Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,098 posts)
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:28 AM Dec 2017

Why would Russia want to pay for "nuclear power plants" in the Middle East ??

According to reports on the Flynn investigation, Russia was going to put up $250 billion dollars to build nuclear plants throughout the Middle East, and the US was to provide military protection.

According to reports, Flynn, Robert McFarland, and several others were going to be paid huge sums of money by Russia to build the "plants". Was Donald Trump included in this scheme?

Why would Russia want countries in the Middle East to have nuclear power? How would they benefit from such a deal?

What would be the chances of nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists and the threats to America increasing dramatically? How difficult would it be for terrorists to make a "dirty bomb" if they had access to nuclear materials?

Does that sound like a good investment to you? What are the odds of Russia de-stabilizing the entire Middle East as Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, McFarland, Erik Prince, and others got filthy rich off such a scheme?

If this story is true, it is a very, very serious situation.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why would Russia want to pay for "nuclear power plants" in the Middle East ?? (Original Post) kentuck Dec 2017 OP
If tRump doesn't fire Mueller SHRED Dec 2017 #1
It sounds good on paper and would be an WhiteTara Dec 2017 #2
Indeed it would. kentuck Dec 2017 #3
Consider Iran. Igel Dec 2017 #4
Flynn was due to make a large sum of money from this deal. kentuck Dec 2017 #5
And I'm betting that Flynn WhiteTara Dec 2017 #7
And in Trump's mind, any nuclear accident would kill scary brown people NotASurfer Dec 2017 #6
Because they greatly add to future arms sales NickB79 Dec 2017 #8

WhiteTara

(29,718 posts)
2. It sounds good on paper and would be an
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:34 AM
Dec 2017

incredible way to wash lots and lots of money in "contractor" payments.

kentuck

(111,098 posts)
3. Indeed it would.
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:39 AM
Dec 2017

It would also create an unprecedented national security threat to our nation. It would be one of the dumbest, most dangerous, most traitorous acts in our history.

Igel

(35,317 posts)
4. Consider Iran.
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:44 AM
Dec 2017

It's been building nuclear power plants.

It means there's more petroleum for export. It means when the oil runs out, they'd have electricity. Then there's the by-product perks that could trigger a real boom.

Part is national pride. Technology = important, and ethnicities like to feel important.

Russia gets money out of it. These aren't gifts. These are "we'll front the loan, you get the product, and you pay us back." Think car dealership that finances the cars themselves. You go in with nothing, you leave with a car and a pile of debt.

Syria had a nuclear program bombed. The claim by those who figured the US and Israel are always wrong is that it was for peaceful purposes. Same for Iraq's nuclear program, originally and the one that they allegedly had planned.

Any reports saying that the Russians would hire US persons to do the design or building are blowing smoke. It's not something they would do--perhaps it's something they would say they would do, but it's not something they would actually do. They'd get less money, and they'd be sharing technology with US.

kentuck

(111,098 posts)
5. Flynn was due to make a large sum of money from this deal.
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:48 AM
Dec 2017

Russia was to build the plants and the US was to guard and protect them. All of it was to be done by private individuals, without government involvement, except for the military.

Sounds incredibly dangerous to me.

NotASurfer

(2,151 posts)
6. And in Trump's mind, any nuclear accident would kill scary brown people
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:52 AM
Dec 2017

So win-win whether they work or not, and his white supremacist slavery-is-in-the-Bible core supporters wouldn't mind one bit

NickB79

(19,246 posts)
8. Because they greatly add to future arms sales
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 11:30 AM
Dec 2017

Nuclear reactors can make material for bombs. But you need missiles and fighter jets to carry the the bombs. You need air defenses to protect them. You need more tanks and guns on the ground to guard them.

And neighboring nations nearby will do the same in an arms race.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why would Russia want to ...