So who gets them? Any other nation that might make use of them and also has the cash to pay for them?
Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?
>Would it be possible to turn it in to a normal carrier?
You wanna talk shit? You cant even dream of our Viking-shield technology...
>Bet you cant even spot it. Jætteknepper.
The ships are French.
Israelis defense budget is American.
This isn't pol tier trolling it's facts.
I supports Israels existence and its ability to defend and project its force.
What is all this /pol/ shit.
You probably don't even own guns.
The french somehow trying to push this ship to malaysia during Malaysia-France HADR exercise recently
But the chinks keep cockblocking the frog with their inferior stuff
>The ships are French.
>Israelis defense budget is American.
So now the US is going to give them money to purchase them. Got it.
>This isn't pol tier trolling it's facts.
No. It's ignorance.
>They will take possession with money, paid by the Israeli government.
>You're an idiot with no background in this subject. Stop before you embarrass yourself.
The IN operates no aircraft.
They have no experience in operating aircraft carriers.
They have no fixed wing aircraft that can operate off the decks.
They have no ships that can serve as escorts for the Mistrals.
They have no experience operating anything larger than a patrol frigate.
And you think Israel can use these things?
This is /pol/ idiocy.
you'd need to harden the deck before using then, but its not about how many it can fit, but how many Canada will put on it (because everyone is penny pinching at this point in the fed gov) if we decide to get the F35B
Few things wrong with this post.
It's not an aircraft carrier. It's a helo platform, which would be provided by their army similar to our LHDs.
Their escorts would be every fucking allied warship in the region.
How stupid are you?
Go jerk off on your Mosin and stop posting.
>The ships are French.
Yes, so the US wouldn't want Israel to buy them.
>Israelis defense budget is American.
No, the Israeli defense budget is Israeli. If you're talking about American military financing to Israel (equal to about 20% of Israel's domestic budget), then that is given with the understanding it will then be used to purchase American equipment.
>I supports Israels existence and its ability to defend and project its force.
I see you've failed to demonstrate any evidence Israel seeks a major amphibious capability. Meanwhile in the real world the Israeli Navy wouldn't be able to utilize a Mistral (which would be about 10 times heavier than the largest warship they currently operate).
All other helicopter carrying ships.
>It's a helo platform, which would be provided by their army similar to our LHDs.
Who have never operated off of a naval warship, who operate aircraft not optimized for work at sea.
>Their escorts would be every fucking allied warship in the region.
Ah, so the allies need a helo carrier in the area. And rather than use one of the several they already have, they will pay for the transfer of the ship, the training of the crews, the building of logistical facilities, the ordering of new maritime helicopters, the training of those crews, etc...
This makes sense to you?
Yes, Japan, with its long history of preferring domestic construction, and who is the process right now of building large, helicopter carrying warships, is going to buy a French built ship.
Seriously do people think for 5 seconds before posting?
Remember all the vatnik butthurt when the order was first postponed?
>they can't do this!
>b-but muh international law
>this'll ruin their export market for sure!
>they're just posturing to suck america's dick
I can't wait for all the slav tears. Good on you, France.
I can' believe how lucky the french government seems to be on this affair ; they don't loose face to Putin and apparently will evade heavier sanctions. Considering how bad a move keeping the mistrals was in the first place, tht's amazing.
That or they really are amazing diplomats and everything was planned since the beginning of the crisis, but I find tht last option harder to believe.
The class is initally fully NATO compatible, and the second ship doesn't have electronics installed in for now. Ships are modular platforms, this won't be the worst refitting of the decade.
It's not unusual ; it's a standard "Jeanne d'Arc" mission, they make one of those every year.
Show french might and technology, strenghten political ties, do some joint exercises, and often first mission for the navy cadets.
They didn't. At least some factions in the govt and navy didn't want them.
They should have sold them ; it would have hurt russian economy more, and reduced the building capactity of their shipyards.
>The class is initally fully NATO compatible
And the ones built for Russia vastly differ from initial ships in everything from CMS to the hull. Building ships cost a lot of money, reworking already finished ones cost even more.
Because arming China is so much more preferred than arming Russia from NATO perspective. Or, idk, because Chinese will never sell the ships to Russians the day they will get them.
Well, they do have to pay hefty penalties to Russia since the cancellation. And the decision to cancel the order was likely a reason behind India's decision to cancel a purchase of Rafales. Not only that, but Russia really didn't need the Mistrals in the first place; the purchase was more of a political move to show some cooperation with France.
