Russia Delivers First Shipment of Nuclear Fuel to Iran

[Dieval]

MOSCOW. Dec. 17 -- Russia announced Monday that it has delivered an initial shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, a step likely to stir alarm in Western capitals concerned about the true nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that it had received written assurances from Tehran that the 82 tons of fuel will be used only at the Bushehr power plant, which has been dogged by delays amid suspicions that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The oil-rich country insists that the plant, which will generate electricity, is part of an effort to diversify its energy sources. washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Great, we've got "written assurances from Tehran" that they won't use this fuel for anything else...that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling...

Also, ponder this.....if Iran is enriching uranium for fuel, why is Russia sending them fuel??
Kinda makes you wonder.....

[Rainbow]

Russia announced Monday that it has delivered an initial shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, a step likely to stir alarm in Western capitals concerned about the true nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that it had received written assurances from Tehran that the 82 tons of fuel will be used only at the Bushehr power plant, which has been dogged by delays amid suspicions that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

What Western states want :
- inspect and classify the gradation level of that nuclear fuel
Putin wants Russia to play a key role all over the globe, so he launches yet anoter political puzzle-ridden enterprise. .....er.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval Great, we've got "written assurances from Tehran" that they won't use this fuel for anything else...that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling... Also, ponder this.....if Iran is enriching uranium for fuel, why is Russia sending them fuel?? Kinda makes you wonder.....

Why doesn't Russia having these materials disturb you?


Particularly since they have been known to be less than secure, and claim to have been infiltrated.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why doesn't Russia having these materials disturb you?

It does...but sending this material to Iran scares me more..

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval It does...but sending this material to Iran scares me more..

What would motivate Russia to give materials to an entity they think might use it?


After all, they live right next door.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What would motivate Russia to give materials to an entity they think might use it? After all, they live right next door.

Russia's after the all might $, I'd imagine...

But anyway, don't you see a problem with Russia providing fuel to Iran, but Iran continues to enrich uranium for "fuel" as well?

[Milton Bradley]

I realize that our insane policies set the tone for all negotiations that followed.


That's why I'm staunchly anti-insane policies.


I just fail to see why Mutually Assured Destruction is not still a valid viewpoint now that Iran has the potential capability to build nuclear weapons.

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval Russia's after the all might $, I'd imagine... But anyway, don't you see a problem with Russia providing fuel to Iran, but Iran continues to enrich uranium for "fuel" as well?

I would say you probably don't understand the process and that the nuclear fuel sold to iran is part of the process of converting it to energy.

Even if they want nukes, so what. America has nukes. Unless you destroy all your nukes, what's the problem with other countries having them? Non-proliferation should only apply to countries that have already developed them, otherwise you are simply trying to maintain an unfair hold of power on the world. Like milton mentioned, mutually assured destruction is still a viable theory. It's simply a safety. A country is not likely to be nuked if they themselves have nukes, because the nukers know they would just be nuked right back. In that sense, any strive by iran to gain nukes is simply a defense mechanism. You really think iran's rulers would nuke israel when they know it would destroy their entire country and people? No, they are just trying to deter the MUCH MORE LIKELY scenario, which is ISRAEL/USA nuking THEM.

And iran has not shown themselves to be a particularly dangerous or aggressive country. They weren't the ones that launched two aggressive invasions in the past 6 years. Any notion of iran being anymore dangerous then other countries is simply fear mongering propaganda from the US.

[webjedi]

Quote by: another day And iran has not shown themselves to be a particularly dangerous or aggressive country.

The people of Iran are, generally speaking, moral people. Where their beliefs are beneficent to man, they are not a particularly dangerous nation. They had the chance to use chemical weapons against Iraq but declined to do so even after suffering Hundreds of Thousands of casualties by chemical weapons.

That being said, they do support Hezbollah, which rained down missiles on a civilian population in northern Israel indiscriminately. Iran knew those weapons were inaccurate and basically useless for anything but deterrence (and killing people who don't fight back - do that to the U.S. and see what happens). So to say Iran is not particularly aggressive I agree with, but dangerous I do not.

