NATO allies worry about France’s decision to sell big warships to Russia

The biggest threat to Russia is not NATO. It is a declining population, alcoholism, corruption, Chekism, and the need for better care of its sick and poor. (Even OMON troops now complain about corruption) I understand that in Tsarist and Soviet times, the Russians could ignore all these problems by admiring their shiny tanks and missiles on May Day parades and use up some 40% of G.N.P. on the military while the elderly lined up in bread lines. But though the Czar remains (White, Red, now Chekist) those days should be gone.

Russia should give up the dream of empire and lecturing or threatening democratic neighbours in the near-abroad. Russia needs to stop seeing the West or America in particular as this big Anti-Russia. Neither nor Georgia nor Ukraine are planning any sieges of Moscow or Leningrad in the near future I am told.

Mr Ioan:
Wow...already dreaming about fighting ( and winning eventually) a new war against Russia ? We know how well that went for us in WW2.
I bet there were so many Ioans back then to push the Romanian Army to Stalingrad.
So why whining exactly ?
Whining when the gas does now flow because somebody does not paying, then whining again when a new pipeline is build around the bad payer. Whining when Russia sells weapons, and then whining when Russia buys weapons.
Then, of course, dreaming about Raffales destroying the Russian navy (last time when the French fought the Russians it did not end well for them if I remember well). And from whom ? From a one bedroom Shakasvilli wannabe that saw too many times the Terminator series, and really thinks that now the French have a red button somewhere that would stop the engines on that ship that will most likely go through a major rewiring just as it will be purchased.
Oh, and did it say anywhere that there will be French weapons on that? Never ever.

The software that is running the weapons(any weapons) is pretty much impossible to decompile. The Argentinians did not have the capability to rewrite it, nor did they have the option to build a separate weapon for the ships they had.And still, they sank the Sheffield with that Exocet.
Russians themselves were so confident about that that(that the code embedded in the weapon is impossible to decompile) so they sold the S300 to the Greeks (guess what - NATO has purchased Russian weaponry).You should see the reaction of the press then ( traitors ! shame! etc etc)

Where exactly it is stated that the Russians want the ship with ANY weapons on it? Do you, dear X-box boy think that they will suddently change their ammo standard to NATO?
I can just picture you, and the genius that wrote the article sitting there next to "the button that disables the Russian ship" and act like Dr. Evil.

And of course, after the Russian Navy will be sunk by our brave drunken sailor-president, of course, we will govern again Odessa, as in the good ol' times, huh ?
The Black Sea is to small for the mighty Romanian Navy ! Oh, and the next target should be the Baltic? Why not taking over Moscow with our BMW's that also paraded under the Arch? (can you believe that?)

Don't get me wrong.. I can understand some bravado from somebody that has a REAL army to show off, and not from some Romanian dude, that was sleeping perhaps while half of our Army paraded on Dec 1st within 15 min.
(can't wait now for the "KGB is here on the forum ! let's fight them!)
So chill out dear Ioan, take it easy, the few refurbished F16 we will ever get will be used 80% for overflying Arcul de Triumf and get out president cry a little about the men and women in arms. Then take your xbox and kill all the Russians you want. Just make sure you don't get too close to the real ones.

Making Russia dependent on NATO logistics to maintain its fleet, and pay for it?
NATO (French especially) knowing exactly how to sink Russian topmost warships with minimum effort?

Yes, this sounds quite a good arrangement to me.

By the way, Romania is now just pondering what multi-role jet fighter aircraft to buy (now it’s the final bid - American, Swedish, both?). Some of us in Romania were worried that we will buy such nice aircraft for near-to-no-purpose, except for the offered local technology development arrangements. (“To destroy what? The Russian fleet in Crimea is already rotten-sinking by themselves”). Now everybody is happy, we know exactly what to target first.

