http://sputniknews.com/business/20150627/1023918623.html

Opinions? Personally I believe Russia is in the right here, they paid for something and they will get their money back since France did not deliver on it's promise.

This isn't big news, moreover, this wasn't big news.

I liked this bit of news, moreover, I liked this bit of news.

Russia is a piece of shit, it should be bombed with thermonuclear bombs

*USA is a piece of shit;it should be bombed with thermonuclear
bombs

Ion,you got Russia and USA confused.

Btw,your profile picture is disgusting.

Dunno whether that 250 million is a maximum fine(generally, contracts have this tendency to be looong and rife with details and exceptions etc)
France could maybe get a discount on the fine since "it's not their fault" - that is to say the EU doesnt want them to sell, but it would still look bad for France/EU's financial reputation,
so it might be cheaper to just pay up.

Now let me tell you the real story:

What is not right is the US dictating to blockrade Russia and boycott their market (because of the Ukrainian crisis), they forced us to stop to deal with them, whereas we were centuries old partners, and as our current government is coward as fuck, we abandonned the big business we have with the Russians, and now we have €1 Billion debts because of that shit, instead of having possibly earned €5 billion with that trade.
At the same time the US continue their business and we have nothing to say even if does not respect international trade laws (I remember the US Army or Airways story, they had to replace some planes, they chose the European Airbus which had clearly more efficient planes compared to the American Boeing, the US government reacted by stopping that fair trade and forcing to select Boeing's plane instead of Airbus, this is against any international trade rules, and we had nothing to say about that??)

It's time to change of government, we managed to get rid of NATO and American vassalage until 2008 and Sarkozy stupid decision to join it again (President Charles de Gaulle infuriated the United States when he suddenly pulled France out of NATO's military command in 1966, arguing he had to preserve French independence in world affairs). Should I remiind you that NATO has no longer any utility and reason to exist since Soviet Russia was dismantled??? This is again to put Europe into Murican tutelage.

I miss Mr. Chirac now (the guy who said no to war in Irak and managed to get Germany and some others on his side against that stupid war that Bush wanted) or even Mitterrand who were clearly stronger politicians internationally.

Edited 8/9/2015 10:31:46

#Hollandedémission

#FranceEstMorte

1 billion euro is just a small piece of shit for France, In Moldova some moths ago months ago was stolen also 1 billion euro from banks, and we live very good now.

And I think this is just another russian propaganda article to destabilize situation in EU, but fucked in head peoples like Жұқтыру trust everything and think that Russia is paradise and Putin is god

Putin is god yeah, mother Russia forever

Russia always wins the propaganda war

Angry Panda,

What is not right is the US dictating to blockrade Russia and boycott their market (because of the Ukrainian crisis),

That was not (solely, or even primarily) an American decision, it was the EU who wanted that boycott (and rightly so, in my opinion).

we were centuries old partners

Centuries? Two centuries ago (203 years ago, a few weeks from now to be exact), Napoleon marched into Moscow... but not quite as a "partner"...

instead of having possibly earned €5 billion with that trade.

The deal was for a total of 1.5 billion dollar, subtract the cost of actually building the ships and the best you could have hoped for is, what, maybe a 100 million profit?

(I remember the US Army or Airways story, they had to replace some planes, they chose the European Airbus which had clearly more efficient planes compared to the American Boeing, the US government reacted by stopping that fair trade and forcing to select Boeing's plane instead of Airbus, this is against any international trade rules, and we had nothing to say about that??)

That's because the Americans are paranoid about buying army equipment from non-US suppliers.

Also, thanks to their rampant spying on supposed "allies" (as far as I care, the NSA should adapt "with friends like us, who needs enemies" as its official motto), Boeing can win any contract because they get to see Airbus' offer before making their own. If you want to complain about politicians not having a backbone, tell them to tackle that issue!

Should I remiind you that NATO has no longer any utility and reason to exist since Soviet Russia was dismantled???

Please reread the first paragraph of your very own post: NATO (unfortunately!) still has a raison d'être; that reason is called Putin.

---

Butler,

Russia may be in the right if you look at this in isolation, but given the big picture, it's their own stupid mistake. If they want to buy weapons, maybe they should try and show they (as in: their leaders) are mature enough to be trusted with those weapons? Until either the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea and/or there has been a fair referendum, Russia stands alone as far as I care.

I see no reason whatsoever to allow anybody to sell weaponry to a country which has shown its willingness to abuse them (to prevent misunderstandings: there's quite a few more countries than just Russia which I'd be happy to see boycotted).

Then the US should be boycotted for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Also Russia stands within it's full rights as far as I am concerned to occupy Crimea and protect it's naval assets and to act hostile to a nation that just became a dictatorship. You forget that Ukraine's actual government was overthrown in a NATO supported coup destabilizing the area. So until the US stops destabilizing the region I support throwing Obama off the Grand Canyon.

protect it's naval assets

Are you referring to the treaty which governs the terms under which Russia leases that base from Ukraine? The treaty which had been renewed for another couple decades just months before the annexation of Crimea and which Ukraine had (to the best of my knowledge) not violated the slightest bit? (Sure, it was an awesome trump card to threaten Russia with, but Russia had its own ace up its sleeve (natural gas deliveries), so it's not like Ukraine could've taken it too far.)

a nation that just became a dictatorship

Wait what!? The Maidan protests got rid of a leader which, depending on your point of view, could be described as democratically elected, sure. But if a considerable part of the population riots in favour of another leader, you can voice a lot of complaints, but calling it a "dictatorship" makes no sense whatsoever: the people put him there.

