How to tame Russian Bear? Propose him honey pot.

#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080715/wl_nm/russia_saudi_iran_dc;_ylt=Ag2ZSozxS9ix4Jwzfnf.lftm.3QA

Saudi Arabia has offered to award major arms contracts to Russia in return for Moscow curtailing cooperation with Iran, Russia's Kommersant newspaper reported on Tuesday, citing unidentified diplomatic sources.
Interesting rumours.

"The Kingdom's leadership advised Moscow to phase out cooperation with Tehran and in return promised attractive contracts with Saudi Arabia," said the paper, one of Russia's most respected dailies.

"In essence, Russia was offered to become a major partner in the Middle East."

The paper said Bandar, who heads Saudi Arabia's National Security Council and is an influential former ambassador to Washington, fleshed out the proposal when he met Kremlin leaders this week.
...
Saudi Arabia is interested in buying air defence systems, helicopters and tanks from Russia, Kommersant said.

"Saudi Arabia strives to have varied sources of arms," Bandar was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies on Monday after talks with Putin.
By contrast Western approach to relations with Russia is too idealistic. It doesn't involve principles of market economy.
 
#3
So clearly as oil and gas customers we have no influence, and just exist to be bullied? Maybe if we bought some 'planes and rockets we'd be best mates with the bear.

Or is there some other kind of agenda going on in Saudi? I'm sure the Saudis could afford to buy all the weapons they want from Russia and then leave them in the desert, so long as Moscow stops support for Tehran.
 
#4
Russia itself demonstrates knowledge of principles of market democracy. If you behave bad then you would not see economical carrots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...c-cut-after-missile-defence-deal-with-US.html

Russian cut oil supplies to the Czech Republic have been cut by half, just days after the United States signed an agreement to build a missile shield radar station on Czech territory.
Moscow insisted that the cut was nothing to do with a US deal and that negotiations between suppliers were to blame for the hold up.

However, the Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek appeared to remain sceptical over official explanations.
...
As the ink dried on that agreement, which will provide radar control for a US silo of interceptor missiles due to be based in Poland, oil flow through the Druzhba ­ Friendship - pipeline began to ebb.
I have heard (on TV) explanations made by Russuin businesmen. As petrol prises in Russia are more than $1 per liter then it is more profitable to process oil at home than to sell it to Czech republic (moreover that the pipeline needs repair works long ago).

The Czeches are free to buy oil in Saudi Arabia and Czech's money would go to Russia as a payment for weapons. It is a triumph of market economy.
 
#5
angular said:
So clearly as oil and gas customers we have no influence, and just exist to be bullied? Maybe if we bought some 'planes and rockets we'd be best mates with the bear.

Or is there some other kind of agenda going on in Saudi? I'm sure the Saudis could afford to buy all the weapons they want from Russia and then leave them in the desert, so long as Moscow stops support for Tehran.
Russian helicopters not as bad as some think. They are being used around the World. I suppose that it would be an excellent idea to buy Russian helicopters for RAF. Also Russian anti-aircraft systems are sophisticated. Advanced system S-300 is proposed for sale. By the way the whole Greek anti-aircraft complex is Russian (Soviet) made.

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
 
#6
Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
And relatively inexpensive to blow up! (case in point GW1 & 2 and every other nation that has had a pop at a russian tank)

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
If you can rely on it breaking down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Thats what happens if you blow them up or they break down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Wow! Big claim there Sergey! However I think all the military hardware that UKPLC has sold to the Saudis is more than up to the job as is the fact that yanks would steam in pronto big time before you could say 'Russia's as fcuked as the rest of us'
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
angular said:
So clearly as oil and gas customers we have no influence, and just exist to be bullied? Maybe if we bought some 'planes and rockets we'd be best mates with the bear.

Or is there some other kind of agenda going on in Saudi? I'm sure the Saudis could afford to buy all the weapons they want from Russia and then leave them in the desert, so long as Moscow stops support for Tehran.
Russian helicopters not as bad as some think. They are being used around the World. I suppose that it would be an excellent idea to buy Russian helicopters for RAF. Also Russian anti-aircraft systems are sophisticated. Advanced system S-300 is proposed for sale. By the way the whole Greek anti-aircraft complex is Russian (Soviet) made.

