The American Spectator : France's New Russian Partner

Text Size

France's New Russian Partner

By Joseph A. Harriss on 6.16.10 @ 6:09AM

Putin goes shopping in Paris -- hoping to get his hands on four Mistral warships.

PARIS -- We all want to have it both ways, but the French have long been past masters at it. And we're not just talking mistresses on the side or eating foie gras and staying slim. It's also been true on the international stage. The surprising thing is that their friends and allies regularly let them get away with it, as if France were some sort of frivolous luxury they could afford to indulge.

In 1940, to start there, they capitulated after six weeks and then, once we had stormed the Normandy beaches four years later, symbolically "liberated" Paris with General Leclerc's pitiful, ragtag division as Eisenhower conveniently held back our advancing troops. When the war ended, they swept years of craven collaboration with the Nazis under the rug, claimed victory over Germany, and, masquerading as a great power, wangled a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Threatened by an aggressive Soviet Union, they joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 and benefited from the American security umbrella while contributing a minimum to NATO's available military resources. When it suited them, they ordered NATO headquarters out of Paris in the mid-1960s, closed American bases in France, and withdrew their troops from its integrated military command -- but remained enough of an alliance member to enjoy its protection.

Such Cold War French antics satisfied the then-powerful French Communist Party, which consistently polled 20 percent or more of the vote, and, a fortiori, played into the hands of the Soviets. Then as now, one of Moscow's long-term goals has been to divide the Atlantic Alliance and weaken Western cohesion. Like the good chess players they are, the Russians always like to achieve at least two goals with each move.

Thus last week's visit to Paris by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin as part of France's current Year of Russia. Sporting the red Legion of Honor pin that Jacques Chirac had awarded him some years ago, Putin inaugurated a five-day Russian exhibit at Paris's prestigious Grand Palais just off the Champs Elysées. Showcasing Russia's industrial and technological clout complete with 40-foot-tall matryoshka dolls, the exhibit focuses on the energy, space, and aviation sectors.

Lagging behind Germany as Russia's trade partner, France is desperately keen to expand business; Premier François Fillon led the cheering with a rousing speech at the exhibit opening, concluding with a resounding Vive la Russie! President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is going to Saint Petersburg this week to speak at a major economic forum, added, "We want to erase the Cold War. Russia is not an adversary but a partner." Putin responded that it was time to "deepen our cooperation" and urged the French oil giant Total to expand its activity in Russia. "You can count on us," the company's chairman chirped. You betcha, and Putin is close to his first goal of getting France permanently hooked on East-West trade, and particularly on Russian oil and gas that can be powerful leverage in times of international tension.

Putin also visited a French government building being sold to Russia. In a prime location near the Eiffel Tower, the building will house what Putin called a "spiritual cultural center." He denied media reports that the locale could be used by Russian secret services, scoffing there were "no grounds at all" for such silly speculation. As a former top KGB agent, he doubtless knows whereof he speaks.

Human rights activists regretted that Putin was not queried by Sarkozy and other officials about rights abuses in Chechnya, as well as the torture and killing of journalists and other critics of Russia's authoritarian regime. When a French television journalist timidly raised human rights with Putin, he shot back a smart-alecky reply: "There are threats to human rights everywhere. Take for example the threats to human rights in the French penitentiary system." End of discussion.

PUTIN ALSO ADVANCED toward his second, more important goal: getting his hands on French military equipment and technology, starting with four Mistral-class warships. If he brings it off, it will be the first time in the 61-year history of the Atlantic Alliance that a member state has sold advanced military hardware to Russia -- and a major step toward dividing the West.

Over 200 yards long and with a displacement of some 22,000 tons, capable of carrying 500 or more troops, 35 combat helicopters, a squadron of battle tanks and a full field hospital, the Mistral is a powerful means of force projection second only to an aircraft carrier. Russian officials, who had a chance to look it over last November when France showed it off at a Saint Petersburg dock, have already made plans to assign one each to their four naval fleets (Northern, Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific).

Acquiring this warship would boost Russia's global prestige and capacity for military intimidation. The chief of staff, General Nikolai Makarov, said last week that a Mistral would be used to patrol waters around the Kuril Islands, the subject of a long-running territorial dispute with Japan. (At latest report, Japan is still a U.S. ally.) Russia's neighbors like Georgia, as well as NATO's new member states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, also have good reason to worry. As a Russian admiral put it, virtually smacking his lips in anticipation, "With a ship like this in our Black Sea Fleet, we could have invaded Georgia in 40 minutes instead of 26 hours."