>Civil standards and technologies are used in the construction process which significantly reduces both cost and time to completion.
This was my first thought. Help Japan expand their force projection capabilities to help offset China's naval building binge. If the Japanese prefer to build their own, maybe the Vietnamese would like one?
>Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?
Well, they'll likely fuck france over down the line in some other economic deal.
Really, france is just further proving that you don't buy weapons from france.
Same thing happening here in America, by the time we wake up will be England tier.
Our liberal parties don't understand that Canada and Europe enjoy their luxuries because we can scare away Russia and China.
At least Russia is white, and takes a hard stance against faggotry and Muslim immigration.
In 300 years they will be the race's savior or remembered as its last pillar of defense.
What's a vatnik?
Honestly, the deal was more a way to build closer ties between russia and western governments than it was to give russia some sort of good warship.
What I don't understand is why France continues to tarnish their reputation as an arms dealer. From the typhoon to the eurocopter to the exocet missiles they sold to Argentina, they have a long history of fucking over anyone who works with their arms industry - and for what? Nobody would've batted an eye if France continued with the deal, but now they gain...? Good will from the US?
That's not going to matter much when the corporations involved in the arms industry don't give a fuck. They're already painting France as an unreliable dealer and these sorts of things really don't help that image whatsoever.
>They broke a contract
Oh you mean like that agreement you had to respect the sovereignty of the Ukraine?
You do realize that we could cut all of our armed forces down to 1/3 of their current level and we'd still be fine, right?
Having a huge military on standby is a huge waste of money and resources that only benefits weapon contractors. If war comes up, we could just build up our forces then. Also,
>implying Russia or China could send an invasion fleet across the Pacific undetected and large enough to occupy the US
Russia/China have no interest in North America. They're much more liable to kicking the US and her corporations out of their respective spheres of influence, and growing those spheres of influence.
A mainland invasion of the North American continent is something I don't think anyone's ever planned. Maybe if the US breaks apart due to economic disaster like Russia did in the 90's, but I seriously doubt it even then.
Please, explain to me when when the US invaded the Ukraine, sank or captured most of their navy, and had active troops involved in combat during their civil war.
oh of course - the
>they were shifting away from our influence!
>it must be thanks to evil western intervention!
>it can't possibly be that we held the entirety of eastern Europe as the world's largest open-air prison for almost half a century!
Except I did.
Both sides effectively had an agreement to leave Ukraine neutral, which the west blatantly violated by instigating a revolution against a democratically elected government.
btw i love how they preach for democracy when it suits them and completely ignore it otherwise
He's not obligated to. Breaking a contract is breaking a contract regardless of anyone's opinion on Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine that you are bringing up to deliberately derail the discussion realising that nothing really justifies being a dick in business.
In the picture I thought the helicopters arranged diagonally were actually badly drawn cactus people running with their arms outstretched
>Western intervention and "funding democracy" is totally not a thing
>Neither are spheres of influence
>Gulag prison of nations 20 trillion victims of Stalin
>Look at how happy newly integrated EU members are
Oh fuck off.
>had an agreement to leave Ukraine neutral
No, the agreement was that Ukraine would disarm, giving its strategic weapons back to Russia on the condition that their sovereignty would be respected. The conditions of the Budapest Memorandum were:
>Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
>Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
>Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
>Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
>Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
>Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Nowhere were there restrictions on Ukrainian association with any powers.
>b-but the pro-western revolution was just a bunch of EU shills!
No, it couldn't possibly be that the people in a very divided country weren't keen on having a pawn of Putin who blatantly outlawed protests as their president. And I guess we're just going to conveniently ignore the "domestic uprising" in the Crimea that the Russians have admitted to be an invasion?
The breaking of the contract came as a response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. It's like Saddam getting all buttflustered when the entire world turned on him when he invaded Kuwait, or Argentina getting mad when the French stopped Exocet deliveries when they invaded the Falklands. Blatant violations of international law, especially invading other countries, tends to go poorly for ongoing arms deals.
>So who gets them?
Russian, when Sarkozy takes office.
>Any other nation that might make use of them and also has the cash to pay for them?
They can't because this ships has Russian materials inside. To sell ships French need to rid off that materials. It's nearly impossible.
