add so much stability and peace to our world.
The Saudis give us much also. They furnished the people who flew airliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people. They sell us the oil they lacked the expertise to discover, drill and transmit.
What a wonderful world.
150 T-90s supporting 300+ M1A2s & a scores of M-60s(if the Saudis still operate them).Would be an interesting sight for anyone.
LLS
It should be recalled that it was a member of the bin Laden family that appeared in Moscow and opened the first Saudi embassy in the Soviet Union. It was the Russians who sold their Yemen dry hole oil investments to the Royal Family and the Bin Mahfouz family for more than $500 million. (In return the Bin Mahfooz Nimir Petroleum was given the OK to drill on Sakhalin Island.) The Saudis supported the Chechnyan and Daghestani rebels even before the Soviet Union fell in 1990; it thn mysteriously ceased its support for the rebels, even though it continued to fund mosque construction. It would seem the Saudis are just a little bit afraid of the Russians, and vice versa. While neither fears the USA.
Is this what little puttin is up to these days? Silly boy Tricks are for kids!
Is it not true that they are co-conspirators?
We, as Americans, deserve what we are going to get.
Lavrov said the prince’s meeting with Putin would focus on implementing agreements that were penned when the Russian president was in Riyadh.
He said Russia-Saudi ties had entered a phase of “intense development.”
The prince said “we are satisfied with Russian policy and we hope that it will continue”.<<<<<
Next???
T-90 = Target of Opportunity.
The plot thickens again....
Those Arabs, our dear friends, always looking out for us /SARC
I think the main question I have for you is this: Is it that Arabs armed by Russia are not a worry for Israel, or is it simply Arabs are not a worry for Israel.
Another question: Take Iraq during Gulf War One. Let's say that instead of T-72s and MiG-29s they had M1A1s and F-16s. But, they still faced the sheer might of the US and Allies. Would they (the Iraqis) having Abrams and Vipers instead of T-72s and Fulcrums have many ANY DIFFERENCE (any whatsoever)?
Third question is this: The Israelis used a hodgepodge of arms from many nations for a long time, before they started receiving a lot of aid from the US (it really started flowing in after the 6-day war). During the 6 day War for example, the IAFs best plane was the Mirage. Also, for quite some time the best tank that the Israelis had were WW2 era Patton and Sherman tanks. The Israelis used these tanks very well against Arab tank forces armed with modern (for then) Soviet T-series tanks. Thus, for the Israelis it is not the equipment that is 100% behind the victories, and for the Arab forces it is also not the equipment that is solely responsible for their losses. Or is it?
Finally, the favorite example that i like to use. India vs Pakistan. The Indian airforce's front-line fighter is the Sukhoi built SU-30MKI Flanker, while the Pakistanis have the US built F-16. Now, if the two nations were to go to war, which one would come out on top in the air war? Well, we have seen USAF F-16s route foreign airforces in Iraq and Bosnia, thus the Pakistanis should win since they have American hardware, shouldn't they? What do you think? Or maybe the Indians, having an aircraft far superior to what the Pakistanis have, an aircraft that can launch BVR missiles at the Pakistani F-16s before the Pakistanis can reciprocate, an aircraft that is more numerous than what the Pakistanis have (giving the Indians a quantitative as well as a qualitative edge, similar to what the USAF had over Iraq), as well as the Indians having AWACS aircraft backing them up (sound familiar) .....do you still think the Pakistani F-16s would have a chance?
Now, have the same Indian airforce fly against the USAF (I am not talking about 'training exercises ....imagine a bizarro world where India and the US go to war) ....the same airforce that routed the Pakistani fly-boys would in turn get devastated. Why?
Anyways, I PERSONALLY believe that many people believe that hardware is everything. Truth is what the hardware does is enhance the chances of winning. Even if you gave the US military EQUAL hardware to the other team, it would still win. There would be more losses to the US side in combat, but it would still win. I remember a US army tanker during GW1 who said that even if they had switched tanks with the Iraqis (with the Republican guard getting Abrams, and the US side getting the upgraded T-72s), that they would still have defeated the Iraqis with the Abrams. There might be some hyperbole in that statement, but the fact still remains that it is not all about the hardware.
Israel's worry is not what equipment the Arabs have (although an Arab army armed with Eurogither Typhoons is a greater worry than one armed with Soviet-era monkey-model type MiG-29 Fulcrums, like the ones the IRaqi airforce had in GW1), but rather the level of professionalism, innovation level, adaptability, resourcefulness and such stuff.
In much the same way that a single Navy Seal armed with a pistol amd combat knife is a far more dangerous adversary than a single Somali rebel armed with an AK-47 and an RPG launcher.
I am not saying equipment is nothing, and there are qualitative differences that can make a major difference (e.g. the F-22 against ANYTHING flying). What I am saying is that equipment is N0T everything, particularly in the case of Arab vs Israeli. Israelis have defeated Arab armies while having equipment that, on paper, is 'inferior' and outdated. It is only in the last 30 years that the Israelis have had a major qualitative gap over the surrounding armies, yet their greatest victories occured before that.
Personally I'd rather have an army with better doctrine and stratagems, albeit with slightly inferior equipment, than one that has straight-outta-da-factory-spit-polished-vunder-machines, but has its head up its ar$e (or at least near enough so as not to make a difference).
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.