To those who raise such concerns, Putin has another snappy comeback. "France has such ships," he says, "So who is France preparing to attack? Why do people automatically assume that Russia will use this to attack someone?" Well, of course, why would anyone in his right mind distrust Moscow? Especially when Russia's official military doctrine designates NATO as its number one enemy.

As much as Sarkozy wants this sale to save France's moribund shipyards -- he argues with utmost sincerity that it's not so much the money as an important political signal to keep Russia engaged with the West -- it's not yet a done deal. Haggling began last February. France wants two of the ships built in its shipyards, while Russia wants to build three itself. Either way, the sale would entail a transfer of certain military technology. Sarkozy claims this would not include sophisticated navigation, radar, weapons systems and other sensitive equipment. But Putin is frankly pugnacious about what he is after. "We already know how to build this type of ship," he has said. "We want the technology, not an empty hull."

On the other hand, Allied reaction to the potential deal -- which could set a precedent and open the way to further sales such as submarines, amphibious tanks, and fighter aircraft by France and possibly other NATO members -- is anything but frank or pugnacious. As a spokesman at the American Embassy in Paris cautiously put the U.S. position to me, "Decisions about such sales are a matter for sovereign states, taking into account international law and regional stability." Similarly, NATO's Secretary General, the pallid Anders Fogh Rasmussen, boldly sticks his head deep in the sand: "NATO as such doesn't have any role in this sale. I take it for granted that the sale will take place in accordance with all international rules and regulations, [and] that Russia will not use or misuse such military equipment against any neighbor."

About the Author

Joseph A. Harriss is The American Spectator's Paris correspondent. His latest book is About France.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 7:03AM

The pending Russian acquisition of up to four French amphibious assault ships should be seen as indicative of the collapse of the Russian defense industrial base, and thus, potentially, a positive development for U.S. interests.

Consider: in 1989, the Soviet Union was a world leader in the development and construction of both surface combatants and submarines. In the category of amphibious assault ships, the Soviet navy constructed three 13,000-ton Ivan Rogov class, each capable of carrying four assault helicopters, three air cushion landing craft, eleven main battle tanks (or thirty armored personnel carriers) and up to 550 combat troops. The Russians also built three V/STOL aircraft carriers and sixteen Alligator class LSTs, to say nothing of the revolutionary Ekronplan "wing-in-ground-effect" vehicles (which could carry a company of troops and vehicles at speeds upwards of 300 knots).

One would think with this pedigree the Russian shipbuilding industry could manage to build an LHA similar to the Mistral with little difficulty, and at considerably lower cost than a French yard. Yet Russia is intent on acquiring the ship abroad, which is indicative of a stunning decline in Russian naval construction capability and/or the deliberate starvation of the Russian defense industry by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Either way, good news for us: the decline of Russian military capabilities proceeds apace, while its attempts to leverage "petro power" rest on a base of sand as Russia's own gas and oil production begin their slow but steady decline, and the world discovers and exploits alternative supplies (such as the huge natural gas deposits off the coast of Israel).

If the sale goes through, I suspect that Russia will quickly suffer from buyer's remorse: French warships have long been designed with Mediterranean operations in mind (a problem for the Baltic and Pacific Fleets, I imagine), tend to be more lightly constructed than either British or American warships, are not particularly durable or good sea boats, and have inferior electronic and weapon systems. If a French ship is a step up for Russia, the Russian navy is in serious trouble.

Alan Brooks| 6.16.10 @ 8:22AM

The Concorde crashing in 2000 was the most spectacular thing about it.
With all the hype that attended the Concorde, you would have thought it was a Moon shuttle!

Ammo Guy| 6.16.10 @ 8:59AM

Heh, heh…reminds me of the tale involving Libya's attempt at building a chemical weapons production facility in the 1980s - apparently after studying its design and Libyan technical abilities (or the lack thereof), the intel community decided the best thing we could do was allow them to operate it because they likely would do more damage to themselves than we could do with an airstrike. C'est la guerre I suppose.

Alan Brooks| 6.16.10 @ 9:43AM

"C'est la guerre"

Never prevent an enemy from destroying himself, said Napoleon. Same can be said for the GOP.