These are, like, completely different ship classes. 1143 were heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, twice as big as Mistrals, which are helicopter carrying amphibious ships. And 1143 were build by Nikolayev shipyard, now fucked up by Ukraine.
As far as I'm aware, Russia hasn't lost any shipbuilding capability at all, the Mistral was ordered in part because Russia's shipbuilding facilities are booked for the next 5 years straight.
The entire point of ordering Mistrals was to strengthen international ties. Half of ships' hulls was built in Russia. The problem with building something of comparable size was firstly that it would take unacceptably long time for Russia alone because they'd have to compile it from smaller parts, and secondly that Russia's shipyards are stuffed with orders for years ahead.
>It's like Saddam getting all buttflustered when the entire world turned on him when he invaded Kuwait
But that was predominantly a US geopolitical move because Saddam was stepping on the wrong turf.
Not because, as you seem to be implying, the world had a problem with a dictator in general. The US certainly has no problems with dictators, considering how many they directly finance and influence.
>broke the Budapest Memorandum in regards to Poland
>a treaty in which Poland was not involved
Just to humor you, I'll pretend that Poland was somehow involved. So when did the US
>assert undue economic pressure to influence it
>threaten them with military force
Lemme guess - you think Germany isn't legitimate either because East Germany was so quick to abandon the USSR and rejoin the FRG?
yeah I guess the Saddam one was a bad example. The Falklands however it a near perfect precedent for this kind of thing, though.
>Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?
Build their own. The most important part of the deal for Russia was the technology transfer. They got the tech and they don't have to pay for it.
Win win for ruskies.
With their nonexistent shipyards and 3rd-world economy? What, do you just want another half-built aircraft carrier to be sold to China as an amusement park?
>Russia hasn't lost any shipbuilding capability at all
Except Nikolayev shipyard is now owned by Ukraine and desolated while Russia currently lacks large enough construction cranes. If they'd have to build Mistral all by themselves they'd have to build it from smaller blocks, which would take ridiculous amount of time. They could build such cranes, however this would mean they will stand and rust until the R&D for the new ship will be finished, which is an enormous waste of money that no one is willing to take.
>half-built aircraft carrier to be sold to China as an amusement park
If you are on trolling spree at least do it properly, idiot. Kiev was 30 years old when it was sold to China, and Minsk was about as old and was sold by Ukraine.
Russian shipyards have been buildings dozens of nuclear submarines per year.
They already built big parts of the mistrals thanks to french help. The original contract was to allow Russia the option to build two more in their own shipyards after the first two.
They're still gonna build those two.
Australia is in the market. They're bringing in two very large LHDs, and arguments have been made for carrierising them for F35 operations. The Australian military tends to plan off an uptime of 1/3, so if they're serious, they'll want a third LHD so they have a real capability when they retire the interim testbed LHD they bought off the UK.
The main problem is that everyrhing Australia has bought off the EU defence market in thr last few decades has been a farce, particularly frog stuff. Eurocopter and NH90 have been some of the most disasterous acquisitions in Australian defence history, so I'm not sure if the Aussies will want to get their feet wet again.
My god the ka-50 is the sexiest heli chopper ever
I still think it's hilarious that when this first happened the Russian MoD spokesman said that they didn't want them anyway and that France could keep the 'rust buckets'.. After they spent all that money to build them. It was so incredibly childish that I couldn't stop laughing when it happened.
They're technically fucked. Considering that the largest military surface ship they built in more than ten years is a 130 meters frig that was rid with design, production and quality problems, that the first element of the first ship of the class was laid down nearly ten years ago and it is not delivered to the navy for active use, that the other three are incredibly late as well, and that their Borei submarines use propellers with a thirty years old design, they simplky don't have the know-how to build anything larger these days in any meaninful delay or significant number.
Their only alternative to get anything in an acceptable delay (and yes, with a better quality to what russia can produce) is to buy Amphibious assault ships from China, but it will freeze in hell before the russians can swallow their pride and do so, and i can't even begin to imagine what the chinese would demand in exchange.
As for France, well played, even if they retain the ships they can still bill for the technological transfer (not that russia is in any position to do anything with anytime soon), and everyone remotely serious knows that they were perfectly right to say the russian to go fuck themselves after they tried to bully them by flying strategic bombers near their borders. Don't come and cry like whimpy little bitches when you don't behave like strategic partners. France reputation is still 100% alright, considering their recent deals.
