Russians passed intelligence to Iraq

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 10:46am

Well, the is interesting indeed

Well, it seems that the Russian's have allegedly been providing intelligence to Saddam Hussien right up to the last days. If it's true it certainly explains a lot.

It also makes you wonder what the fuck Putin was thinking. This is certainly going to put a chill on US-Russian relations; Bush won't forgive this and I don't think the US at large will forget it either. It sounds to me like Putin is still stuck in the Cold War-Old Russian mentality.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-13 10:50am

Man, what the fuck was Putin smoking?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-13 10:52am

MKSheppard wrote:Man, what the fuck was Putin smoking?

Its understandable Putin was and still is a KGB assholes

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-13 10:54am

"Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph"

Yeah .... right.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-13 10:57am

"A letter from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow shows that Russia kept Iraq informed about its arms deals with other countries in the Middle East. Correspondence, dated January 27, 2000, informed Baghdad that in 1999 Syria bought rockets from Russia in two separate batches valued at $65 million (£41 million) and $73 million (£46 million). It also says that Egypt bought surface-to-air missiles from Russia and that Kuwait - Saddam's old enemy - wanted to buy Russian arms to the value of $1 billion. The Russians also informed Iraq that China had bought military aircraft from Russia and Israel at the end of 1999."

Woah! Top secret stuff!

*I* fucking knew about these deals. They're publicly available!

This is not earth-shattering stuff. What the Telegraph has done here is disseminate freely available information with bullshit in an attempt to make this nonsense look like damning evidence of an 'intimate' intelligence relationship against the West between Russia and Iraq.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 10:58am

Vympel wrote:"Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph"

Yeah .... right.

I'm skeptical of the report and I wonder about that myself. But, discounting the possibility this made up by the Telegraph, who and why would create those fake documents?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-13 11:04am

Stormbringer wrote: I'm skeptical of the report and I wonder about that myself. But, discounting the possibility this made up by the Telegraph, who and why would create those fake documents?

See above post- in short, I would be very surprised if Russia maintained no links at all with Iraq, considering that they owe Russia billions of dollars- this is just good sense. Notice that the inference that it was an 'intimate anti-Western' collusion is made entirely by the Telegraph, not by any of the supposed 'evidence' it presents.

More of my thoughts:

"The list of assassins is referred to in a paper dated November 27, 2000. In it, an agent signing himself "SAB" says that the Russians have passed him a detailed list of killers. The letter does not describe any assignments that the assassins might be given but it indicates just how much Moscow was prepared to share with Baghdad. Another document, dated March 12, 2002, appears to confirm that Saddam had developed, or was developing nuclear weapons. The Russians warned Baghdad that if it refused to comply with the United Nations then that would give the United States "a cause to destroy any nuclear weapons".

Notice that Fox News automatically assumed that these are assassins *offered* by Moscow- when this is not inferred in the article- heaven forbid, it's actually a list of terrorist killers? Why the hell would Iraq want to borrow Russian killers? They have plenty of their own!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 11:10am

Vympel wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: I'm skeptical of the report and I wonder about that myself. But, discounting the possibility this made up by the Telegraph, who and why would create those fake documents?
See above post- in short, I would be very surprised if Russia maintained no links at all with Iraq, considering that they owe Russia billions of dollars- this is just good sense. Notice that the inference that it was an 'intimate anti-Western' collusion is made entirely by the Telegraph, not by any of the supposed 'evidence' it presents.

I'm not suprised they maintained ties either. The thing I'm wondering is, why? They had to know that Iraq was finished sooner or later. I think it was pretty stupid of the Russian's and it will no doubt have long term diplomatic consequences.

And it does make you wonder about allegations that Russia provided other, more direct forms of assistance.

Vympel wrote:More of my thoughts:

"The list of assassins is referred to in a paper dated November 27, 2000. In it, an agent signing himself "SAB" says that the Russians have passed him a detailed list of killers. The letter does not describe any assignments that the assassins might be given but it indicates just how much Moscow was prepared to share with Baghdad. Another document, dated March 12, 2002, appears to confirm that Saddam had developed, or was developing nuclear weapons. The Russians warned Baghdad that if it refused to comply with the United Nations then that would give the United States "a cause to destroy any nuclear weapons".
Notice that Fox News automatically assumed that these are assassins *offered* by Moscow- when this is not inferred in the article- heaven forbid, it's actually a list of terrorist killers? Why the hell would Iraq want to borrow Russian killers? They have plenty of their own!

Which is stupid of Fox News but not really suprising. Fox News jumps to an unwarranted conclusion is hardly new and in no way news.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-13 11:25am

Stormbringer wrote:
I'm not suprised they maintained ties either. The thing I'm wondering is, why? They had to know that Iraq was finished sooner or later.

Certainly, the problem is that leaving Iraq to twist in the wind at the first sniff of 'the jig is up Saddam' probably would've made the Russians look very bad- especially in terms of the new Iraqi government- e.g. the Brits installed a Ba'athist general to look after Basra (it was first claimed he was just a 'Shiekh'). In the end, maintaining such ties with Iraq would cost them nothing- it would take much

I think it was pretty stupid of the Russian's and it will no doubt have long term diplomatic consequences.

Nope, it won't IMO. This is cookie-cutter stuff, hardly on the level of an anti-US/UK alliance- advice to follow UN resolutions, reports on diplomacy, lists of killers, anti-terrorism information, advising of arms sales (easily obtainable by reading the news, mind you) etc.

And it does make you wonder about allegations that Russia provided other, more direct forms of assistance.

It'd be safe to say that those unfounded claims of NVGs and Kornet missiles would remain allegations- for example- the US government never directly accused the Russian government of doing as such, only two Russian firms, and furthermore, you'd be pretty hard pressed to hide a Kornet missile, and you'd definitely see more blasted Abrams as a result.

Which is stupid of Fox News but not really suprising. Fox News jumps to an unwarranted conclusion is hardly new and in no way news.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 11:38am

Certainly, the problem is that leaving Iraq to twist in the wind at the first sniff of 'the jig is up Saddam' probably would've made the Russians look very bad- especially in terms of the new Iraqi government- e.g. the Brits installed a Ba'athist general to look after Basra (it was first claimed he was just a 'Shiekh'). In the end, maintaining such ties with Iraq would cost them nothing- it would take much

I doubt helping Saddam Hussien is going to endear the Russian's to any governemnt. Especially, if the people are as eager for liberation as they've been portrayed. I think it was a situation where Russia really had nothing to gain that would justify the risk.

Nope, it won't IMO. This is cookie-cutter stuff, hardly on the level of an anti-US/UK alliance- advice to follow UN resolutions, reports on diplomacy, lists of killers, anti-terrorism information, advising of arms sales (easily obtainable by reading the news, mind you) etc.

I don't think it's more than an under the table deal to try and worm more out of the Iraqis and tweak the noses of the West. It clearly was intelligence that shouldn't have been passed on and I think it will have consequences; especially since Bush is in office. Bush has a black and white vision of the world and I think Putin might lose his white hat.

Like I said, it seems utterly pointless for the Russians to pass on intelligence.

It'd be safe to say that those unfounded claims of NVGs and Kornet missiles would remain allegations- for example- the US government never directly accused the Russian government of doing as such, only two Russian firms, and furthermore, you'd be pretty hard pressed to hide a Kornet missile, and you'd definitely see more blasted Abrams as a result.

Not such advanced systems, no, but the it does paint the rumor/allegations of under the table sales of more mundane in a completely new light.