JP| 6.16.10 @ 9:24AM

The Indian Navy put in an order for an old Soviet aircraft carrier in 2001. Five years later, after several years of delays, technical snafus, and increased costs, the Indians canceled the order. Instead they purchased from the US the retired USS Ranger carrier.

For the Russians, amphibious assault ships are meaningless without carrier support. If those ships get within 100 miles of any nation that posseses even a modicum of air defences, those ships would be toast.

John K| 6.16.10 @ 11:36AM

The Indians did not buy the Ranger. The purchase of the Russian carrier has been a nightmare for them, trying to convert an old and unmaintained ship for modern operations has cost a fortune, they would have been better advised to build a new ship from scratch. However, they are stuck with it, and the work is proceeding, at great cost.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 12:37PM

The Indian Navy has extensive carrier experience, having acquired over the years two British light fleet carriers which they operated as VSTOL platforms. Their present requirement is for a CTOL carrier, because CTOL aircraft are, as a rule much more capable than their VSTOL counterparts. The Soviet carrier in question was the Admiral Gorshkov, a hybrid "aircraft capable cruiser" (to finesse the Montreux treaty forbidding capital ships from transiting the Dardanelles) with an angled flight deck aft and a heavy missile armament forward. It can carry 12 VSTOL aircraft and 20 helicopters. To convert it to operate CTOL aircraft, the Indians would have rebuild the entire superstructure, which, considering the age of the hull and machinery, is not worth the expense.

The only Soviet full-deck carrier, the Varyag (AKA Admiral Kusnetsev) was never completed and was acquired by Ukraine in the breakup of the USSR. Ukraine then sold it to a Hong Kong company that transferred it to the Chinese navy, which may or may not fit it out for sea service. At 33,000 tons, it is only about one fourth the size of a modified Nimitz class CVN, and has an aircraft capacity of just 26 fixed wing aircraft (plus 24 helicopters), vs. 72+ aircraft for a U.S. carrier.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:05PM

The Indians bought MiG29s as well - apparently they are grounded with structural defects. They do not think it was a good deal. Anything from Russia comes with a caveat emptor label in big red letters.

axbucxdu| 6.16.10 @ 12:49PM

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 7:03AM wrote: "Either way, good news for us: the decline of Russian military capabilities proceeds apace, while its attempts to leverage "petro power" rest on a base of sand as Russia's own gas and oil production begin their slow but steady decline... "

Good, this reduction then, should initiate our controlled, but committed withdrawal from NATO, since the organization's founding was a response to the Soviets.

And while the Russian "Oil Needle" may be draining away, the basis for American power, the Federal Reserve Note, rests on less than sand: nothing. So, for all concerned, but particularly the U.S., it seems an opportune time to end the military protection welfare to free rider Europe.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 4:59PM

No standing alliance in history has endured in the absence of a common threat. The problems of NATO since 1991 have been related to collapse of the USSR.

That does not mean, however, that NATO is currently superfluous (though it certainly behaves like it at times). The Alliance remains necessary to prevent Russian adventurism, which is why I favor bringing both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO; had Georgia been in NATO a couple of years ago, it is doubtful that Russia would have invaded. Bringing Ukraine, Finland, Sweden and Georgia into the Alliance would bottle up Russia until it reconciles itself with its new status as an ordinary, middle-size regional power.

Second, NATO will remain necessary as a security framework against Islamic terrorism--it might be the only thing keeping the Europeans from curling up in the fetal position and sucking their thumbs.

That said, as I have written often, the Europeans have to pull their weight. Current European defense spending is less than 2% of GDP and likely to shrink further as austerity measures kick in. But we must insist they do this, because on the one hand, we cannot have free riders, yet on the other, we cannot afford to lose all influence over European security.

axbucxdu| 6.16.10 @ 8:42PM

Thanks for the response, Mr. Koehl. But, as an ordinary citizen, both fading Russian adventurism and Islamic terrorism sound more to me like excuses rather than legitimate justifications for NATO. Absent that genuine common threat, the Alliance won't overturn history it will simply repeat it with or without our participation.

Seriously, how many armored divisions, bases, and bomber fleets are we going to continue to need to defend against a hollowed out Russian military and fight extremists? In the latter case, continued Islamic immigration into Europe will ultimately nullify any coherent effort against terrorism.

And that's only the demand (mission) side of the system. On the supply side, the finances of the USG are impaired, and it's not an extreme possibility that they could collapse under the weight of simple arithmetic. In that event, NATO will be exposed as the artifact it is, and an expensive one at that.