As far as i can see the only thing that has really happened is the Russians paid $800 mil for two ships, didn't get them and now France is paying them 1.2 billion in compensation. The Russians get a $400 million overall boost to their Defense budget and the French get ships that have no C4 or air defense systems that are not suitable for any of their current requirements.
Honestly if i were Russia i'd repeat this deal all day erry day, France just gave them $400 mil and shit tons of knowledge about western ship building technology and got nothing in return.
Canada of course. We had carriers before and we damn well better get them again.
This kills French naval industry. No one in NATO will pay for this and no one from third world would want to deal with country that flip flops on $billion shipments due to political pressure
So many Russaboos bending over backwards on this. A week ago they said this would never happen, now they are saying it's good that it happened.
The Russians didn't get the tech transfer you shitheads, and they still can't build anything that wasn't designed by the soviets.
Isn't T-14 supposed to be using the T01-K04 Agat-MR sight?
Baltiysky Zavod made the stern. It was built there because it was part of the technology transfer contract. So some technology was indeed transferred.
They built bulkheads and living arrangements.
Thats hardly what i would call "tech transfer"
Unless the russians really did need to learn how to build proper comparments...then ok
what use would the Russian navy have for them anyway? Russia has about a tenth of the financial resources as the US, so they could never build up a competetive navy.
They should just stick to making subs, and sub escorts for their arctic bastion, anything more is a waste of resources.
They don't need them...
The deal was signed between Russia and France to save the French shipyard in exchange for plans and machinery and of cause the ships.
From a military point of view the Ruskies have no purpose for the Mistral because they have a defensive doctrine where they don't invade countries like the US and if they operate somewhere it's most likely in the range of their airfields.
Yes that was the deal.
However, they absolutely don't fit into their doctrine and the admiral-staff criticized Serdjukow (former Russian defence minister) for buying them.
Over all Serdjukow is blamed to have done immense damage to the Russian defence capabilities and defence budget.
I see it the way that Ruskies want their cash back instead of the ships.
I mean.. considering they allready got the machinery that came with it the deal and also the blueprints for the Mistral-ships.
>Use the Mistrals as LHDs
>Gut the two Canberra LHDs under construction, re-fit as real CVLs
We force projection now
It is optimised for Russian helicopters, Russian weapon systems, Russian climate and Russian fuel. Or did you think they'll use CH-53 and Phalanx?
Technology transfer happened during building. 2/5 of the first ship (and 3/5 of the second one, iirc) was built in Russia by Russians thanks to the technology transfer, and later 3rd and 4th ships were/are planned to be 100% Russian built. I suppose you think of "tech transfer" as literally physically shipping it to Russia to that they could back engineer something in some Slavoslavsk? Well, too bad, you are wrong.
The concept was long time alien to Soviet naval military doctrine, along with "pure" aircraft carriers. As their naval doctrine changed they have begun to develop a project similar to American Tarawa class, but never had a chance to finish it due to the dissolution of the USSR, same as their first "pure" aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk.
However Russia does need to renowate its amphibious fleet, as it is desperately aging, as their own Ivan Gren class ships are built in a very slow pace.
>good thing we got naval engineer here who
...can determine if refitting a ship fully optimised for one military for a completely different one is a "minor detail" on the first place.
>they have begun to develop a project similar to American Tarawa class
Here's a bit information on it. Technically they could revive it and don't bother buying Mistrals at all, but i imagine it is pretty obsolete as of now and needs to be reworked from scratch to fit modern military needs.
Troubles only began later though. Ordering and building them went fairly smooth. Regardless of how much do Russians need these ships, they got some technology out of it and now will either get the ships, or their money back to spend it on a couple more tasty 22350 frigates. It's a win-win.
Why would they be assmad at getting free stuff?
>Russia isn't in desperate needs of these ships at all.
It somewhat is. Their active amphibious fleet is in horrible condition and all the shipyards of appropriate capabilities are too busy.
Wasn't the main benefit of this deal that France would give Russia a bunch of naval tech and co-develop the ship in a Russian naval yard? So they've basically given the Russians a bunch of military technology and expertise and are now going to hand them over cash as well?
Who's doing the fucking here?
they invade neighbouring countries, which means the only use they would have for the Mistral would be taking the Scandinavian countries. Every other neigbouring country with a coastline are also a tankers dream.
Perhaps with the exception of some jap islands.