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Bollocks.
Are you telling us that Russia (Soviet Union) made:
FIM-92A/C Stinger
I-Hawk
Crotale-NG
ASRAD

and that's without going onto AAA
 
#8
BPS666 said:
Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
And relatively inexpensive to blow up! (case in point GW1 & 2 and every other nation that has had a pop at a russian tank)

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
If you can rely on it breaking down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Thats what happens if you blow them up or they break down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Wow! Big claim there Sergey! However I think all the military hardware that UKPLC has sold to the Saudis is more than up to the job as is the fact that yanks would steam in pronto big time before you could say 'Russia's as fcuked as the rest of us'
Inexpensive. Indeed, if one side has superiority in air then tanks of another side are defenceless, no matter how sophisticated they are. I asure you that any American (Israeli or any other) tank would be an easy target in this situation. So if such a democratic country as the USA would be so kind to liberate the Saudis then no matter what tanks the country has. As for other threats then there would be more than enough to have inexpensive Russian tanks. Agreed?

Reliable. Indeed, Russian tanks maybe are not comfortable but very reliable. By the way new born democracy in Afghanistan prefers namely Russian made tanks as they are very easy to handle. The same is true about Kalashnikovs. What rifles is ANA using? Maybe M-16 or SA-80?

Imaginary Iranian invasion. We live in a real World. Would the Iranians like to occupy Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf states as well)? Today it is not the case but in the future (in theory) it is possible. Moreover, our American friends constanly underline aggressive intentions of Iranian regime.

By the way, a dozen or so inexpensive Russian tanks (along with helicopters) would be very helpfull for Brits in Afghanistan.
 
#9
I will have to side with KGB-res on this.

Russian helicopters are the ultimate field machine.

I have been with an aircraft that did not undergo any inspection either from the flight crew or maintenance. They just left it 'rotting' for two months

When it came to the day the aircraft started first time. It literally pumped itself up from the ground, then flew off, much to our gathered surprise.

On another trip a certain Asian Airforce/Army had all its Puma's grounded due to electrical/avionic problems. Only the Russian heli's were flying. The local 'techs' called the Euro machines "paper' for some unknown reason. We assumed 'cos when it rained they all got soggy and fell apart.

I use Russia in the loose term, i.e. CIS etc....

Good aircraft even though most of the crews are all drunks.

All civvy and commercial work.
 
#10
joey_deacons_lad said:
You may have noticed many western leaders dont live in the real world
They may not live in the real world, but unfortunately they live in this one. :(
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
angular said:
So clearly as oil and gas customers we have no influence, and just exist to be bullied? Maybe if we bought some 'planes and rockets we'd be best mates with the bear.

Or is there some other kind of agenda going on in Saudi? I'm sure the Saudis could afford to buy all the weapons they want from Russia and then leave them in the desert, so long as Moscow stops support for Tehran.
Russian helicopters not as bad as some think. They are being used around the World. I suppose that it would be an excellent idea to buy Russian helicopters for RAF. Also Russian anti-aircraft systems are sophisticated. Advanced system S-300 is proposed for sale. By the way the whole Greek anti-aircraft complex is Russian (Soviet) made.

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.[/quote]

You buys cheap tanks, you gets cheap tanks. Apart from that, just how is Iran going to invade Saudi, via Iraq or a sea mounted invasion? Either could be an interesting proposition.

OK I know that Russian helicopters are built like a brick built sh1t house and doing good service.
 
#12
KGB_resident said:
BPS666 said:
Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
And relatively inexpensive to blow up! (case in point GW1 & 2 and every other nation that has had a pop at a russian tank)

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
If you can rely on it breaking down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Thats what happens if you blow them up or they break down

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
Wow! Big claim there Sergey! However I think all the military hardware that UKPLC has sold to the Saudis is more than up to the job as is the fact that yanks would steam in pronto big time before you could say 'Russia's as fcuked as the rest of us'
Inexpensive. Indeed, if one side has superiority in air then tanks of another side are defenceless, no matter how sophisticated they are. I asure you that any American (Israeli or any other) tank would be an easy target in this situation. So if such a democratic country as the USA would be so kind to liberate the Saudis then no matter what tanks the country has. As for other threats then there would be more than enough to have inexpensive Russian tanks. Agreed?

