Russia and France Are Close to Deal on Mistral Warships

[ESay]

Russia and France are close to reaching an agreement for Paris to cancel a frozen contract on the sale of Mistral helicopter carriers and reimburse Moscow, a Russian source close to talks indicated on Friday.
Russia and France Are Close to Deal on Mistral Warships Source Business The Moscow Times

It seems that Moscow won’t receive the ships. That is rather good news, I think. It is interesting what Moscow managed to get by refusing to demand the penalties according to the contract.

 

[Camp]

Ships could be part of a complicated plan with India. May not be a coincidence that India appears to be taking steps to shift towards the French Dassault Rafale fighter and away from the Russian Sukhoi SU-30MKI with the surprise purchase of three dozen ready to go Dassault's in a direct government to government deal last week. In addition, India is enlarging it's Navy and has budgeted more than enough to acquire the helicopter ships from France.
Moscow needed to get out of the ship deal before further French/India deals regarding the Rafale are made. Purchase or non-purchase of as many as 70 Dassault's vs. SU-MKI's could be in the balance and affected. The French are in position to make a great deal with India that would influence them to go with the Dassault's by using the ships as leverage. Russia loses no matter what. If they are able to make the contract for any remaining Sukoi sales, even a token number, you can bet it will be at a greatly reduced price.

defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/

 

[ESay]

Ships could be part of a complicated plan with India. May not be a coincidence that India appears to be taking steps to shift towards the French Dassault Rafale fighter and away from the Russian Sukhoi SU-30MKI with the surprise purchase of three dozen ready to go Dassault's in a direct government to government deal last week. In addition, India is enlarging it's Navy and has budgeted more than enough to acquire the helicopter ships from France.
Moscow needed to get out of the ship deal before further French/India deals regarding the Rafale are made. Purchase or non-purchase of as many as 70 Dassault's vs. SU-MKI's could be in the balance and affected. The French are in position to make a great deal with India that would influence them to go with the Dassault's by using the ships as leverage. Russia loses no matter what. If they are able to make the contract for any remaining Sukoi sales, even a token number, you can bet it will be at a greatly reduced price.

defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/

To say the truth, I don’t understand properly what you are trying to say.

India took a decision in favour of French jets and refused to buy Russian ones. France refused to deliver its warships to Russia, but Russia won’t seek the penalties. In the former France is a winner while Russia is a loser. In the latter no one side is a winner. Right?

 

[Camp]

Ships could be part of a complicated plan with India. May not be a coincidence that India appears to be taking steps to shift towards the French Dassault Rafale fighter and away from the Russian Sukhoi SU-30MKI with the surprise purchase of three dozen ready to go Dassault's in a direct government to government deal last week. In addition, India is enlarging it's Navy and has budgeted more than enough to acquire the helicopter ships from France.
Moscow needed to get out of the ship deal before further French/India deals regarding the Rafale are made. Purchase or non-purchase of as many as 70 Dassault's vs. SU-MKI's could be in the balance and affected. The French are in position to make a great deal with India that would influence them to go with the Dassault's by using the ships as leverage. Russia loses no matter what. If they are able to make the contract for any remaining Sukoi sales, even a token number, you can bet it will be at a greatly reduced price.

defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/

To say the truth, I don’t understand properly what you are trying to say.

India took a decision in favour of French jets and refused to buy Russian ones. France refused to deliver its warships to Russia, but Russia won’t seek the penalties. In the former France is a winner while Russia is a loser. In the latter no one side is a winner. Right?

I am speculating that there may be a connection between a possible deal with India for the ships connected to the sale of the aircraft. It is only speculation on my part. I suspect the timing of the events to not be coincidental.

 

[ESay]

I am speculating that there may be a connection between a possible deal with India for the ships connected to the sale of the aircraft. It is only speculation on my part. I suspect the timing of the events to not be coincidental.

But in this case it would be logical if France gave up the jets contract to Russia in exchange for Russia’s refusal of the penalties. Or something like that. But France received both the India’s contract and lifting of the penalties. And what did Russia get instead?

 

[Camp]

I am speculating that there may be a connection between a possible deal with India for the ships connected to the sale of the aircraft. It is only speculation on my part. I suspect the timing of the events to not be coincidental.

