Posted on 08/06/2014 4:21:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
Arming a geopolitical foe is a grave mistake, especially one led by a cunning and utterly amoral character like Vladimir Putin. However, NATO-member France is on the verge of selling Putin's Russian regime two highly capable Mistral amphibious assault ships. The first warship, the Vladivostok, is almost ready for delivery. The second, ironically named the Sevastopol (Crimea's chief seaport), is under construction. Unfortunately, the two warships are ideal naval platforms for landing tanks and marines on Ukraine's Black Sea coast.
Russia, while led by the likes of Putin, is a foe of the United States, NATO and the European Union. The 2014 invasion and annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula confirmed Putin intends to recover former Soviet territory. He publicly laments the USSR's collapse. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney argued that Putin's Russia is America's chief geopolitical foe. Romney was derided as a benighted Cold War revivalist. Subsequent history has proved Romney prescient. Putin will invade a neighbor, if given the opportunity and the capability. The French warships -- offensive naval platforms built to support invasions -- serve Putin's expansionary goals. Mistrals are essentially small aircraft carriers configured to support helicopters. Helicopters can hunt submarines, but from assault ships they transport marines ashore. The multi-role Mistrals, however, also have a well deck for amphibious vehicles and landing craft. They can carry up to 40 tanks.
Jump jets could operate from a Mistral's deck. This means high-performance fighter-bombers could support invading forces. In the Falklands War, Harrier Jump Jets operated from British helicopter carriers and provided air cover for the fleet. In the early 1990s, Russia developed a supersonic jump jet, the Yak-141. The plane is not in Russia's current arsenal, but it could be.
If Russia had had a Mistral available for the 2008 Russo-Georgia war, we might have seen Russia seize a Georgian seaport. During Ukraine's troubles in the city of Odessa, a Mistral could have quickly landed two dozen tanks and a battalion of infantry. The quick-strike Crimean invasion proved Putin believes he has mastered fait accompli diplomacy.Put bluntly, the French assault ships give Putin's Kremlin new and reliable offensive capabilities, which is why the sale must be stopped.
Understand, the Russo-French warship deal met opposition was when it was announced. Japan opposed it. And Poland, with a Baltic Sea coast, was outraged. The Crimean invasion and annexation spurred more intense criticism from NATO military officers and knowledgeable defense analysts. So Putin and his cronies devoted a great deal of political jaw time to discussing the sanctity of construction contracts. The Kremlin argued, post-Crimea, that France couldn't break a signed contract. France will owe Russia millions of euros in penalties. Moreover, according to the Kremlin, breaking the contract will throw French shipwrights out of work. Of course, Putin had broken, with malice, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. Sanctity of contracts? False sanctimony. The tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 changed the political calculus. As Felix Seidler noted on his security policy blog several members of the German parliament have proposed that NATO buy the two warships.The idea has gained instant traction, and it should. NATO naval personnel regularly cross-train on allied ships. NATO's airborne early warning aircraft fly Luxembourg flags. The EU has discussed operating C-17 transports as a consortium.
A combined NATO buy, however, is precisely the kind of unified political response that Europe has failed to make. The message is clear. The invasion and annexation of Crimea is unacceptable. Putin's Kremlin cannot expect to successfully exploit economic interests and escape penalties for destroying the diplomatic agreements, which framed post-Cold War peace.A NATO-flagged Vladivostok -- with a new name -- could be equipped as a natural disaster response ship for operations in the Mediterranean. As for the Sevastopol? Finish the ship and keep the name. But deploy it as a NATO-flagged combat vessel.
What land does “NATO” have, does it have a government, what is its tax base?
:p
This article doesn’t even attempt to explain the possible ramifications of violating the contract with Russia (which apparently has a $1.6 billion cancellation penalty or something)
I hope France is also ready never to sell so much as a fishing boat to Russia after this because Russia will retaliate.
I am still not sure why these governments think a trade war with Russia helps Ukraine. Instead of helping Ukraine become a stable democratic republic that can protect its borders, this is what they come up with?
NATO’s not exactly legit these days.
The head chopping ISIS pedo cannibals in Iraq, Syria and now Lebanon are using NATO-supplied weapons and US tax dollars. We’re having a hard time ID’ing the bad guys at the moment.
In the end, it’s all about rubles, francs, euros, dollars and national survival.
They’re grasping at straws since they know Bronco Bama is a phoney.
WHO is Nato???
bump
“The second, ironically named the Sevastopol,,,,”
Yes, that is a little ironic. Naming a ship the “Sevastopol” before all this started. Sevastopol, where the Russians fought the British and French in 1853. Where Russians endured an epic siege from the Nazis. Why, the Russians are acting like Catherine the Great annexed Crimea in 1783 or something, and have been there ever since.
Anyone can see that Crimea and Sevastopol should be a NATO base and the NATO should intervene because the Russians are in Crimea,,,,.
Gosh, that’s just common patriotic sense..
Wouldn’t be better strategically selling this outdated rubble to Putin than to “Nato”???
What does “Sell them to NATO” mean exactly? I’m guessing it means have America buy them for NATO.
A while back I read something by Daniel Hannan talking about NATO funding and support. He pointed out that Great Britain is the second largest contributor to NATO in fiscal, personnel and materials coming to some 20% with the USA providing better than 50 or 60 percent.
They invaded and claimed Ukrainian territory, it’s past is meaningless. Do you still recognize the Vatican as true ruler of all lands formerly part of the Holy Roman Empire?
“I’m guessing it means have America buy them for NATO”
We have a winner.
NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Russia paid for ‘em. Let them have them.
If someone has an issue about their use, sell the Ukraine some BrahMos guided missiles...
Nope. The papist dictatorship hasn’t had their operation working for hundreds of years. Crimea has been solidly Russian since Kentucky became a state. To pretend anything else is pure sophistry.
Then there is simple reality. It has been a Russian base and battlefield since before George Washington was President.
The Kiev coup has demonstrated that they would immediately make it a NATO base. No matter what games anyone plays rhetorically, this would strike the Russians about the way us giving Norfolk to Russia would strike us.
All the NATO bluster will accomplish nothing. We will never fight for Crimea. The Russians would fight nuclear war over it if the west invaded. Both sides know it. The Kiev Nazis lost it. It’s gone. Time to accept it.
Besides, you may not have noticed, but NATO established the idea that areas can be carved away from nations at any time. They fought to make it happen. Ever hear of Kosovo? This day of revenge was guaranteed when we bombed Serbia to peel away Kosovo.
Right at this moment we are supporting breakaway areas of Syria. We are demanding that parts of Israel be carved away and made into a new nation.
So now when NATO huffs and puffs about how borders are sacrosanct and must be respected, Putin simply laughs at them.
Id love for NATO to show this much interest in the sanctity of the American southern border.
Apparently.
This article premise is baloney.
Two Mistral’s? Seriously?
They need more than to be effective, well, just about anywhere.
Jump planes like the Yak 141? How long would it take to build 49 of them, who would build em and where does that money come from?
Sell em two crummy ships but, make sure their check doesn’t bounce first.
Okay where is What?
(Yeahbbott!)
Most FReepers opposed what Clinton did in “Kosovo”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.