>What is Georgia
A war started by Georgia, as EU stated. It's funny though how internet warriors keep bringing it up as something Russia did escalate.
>What is Ukraine
A civil war. Inb4 muh 4,5 tanks, muh 1,5 BTRs. Get a life. Crimea, however, was a perfect example of what Russia could do a bit more efficiently with Mistrals, not having to transport dozens of helicopters throughout its bases on the peninsula by air, which resulted in a number of pretty damasking "Ruskies art cometh" Hellmarch youtube videos.
> Also, too bad for Russia.
Whole deal was a brainchild of former Minister of Defence and was heavily criticized from the start as expensive and unnecessary. Local shipbuilding industry was furious about this decision because they didn't get the contract themselves.
Former MoD was famous for fishy procurements of foreign military equipment. Kickback from Frenchs and corruption were suggested, some of his subordinates now is under invesigation (on unrelated charges).
> What do they do now?
Get money back and bail out from deal. Our United Shipbuilding Corporation (UFC) would be happy as no such deals is possible in the foreseeable future.
Georgia and Ukraine are both in the range of Russias airbases...
They don't need an aircraft carrier.
Also Russia was legaly obliged to intervene in Georgia because Georgians began to slaughter UN-Soldiers.
And Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...
How it looks if the Ruskies intervene you could see in Georgia... Trained and equipped by the US for years and screwed over in 2 days and 3 more days to wipe up the rest.
>Implying anything he said was wrong.
Nice try CIA.
What does specifically distinguish *war*ships in this case?
Construction to warship standards. Warships and commercial vessels have different features.
There is a reason that the largest surface combatant the Russians have built in 30 years is a Frigate.
That guy might have been exaggerating but only a little.
From checking Wikipedia:
It looks like this is the current list of subs under construction:
7x kilo class
3x borei class
4x yasen class
2x oscar class
So they're current building at least 16 subs. 9 of which are nuclear.
They had to transfer most of the tech so that Russians could build their half. And not long after the original decision to delay the delivery, there was a conspicuous data theft that covered the rest.
>3x borei class
2 started in 2014, 1 started in 2012.
>4x yasen class
1 started in 2015, 1 started in 2014, 1 started in 2013, 1 started in 2009.
So no, not 24+ every year. 1-2 every year. I can't even believe you'd dare post this:
>2x oscar class
Which have been "under construction" since 1994!
Sorry, It doesn't have completion rates and like I said, he was exaggerating. But there is no doubt the Russia is building a fuckton of subs. More than anyone else by a large margin.
Even though the kilo and lada submarines are not nuclear, they're really the biggest threat to NATO. A kilo class can sink an aircraft carrier at a very favorable cost benefit ratio. Something like $200 m for the sub whereas the carrier costs close to $13 B, and that isn't even counting the planes that will be lost with it.
>More than anyone else by a large margin.
1 or 2 per year.
Are you sure about that?
Because the US is currently putting the same number of Virginias in the water.
So are you sure that the Russians are building more than anyone else "By a large Margin" or would you like to admit that you are wrong?
At the same time, the Kilo has a limited operational area, limited endurance, and the US CSG has to basically run over the Kilo to get killed.
War is not a rock paper scissors affair.
The reason is the desperate lack of funding and R&D for large warships to build. Russian part of Mistral hulls were built at the same shipyard as that icebreaker, and as far as i know this shipyard is capable of building ships of up to 100000 tons displacement.
>2x oscar class
You what? Post proofs.
>The reason is the desperate lack of funding and R&D for large warships to build.
They have plenty of funding. They have no capacity for large surface combatants.
No ships larger than a frigate.
>You what? Post proofs.
I think hes talking about the refits for Tver and Orel
>I'm not defending the original claim. I said it was an exaggeration.
>That guy might have been exaggerating but only a little.
>only a little
And even when you start talking about diesel submarines you STILL refuse to talk in terms of per year.
They halted construction after they found problems in the test model, then they resumed it after they fixed the problem. That is the sign of a healthy development process driven by engineering over politics.
>It isn't hard to figure out where a carrier group is and scoot a kilo from the sub base to the carrier.
Ok, how fast do you think that sub moves at vs how fast the CSG moves?
And still only one or two go into the water per year.
Thats not more than the US, that just means the Russians are slower to build subs than the US.
>What *i* said was a "fuckton of subs"
And you are wrong.