But in this case it would be logical if France gave up the jets contract to Russia in exchange for Russia’s refusal of the penalties. Or something like that. But France received both the India’s contract and lifting of the penalties. And what did Russia get instead?

Russia will get the funds it invested in the ships without waiting for who knows how long before a settlement and deaccession is made. What would the consequences be for Russia if they lost the case for the reimbursement of funds for the ships? How risky would it be to challenge France or any other nations freedom to impose sanctions. Sanctions were imposed because France and others claimed Russia acted illegally to annex Crimea and support separatist in Ukraine. Do they really want to bring their actions before an international court?

 

[ESay]

Russia will get the funds it invested in the ships without waiting for who knows how long before a settlement and deaccession is made. What would the consequences be for Russia if they lost the case for the reimbursement of funds for the ships? How risky would it be to challenge France or any other nations freedom to impose sanctions. Sanctions were imposed because France and others claimed Russia acted illegally to annex Crimea and support separatist in Ukraine. Do they really want to bring their actions before an international court?

Frankly, I don’t know the terms of the deal. But the deal was signed before the sanctions were imposed, wasn’t it? And of course every country has a right to impose sanctions. But if a contract is signed, one must fulfil his obligations or he must be punished under the terms of the contract.

The annexation of Crimea is a very stupid decision, I think, and its consequences will be long-term. But in this case I can’t imagine how it would help France in an international court. Crimea wasn’t part of France, France hasn’t declared war on Russia or something like that, and the sanctions were after the deal. I think that Russia would have good odds in an international court.

 

[Camp]

Russia will get the funds it invested in the ships without waiting for who knows how long before a settlement and deaccession is made. What would the consequences be for Russia if they lost the case for the reimbursement of funds for the ships? How risky would it be to challenge France or any other nations freedom to impose sanctions. Sanctions were imposed because France and others claimed Russia acted illegally to annex Crimea and support separatist in Ukraine. Do they really want to bring their actions before an international court?

Frankly, I don’t know the terms of the deal. But the deal was signed before the sanctions were imposed, wasn’t it? And of course every country has a right to impose sanctions. But if a contract is signed, one must fulfil his obligations or he must be punished under the terms of the contract.

The annexation of Crimea is a very stupid decision, I think, and its consequences will be long-term. But in this case I can’t imagine how it would help France in an international court. Crimea wasn’t part of France, France hasn’t declared war on Russia or something like that, and the sanctions were after the deal. I think that Russia would have good odds in an international court.

Perhaps you are right, but sometimes people settle cases out of court just so they won't have to suffer from the repercussions of a public trial. Not sure which international laws would prevail in this case. Business laws or international treaty laws. Would France be obligated to break alliance agreements with the EU and others, such as NATO, to participate in sanctions or would those laws supercede business contracts to supply weapons to the country France might be in military conflict with. I find it hard to believe that a court would order France or any other country to supply lethal weapons to the country it was actively preparing to go to war with and accusing or alleging of having committed acts of war or threatening acts of war.

 

[ESay]

Some addition information about the theme.

France is going to compensate Russia the costs it spent on the Mistrals.
The decision has yet to be formed legally, but it is known that the Russian and French sides have agreed that in a course of a month the precise conditions will be made about cancellation of the contract.

According to media, a decision is almost made about Paris returning Russia 800 million euros it previously spent on the project; also Paris will compensate the other Russia’s expenditures on the project at the rate of 300 million euros.

France is going to receive money for that from a contract with Poland for the supply of helicopters. The cost of the contract is 2 billion euros.

Also France will get a right to re-sell the two already built ships.

- - click (in Russian)

 

[Sonc]

That is rather good news, I think.

Naturally. Because you're a fucking russophobe =)

 

[ESay]

That is rather good news, I think.

Naturally. Because you're a fucking russophobe =)

Oh now, what makes you think so?

Your rulers are convincingly telling the entire world that the Mistrals are virtually absolutely unnecessary for the Russian Navy. And that the likely cancelation of the deal is absolutely harmless to Russia. Moreover, according to them, the cancellation will help Russia save money and spend them on a national project rather than an overseas one. So, I am sincerely glad that Russia will put the French’s noses out of joint.