They have a lot of very intelligent scientists, a lot of capable, smart people over there, that can be used for evil. The right leader could use those brains for great destruction. In addition, Iran has plenty of natural resources, and has no trouble feeding it's people or it's military. Oh yes, Iran is dangerous, way more dangerous than Iraq could ever have been.

I would say you probably don't understand the process and that the nuclear fuel sold to iran is part of the process of converting it to energy.

What he was saying is that if Iran needs fuel, Russia is giving it to them. So if they've got fuel, why do they need to enrich uranium?

It is logic. It has nothing to do with the mechanical proccess of creating creating fissionable material.

Even if they want nukes, so what. America has nukes. Unless you destroy all your nukes, what's the problem with other countries having them?

So by your logic, the fact that one country has nukes negates the danger produced by the weapons being spread about the World? What does the U.S. having or not having nukes have to do with other countries going to war with each other - Pakistan vs. India for example? In your world, the U.S. gets rid of our nukes and suddenly Pakistan and India are magically transformed into friendly neighbors? Huh?

Non-proliferation should only apply to countries that have already developed them

OK, the word "proliferation" means to increase, or spread out. Non-proliferation, therefore, indicates not increasing the World's supply of nukes, which means preventing people from not having them from having them in the first place.

otherwise you are simply trying to maintain an unfair hold of power on the world.

And what country does not try to maintain power? Would you elect a leader so that he could give away power to someone else?

If the fact that the U.S. is the most powerful country in the World seems unfair to you, then your soccer team not winning the World Cup must also seem unfair to you. Why is your team more deserving of success than any another?

The United States is not made up of one race, one nationality, one religion - the United States is the most representative society in the World. The United States is the 3rd largest country in the world; more than double that of the 27 members states of the EU combined. The U.S. has the 3rd largest population, about 2/3 that of the EU, and is the only country in the top 3 in those 2 categories. We have a GDP of $13 trillion, roughly that of the entire EU. So when you talk about the United States you would do well to remember you are talking about a LOT of people, a large percentage of the World's useable land mass, and a great deal of resources that, if were to go away overnight, would destroy the World's economy. What affects America, affects the World. Remember that.

Furthermore, never has there been a more inclusive nation. The fact that you don't like the U.S. doesn't change that. Whether you want to listen to it or not, doesn't change that. Nothing you, or any anti-Americans say or do or think changes the fact that anyone can become an American. Decade after decade, century after century, waves of peoples from all corners of the Earth have come here, made their home, become Americans. So, while it may not be fair to you, it is certainly more fair to most people than it would be if your country was running things.

Like milton mentioned, mutually assured destruction is still a viable theory. It's simply a safety. A country is not likely to be nuked if they themselves have nukes, because the nukers know they would just be nuked right back. In that sense, any strive by iran to gain nukes is simply a defense mechanism. You really think iran's rulers would nuke israel when they know it would destroy their entire country and people?

Yes, that is true, except you are leaving out some important facts:

(1) Iran is fighting a proxy war against Israel. It's leader has stated publicly they intend to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" - his words, not mine. If you want mutually assured destruction that is a good way to go about it: first tell a country you are going to destroy them, next point missiles at them. The first spark sets that war off. You'll have to forgive me if the idea of a radioactive cloud of epic proportions traveling the globe, killing Millions, in addition to the Millions killed in a nuclear exchange is somewhat unsettling to me.

(2) Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations. Apparently there is no such thing as terrorism to Iran, or at least they don't mind lying about it.

(3) The ruler of Iran, and many of it's people, deny the one of the most well-documented events of human history. This does not sit easily with me.

(4) The U.S. and Israel are not Iran's only enemies. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them.

(5) Iran does not have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. Heck Russia doesn't have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. And even worse, the United States, the country with the most resources of all couldn't prevent nuclear secrets from getting out.

And in case that doesn't make you uncomfortable because you think the nuclear material is going to be used for a weapon headed for the United States, think again:

(6) Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of Iran's Muslim enemies, which happen to be a whole heck of a lot closer, have much less to loose, and and have much more to gain by taking Iran out of the picture once and for all. I bet there are plenty of Sunnis that would suicide-bomb Tehran.