They launch at max 2 per year after it takes 5 years of construction to finish one.
Not to mention that the Russians are using hull sections from older subs to pump them out as quick as possible and they STILL can only match the pace of the US pushing them out brand new from start to finish.
>It looks like Russia had 5 kilos commissioned in 2014
And the argument shifts again, from building to commissioning. But fine. How many in 2013? Zero. How many in 2012? Zero. How many in 2011? Zero. How many in 2010? Zero.
They do have sufficient funding now and thereby are renovating at least one Kirov class battlecruiser, developing a new destroyer and though i doubt it possibly even an aircraft carrier. Before that they desperately lack money. If you want proofs, look at the story of "50 Let Pobedy" nuclear icebreaker built by yet the same shipyard: they laid it down in '89, put it on hold in '94 and only resumed its construction in '04.
>Ok, how fast do you think that sub moves at vs how fast the CSG moves?
A carrier's job is to sit around and bomb shit. They're basically a stationary target. If they're having to flee kilos, they've been operationally neutralized.
If we're talking about the production capabilities of the russian sea yards it is somewhat irrelevant.
Of course the US has more money than Russia, no need to argue over a statement like that. It is obvious.
If we're not talking about their construction capability, then it doesn't make sense to look at construction at all.
Whether a particular country is building subs, depends on how many they need. The Russians have a large effective fleet already, but they can maintain and expand their capacity and naval production infrastructure by filling orders for other navies.
We are talking about the capability of the Russians to construct submarines vs the capability of the US to do the same.
Funding of building programs is a crucial part of construction tempo.
The Russians received external sources that inflated the number of building programs they are capable of undertaking.
>You can call those "inflated" numbers, I call it effective management of their naval construction resources.
So it does not accurately reflect the construction capacity of the Russian navy.
Russia builds more subs per year. 2-3 times as many. You can complain that that isn't a fair comparison because Russia's subs are in high demand around the world, but my original statement that Russia builds more subs by a large margin holds.
>Georgians began to slaughter UN-Soldiers.
the fuck are you even talking about?
>and Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...
ah, ok. You must be new to /k/ and have *zero* knowledge of weapons systems or how Russia has opperated historically in places like Transnistria, Abkhazia, and S. Ossetia. Got it.
A hull is a hull.
The irony is that Russia is sounding more capitalist than the US.
>marketing popular designs
>government financed construction
>completely ignoring cost efficiency
This Pantsir-S1 photographed in Ukraine in January says that you're an idiot. You think Russia would hand over this piece of gear to a bunch of knucklehead "rebels"? Either they are that stupid and did that, in which case they're actively supplying the "rebels" with sophistcated new military tech- or the russian soldiers are swapping their russian flags for "DNR" flags and going on "holiday". I'll let you guess which is more likely....
>small force that goes to Iraq is trained by NATO for COIN
>vatnik shits like yourself think you 'beat' anything
>still denying any russian involvement in Ukraine
Is the F35B and LHDs the future of carrier warfare? Australians bought from Spain, the Nips are building two different classes. God knows who else will buy them in future.
Tell me more about all the T-72B3s that Ukraine has.
>And Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...
>only in Russian service
And novorussian service. Selling arms to rebels is just good capitalism. Completely legit.
Nobody outside the west is going to buy those. South or Central America, East Asia, Central Asia, Africa/Middle East. France showed that the only people they'll sell to are western countries and if you aren't a western country they won't hesitate to fuck you over and take your money.
This is perfectly fine for the other western countries who don't have this reputation and no doubt encouraged France to shoot themselves in the foot.
From what I understand, France got one of their shipyards bailed-out by the deal.
So it was basically:
>Russia buys Mistrals
>French Shipyard gets part of the contract, keeps shipyard from going bankrupt
>Russians get western technology
>French build/design to commercial standards so as not to give any technology
>France decides to cut the contract and keep the ships
>But will pay a 1.2b settlement for it
>Russia gets +$400m, whatever tech
>France saves their shipyard, loses $400m, and further damage their reputation in the arms dealing market
Did Russia plant spies in the French government or something?
>That's why Jews and communists support Putin
And Buddhists. Putin has the Buddhist vote all locked up.
There is an error in your logic. While France could still deliver the ships it would result in a much larger backlash.
Keep in mind that the contact was cancelled in the wake of EU sanctions, so everyone knows that france wanted to deliver, but the rest of EU told them not to.