Besides, going on a quarter century past the Cold War, it's time to accept that it's over, and that NATO has served its purpose in terms of U.S. security. This period calls for retrenchment and consolidation, not more expansion. National security needs to take priority over international security.

hospitaller@hotmail.com| 6.17.10 @ 8:11PM

The Russians are screaming blue murder about new gas drilling technology that is rapidly reducing the costs of gas and increasing the available reserves. The Russian military and industrial complex is built around being a major energy supplier and the new technology blows that right out of the water. The Russians are trying to bluff with a pair of deuces - they have a weak hand and they know it. But the Europeans and foreign policy establishment are so gutless and stupid, they will probably fold anyway and let the Russians get away with their bluff.

Marcus Starr| 6.16.10 @ 11:05PM

Hats off to Putin! He's a Russian nationalist! America needs it's American nationalist! The Democrats are crazy and evil minded and the Conservatives are wimps! marcusstarr2000@gmail.com

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 11:02AM

Actually, Putin is just a KGB thug. Russia deserves better.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:16PM

The Russians deserve Putin - they like the guy, they like a tough guy who stands up to the west. Do make the mistake of thinking the Russians are fuzzy Californian feel good hippies at heart. Russians are bastards, let them through the door and they can steal anything except a red hot stove. Try dealing with them, it is very hard work and you have to keep your hand on your wallet the whole time.

Stuart Koehl| 6.20.10 @ 6:10AM

I've known Russians and been dealing with them for thirty years. They have the potential to be a great nation, and they do deserve better than Putin. An increasing number of Russians are beginning to realize this.

Tom| 6.16.10 @ 7:50AM

"Over 200 yards long and with a displacement of some 22,000 tons, capable of carrying 500 or more troops, 35 combat helicopters, a squadron of battle tanks and a full field hospital, the Mistral is a powerful means of force projection second only to an aircraft carrier."

Well maybe not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 8:56AM

The Mistral class are a rather pale imitation of the U.S. LHA/LHD concept, absent the ability to operate LCACs and with a significantly smaller flight deck and vehicle deck. Also, French ships are not built to anything like the damage control specifications of U.S. ships, even our amphibious assault vessels.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:21PM

France has not won a war in 200 years and in WW2 the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 held out longer than the French did in 1940, and they never surrendered. Almost makes me feel sorry for the Russians if this is the best they can do.

Alan Brooks| 6.16.10 @ 1:11PM

The French are superb at rapidly moving in the Westward direction.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:22PM

Especially if to retreat or surrender. They will move quickly to any point in the compass to do that.

wayne| 6.16.10 @ 3:42PM

Think about how much more effective the Marine Amphib boats will be once the antiquated Harriers are replaced with F-35's!!

Pfft Mistral's

Melvin| 6.16.10 @ 9:35AM

Have someone bribe the elephant with peanut. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself. I just had to say that.

Martin Owens| 6.16.10 @ 8:52AM

Reminds me of Tsar Nicholas buying his fleet in the late 1800's- the one that the Japanese wiped out at the battle of Tsushima.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 8:58AM

Those were also mainly of French origin or design. The Japanese, on the other hand, put their trust in Vickers and other British shipyards. After Tsushima, countries were lining up to buy British warships. French warships, not so much.

Louis Jenkins| 6.16.10 @ 9:04AM

France is as France does. They have never been in step with the west and will continue so. Between the foie gras coolers and the wine locker I'm sure the Ruskies will find comfort.

Ammo Guy| 6.16.10 @ 9:08AM

It's kind of ironic that Sarkozy would consider selling anything military to the Russians considering what they did to his ancestral homeland in 1956…OTOH, considering how snake-bit their aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has been, perhaps it's a trap.

JP| 6.16.10 @ 9:48AM

Too bad the Germans cannot ressurect the old Prussian spirit. Prussian soldiers from Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Pommerania, East Prussia and Saxony were a thorn in the French's side from 1813 onward. Field Marshall Bulcher was at Wellington's side at Waterloo, and Field Marshall von Moltke humiliated the French at Metz and Sedan.

And the French thirst for revenge for thier humiliating loss to the Prussians in 1871 would result in the slaughter of thier own sons and husbands and an end to the old European Order. People talk about the mischief of the Germans; the French provided a big assist.

