American defence officials have secretly requested a "prodigious quantity" of ammunition from Russia to supply the Afghan army in case a Democrat president takes over in Washington and pulls out US troops.
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Pentagon chiefs have asked arms suppliers for a quote on a vast amount of ordnance, including more than 78 million rounds of AK47 ammunition, 100,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 12,000 tank shells - equivalent to about 15 times the British Army's annual requirements.
The Bush administration is said to want the deal because of worries that the next president could be a Democrat, possibly Hillary Clinton, who may abandon Afghanistan.
[]
The "decade's worth" of ammunition will give the Afghan National Army a vast arsenal to deal with Taliban or drug warlords if Washington withdraws its troops.It would allow Kabul to defend its borders against outside interference but could also be used for offensive operations against neighbours such as the old enemy, Pakistan.
[]
All of the material will come from Rosoboron Exports, the sole state intermediary agency for Russia's military exports.
(h/t Don.) Can anyone work that out? Does Richard Perle have a stake in Rosoboron? someone is getting a commision somewhere...
8 comments:
Picked up one thing digging: the company is named Rosoboronexport (in phonetic Russian), not "Rosoboron Exports".
Still rooting around the net. Something about the figure of $400 million doesn't seem right...
One thought, though: considering that a lot of Iran's war materiel, whether 'inherited' from Iraq in '91 or purchased since, is Soviet/Russian in origin, I can't help but wonder if guns and ammo are all the Pentagon's buying.
thnx don - this story is completely 'absurd' - im not sure how or why - but it seems like a cover story for something or other.
Every time I look at that story, something new jumps out at me.
The volumes are huge: 78,000,000 AK-47 rounds (50,000,000 training blanks included in that?), 12,000 tank shells, and 100,000 (!) RPGs. (But no concern over some of those RPGs going astray and shooting down an airliner?)
Further in, they mention T-62 tanks, Mi-24 "Hinds" and AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles (but not numbers). All 60s-80s vintage weapon systems but if you want that volume and you're paying for transport, too, you won't get top line stuff $400 million. From NewsMax, $400m seems to be the price for a dozen brand new MiG-29s for the Sudan (or $437m for 14 for Yemen).
(The second section of that NewsMax piece notes the MiG-29's capabilities. BTW, Iran has 40-45 of them.)
There's enough to fight a war there, but deliveries won't start until the end of the year, so that shared border with Iran is just a coincidence, for now.
Still, the second paragraph starts oddly:
"The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Pentagon chiefs have asked arms suppliers for a quote on a vast amount of ordnance..."
Ok, so what do they know that they can't disclose? Is the Pentagon shopping for intel on what the Russians sold to Iran, too?
don - thanks for all that. i dont even know where to begin - so let me begin with an aside: one of the weirdest things in that entire piece was 'transport included' - wtf was that about?
The article says "including transport costs", which I take to mean paying for the Russians' shipping and handling. Politically, it makes more sense all around; as far as heavy-lift aircraft are concerned, just about anything western has a military roundel on it, while many Russian An-124 and Il-76 are in the civil sector.
On Kryten42's question, my guess (with AK's and older weapon systems), they want to keep all the cool toys for the cool kids.
Bottom line on the whole mess, on my 2 cents, I read possible intel buys and/or bribes for backing on the UN/IAEA thing, arming a possible anti-Iranian force for later (that can absorb fire from Pakistan if they get out of hand), potential funneling of some equipment to terrorist cells for years of fun (like they're not going to lose some of those RPGs), and an underhand slap at the Democrats in the process.
Still, all those Pentagon bucks being spent overseas should have the great military/industrial/political complex up in arms (no pun intended).
What are we missing?
kryten42 - great to have u back :-)
interesting about those AK47s - wasnt it only last week that 100,000 went 'missing' (or viktor bout stole them) - did they go to the insurgency? (i think i even saw a story/headline that they ended up in south america)
Don - yeah - it's all very odd. The MIC really must be pulling their hair out - all that money going to a State company - what a waste!
I suspect that the T/graph story is intentionally a partial leak - intentionally misleading, too. I cant even begin to see through this story.
i dont think "bribes for backing on the UN/IAEA thing" makes sense - becuase there apparently wasnt even negotiation (the russians thought it was a joke).
I'm doing a little more digging on this one. There's much more than meets the eye there. The story goes into a fair amount of detail over a very large sum of money spent on a foreigh nation's arms. If that's what the Telegraph "can disclose", what can't they disclose?
On that, any links you have on the Bout story would be welcome.
Side note: there was a NYT story on a Russian complaint to the WTO over US-sponsored knockoffs of the Kalashnikov AK-47 in July '04. Related? Dunno, but curious.
thnx don
the best places for Bout are warandpiece - use the search feature there.
doug farrah is also an expert - see here just for his latest
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/58/did-a-viktor-bout-company-help-divert-weapons-to-insurgents
but check out farrah's other work too.
there's another blogger in the UK too - i cant quite remember his name - but laura and doug both point to him - it 'yorkshire ranter' or something
(totally agree with "what can't they disclose?")
Post a Comment