It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putin Says Iran Nuclear-Weapons Ability Would Risk Stability

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Interesting. The dialogue keeps changing from the Russian side every few days. Basically it seems everyone is using this particular issue to their advantage.


Russia opposes Iran developing nuclear-weapons capability because it would endanger global stability, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said.
Russia is against expanding “the nuclear club” and “is taking into account” objections by Arab nations to supplies of conventional weaponry to Iran, according to Putin, who’s seeking to return as Russia’s president in March 4 elections.

LINK

Do you think Russia and/or China is really there for Syria or Iran?
edit on 24-2-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by hp1229 because: fix the link




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I think its all political posturing. A regular dance they the west and the east have to participate in every time on global issues. If USA or NATO on side A, Russia/China must be on SIde B.

Just the natural order of things to balance everything out. Reason usually breaks through the fog of this posturing and sabre rattling.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Sounds reasonable.

Russia expected to come in and "save the west" by doing a deal with Iran (and for that matter Syria), but may have been snubbed.

Also Russia is much nearer than US to Iran. And the Chechens would be interested in the technology from Iran. Maybe Russia has just woken up?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I think its all political posturing. A regular dance they the west and the east have to participate in every time on global issues. If USA or NATO on side A, Russia/China must be on SIde B.

Just the natural order of things to balance everything out. Reason usually breaks through the fog of this posturing and sabre rattling.

Agree. I have mentioned this several times in the past on several threads. They're all part of the grand chess game. They probably wait until their deliveries are cleared (weapons) and the payments are made and/or their key citizens have been evacuated from the region before they flip and join the rest against the troubled regime.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
Sounds reasonable.

Russia expected to come in and "save the west" by doing a deal with Iran (and for that matter Syria), but may have been snubbed.

Also Russia is much nearer than US to Iran. And the Chechens would be interested in the technology from Iran. Maybe Russia has just woken up?

Gotta love the geopolitical chess game
Every other nation pretty much has a weakness that was prolly exploited or reminded about it? hmmm we will never know. But I have seen their stance one too many times in the past only for them to finally agree with the others.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 



The dialogue keeps changing from the Russian side every few days.

Wrong.

Russia has always been against Iran having nukes.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by hp1229
 


The dialogue keeps changing from the Russian side every few days.

Wrong.
Russia has always been against Iran having nukes.

Maybe it is.

But Russia seems to be against it for the name sake. They were the Key builders for Iran's Nuclear Program. Dont you think they knew where it might be heading down the road once they built the Reactor? Buying time on behalf of Iran is what they really did all these years.

Gatilov suggested that Iran should be more cooperative but there is more room for diplomacy. He said Iran's discussions with Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, frozen for a year, could still be revived.

"Iran and IAEA should boost their dialogue in order to rule out the ... possibility of the existence of military dimensions in the Iranian nuclear program. We hope that this dialogue will be continued," he said.

"I think we still have opportunity to continue diplomatic efforts, to renew the six-nation talks."

Russia, which built Iran's first nuclear power plant, has often stressed the need for talks and that too much coercive pressure on Iran is counterproductive, a stance that has prompted concerns Moscow has helped Tehran play for time.

Last week, Russia said global powers must be serious about proposing solutions Iran might accept, warning that Tehran's desire for compromise was waning as it moved closer to being technically capable of building atomic weapons.

ca.news.yahoo.com...
edit on 24-2-2012 by hp1229 because: edit paragraph

edit on 24-2-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by hp1229 because: grammer



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
In my opinion Russia is certainly not interested in Iran with nuclear weapons because it means that there will be another major power near Russian borders. And Russia fought several wars with Persia for spheres of interest last time Persia was a major power.
However Russia wants Israel to strike Iran because it will jump up oil/gas prices (very very important parts of Russian economy). There also lots of serious diplomatic and geopolitical benefits to Russia as a result of the consequences of Israeli strike and lots of serious diplomatic and geopolitical setbacks to US/NATO.
You can see the double play. Russia supports Iran in any diplomatic way it can to prevent Iran from dropping nuclear program but it does not send weapons that could 100% prevent Israeli strike.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 



They were the Key builders for Iran's Nuclear Program.

Yeah. For energy.

Even the US doesn't believe Iran is going for nukes... the whole thing ``Iran is getting nukes`` is propaganda... just like it was with Iraq.

They've got no proof at all. Just speculation. And with speculation, you can make up any lie you want.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by hp1229
 



They were the Key builders for Iran's Nuclear Program.

Yeah. For energy.
Even the US doesn't believe Iran is going for nukes... the whole thing ``Iran is getting nukes`` is propaganda... just like it was with Iraq.
They've got no proof at all. Just speculation. And with speculation, you can make up any lie you want.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Maybe. I'm sure after Iraq, the rest of the world would be very skeptical with the allegations against Iran. What better way to use this opportunity by Iran then to actually push the program further and use Iraq as an excuse to spread the reverse propoganda ? Its a double edged sword at this time.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Lets face it. Iran already has missiles that can target a lot of major russian cities....Add nuclear warheads to the mix, and you have real problems for the russians.
They have to deal with Muslim extremists within their own borders, and if these were maybe backed up with a nuclear power not afraid to ring in the \mahdi.....well,,,,,\putin doesnt want the Islamic bomb any more than we do......
Nor in fact do the chinese, but they would possibly be willing to put up with it as long as they could contnue their african adventures....
But i sincerely doubt that China would go to war for Iran,They may count on swooping in to pick up the pieces however...their paroff for sitting this one out....
In fact a war with Iran may be of benefit to china more than anyone,.....im sure Sun Tzu would have an adage about it.....



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 

But have you seen the very little but the buildup and heat picking up in Africa ?


I think the moves were calculated long time ago. US troops are already in Africa though very small numbers at this time.
edit on 26-2-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join