Moscow Could Give Venezuela Arms Loan - Kremlin Aide

[Purveyor]

MOSCOW, September 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia could give Venezuela a loan for a new arms contract, a senior Kremlin official said on Wednesday.

The statement came ahead of President Hugo Chavez's meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on Thursday. Chavez has recently announced plans to buy dozens of Russian tanks in response to U.S. plans to deploy military bases in neighboring Colombia.

"We do not rule out a loan for Russian weaponry supplies," Sergei Prikhodko said.

Prikhodko, however, said no new arms contracts would be signed during Chavez's two-day visit, which is part of his 11-day foreign tour.

He said however that a package of around 10 agreements designed to boost cooperation would be signed during the visit. This includes an agreement on the mutual protection of intellectual property rights in military cooperation and an agreement between the two Defense Ministries covering personnel training and military exchanges.

Between 2005 and 2007, Russia signed 12 contracts worth more than $4.4 billion to supply arms to Venezuela, including fighter jets, helicopters and Kalashnikov assault rifles, which raised concerns in Washington.

MORE...

Ria Novosti: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090909/156073308.html

[BolivarianHero]

1. Moscow is playing with fire...

This may be a smart move now, but what are you going to do when ALBA continues to grow in power and the interests of the Latin American people fly against those of Russian imperialists?

[David__77]

2. Russia is not currently a full-fledged imperialist country.

It is a cruel irony that the Brezhnev-style imperialists were outwardly more progressive but really much worse than Putin could have the power to be. Russia is not even close to regaining the strategic power it had in 1985. In many respects, living standards are worse for people domestically in Russia.

Russia would be very smart to have solidarity with the developing countries and support the process of multi-polarization in the world. Putin would prefer a bipolar US/Russian monopoly, but that will never happen.

[BolivarianHero]

4. Let me ask you this...

If Brezhnev was an evil genius, why is that the six Muslim-majority republics within the Soviet Union had (and continue to have) universal literacy, gender equality, and world-class education while neighbouring Afghanistan was (and still is) a failed state filled with religious wackos, warlords, and CIA plants killing socialists and intellectuals with Chinese guns and Saudi money?

If Pakistan would have mirrored the "open a Madrassa, go directly to the gulag" policy, I'm pretty sure the female literacy rate there would not be below 40% today.

[David__77]

5. You get me wrong.

Brezhnev is infintely preferable to feudalism. And I think the Soviet occupation was a high point of national development for Afghanistan, which isn't saying much. But the model of "revolutionary democracy" promoted by the Soviets during this period was unhelpful and disrespectful of national sovereignty and self-determination. The egoism involved in placing the Soviets at the helm of the socialist community was terrible and had tragic consequences when socialism suffered a setback two decades ago. Indeed, if Pakistan HAD implemented Brezhnev's line in the 1970's, they would have abandoned it under Gorbachev because it was borne of toadyism rather than genuine revolutionary politics.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a world historic disaster. But the seeds of its destruction were planted by the ruling group in the leading party which behaved like a ruling class and an imperialist one at that. It is remarkable that it has not been all that long before the pieces are being picked up by a new generation of socialist-minded thinkers and activists.

[BolivarianHero]

6. I certainly agree with you...

While the motives for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were rooted in resource imperialism rather than by a genuine desire to liberate the Afghan people from feudalism and mysticism (which strictly speaking, makes it a highly immoral act and that's something people who think and feel the way you and I do must constantly remind ourselves), the side effects of a successful invasion would have been the destruction of one of the world's most reactionary ruling classes and the rapid national development of Afghanistan.

My reference to Pakistan was more in relation to Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, the America-backed Islamic military dictator whose government opened and funded the Madrassas at which the Taliban members were "educated". Zia-ul-Haq's policies are a classic example of the ludicrousness of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, wherein Washington divided regimes not adhering to a liberal democratic polity into "authoritarian" (good) or "totalitarian" (bad) camps based on how pliable the people behind those polities were to furthering the neo-liberal elite's economic interests.

Every single one of you knows I'm right; I know people who support Stephen Harper who agree with every single thing I've just written...lol

[David__77]

3. Small arms are more important for Venezuelan national security.

The weapons that will help Venezuela most are assault rifles, RPG's, and some surface-to-air missiles. The country must be prepared in the case of coup or invasion. I hope the popular militia has the means and will to resist if need be.

[Joanne98]

7. Good. They need them to defend theirselves from Colombia