The events around delivery of the first France-built Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia are unfolding in a strange manner. Our readers will remember that due to the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine’s east which is caused, in France’s opinion, by Russia, France’s president Francois Hollande suspended the delivery of the first Mistral warship to Russia, even though the ship had already been baptized Vladivostok.
It should be noted that this 200-meter-long assault warship can carry 21,500 tons of weaponry and equipment, including 16 helicopters, 60 armored personnel carriers, a hospital, as well as 450 troops. During the war against Georgia Russian military officials said that with such a ship they would be able to occupy the country within hours.
And now with sanctions imposed on Russia, which is not going to stick to the Minsk agreements, two days ago Russia’s vice Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin tweeted that the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier would be delivered to Russia on November 14. As proof he posted a photo of an invitation which Russia’s defense firm Rosoboronexport received. The text in English invites the Russian party “to arrive in Saint-Nazaire and join 360 Russian navy crew members and 60 instructors training new crews, for the delivery of the first vessel, the Vladivostok, and the floating-out ceremony for the second one.” According to Rogozin, technically the contract is being carried out in accordance to the plan.
However, late at night his statement was disproved by France’s Finance Minister Michel Sapin who said that at the moment the delivery of the warship to Russia was impossible. In an interview to RTL he explained, “We must see that the situation in Ukraine is stabilizing.”
Meanwhile Reuters reports sources in the environment of France’s defense minister to say that during November the president of France must approve the delivery.
By the way, the French ship-building corporation DCNS also disproved the delivery date for the first Mistral, cited by Rogozin. “In view of reports on the possible delivery of the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia, DCNS would like to specify that at the moment we are expecting the governmental license necessary for the delivery of the vessel,” said AFP quoting the DCNS spokesperson.
Tatiana KASTUEVA-JEAN, head of the Russie.NEI.Visions program at IFRI, Paris, said the following in her comment on the denials of Rogozin’s statement (including one made by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and the origins of the letter quoted by Rogozin: “There are two explanations to this: either DCNS decided that the Mistrals will be delivered in any event, so why should we wait, let us send out the invitation and get everything ready without an agreement with the foreign ministry. Or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is waging a campaign for the sake of public opinion and its Western partners while the delivery is being prepared at full speed, and it has probably given DCNS orders to start. At any rate, this is significant due to two moments: firstly, the delivery is still under way and all the talking about postponing or cancelling it is just a red herring, so the delivery will most probably take place. Secondly, the lack of coordination between different actors is characteristic of the general state of affairs in this government.”
Certainly Ukraine closely follows the events unfolding around the delivery of the Mistrals, which could directly jeopardize not only our country, but the entire Black Sea region.
A source in Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said to The Day in this respect: “Firstly, the discussion around the delivery of the Mistrals is producing more and more questions and lack of understanding, against the backdrop of the EU’s persistent refusal to allow selling weapons and even dual-use equipment to Ukraine. Secondly, leaving aside the very serious geopolitical and military consequences of the delivery of these Mistral warships, a question arises: how will the French government and the manufacturer feel should the warships be used to beach troops at Odesa or Kherson? What arguments will they suggest to justify the delivery of the vessels to Russia?
“And thirdly, one should bear in mind that the statements which we have been hearing lately on the part of the EU show that it strongly disapproves of Russia’s behavior. First of all, in the context of implementing the Minsk deal and their organization of the so-called elections on November 2. Of course I would like to hope that this will also be a factor influencing the settlement of this question by the French government.”
“THE LOSS OF FACE FOR FRANCE WILL BE GREATER THAN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES”
Ukraine’s foreign ministry believes that these arguments should be used now in a dialog with Paris. Besides, the diplomat said, there are mechanisms to solve the question of non-delivery of the Mistrals to Russia with minimal losses for the French government. Even in case of legal action on the part of the Kremlin, France could cite the embargo as an argument, or at least the facts which were the reason for imposing the sanctions. Secondly, it must extensively seek for new customers, which is also an option.
As we know, Rogozin’s tweet on the date of the delivery of the first Mistral was followed by reports of world-wide protest actions outside French Embassies under the slogan “France’s Shame Day,” which virtually starts a boycott of French goods.
“Should even one Mistral be delivered,” remarked the diplomat, “the loss of face for France will be greater than economic advantages, because there can be no sound arguments in favor of the delivery of the warship. Moreover, even the very fact of the delivery now that Russia has taken a time out sends a very bad signal about the standpoint of one of the EU’s key member states. In effect, it urges Putin to act. The delivery of the Mistral is equivalent to handing over a weapon to Putin for the implementation of new aggressive plans.”
COMMENTARY
John HERBST, former US ambassador (2003-06) to Ukraine:
“I am skeptical that France will sell the Mistral to Moscow. Historically, France has been associated with great advances in the human condition. It is the home of the Enlightenment and the Rights of Man. France too knows the bitter fruits of occupation under a fascist regime. How could it possibly supply advanced weapons, new offensive capabilities to a strong man who is occupying his neighbor and threatening to take additional offensive action? Such a step would be in grave contradiction to France’s role as a great nation and defender of liberty.
“Recent developments in the Ukraine crisis demonstrate that the Kremlin has no intention to reverse its aggression in Ukraine. Both Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande have played a major role in the Minsk process, which is designed to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In Milan the two made it clear that a true ceasefire means Ukraine’s control over all territory in the Donbas (although decentralization measures for the Russian-controlled area may be part of this), Ukrainian control of its side of the Russian-Ukrainian border in the East, and an end to the flow of Russian military supplies and fighters in the East. They also insist that if there are to be elections in the areas controlled by Moscow-led forces, it must be under Ukrainian law. There is no indication that Mr. Putin is willing to do any of this. Recently, the Kremlin noted that it had no reason not to recognize the legitimacy of elections scheduled for November 2 in the “Luhansk People’s Republic” and the “Donetsk People’s Republic” – a clear violation of Minsk agreement. It would be extremely embarrassing for France to go ahead with the sale of Mistrals when the Kremlin is flouting the Minsk process.
“What’s more, why should Mr. Hollande compound the strategic error of his predecessor and rival, Mr. Sarkozy. It was Mr. Sarkozy who arranged the Mistral sale. He did so as a gesture of good will to the Kremlin as he tried to reduce tensions following Moscow’s war of aggression in Georgia. Mr. Sarkozy thought that his intervention in that crisis would moderate Kremlin actions; but of course it had no such effect. Despite Mr. Sarkozy’s role, Russia recognized the “independence” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two provinces taken from Georgia by Russian arms. Mr. Hollande can easily explain that it was Mr. Sarkozy’s naivete that led to the Mistral deal and in light of continuing Kremlin aggression it is impossible to make the sale. It would be good politics for Mr. Hollande to stand as the French champion of liberty as he explains to Mr. Putin that France does not abet aggressors.”