A. C. Santore| 6.16.10 @ 9:51AM

1. "French warship" is an oxymoron (contradictio in terminis for those of you who don't speak French). When was the last time a French "warship" engaged an enemy? Our Revolutionary War, probably [I'm not sure they "engaged" an enemy even then, unless sailing over the horizon qualifies.]

Darlan, Algiers, 1940, you suggest? I'm not sure how much was "engage" and how much was "scuttle" and "escape."

2. If you haven't yet read "Our Oldest Enemy," by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky, you must get it and read it. It will put this sale into most precise and complete perspective.

JP| 6.16.10 @ 10:00AM

The Battle of Trafalgar in 1806 (or was it 1805?) comes to mind. Of course, it was a naval disaster for them. Before that, the Isle de Saints (they lost that one), and the Battle of Chesepeake (a draw, but should be considered a French victory was the British couldn't rescue thier forces at Yorktown).

John K| 6.16.10 @ 11:38AM

October 21st, 1805.

The French Navy took part in the Crimean War, both World Wars, the Indochina War and Suez, when the USA stabbed its two allies in the back and sided with the Egyptian nationalists. Good call.

davelnaf| 6.16.10 @ 10:04AM

Yes, it’s Russia up to its old tricks again and it’s not a positive development. But consider that French, and the entire EU, support for the ISAF in Afghanistan is weakening and NATO itself is a security partnership in name only (and that name is Europe, not the defense of the US) and it doesn’t look all that bad. And while such a sale can cause consternation in some capitals, the French have, as you mentioned, done worse things to NATO solidarity. Put in perspective the alliance has been crumbling from within for some time and the Russia hardly had anything to do with that, since the crumbling started prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If Europe and the US want something to worry about that might seriously impact NATO solidarity it is the growing Muslim presence in Europe fostered by an immigration policy that has a distinctly suicidal tinge to it. In another generation it might not matter to alliance solidarity who the French sell ships to because there will be no alliance and much of Europe is heading in the same direction.

It’s worth mentioning that during the Cold War the US Navy regarded the Soviet’s two aircraft carriers more as targets than threats. Let’s hope that similar sentiments about these new ships do not upset the Obamanoids.

Bobby| 6.16.10 @ 10:30AM

HAHAHAHAHA! A French WARSHIP? Surely you jest! The Russians want a Mistral Class Assault Ships should be renamed the Miscarriage Class! Frogs once built good ships. The SS France was really a great liner. But, the Frogs have such a hard time with their unions, they can't build much of anything of quality anymore. I'll be glad to see the Russians stranded at sea on a foundering Frog built ship! I suppose that if the Russains intend to intimidate, oh, say maybe THE FRENCH, then they will have the right ships to do it! HAHAHAHAHA a Frog WARSHIP. Say it ain't so!

Gr0w1er| 6.16.10 @ 10:56AM

That the Russians are interested in buying French warships says a lot about their current shipbuilding capabilities (or lack thereof). As a Naval Aviator at the height of the Cold WAR, we routinely flew over Soviet naval assets DIW (Dead In the Water [embarrassing]) being towed by Soviet trawlers (even more embarrassing- for a supposedly 'blue-water' capable navy)!

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 12:40PM

Indeed, to stage any sort of out-of-area deployment by even a small surface action group, the Russian navy must halt all other operations, cannibalizing ships for spare parts, reserve most of its operational fuel budget for the year, and assign an ocean-going tug to the mission--just in case.

Such deployments are really just stunts, and in no way demonstrate real operational capabilities.

Choey| 6.16.10 @ 11:08AM

Aren't these the ships that go faster in reverse than forward?

Clinton nee Publius| 6.16.10 @ 11:55AM

Setting aside the industrial capacity issue, the French shipbuilding quality issue and the attending who's economy benefits issue, we are left with a larger question.

If everything is so great in the post-Cold War world, why is Russia buying all this hardware? Why is Russia developing the MIG 39 stealth fighter? Why is Russia so concerned about its defense capabilities in a world where nobody has threatened them?

The answer is Eastern Europe. Russia wants it back and a fleet would allow it to intimidate Poland back into the fold and new aircraft will defend it all. As was the case with the advent of the communists, we see what is happening and we are laughing it off - whistling in the dark as we walk past the graveyard - hoping we will not have to face reality.

And yet it will not be so...