Things are becoming interesting over the Black Sea (and over the Baltic if necessary) …

By the way, the French also have something else for selling – the Dassault Rafale aircraft fighter – I bet they are the best for destroying the Mistral …

The Sarko regime will do anything to prostutionalise France to the highest bidder... Central African dictators with ties to French business? No problem (as long as they do their dictatorship in French). And now, after all Sarko's supposed support for Georgia during the war of 2008, cold hard cash and few hundred saved jobs will do the trick...

I see Russia looks for new ways to press Europe. Energy blackmail failed, so try social blackmail.

Investing into socially sensitive companies and trying to set workers against the state. Back to Bolshevik revolution?

Seriously, Sarko made gigantic PR blunder. It let Putin to portrait France as a helper providing arms for invasions like one in Georgia. Sarko can be sure that each time Putin tries to bully another East European state, these warships will be paraded all over with the message that France and NATO support Russia in attacking Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia etc.

France has a superior warship that it can sell to a superpower. Britain makes crappy warships that are easily penetrated by cheap French missiles. France outdid the UK in weapons sales and the jealousy erupts in hot waves of pus and flames. Any "concerns" about the balance of power or human rights are of no consequence here, just as it was when the UK sold arms to Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern dictatorships. Where were the Human rights or concerns for the "balance of power"? The only balance they were concerned about was their own bank accounts'.

To sum up:
Ioan, you are correct, and I apologize for the personal remarks.

My point was that our Army the way it is right now can barely accomplish anything except some logistical / PR support for other armies in Irak and Afganistan.
Our president... placed a traitor ( there is not better definition for his acts) in the top Job at Defense Department. This is a blistering sore on the face of our Army, and cannot contribute to its moral.
So our president has deep flaws, besides me being one that loathes his tragicomic performances. If you want an real Army, that can do more than parades, you need not to decimate the ranks, and name a figure like the one we have as Defense Secretary.
He would rather wave at the BMW's under the Triumph Arch wink to the ladies in the Hummers (...), and then wipe a tear for press.
Back to Russia and to the other posters:
once again : if they are so backward, if they are dying, and if they are good for nothing - why bickering ?
Quite pathetic - the same people that are bickering about this sale, are the same ones that consider that Russians are doomed.
Choose your attitude : They are either mighty warriors that will invade Europe tomorrow, or they are drunken sailors. You cannot have both and pretend that you are a sane person.
And the ship itself: Who in its right mind would think that this could make a real difference while invading Georgia or any other country at its borders ?
As it has been pointed out it took Russia 15 min to wipe out the Georgian Air Force, and the war never implied any beach landings.
And if your head really rests on your shoulders you will notice that any of the pussies 'being thretened' by Russia ( Georgia, Poland, the Baltics) would rather be invaded by land.
Is really NATO threatened by a cruise ship painted gray - as somebody wisely noted- ? Or 3 of them ?
Sarko will sell France to the higher bidder ? How about the US selling itself to the Chinese - why not whining about that Kurt ?

The real threat is here that there is a risk that the professional whiners could lose some sleep in the future. More business between Russia and NATO/ EU , less chance of an armed conflict. And I believe that this is the main accomplishment of this deal.

But of course... better talk about drunken russians and aging population ( Japan anybody ? Social Security troubles anybody ?) damn Russians...

An excellent subject given the grey cruise ship subject and the really smart reactions.
Evil/stupid Russians want to buy things .
Energy blackmail ( wow, when it was last time when you refused to pay at the gas station and left with a full tank ?)
Bolshevik Revolution (great one North Pole, your forgot cannibalism)

Dear Vasile,

Obviously, you did not understand my comment.

There no bravado here. Just irony and some side information to round it up, but you need to cool down to understand it.
You made some valid points, but you mix them with a number of uncoherent ideas and half-truths into some sort of passionate anti-discourse.

The existence of an army of any European country, Romania included (and Romania is among those having the most reasons to have one, given the past history), and that of NATO collectively, has a point, of course.

But discussions in this context on the political style of the President of Georgia are beyond the point, as there are the low attempts to insult other political figures.

What was your point, anyway - that Russia has a big and still important army? I agree. Happy now?