Reliable. Indeed, Russian tanks maybe are not comfortable but very reliable. By the way new born democracy in Afghanistan prefers namely Russian made tanks as they are very easy to handle. The same is true about Kalashnikovs. What rifles is ANA using? Maybe M-16 or SA-80?
Imaginary Iranian invasion. We live in a real World. Would the Iranians like to occupy Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf states as well)? Today it is not the case but in the future (in theory) it is possible. Moreover, our American friends constanly underline aggressive intentions of Iranian regime.

By the way, a dozen or so inexpensive Russian tanks (along with helicopters) would be very helpfull for Brits in Afghanistan.


Sergey,

2 points.

Firstly about rifles. The reason that AK47 is provided to ANA is due to the fact that it is the simplest weapon to operate for poorly trained soldiers, and it is very cheap. Neither of these make it a great weapon or in any way better than the SA80 or M16 - both of which are of more use to trained soldiers. It is a good weapon for large numbers of conscript soldiers who can be sent over the top en masse and who are relatively expendable. If you would like most of your soldiers to come home after the firefight then I suspect that you would not equip them with the AK.

Secondly. If Russia wishes to resume its place on the world stage as a world player then a little less petty economic bullying of its neighbours and a bit more helpful diplomacy or world action might do the trick. So instead of blocking things about Zimbabwe or sanctioning the assassination of people in London, how about sending some of this "world class" military kit to be used in places like Afghanistan? After all, no-one will benefit from Afghanistan being left to fester - certianly not Russia. At the moment Russia wants the privileges of being a P5 member without having to take any responsibility.

Only a couple of observations and as always I stand by ready to hear why Russia is such a major power, which is just misunderstood.

whf
 
#13
Bandalong said:
I will have to side with KGB-res on this.
Yep. Fair one but I wasn't arguing against Russian whirley birds and I refer you to sergeys post and the point I was trying to raise.

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
However,

By the way new born democracy in Afghanistan prefers namely Russian made tanks as they are very easy to handle.
Have to disagree with this comment. The Afghan government prefers russian made tanks because they can't afford Leopard, Challenger II or any of the decent tanks that are out there. Given where most of the fighting is taking place and the fact that the russians had a torid time with their armour in afghan I would suggest that it is hardly classic 'tank country' and given that no-one in their right minds would want to invade afghan, it is pretty pointless the afghan government investing in state of the art hardware.

Imaginary Iranian invasion. We live in a real World. Would the Iranians like to occupy Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf states as well)? Today it is not the case but in the future (in theory) it is possible. Moreover, our American friends constanly underline aggressive intentions of Iranian regime.
Imagine away me ol' china. I like to imagine that Britain is a nice place to live, hardly the fcukin truth though is it? I think the imaginary backlash from the other islamic nations may deter the iranians but it's a nice thought imagining all the muslims going chicken oriental about shiah and suuni and who controls the bingo hall in the desert.
 
#14
wehappyfew said:
Only a couple of observations and as always I stand by ready to hear why Russia is such a major power, which is just misunderstood.

whf
I reckon its got to do with the numerous nukes they may still have?
 
#15
Reco_Cell said:
KGB_resident said:
angular said:
So clearly as oil and gas customers we have no influence, and just exist to be bullied? Maybe if we bought some 'planes and rockets we'd be best mates with the bear.

Or is there some other kind of agenda going on in Saudi? I'm sure the Saudis could afford to buy all the weapons they want from Russia and then leave them in the desert, so long as Moscow stops support for Tehran.
Russian helicopters not as bad as some think. They are being used around the World. I suppose that it would be an excellent idea to buy Russian helicopters for RAF. Also Russian anti-aircraft systems are sophisticated. Advanced system S-300 is proposed for sale. By the way the whole Greek anti-aircraft complex is Russian (Soviet) made.

Russian tanks are relatively inexpensive, reliable and able to stop Iranian invasion in Saudi Arabia.
balls.
Are you telling us that Russia (Soviet Union) made:
FIM-92A/C Stinger
I-Hawk
Crotale-NG
ASRAD

and that's without going onto AAA
You are absolutely correct. Previously I thought that Greece has mainly Russian made air defence systems. It appears that the Greeks use different sources. However, long range system (the base of the Greek air defence) is Russian made S-300.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHeYsCUH0o

As Greece some NATO countries (maybe even the UK) could buy Russian made air defence systems. Why not?

wehappyfew said:
...how about sending some of this "world class" military kit to be used in places like Afghanistan?
As I remember, in 2001 Russia supplied anti-Taliban forces (namely Northern alliance) with weapons (including tanks) on $50 mln. And now Russia is ready to sell weapons to governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.