(7) Maintaining a ready-force of nuclear weapons is expensive and dangerous. If the weapons aren't ready to use they are no good. So Iran would have to maintain it's current prosperity or better to be able to sustain a nuclear program, something that Saddam couldn't even do. And then what happens when the evil U.S. and Israel know that is happening, especially after they have "assured mutual destruction"? You think the Israelis are going to let Iran get desperate? What about the U.S.?

If Iran picks up that gun, they'd better be ready to bring it on - forever.

(8) Even though Iran is a comparatively wealthy nation, it doesn't have the money to de-commission nuclear weapons, which is much more expensive than making them.

(9) Iran would be the 10th nuclear state. Of these 10 countries Iran is the 2nd most unstable government (Pakistan being 1st).

(10) If Iran were to come into possession of nuclear weapons it would be considered a moral sin by many, many Iranians. If that happened, the most redeeming factor of the Iranian people - their national conscience, would be eliminated, making them an evil country even in their own eyes. Iran has no WMDs precisely for this reason, and for this reason I do not supporting a full bombing campaign against Iran (presently), although I definitely believe they should not be supporting terrorists and something does need to be done about that (another discussion).

In reality, the people of Iran are extraordinarily good people - moral, just, introspective (comparatively). That by no means makes them incapable of serious errors and, indeed, wrongs.

Right or wrong, good or bad, to they themselves possession of a weapon designed to kill Millions indiscriminately is wrong, it is morally reprehensible. In fact, isn't that one of the main reasons they hate the U.S.? And so if they become what they hate, then I fear for them, and I'm not just saying that, I really think it would send them on a dark path. If you have been to Iran you know what I say is true.

No, they are just trying to deter the MUCH MORE LIKELY scenario, which is ISRAEL/USA nuking THEM

Once they have acquired nuclear weapons all arguments of them having too much social conscious to develop WMDs is out the window, they become what they themselves define as evil, and therefore it is actually more likely they would strike first.

Anyway, there really isn't much point in debating you on this because you have contempt for the United States. There is a saying:

There is a principle which is a bar against all knowledge; which is proof to any argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That Principle is contempt, prior to investigation.

One thing is for sure: When Iranians themselves don't think they should have nuclear weapons, I think the World needs to make sure that doesn't happen.


=============================================================

=============================================================

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: webjedi Yes, that is true, except you are leaving out some important facts: (1)If you want mutually assured destruction that is a good way to go about it: first tell a country you are going to destroy them, next point missiles at them. The first spark sets that war off. You'll have to forgive me if the idea of a radioactive cloud of epic proportions traveling the globe, killing Millions, in addition to the Millions killed in a nuclear exchange is somewhat unsettling to me.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what the US did in the 1940's.


Beneath the obvious hypocracy, I would tell you that the underlying "truth", is true. It would be stupid to behave in such a manor.

Quote by: webjedi (2) Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations. Apparently there is no such thing as terrorism to Iran, or at least they don't mind lying about it.

Was that an action they undertook of their own volition, or was that a reaction to aggression against them?

Quote by: webjedi (3) The ruler of Iran, and many of it's people, deny the one of the most well-documented events of human history. This does not sit easily with me.

Until your side is ready to address what they bring to the table, there isn't a lot of room for criticism from your side.

Quote by: webjedi (4) The U.S. and Israel are not Iran's only enemies. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them.

Everybody wants them, but then that was supposedly the beauty of Mutally Assured Destruction. The destruction was mutual.

Quote by: webjedi (5) Iran does not have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. Heck Russia doesn't have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. And even worse, the United States, the country with the most resources of all couldn't prevent nuclear secrets from getting out.

Exactly, so what was the point of taking us to war over this one incident again?

Quote by: webjedi (6) Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of Iran's Muslim enemies, which happen to be a whole heck of a lot closer, have much less to loose, and and have much more to gain by taking Iran out of the picture once and for all. I bet there are plenty of Sunnis that would suicide-bomb Tehran.