What else - you think that Romania needs to further improve its army, especially "technologically»? I agree. What's the fuss? This is already in process, and it is not about "old F-16s", but this is only one of the existent options (another is JAS-Grippen), and even this option is coupled (as project) with agreements on the future types (F-35 notably). Also, I see no restriction to decide only upon one tips of fighter.

What else, you don't like our current President? Well, that is your own problem, not mine.

Cheers,

Danylo Halytsky

You said, “The biggest threat to Russia is not NATO.” In Russia, we can’t buy it. Besides, I believe you mentioned the universal problems of alcoholism, corruption and the need to take care of sick and poor. When people like Ioan hear that Russia made a deal with France on purchasing four Mistral-class assault ships, all Ioans in Rumania are happened to be worrisome. However, when Rumania gives Ok to deploy some American missiles, it’s an act of friendship to their neighbors. You said NATO is not a threat, why then so much buzz now about a deal. I think you should take it as the first steps of cooperation between NATO and Russia. Good to hear from you that neither Georgia nor Ukraine has any plans to besiege Moscow or non-existent Leningrad or I’ll be shaking here. I don’t care you calling it Leningrad but why then posters go nuts when the Economist spells Kiev and not Kyiv. To your knowledge. Military parades were held not on May day but on the 7th of November.

Ioan, your gung-ho spirit from behind of Uncle’s Sam back sounds encouraging since you’re ready to sink Russian topmost warships with minimum effort. God bless you and hope Rumania has guts to do so with your outdated American fighters since like you once you mentioned yourself that Americans get rid of junk military hardware and sell it to Rumania.

The economist dose not see the empty threats made by Hillary of USA and Brown of Brittain. These western countries are bankrupt with toxic debt and they have few oil reserves. Russia and BRIC nations have huge oil reserves and have credit especially Brazil, India, and China. Venezuela with the largest oil reserves in the world openly sides with BRIC. NATO has waged two illegal wars (Vietnam and Iraq) and their leaders are outright war criminals. Their arrogance is only outweighted by stupidly because as soon as they leave Iraq the Shite regime will align with Iran and the price of oil will increase geometrically. Try $300 a barrel, thanks to Bush, Blair, Clinton, and Obama

Perhaps WalterB is coming to a realization that Russia is not the only bad guy here. Democratic West has its criminals too, who are corrupted no less then Russian power guys. Oh and don't forget that it was the US who armed Pakistan with nukes, so please take a chill pill.

Vasile,

My understanding is that Russia has NO mighty army. But it has a big army, which even though it is crumbling it has the potential to be very dangerous. Simply because of its size, mix of "old cyborg-style" technology and people, and because of its erratic behaviour and psychologically-abused soldiers.

Perhaps the word "barbarian" wound not be a very wrong description of it. This not however to try to insult the Russian soldiers; most of them are just "somehow organized victims".

Regarding the topics related to national politics and persons, I think that this is not the right forum for it. I suggest we do not discuss that topic here.

Regarding the position of Romania as country (Traian Basescu is currently its President, end of discussion) in this topic, much more relevant are other facts. For example, Romania proposed and championed the Black Sea Region Policy, which is also supported by the USA. The same did Romania for Nabucco, and some other projects.

With the Black Sea forum – meant to create mechanisms for dialogue and solving conflicts, Russia had always a counter-productive role. To me, Russia does not want to help solving the problems in the region (Transnistria in Rep. Moldova, Nagorno-Karabah in Armenia, nor - obviously - in Georgia). Simply because it seems that the conflicts suite its current strategy.

Another detail, Russia has the Black Sea Fleet in Sebastopol, Southern Ukraine, until 2017, and Mr. Yanukovich would easily extend that. During the military operations in Georgia, US warships entered the Black Sea, opening discussions about the Montreux Convention on military presence in the Black Sea (1936). This French sell to Russia may re-ignite those discussions.

