The second one has an interesting line at the end:
â€śThere will be strict supervision over the latest weapons sent by Russia to make sure they are not used to begin a regional conflict,â€ť the source said.
Does that mean that they aren't going to be used to shoot at Israel just because, well, Israel? Or that they won't be targeting rebels/insurgents, as that's what the West is falling all over itself about and considering action over (i.e. shooting them in the conflict could finally get the West involved, ergo they'd be used to begin a regional conflict)?
Seems to me much ado about nothing on all sides. Turkey wants NATO SAM/ATBM protection, big deal. They were in the market for a strategic SAM anyway, so had this occurred, say, two years from now, Turkey would have its own SAM systems to deploy. Besides, if it's PAC-3 systems that deploy, to have the greater ATBM capability, the engagement range isn't really that impressive against aircraft. The Buk-M2E is in the same neighborhood in terms of range. Is this an example of butthurt over the forthcoming SAM decision?
Maybe this is a very sly marketing job. Send the weapons to Syria, let them show how accurate they are in combat, and get more export orders.
Or, maybe this actually stabilzies the situation somewhat. Being able to shoot these highly accurate weapons at rebels/insurgents (and actually make headway in defeating them) rather than the hilariously useless SCUD or its DPRK knockoffs would significantly reduce collateral damage and perhaps alleviate the need to break out the WMD warheads since, you know, the SRBM force as previously constituted couldn't be counted on to hit anything except a huge city. Which is, of course, what you once again get by relying on comparatively ancient technology for too long. At least Syria seems to be learning the technological lessons demonstrated since 1991. Can't really say the same about Iran or the DPRK!