But near to $300 mln. were spend to buy 'Albanian made' weapons that were in fact Chinese made ones delivered to Albania long ago.
 
#16
Probably something to do with this little pearler

Although none of the S-300 versions have ever fired a missile in a real conflict, it is considered a capable SAM system. In April 2005, NATO had a combat exercise in France and Germany called Trial Hammer 05 to practice SEAD missions.[6] Participating countries were pleased that the Slovak Air Force brought a S-300PMU along, providing a unique opportunity for NATO to get familiar with the system.
In assuming that we in the west are now familiar with the system, it is safe to assume that we will have developed technology to defeat it (just an assumption). Whereas we have our own defence industry capable of producing anti aircraft systems. And in the case of ICBM's etc, we don't need to worry cause the USA are about to deploy a big fcuk off anti missile system on your doorstep. How long will Russia be sat as a major power at the table if it can't get it's missiles outside of it's own airspace? And don't crack on about your sub surface platforms either, we all know that if they are not tied up in port then they are desperatly trying not to sink!
 
#17
to address the original point:as Kruschev (I believe) said- Diplomacy is the art of saying "good boy" to an angry dog whilst reaching for a bigger stick. I belive thats what this is.


(hope you appreciate the quote comrade...correct me if I am wrong about who said it)
 
#18
BPS666 said:
Probably something to do with this little pearler

Although none of the S-300 versions have ever fired a missile in a real conflict, it is considered a capable SAM system. In April 2005, NATO had a combat exercise in France and Germany called Trial Hammer 05 to practice SEAD missions.[6] Participating countries were pleased that the Slovak Air Force brought a S-300PMU along, providing a unique opportunity for NATO to get familiar with the system.
In assuming that we in the west are now familiar with the system, it is safe to assume that we will have developed technology to defeat it (just an assumption).
It is a very hard task to beat such a sophisticated super long range system as S-300. Moreover it is true toward S-400. The task is in fact unrealistic. So called 'invisible' planes appear to be well 'visible' for new generation of air defence systems.

At this stage air defence systems (I say it as my military specialisation is namely air defence) have upper hand over planes and well built air defence system is unpenetrable for planes no matter how 'invisible' of fast they are. Also it is important to note that anti-aircraft missiles are relatively inexpensive being compared with modern planes.

BPS666 said:
Whereas we have our own defence industry capable of producing anti aircraft systems. And in the case of ICBM's etc, we don't need to worry cause the USA are about to deploy a big fcuk off anti missile system on your doorstep. How long will Russia be sat as a major power at the table if it can't get it's missiles outside of it's own airspace? And don't crack on about your sub surface platforms either, we all know that if they are not tied up in port then they are desperatly trying not to sink!
The situation with anti-missile systems is exactly opposite. There are no reliable technology to stop sophisticated missiles. Anyway anti-missiles are very expensive. So it is sufficient to have a big number of offencive missiles to make them unbeatable.

46 years ago, in times of Caribean crisis the Soviet union has only few long range missiles. Now it is not a problem. So it is enough to have mobile missiles in endless Siberian forests to have sufficient detterent. Bases abroad (in Cuba) are too expensive and strategically ineffective.
 
#19
Some of you guys are ragging on Russian equipment for no reason, the Iraqi tanks in GW1+2 were Russian "monkey models" with 30 year old ammo and poorly trained crews.
Russian explosive armour is supposed to be very effective against the latest DU rounds.
 
#20
wehappyfew said:
Secondly. If Russia wishes to resume its place on the world stage as a world player then a little less petty economic bullying of its neighbours and a bit more helpful diplomacy or world action might do the trick. So instead of blocking things about Zimbabwe or sanctioning the assassination of people in London, how about sending some of this "world class" military kit to be used in places like Afghanistan? After all, no-one will benefit from Afghanistan being left to fester - certianly not Russia.
Russia's already tried a punch-up in Afghanistan in the 1980s and got a bloody nose. They're not likely to repeat that mistake (unlike us).

Sure, the Mujahedeen etc had support from other world powers - no change there, the Taleban is getting succour from the Pakistanis.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top