Yet, only one country actually used these weapons on other human beings, and you don't object to tham having possession of such monsterous devices.

Quote by: webjedi (7) Maintaining a ready-force of nuclear weapons is expensive and dangerous. If the weapons aren't ready to use they are no good. So Iran would have to maintain it's current prosperity or better to be able to sustain a nuclear program, something that Saddam couldn't even do. And then what happens when the evil U.S. and Israel know that is happening, especially after they have "assured mutual destruction"? You think the Israelis are going to let Iran get desperate? What about the U.S.?

While I agree that if it happens, it would be very ugly, but it almost seems as if you're attempting to transfer the blame here.


Let us remember whos policies led us to this conflict, and the imbalance that is at the heart of it.


These other countries asked for nuclear technology back in the 1940's, but we would not relinquish the information.

Quote by: webjedi If Iran picks up that gun, they'd better be ready to bring it on - forever.

Well, that was one of the underlying principles of the MADD philosophy you are defending, is it not?

Quote by: webjedi (8) Even though Iran is a comparatively wealthy nation, it doesn't have the money to de-commission nuclear weapons, which is much more expensive than making them.

Do we? And by that I mean, do we really?

Quote by: webjedi (9) Iran would be the 10th nuclear state. Of these 10 countries Iran is the 2nd most unstable government (Pakistan being 1st).

Again, you have nobody to blame but the people that put us into this position by playing every card wrong along the way.

Quote by: webjedi (10) If Iran were to come into possession of nuclear weapons it would be considered a moral sin by many, many Iranians. If that happened, the most redeeming factor of the Iranian people - their national conscience, would be eliminated, making them an evil country even in their own eyes. Iran has no WMDs precisely for this reason, and for this reason I do not supporting a full bombing campaign against Iran (presently), although I definitely believe they should not be supporting terrorists and something does need to be done about that (another discussion).

A rather profound observation, if it's true. ( and I believe it is ) However this assumes that you have the moral obligation, and the divine authority to act in such a manor, and last time I checked, neither are really true.

Quote by: webjedi In reality, the people of Iran are extraordinarily good people - moral, just, introspective (comparatively). That by no means makes them incapable of serious errors and, indeed, wrongs.

If only the same could be said about Americans. ( and I say that as one of you. )

Quote by: webjedi One thing is for sure: When Iranians themselves don't think they should have nuclear weapons, I think the World needs to make sure that doesn't happen.

Hmmm, is that a universal truth among all Iranians?


Since we both know it's not, the same exact truth must be true for America as well.

[webjedi]

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what the US did in the 1940's.

Now there's a reason to do something. Because Jonny did it, James can do it? That's not logical.

Quote by: webjedi (2) Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations. Apparently there is no such thing as terrorism to Iran, or at least they don't mind lying about it. >Was that an action they undertook of their own volition, or was that a reaction to aggression against them?

That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? How many things in your life do others blame you for, that you know weren't your fault? If you are like most humans, you do not have the ability to be objective about things that affect you, proportional to how important it is to you. If your child is starving and my child is starving, and there is only one piece of food, who it belongs to is pretty much irrelevant - you're going to try to save your child, and you're not going to have too much moral consternation about stealing or any other act to do it. That is human nature.

To many Muslims the mere existence of a single Christian or Jew in any land once dominated by Muslim powers is an "act of aggression". To most Muslims Jews or Christians in the Holy Land is offensive on the deepest levels, and therefore justification for some pretty evil deeds. To the best of my knowledge Iran hasn't been invaded by the U.S., nor Israel for that matter, so objectively I'd have to say they don't have anything to react to.

Anyway, which one of your choices makes it right, or smart, for Iran to fight a proxy war via Hezzbollah?

Quote by: webjedi (3) The ruler of Iran, and many of it's people, deny the one of the most well-documented events of human history. This does not sit easily with me. >Until your side is ready to address what they bring to the table, there isn't a lot of room for criticism from your side.

My side is logic and reason. What's your side?