The French have an inbred sense of appeasement for dictators and the left loves tyrants who will exercise absolute authority because this allows them to join a movement that will allow them to live the life they feel entitled to live; one that comes out of the labor of others and at the risk of others as part of the price of the others' very existence. Entitlement means more than the basics to these people; it means a life of luxury and corruption on a scale of the czars and American business royalty in exchange for nothing more than granting everyone else the right to exist.

In the end, we can laugh about what is going on here and we can compare these efforts to our military and sleep well at night, but people don't buy bullets to use as landfill and only a fool looks at a tidal wave and gets their swimming trunks and beachball out to play.

The price of freedom is diligence and the advent of evil only requires that we allow the enemies of freedom to delude us into thinking that bears are all like Yogi.

Make no mistake, the Russian economy is suffering unprecedented unemployment and reductions in GDP. They can't afford to be wasting money on weapons, so why are they buying them?

VORONOFF| 6.17.10 @ 1:44AM

We buy because we want to live. If we do not buy weapons, the U.S. will destroy us - any means. Tales of the fact that the U.S. does not threaten Russia in the Yeltsin era was over. Russia can not get up because there should spend money on weapons. We do not want war! But if necessary, destroy you with this dish (the ship) or without it.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 5:05AM

Silliness.

VORONOFF| 6.17.10 @ 6:17AM

Of course nonsense. This does not fit into the ongoing U.S. propaganda that Russia is an enemy

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 11:06AM

Russia isn't important enough to be an enemy of the United States. It's basically just New Jersey with 2500 nuclear warheads, which it knows it cannot use, and a large but decrepit conventional military which performed ineptly against an insignificant opponent.

Russia is, however, a very bad neighbor, and a nuisance, which needs to be reminded of its proper place in the international order.

Remarks about Third Rome are more apt than most might think--except it's not the Rome of Caesar Augustus, it's the Rome of Silvio Berlusconi to which Russia bears the strongest resemblance.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 12:47PM

"If everything is so great in the post-Cold War world, why is Russia buying all this hardware? "

Essentially, to be a credible military power, Russia has to have some operational capability. Its Soviet era ships, aircraft and ground systems are at the end of their useful lives, and because Putin has systematically starved the Russian defense industry of both R&D and procurement funds, buying abroad is the only viable alternative. But the Russians are not replacing old stuff at a 1:1 ratio, or even 1:2; it's more like 1:4-5, which means, at the end of the day, Russia's armed forces will consist of a small number of modern weapon systems backed up by a much larger number of obsolete and largely inoperable legacy systems.

"Why is Russia developing the MIG 39 stealth fighter? "

Mainly as a prestige project. The odds of the Russian air force actually buying more than a handful are slim to nil. Export sales might be more important--a fallback if the U.S. does not make the F-22 or F-35 widely available to its allies.

"Why is Russia so concerned about its defense capabilities in a world where nobody has threatened them?"

Mostly bluster, for domestic consumption and to frighten the Near Abroad. No rational military analyst considers the Russian military a serious threat except to its smallest neighbors (like Georgia).

"The answer is Eastern Europe. Russia wants it back and a fleet would allow it to intimidate Poland back into the fold and new aircraft will defend it all."

A dubious proposition. The Polish military is both more modern and better trained than the Russian military. Its F-16 force alone could put the entire Baltic Fleet on the bottom in relatively short order. And these Mistral ships have no fixed wing capability.

"Make no mistake, the Russian economy is suffering unprecedented unemployment and reductions in GDP. They can't afford to be wasting money on weapons, so why are they buying them?"

As compared to the recent past, they aren't.

Clinton nee Publius| 6.16.10 @ 3:08PM

Interesting that you find the means to justify a new arms race and yet find nothing untoward about it. I bet you would have fit right in at the Munich Conference. Tell us, compared to being dead in the past, is being dead now any different? Why does Russia feel the need to "bluster" as you say, even though nobody threatens them? If this were for domestic consumption, then Rational Choice Theory dictates they would set off upon a program of building their own industrial capacity and adding jobs and real income. Strange, I find no solace in your words; only the temptation to turn a blind eye to an emerging aggressor who wants to "bluster". Sounds like a bully. When a bully blusters, the next step is the bully beats on people.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 5:09PM

Russia today is not Germany in 1938. Germany in the 30s was a dynamic, expanding country with an aggressive ideology, a growing population, and a high degree of self-confidence (misplaced, as it turned out).

