| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Russia writes off 9.8 billion of Syrian debt |
| 2005-01-26 |
| Russia on Tuesday agreed to write off a huge chunk of Soviet-era debt held by Syria, a country at the center of Moscow's attempts to revive its influence in the Middle East. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was on his first official visit to Russia, which has long defended the Arab state against U.S. and Israeli charges of ties to terrorism. In a sign Moscow was ready to take its relations with Syria to a new level, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said Russia had agreed to write off 73 percent - $9.8 billion - of Syria's net debts to Moscow. It was unclear what Moscow, whose influence waned in the Middle East after the collapse of the Soviet Union, would get in return, but Assad called on Russia to boost its voice in global politics. "I would like to support Russia's political course and at the same time express a protest against the political course of the United States," Assad told Moscow students. "Russia's role is huge and Russia is well respected by third-world countries ... These countries are really hoping that Russia will try to revive its lost positions in the world." Moscow cultivated ties with Syria in cold war times to counterbalance the influence of U.S.-backed Israel and supplied weaponry to the Arab state. But the Soviet collapse left Russia's key Soviet-era arms client out in the cold. Russia's burgeoning relations with Syria have rung alarm bells in the U.S. and Israel. Days before Assad's visit, Israeli media reported Syria wanted to buy powerful missile systems from Russia, a move Israel said would strengthen militant groups in the region. While denying any such plans, Assad said the very fact that Israel opposed expansion of Damascus' military might meant that it wanted to invade Syria. "Israel's position is illogical," he said. Moscow has denied it wanted to sell arms to Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking before talks with Assad, said: "Syria is a country with which the Soviet Union and today's Russia have always had particularly warm relations. "We can base our relations today on a tradition of friendship and cooperation that is decades old." Washington sees Syria as a sponsor of terrorism and has demanded that Damascus stop insurgents and money entering Iraq ahead of Sunday's elections. Syria denies the accusations. Moscow, already at odds with Washington over nuclear ties with Iran, says the U.S. stance on Syria undermines the Middle East peace process. "We are concerned with the recent situation around Syria," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, due to meet Assad on Wednesday, said in remarks issued on the ministry's Web site. "The language of threats can make the situation only worse ... If any concerns (about Syria) remain, they should be backed by concrete evidence and removed through talks," Lavrov said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #23 Aris, K-Mart is a discount department store in the states; it is kinda like Wal-Mart used to be, and it was like that before Wal-Mart. It hasn't held up to the competition too well... and has made a lot of bad business decisions, like having product lines designed by Martha Stewart, among other things... anyway, between being squeezed by Wal Mart and Sam's on the low end, and Target on the upscale end, they've been in and out of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Court (reorganization), and have been closing a lot of stores. There aren't any left in Lafayette, which used to have three. The only one in central Acadiana that I know of is in New Iberia. I think there's one in Jennings, and there are some over in Baton Rouge... (those are both ~ 1 hour drives, BTW). Anyway, Sears has been having a whole lot of problems as well. There have been rumors that Sears might wind up in Bankruptcy Court as well, but under Chapter 7 rather than Chapter 11. Anyway, late last year some executive at Sears had a revelation: the solution to all of their financial problems was to merge with K-Mart. Which they have done. This all vaguely reminds me of an old joke in the oilfield service industry... "Yes, we lose money on every one of those we sell, but we'll make up for it in volume!" |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-01-26 10:29:20 PM |
| #22 key question is wiil putin really come to thier aid....talk is cheap unless it is backed up with deeds.. yes russia is trying to play on the world scene but they cannot not even take of thier chechen problem. i think GW will call this sooner than later..if we are going after elements on the syrian/iraqi border or launch strikes agaisnt the irab what will putin/russia do? |
| Posted by: Dan 2005-01-26 6:33:43 PM |
| #21 The Sears/K-Mart is widely regarded as an essentially meaningless merger of has-beens. IIRC, Scrappleface had a piece on it, suggesting also their merger with France. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-01-26 4:24:24 PM |
| #20 I don't understand the Sears+Kmart reference. Any single dot is "trivial", until they turn themselves into a pattern. Here's a dot: Russia criticized the US for accusing Syria of supporting terrorists. Here's another dot: Russian missiles to Syria. Here's a 3rd dot: Syria praises Russia's international role. Here's a 4th dot: Russia and China both abstained from supporting the UN resolution (US- and France- supported) demanding Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. 5th dot: The oil deal. What do they need to do in order for you to consider Russia and Syria consistent allies? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 4:17:53 PM |
| #19 Russia + Syria = Sears + Kmart. Russia signs oil exploration and pipeline construction deals with anyone they can find. Trivial. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-26 3:49:06 PM |
| #18 Saddam was loyal only to himself. As for Moscow/Tehran/Damascus, I don't see any real loyalty there, except on the part of Damascus. That's more the loyalty of a small dog to an alpha. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-01-26 3:29:53 PM |
| #17 If Syria and Iraq were cooperating (and it seems to me they were, both before and after the invasion), and Syria is also cooperating with Iran... I think that "cooperation" needs to be consistent in order for it to be considered an "alliance". Iraq's occasional cooperation with either Iran or Syria seems to have been on a case-by-case basis, cooperating in some places, opposing in others. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 3:03:48 PM |
| #16 It's all about the Oil MOSCOW, Jan 26 (AFP) - Russia and Syria said Wednesday they planned to sign agreements on participation of Russian companies in various projects focusing on development of oil and gas resources in Syria, Russian news agencies reported. Russian Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko and Syrian Oil Minister Ibrahim Haddad discussed several projects including development of known resources and construction of several pipelines including the Syrian portion of the Pan-Arab pipeline project, Interfax said. Another agreement in preparation centered on work by Russia's SoyuzNefteGaz and the Syrian Oil and Natural Resource Ministry on exploration and development of two oil and gas deposits in Syria over a 25-year period. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-01-26 2:20:26 PM |