Quote: Quote by: webjedi (4) The U.S. and Israel are not Iran's only enemies. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them. >Everybody wants them, but then that was supposedly the beauty of Mutally Assured Destruction. The destruction was mutual.

Another good reason to give Iran nukes. WHAT!?!?

Quote by: webjedi (5) Iran does not have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. Heck Russia doesn't have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. And even worse, the United States, the country with the most resources of all couldn't prevent nuclear secrets from getting out. >Exactly, so what was the point of taking us to war over this one incident again?

You've lost me... What incident? What war? Iraq?

Quote by: webjedi (6) Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of Iran's Muslim enemies, which happen to be a whole heck of a lot closer, have much less to loose, and and have much more to gain by taking Iran out of the picture once and for all. I bet there are plenty of Sunnis that would suicide-bomb Tehran. >Yet, only one country actually used these weapons on other human beings, and you don't object to tham having possession of such monsterous devices.

WTF does that have anything to do with Sunnis blowing up Tehran??? Nothing! You want to argue about WWII, I'm happy to give you an education, but a suicide bomber walking detonating a nuclear device because he thinks God wants him to blow up a Million other people is a whole heck of a lot different than two nations declaring war on each other.

Quote by: webjedi (7) Maintaining a ready-force of nuclear weapons is expensive and dangerous. If the weapons aren't ready to use they are no good. So Iran would have to maintain it's current prosperity or better to be able to sustain a nuclear program, something that Saddam couldn't even do. And then what happens when the evil U.S. and Israel know that is happening, especially after they have "assured mutual destruction"? You think the Israelis are going to let Iran get desperate? What about the U.S.?[ >While I agree that if it happens, it would be very ugly, but it almost seems as if you're attempting to transfer the blame here. Let us remember whos policies led us to this conflict, and the imbalance that is at the heart of it. These other countries asked for nuclear technology back in the 1940's, but we would not relinquish the information.

OK, I know you are trying to blame the United States for something, I just can't tell exactly what. Which conflict? Iraq? You have got this whole world going on in your head I have no idea where you are coming from or what you are talking about.

Could you be a little more specific with your America-bashing?

QuoteQuote by: webjedi If Iran picks up that gun, they'd better be ready to bring it on - forever. >Well, that was one of the underlying principles of the MADD philosophy you are defending, is it not?

My statement is true, I can't tell if you are attempting to refute it or not. You're not making sense at all.

Quote by: webjedi (8) Even though Iran is a comparatively wealthy nation, it doesn't have the money to de-commission nuclear weapons, which is much more expensive than making them. > Do we? And by that I mean, do we really?

OK, here it is even worse, you are making my argument for me... if I understand your statement. So you are concerned the U.S. doesn't have the resources to de-commision these weapons? Then you agree it would be a disaster for the Iranians to get them, right?

Quote by: webjedi (9) Iran would be the 10th nuclear state. Of these 10 countries Iran is the 2nd most unstable government (Pakistan being 1st). >Again, you have nobody to blame but the people that put us into this position by playing every card wrong along the way.

Personally, I'm not looking to convince anyone of who is to blame, because who's fault something is, is (1) usually a matter of opinion, and (2) not material to the argument.

Are you going to put together an actual argument at some point? Are you just trying to increase your number of posts to look cool or something?

Quote by: webjedi (10) If Iran were to come into possession of nuclear weapons it would be considered a moral sin by many, many Iranians. If that happened, the most redeeming factor of the Iranian people - their national conscience, would be eliminated, making them an evil country even in their own eyes. Iran has no WMDs precisely for this reason, and for this reason I do not supporting a full bombing campaign against Iran (presently), although I definitely believe they should not be supporting terrorists and something does need to be done about that (another discussion). >A rather profound observation, if it's true. ( and I believe it is ) However this assumes that you have the moral obligation, and the divine authority to act in such a manor, and last time I checked, neither are really true.

I believe you when you say you accept the assertion that Iranians know it is wrong for them to have nuclear weapons. All the more reason not to let them have them.