 

[Igrok_]

Yeah, in this deal France is in the worst state than Russia. Russia has already get a deal of getting money back, but how France could get back their lack of reliability as a trading partner on a weapon market?

 

[ESay]

Yeah, in this deal France is in the worst state than Russia. Russia has already get a deal of getting money back, but how France could get back their lack of reliability as a trading partner on a weapon market?

Yes, Russia will get back the money it has spent on the deal, but it seems it won’t receive anything more. I have read somewhere that a total sum of penalties for failing to fulfil the contract may receive the total sum of the contract, that is 1.2 billion euros or so. But Russia has decided not to demand the money. Why? We can only guess. Moreover, France will get a right to re-sell the ships.

About the France’s reliability. Maybe it will suffer, I don’t know exactly. But Russian reliability as an international partner has already nosedived.

So, I don’t know what you mean by saying ‘France is in a worse state’.

 

[Quentin111]

The Mistral contract was concluded Anatoly Serdyukov, former Minister of defense of Russia. Anatoly Serdyukov proved to be incompetent and corrupt official. He became Minister of defense due to the fact that he was married to the daughter of the first Vice-Premier Viktor Zubkov. He was recently involved in a criminal case of embezzlement of billions of rubles.

Russian Military specialists were against the conclusion of the contract on Mistral.

 

[Moonglow]

Instead of a self destruct button, these ships come with a surrender button...

 

[ESay]

The Mistral contract was concluded Anatoly Serdyukov, former Minister of defense of Russia. Anatoly Serdyukov proved to be incompetent and corrupt official. He became Minister of defense due to the fact that he was married to the daughter of the first Vice-Premier Viktor Zubkov. He was recently involved in a criminal case of embezzlement of billions of rubles.

Russian Military specialists were against the conclusion of the contract on Mistral.

Yeah? But he was acquitted by a court. So, he is an honest man according to Russian law. And if I remember correctly, the deal was approved by then president Medvedev.

And if all written by you is true then why have Russian officials insisted on fulfilling of the contract?

 

[ESay]

France may sink the ships. According to Le Figaro newspaper, such a variant is being considered by the French authorities as one of the most possible ones.

France has no intention to use the ships, because having been built for Russia, they don’t meet European standards and their modification will cost hundreds of millions of euros. According to the newspaper, the ships may be dismantled and disposed of, or sunk into the sea. Also it is possible that they will be sold to other countries. Canada, Egypt, and ‘one of the North-European countries’ may be among the buyers.
- click (in Russian)

I hope the French will eventually find buyers for the ships.

 

[Igrok_]

Yeah, in this deal France is in the worst state than Russia. Russia has already get a deal of getting money back, but how France could get back their lack of reliability as a trading partner on a weapon market?

Yes, Russia will get back the money it has spent on the deal, but it seems it won’t receive anything more. I have read somewhere that a total sum of penalties for failing to fulfil the contract may receive the total sum of the contract, that is 1.2 billion euros or so. But Russia has decided not to demand the money. Why? We can only guess. Moreover, France will get a right to re-sell the ships.

About the France’s reliability. Maybe it will suffer, I don’t know exactly. But Russian reliability as an international partner has already nosedived.

So, I don’t know what you mean by saying ‘France is in a worse state’.

Yes, Russia will get all her money back. What's the problem? And how does russian reliability suffer from not being supplied by this ships? Moreover, how french market strength doesn't suffer with the ability of selling this ships to another buyer?

 

[ESay]

Yes, Russia will get all her money back. What's the problem? And how does russian reliability suffer from not being supplied by this ships?

There is no problem at all.
Russian reliability suffered before the contract was cancelled. The cancellation of the contract is a result of broken Russian reliability to some extent.

Moreover, how french market strength doesn't suffer with the ability of selling this ships to another buyer?

I don’t understand the question properly, to tell the truth.

 

[Igrok_]

Yes, Russia will get all her money back. What's the problem? And how does russian reliability suffer from not being supplied by this ships?

There is no problem at all.
Russian reliability suffered before the contract was cancelled. The cancellation of the contract is a result of broken Russian reliability to some extent.

But here we have been discussing the consequences of the contract cancellation. Not the reasons. And the consequences for France - lack of reliability, for Russia - only getting money back. And that's it.