Now, the situation becomes interesting, because Russia could easily help a lot by simply withdrawing from Transnistria and cease opposing reunification of Rep. Moldova ("Eastern Romania") with current Romania. Discussions on the situation in the region should open and solutions must be sought, since it is important for all EU, Russia, NATO, and also Turkey, Georgia, and Ukraine.

This would help a lot improving the trust between Romania and Russia, and create a more constructive atmosphere in Central Europe and the Black Sea.

Sure, other details belong to this picture: the Nabucco vs South Stream issue, Ukraine, etc.

What would be the alternative – military escalation. Oh yes, Russia seems to be trying to address the Armenian issue (Nagorno-Karabah, Azerbadjan) by dealing bilaterally with Turkey. Only that now Turkey is re-warming relations with Armenia ... with the cosequence that the Azeri get aloof from Turkey. Nothing is being solved. I think it is essential that EU (backed by NATO) gets involved in this important region.

Obviously, such discussions have a great deal of relevance also for the Baltic Sea.

Now about France ... You probably know that there is a bi-lateral strategic partnership between Romania and France. (We also have, you know it, a strategic partnership with USA).
Also recently, Romania made clear that we NEED NOT have an adversary relation with Russia. We would collaborate with Russia, on the condition that Russia respects our interests. (In principle, our interests are basically identical with those of any other EU - Central European country).

All these issues are both political and economic.

The question is: will Russia recognize that Central European countries must be respected? Do they want to build a dialogue, or will they carry on with menaces? And so on.

So, these are the real interesting details and questions that deserve to be discussed, at least from our own perspective, on this thread.
And, my personal preference, I think we should try to do this in a relaxed way (even though we can be slightly provocative for the sake of the dialogue).

shaky comparison of mistral sale with nord stream. what's wrong with another pipeline. how on earth economist come to think that new pipeline will give russia a new tool to strangle east european countries. if they want to be free from russian influence they are free to get gas from elsewhere, for example building pipeline from norway or better from germany (the same russian gas actually).

as for mistral and other important military matters i would not vouch for validity of all what was written here neither - for example economist misinformed its readers about problems with admiral gorshkov' aircraft carrier. i live in india and know that completion was delayed simply because india did not want to pay enough money for refurbishment of the carrier.

russia no doubt has many problems in military industrial complex but you would not find accurate information in economist, just look elsewhere.

I will start with a quote, as this mantra is widely repeated all around:

"The question is: will Russia recognize that Central European countries must be respected? Do they want to build a dialogue, or will they carry on with menaces? "

I can ask the same question : will Central Europeans ( read Romania, Poland, the Baltics) recognize that Russia must be respected ? Do they want to build a dialogue or they will carry on with menaces ?

Then you mention Moldova as "Eastern Romania ".. this is not the way most people there see it, and this remember me about the stickers that litter Bucharest picturing Moldova ( a foreign country so far) as part of Romania. I will have to paraphrase you on that and say: "deal with it".
As long as hot heads here ( read romanism.net) will see the annexation of Moldova as natural things will not be good. It is up to them ( the Moldovans) to decide that, and so far the majority there does not want it. If the majority would have want that Moldova would have been already part of Romania. Such simple truth is not grasped by many, and the arrogant position of our country does not help the re-unification ideals.
Same with Transnistria."Russian bases out" is a dead end as a precondition to anything - "a no starter". But is a very convenient way to shift the responsibility for lack of any progress.
You must know that Transnistria has not been part of Romania.Their proposition is that they want to have the choice to opt out of the state should a future reunification with Romania would occur.
Of course, the "smart" people here would want Transnistria as part of Romania. The people there (in Transnistria) do not want that . It's as simple as that, and this is not about the bases there, but about the greater Romania ideology.
Romania supported heavily (weapons, intelligence, and training) the Moldovan side during the war in teh early 90's... and we know how much that helped the situation. And now we want the Russians out of there, and transnistria part of Greater Romania asap. Great diplomacy. The drunken sailor at his best.