Quote by: webjedi In reality, the people of Iran are extraordinarily good people - moral, just, introspective (comparatively). That by no means makes them incapable of serious errors and, indeed, wrongs. >If only the same could be said about Americans. ( and I say that as one of you. )

First off, you and I are not the same, so get that out of your head right now.

Second, I can tell you my brother went to Africa to help people half way around the World - at his cost, for no reason other than his own conscious. My mother went to the Ukraine to work at an orphanage (you want to talk about hell - try being an orphan in an Eastern Block country). I have worked with "troubled" youths & teens, drug addicts and alcoholics, and the mentally ill since ~1993. That's the way we do it in our family, and I don't really associate with people who don't believe in community service, the value of human life, and have a strong sense of morality. I don't know who you are or where you come from, but your low opinion of Americans tells me you most likely have done none of these things. For if you had you would realize that there are certainly no more moral or just peoples than Americans.

I don't care if you believe me or not. The U.S. is the single greatest gift to man the world has known, and if it were not for us you would be speaking German or Russian. And if you're not white you would be chained to a post digging a ditch while the people around you spoke German or Russian.

Quote by: webjedi One thing is for sure: When Iranians themselves don't think they should have nuclear weapons, I think the World needs to make sure that doesn't happen. >Hmmm, is that a universal truth among all Iranians? Since we both know it's not, the same exact truth must be true for America as well.

The basis for that point is that the fabric of Iranian culture depends on them maintaining their identity, which includes not having WMDs. They also execute homosexuals. Now I don't agree with homosexual behavior, but I don't think people should be executed or even jailed for it. What would happen if Texas suddenly started executing gays? Protests, social unrest - it would be a disaster for the country as people lined up on both sides to fight it out. from the social standpoint, the U.S. not having nukes is an entirely different proposition from Iran not having them.

You're gonna have to do a little better than that.

[Ibn_Sina]

What has nuclear weapons got to do with peaceful energy for civilian purposes?

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What are you even arguing about?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Dieval Great, we've got "written assurances from Tehran" that they won't use this fuel for anything else...that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling... Also, ponder this.....if Iran is enriching uranium for fuel, why is Russia sending them fuel?? Kinda makes you wonder.....

Unless I read wrong its in the process of creating enriched uranium for fuel that you can create material for nukes.

By selling already processed fuel Russia is making it so Iran in theory doesn't have to create the fuel themselves. If Iran continues to process fuel then you have to wonder why.

Iran claims it will continue to enrich uranium for fuel for a new reactor. Yet that facility is supposedly still in the planning stages. Have to wonder why Iran would continue to process fuel for a non existing reactor.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why doesn't Russia having these materials disturb you? Particularly since they have been known to be less than secure, and claim to have been infiltrated.

Red Herring! The topic is on Iranian nukes, which the liberals are completely fine with, not Russia nukes.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina What has nuclear weapons got to do with peaceful energy for civilian purposes? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What are you even arguing about?

Come on now! Why all the secretcy then? With Sadam gone, they want nukes to be the prime player in the Middle East. No one else in there to step up to take the reigns. Bush calls removing Sadam a good thing, at Madass keep the Iranians in check!

[Dieval]

Quote by: HelioPrime Unless I read wrong its in the process of creating enriched uranium for fuel that you can create material for nukes. By selling already processed fuel Russia is making it so Iran in theory doesn't have to create the fuel themselves. If Iran continues to process fuel then you have to wonder why. Iran claims it will continue to enrich uranium for fuel for a new reactor. Yet that facility is supposedly still in the planning stages. Have to wonder why Iran would continue to process fuel for a non existing reactor.

Isn't that essentially what I said?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What would motivate Russia to give materials to an entity they think might use it? After all, they live right next door.

(1) In the words ot Karpov, "Putin wants to contribute to instability in oil rich nations, so the oil prices remain high!"

Why you ask. Because the Russia economy is bouncing back solely on the back of oil. Russia has become, #1 or #2 oil producer in the world.

(2) Putin wants to be a world power again. Russia is a proud nation and losing the cold war was a disgrace in their eyes. Asserting themselves in this way helps make them a player.