Russia is a power in steep decline, economically, socially and demographically. There are some 140 million Russians today; in 2015, there will be only 125 million, and by 2050, barely 115 million. That's a lot of territory to fill with not many people.

Furthermore, the Slavic proportion of the population will continue to decline fastest, driven both by the birth dearth and the high mortality among Russian men (59 years and declining). Russia will soon become a country dominated by old women.

The demographic decline is symptomatic of serious social malaise, a lack of cohesion also characterized by rampant corruption, increasingly heavy-handed authoritarianism, empty materialism and rising hedonism.

Economically, Russia has two ends but no middle. on the one hand, there is a small high tech sector specializing in military and aerospace products; on the other, there is a large "extractive sector" based on oil, gas and minerals. With foreign direct investment driven away from the oil and gas sector by Russian government policies, and with Putin deliberately starving the defense/aerospace sector, it would only take a year of $50/barrel oil to drive Russia into total collapse. At $70/barrel, it will just take a little longer.

The danger is Russia, seeing itself in a trap of its own making, will try to break out by doing something stupid. Russia could never win--or even come close to winning--but it would be very messy and costly for everyone concerned.

Grandpa| 6.16.10 @ 1:17PM

Why, exactly, do we need the French? They aren't our allies (other than in name only) and would sell us out for 30 pieces of silver at first opportunity.

gabriel| 6.16.10 @ 10:43PM

As a Frenchman who's been in your fine country on and off for close to forty years, I'd love to be able to get 30 pieces of silver for every idiot like you... Trouble is, I've looked around : there is no takers.
I do, however, value my true American friends.

RCV| 6.16.10 @ 11:16PM

Thanks Gabriel, and we value our true French friends as well. Lafayette, we are still here!

Al Adab| 6.16.10 @ 3:46PM

Lets see, French national heros are:
Charlemagne- a German
Jean D'arc- 14 years old
Napoleon- an Italian

About says it all eh?

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.16.10 @ 6:01PM

Let's ask the many military guys that post here. How would you like to serve on the flagship of a destroyed communistic bloc built by the Union labor of the cheese eating surrender monkeys? The only thing more fitting would be to name it after one of Americas great naval officers, La Jimmi Cartre.

Stuart Koehl| 6.16.10 @ 7:21PM

There actually is a USS Jimmy Carter--SSN-23, to be precise. I've always wondered what nickname they gave her.

Nick| 6.16.10 @ 9:00PM

Mr. Koehl,

I remember reading a few years ago that just ONE of our aircraft carriers could destroy most national air forces in the world.

If this is indeed the case, is it justified, in your opinion, for us to maintain 11 Carrier Strike Groups?

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 5:12AM

Having aircraft carriers means we can deploy abroad 3-4 consistently (we might surge to 5-6 in an emergency, but not for an extended period). We have one carrier for training, leaving ten operational. Of these, three are on station, three are returning from deployment, three are working up to deploy, and one is in long-term overhaul.

In general, we deploy 1-2 carriers in the Pacific, 1 in the Mediterranean, and 1 in the Persian Gulf. In the Atlantic, one is working up and one is for training; while in the Pacific, we 1-2 carriers working up.

When we surge, we take carriers from someplace else, which means somewhere important goes uncovered.

One also has to remember that the strategic purpose of the U.S. military is not to fight wars, but to deter wars and further U.S. foreign policy. Carriers are a very useful element of "passive suasion"--when we want to make a point, we send a carrier.

Finally, there is the matter of China. I have frequently written that any conflict with China will be at sea and in the air, since China cannot go anywhere by land, and we cannot sustain a large army on the Asian mainland. A strong naval presence based on carrier airpower is one of the most useful deterrents we have against future Chinese aggression.

Nick| 6.17.10 @ 9:19AM

Mr. Koehl,

Thanks for the response and the great information.
I really appreciate it very much and value your opinion.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:32PM

Yes, it does. Peace comes through armed strength. As Ronald Reagan used to say, nobody ever picked a fight with Jack Dempsey.

The alternative is appeasement. Do you need a lesson on how well that worked?

Nick| 6.17.10 @ 8:58PM

Mr. Holland,

I was making no argument.
I was sincerely curious, and Mr. Koehl is someone I trust for a straight answer.

The Pentagon, like all bureaucracies, has been known to waste large sums of money, from time to time. No harm in asking if this was an example of such waste, right?