| #15 Aris: I think this, as well as the Russia/Iran deals, more-or-less constitute the same sort of alliance as the Molotov-Ribbentroff pact. Regarding Saddam: he also had a quid-pro-quo and helped support Ansar-al-Islam, which was also supported by the Mullahs. (And still is, under the ironic "Ansar al Sunni" name. The irony slays me). If Syria and Iraq were cooperating (and it seems to me they were, both before and after the invasion), and Syria is also cooperating with Iran... |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-01-26 2:18:15 PM |
| #14 "This Syrian maneuver by his FSB handlers Putin has about as much significance for interstate relations as Chavez's posturing." I find "Chavez's posturing" to have become the flagship of far-left fascism in the whole of South America, elements from Bolivia to Brazil to Peru -- so I don't think I shall be appeased by these words. If there's no strategy in these deals, then why would Syria praise Russia's international role? This is a true alliance of powers, where consistently each tries to boost the other's. http://arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050119/2005011912.html "Our duty is not only to go back to the previous level of bilateral cooperation, but we have to exceed and enhance it," In the meanwhile, Iran has shown interest to join the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm), the regional "security" organization so far dominated by Russia and China. There's an alliance between almost *all* those fascist states: Russia, China, Iran, Syria. It's consistent and steady, and none of these countries ever does anything to oppose the other. But if you have elements of real disagreement between these countries, please mention them. For example: Saddam Hussein supported the MEK that opposed the Iranian regime -- that proves that Iraq wasn't part of the Iran-Syria axis. Do you have such examples that disprove any Iran-Syria-Russia consistent alliance? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 1:31:30 PM |
| #13 It's not about money, it's about power. Moscow solidifies its alliance with the Damascus-Tehran sub-axis, the true Axis of Islamofascist Terror. Oh, spare us. There is no "alliance" between these kleptocracies, just a smorgasbord of arms deals. Putin's regime is the ultimate whore. The Russian security services are yet another mafiya-style group, one skilled in moving not only commodities but also antiquated Russian military hardware across Russia's porous borders. Deals with corrupt FSB officers and industrial bandits do not constitute anything like a coherent strategy for influence, let alone real influence. This Syrian maneuver by |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-26 1:14:03 PM |
| #12 "Fageddaboudit, Vladdie! Dem mooks ain't never goona pay up!" |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-01-26 12:46:11 PM |
| #11 "I would like to support Russia’s political course and at the same time express a protest against the political course of the United States," Assad told Moscow students. "Russia’s role is huge Bullshit. You never had any intention of repaying Russia, precisely because Russia's influence is next to nil. "...and Russia is well respected by third-world countries..." Right. Like Afghanistan, which they were ejected from, or Egypt, which they were ejected from, or Iraq, whose people despise them for aiding Saddam, or China, which views Russia with contempt and whose traders so dominate the border regions that Russians are now being forced to learn Chinese instead of v-v in order merely to survive, or the other Asian tigers, who leaped past Russia twenty years ago, or Latin America, which is utterly oblivious to Russia.... |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-26 12:44:23 PM |
| #10 Tom> Need is defacto control. If Russia's support of the Syrian and Iran regimes does prove both necessary and adequate to protect them from USA (or even seem that way), then these regimes become dependent on Russia. It's one reason why Ukraine's Orange Revolution was a blow to Russian power -- because there Russia's support for Kuchma/Yanukovich proved *in*adequate to keep them in power. trailing wife> They *are* still a player, even if largely reduced in strength. Moscow's still keeping atleast half a dozen other nations to a mock-independence similar to the mock-independence that Warsaw Pact members enjoyed. And beyond that, Russia *is* playing worldwide, in the Middle-east, in the Balkans. Russia interfered even in Cyprus through a UN veto, in order to hurt the chances Cyprus had for reunification. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 12:37:29 PM |
| #9 Moscow used to be a world power equal to the U.S. This makes them feel like they are still a player. That's worth an awful lot. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-26 12:25:09 PM |
| #8 That hardly gives Moscow control of the Gulf. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-26 12:19:43 PM |
| #7 Moskow couldn't even control Afghanistan. How would they manage the mullahs? I believe there's a proverb about how it's the fear of the wolf that keeps the sheep in line. Or something like that anyway. It's fear of the United States that will make the Syrian and Iranian regimes feel they need as much support from Russia as they can get. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 12:18:01 PM |
| #6 Moskow couldn't even control Afghanistan. How would they manage the mullahs? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-26 12:08:33 PM |
| #5 I think I'll be going with TGA's suggestion of Moscow wanting to control the Gulf. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 12:03:57 PM |
| #4 To what end? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-26 11:54:28 AM |
| #3 It's not about money, it's about power. Moscow solidifies its alliance with the Damascus-Tehran sub-axis, the true Axis of Islamofascist Terror. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-26 11:36:37 AM |
| #2 Hold on a sec... everyone says everything Russia does is driven by their starvation for Cash. Now they're forgiving the debt of Syria, which they've sold stuff to on credit, and maybe selling stuff to on credit in the near future? Wow. For guys who are so broke that they have to sell nukes to Iran, the Russians are being awfully "altruistic." |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-01-26 10:46:11 AM |
| #1 A fine gesture, recognizing that they are never going to collect anyway. Probably a gratuity for hiding some of Saddam's weapons that had manuals written only in Russian. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-26 10:33:14 AM |