The Black Region bull ? WTF ? What sea is NOT important strategically ? This is as brilliant as his other 'deep thoughts' like "the winter is not like the summer".Brilliant commander in chief, ..drunkard .
So we need to set our sights to Nagorno Karabah now, the drunken sailor fixed things around here,the tourism is booming,we have roads and highways, the trains are not making 5 hours from Bucharest to Constanta (300km folks) so we should lose some sleep with Armenia, and blame the Russians.
Actually that conflict suits NATO and the US perfectly, as it provides Azerbaijan with a reason to hate the Russians, and support NATO, south stream, and so on. Take the conflict out, normalize relationships in the area and boom... the Russians are back in business in Baku. So don't tell me about the good NATO wanting to help poor Azeri. You know, NK it might be Armenia's "east Armenia" ;)
And start thinking, and not repeating mantras without knowing history. The only side that actually profits from conflicts is the one that just showed up in the area - and it's not the Russians.

I think that I misunderstood if you consider Nabucco as one of another proofs of 'strategic thinking' from our commie president. This is a joke, right ?
Dragos, Opel is not Obama's to give. After all Hummer went to the Chinese, and same with Volvo ( not mentioning IBM PC business). And for all the hoopla regarding the star wars thing, it was GWB that wanted to share the shield with the Russians, so read your facts first.

@Vasile Vasile,

When there is an article on US selling to China, I can whine about it if I choose to.. This article is about French arms sales to Russia so I do try to stick to the subject..

@Didomyk

Oh, my, what a glorious description of Ukrainian economy during the Soviet times! Feeling nostalgic??? Of course, incidentally, the industrial and scientific/research potential of UkrSSR was concentrated in the East (and to a lesser degree, South) of Ukraine, which have huge ethnic Russian (not merely Russian-speaking) minorities. Kharkov, Ukraine's research capital, is 1/2 ethnic Russian. Lvov, the capital of beet-growers and cross-border traders, has virtually no Russians. See the connection?

Just like with Central Asia, Belarus, etc., the industrial and scientific development in these republics was to a large extent carried out by specialists sent there from Russia, which inherited virtually all the universities of the Russian empire. There were simply no specialists among locals to staff these institutes and enterprises, at least until late 1920s, when first graduates from among the locals became available. (And yes, Kiev University was very prominent in the Russian Empire, but then Kiev was a primarily Russian city anyways...)

@The North Pole:
Oh, come on! Poland is not alone, OK? Georgia is not a NATO country, OK? Ukraine is never going to be attacked from Russia by sea, OK?
I completely agree with Ioan (who no doubt remembers French military sales to Romania during the Cold War).
Never has a sale of military supplies been such a sign/guarantee of peace between Nato and Russia. It's a brilliant idea. (Damn! Why didn't we Italians think of it sooner?)

Didomyk, Saudi monarchy is by far not a democracy. There are ranges of words that would describe it, but none of them remotely relate to democracy...

To Didomyk:

Thanks for the additional notes.

In deed I also think that Crimea is a very historic, international and interesting (in the positive sense) place, European involvement included (I guess the most famous is the Crimean War (1853-1856), especially French and British (to which Turkey added) opposing Russia. No wonder that many wanted it, and still do ...

Just to mention – for the sake of cultural geography – that it is not the only such area in the region; Odessa – between Crimea and EU/Romania – has also a very European and cosmopolite character, notably French, Jewish, etc. Well, I guess the latest Russian influence is the most striking these days, with Europe needing to be more present there.
Both Crimea and Odessa are important for Central Europe and all EU because are close to the mouth of the Danube on the Black Sea shore. Both represent a sort of “last European bastions” to the East. (Actually the very last “clear European bastions” are Georgia and Armenia, more to the east in Caucasus). All of these have histories which include the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Goths, etc.

It will be very interesting to follow the news on what will happen there during the next decade.

Ruptured and deraping again?
I thought President De Nagy-Bocsa was declaring just a short while ago how great he was as a statesman by being the friend of Georgia? What next?
Renault factories to Turkey despite what Nikki might say to the press he adores?
Or has he ruptured Ghosn's business plans too?