If you read my posts, you will see I am no appeaser.

axbucxdu| 6.18.10 @ 12:28AM

All more reasons to shed the Alliance. We can be more responsive acting alone in protecting our own interests. While the alternative may not be appeasement, more like war conducted by committee, but would be just as fatal...

Pablos| 6.17.10 @ 1:43AM

During Civil War of 1861-65 two Russian squadrons were send to NY and SF to show European powers that Russia is ready to defend independance of US. One should remember it sometimes.

Yosemeti Sam| 6.17.10 @ 1:47AM

" ... PUTIN ALSO ADVANCED toward his second, more important goal: getting his hands on French military equipment and technology, starting with four Mistral-class warships. If he brings it off, it will be the first time in the 61-year history of the Atlantic Alliance that a member state has sold advanced military hardware to Russia -- and a major step toward dividing the West...."

LOL.

It's been said that the French military were
the " Force de Crap" . Or some such - estimation.

The French Maginot Line - equally turned out to
be historical crap. Thanks much, France, for your military prowess and designs!

Not to worry, folks - the Ruskies woefully need
retread military hardware to make themselves look macho.

KOBA235| 6.17.10 @ 2:58AM

"In 1940, to start there, they capitulated after six weeks and then, once we had stormed the Normandy beaches four years later, symbolically "liberated" Paris with General Leclerc's pitiful, ragtag division"
There have been 53 major wars in Europe
France had been a belligerent in 49 of them; UK 43.
In 185 battles that France had fought over the past 800 years, their armies had won 132 times, lost 43 times and drawn only 10.
Giving the French military the best record of any country in Europe.
Learn history you ignorant Git.

Christopher Holland| 6.17.10 @ 8:36PM

OK, you got me, but how does Chateau Thierry and Omaha beach fit into this picture of unblemished success? Do I believe you or my own eyes?

Yosemeti Sam| 6.18.10 @ 12:02AM

" ... ignorant Git ."

Indeed!

About many matters.

In fact all of us have a PhD - in ignorance!

BTW, how many of those "won 132 times" were attributable to a short squirt who favored hiding one hand in his bemedaled vesture as he wrought
wars in Europe?

Of note: France could have trounced emerging Nazi Germany - early on.

Sadly, 50+ million lives later it had to be 'saved' by America.

Some vaunted engaging fighting force - the French military and its' 'hardware'.

Not important| 6.17.10 @ 3:08AM

"In 1940, to start there, they capitulated after six weeks and then, once we had stormed the Normandy beaches four years later, symbolically "liberated" Paris "......and it is not a shame to you such to write? Where you were four years? Waited who more strongly? You the cynic

Richard Baker| 6.18.10 @ 4:15PM

"NATO's Secretary General, the pallid Anders Fogh Rasmussen, boldly sticks his head deep in the sand: "NATO as such doesn't have any role in this sale. I take it for granted that the sale will take place in accordance with all international rules and regulations, [and] that Russia will not use or misuse such military equipment against any neighbor." Does this idiot even know why NATO was started? We've defended these European morons since 1945? Shut down US Forces-Europe, bring them home, and let these idiots defend themselves. Two World Wars in the 20th Century was enough.

jason taylor| 6.19.10 @ 1:50PM

The Russian Navy wants amphibious assault ships? They do realize that they have to avoid being sunk long enough to make an amphibious assault, don't they? The history of the Russian navy does not give hope for that achievement. They were after all the only navy in world war two that lost more submarines then enemy merchant ships sunk.

Stuart Koehl| 6.20.10 @ 6:17AM

I suspect they want them mainly as command ships and as reliable platforms with which to show the flag and undertake humanitarian assistance and other low intensity ("Petersburg Task") missions. The U.S. Navy's most visible roles of late have been precisely in such operations (e.g., the tsunami, the Haitian earthquake, various hurricanes), which it does well because it has a large amphibious capability. When infrastructure is destroyed and ports are blocked, we can bring in stuff over the beach in landing craft or helicopters. We can insert Marines to restore order and oversee the distribution of aid, and we can bring the injured back to the ships for medical care.

Russia has nothing like that, and as a result, can't play in this extremely valuable (from a strategic PR stance) game.

Gary| 6.22.10 @ 8:04PM

Mr. Koehl seems to be the one writer in this discussion who has a sense that power politics can be conducted by largely diplomatic and symbolic means. You have to let the other global players do things their way so you have an easier time getting your way on the things that truly matter. Americans often seem to think they have to have their way every day on everything.