Also, if Russia is afraid of dictatorships, I suggest it takes care of the one closer to home first: if you raise questions about the Ukrainian elections, surely you have a bone to pick with the Russian elections...!?

You forget that Ukraine's actual government was overthrown in a NATO supported coup destabilizing the area.

A NATO supported coup... riiight. You do of course realise this claim is, at the very least and to put it excessively mildly, "contested"?

So until the US stops destabilizing the region I support throwing Obama off the Grand Canyon.

Could you please provide some examples of how the US is destabilising the region; the large majority (or even all??) of their aid is of the non-lethal kind. Note this is despite repeated pleas for actual weapons... to help defend Ukraine against the actual weapons Russia is sending to Ukraine's south-eastern region. Heck, the US is even brave enough to admit they are helping Ukraine a little bit; that's more than Russia can say, which is pulling an "there are no Americans in Baghdad" and keep denying everything after having been caught red-handed... repeatedly... Or would you like to propose a mountain range to throw Putin off of as well?

Also Russia stands within it's full rights as far as I am concerned to occupy Crimea and protect it's naval assets

That's nonsense. By that line of thinking the U.S would have rights to occupy large chunks of territory from dozens of countries it has bases inside of in order to protect it's own military assets. I'm sure you would decry that scenario, so why is it okay for Russia to do it?

that just became a dictatorship.

Last I checked Ukraine's head of government does not wield unlimited power. As RvW pointed out, Russia is far closer to a dictatorship than Ukraine is.

You forget that Ukraine's actual government was overthrown in a NATO supported coup destabilizing the area.

Oh yes, I remember that. Just like how Obama's election was actually due to infiltration by the government of Kenya. I thought "NATO is behind everything" was a conspiracy theory only found on Russian propaganda websites.

So until the US stops destabilizing the region I support throwing Obama off the Grand Canyon.

Yes, the U.S needs to just pull out and leave Russia to do whatever it wants. We better tell the EU to stop meddling as well, what business do they have in Ukraine anyways? I'm sure Russia and Ukraine will come to an equal solution once everyone else pulls back.

Edited 8/10/2015 20:55:16

That was not (solely, or even primarily) an American decision, it was the EU who wanted that boycott (and rightly so, in my opinion).

NATO is America's fingers. It is all under American suzerainty.

Centuries? Two centuries ago (203 years ago, a few weeks from now to be exact), Napoleon marched into Moscow... but not quite as a "partner"...

French-Russian have been allies since the late 1800s. Just to use another example, America is best allies with Britain...but exactly 200 years ago, Washington was burned down, "not as a partner".

That's because the Americans are paranoid about buying army equipment from non-US suppliers.

Also, thanks to their rampant spying on supposed "allies" (as far as I care, the NSA should adapt "with friends like us, who needs enemies" as its official motto), Boeing can win any contract because they get to see Airbus' offer before making their own. If you want to complain about politicians not having a backbone, tell them to tackle that issue!

We talk about Europe, not America.

Please reread the first paragraph of your very own post: NATO (unfortunately!) still has a raison d'être; that reason is called Putin.

You must speak English or French, but not both (raison d'être). Anyhow, CSO is not doing much compared to what NATO/America has been doing, like destroying all opposition. Many folk I know who are from countries that hate current Russian government (for example, Georgia) are supporting Russia because it is the only one standing up to the worst: America. Russia's not doing anything good to Ukraine, but America was not doing anything good to Iraq or Pakistan. America is now targeting this specific Russian action as it sees that Russia is trying to pull Ukraine, a medium-power country back to its sphere, or punish it for not. This is threatening to America and NATO, who were hoping to get Ukraine. That's why big conflict there is there today.

Russia may be in the right if you look at this in isolation, but given the big picture, it's their own stupid mistake. If they want to buy weapons, maybe they should try and show they (as in: their leaders) are mature enough to be trusted with those weapons? Until either the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea and/or there has been a fair referendum, Russia stands alone as far as I care.

No weapons to America then. Wait until "maturity".

I see no reason whatsoever to allow anybody to sell weaponry to a country which has shown its willingness to abuse them (to prevent misunderstandings: there's quite a few more countries than just Russia which I'd be happy to see boycotted).

You seem to be under impression that countries have morality. Some smaller ones do, the important ones don't. They'll just sell to whoever will buy, regardless if they'll "abuse" or not.

Wait what!? The Maidan protests got rid of a leader which, depending on your point of view, could be described as democratically elected, sure. But if a considerable part of the population riots in favour of another leader, you can voice a lot of complaints, but calling it a "dictatorship" makes no sense whatsoever: the people put him there.

Also, if Russia is afraid of dictatorships, I suggest it takes care of the one closer to home first: if you raise questions about the Ukrainian elections, surely you have a bone to pick with the Russian elections...!?

Yes, the folk put him there. You should know that folk coming from revolutions are elected by terrorists and no-goods 80% of the time. He's a no good dictator and Ukraine is still a category 2 dictatorship. If you want to know more historic examples of such things, see Iraq War see Gulf War.

You forget that Ukraine's actual government was overthrown in a NATO supported coup destabilizing the area.

Oh yes, because NATO would never interfere in a revolution, especially one that aims to seek closer ties to westland, like NATO and EU.

Could you please provide some examples of how the US is destabilising the region; the large majority (or even all??) of their aid is of the non-lethal kind. Note this is despite repeated pleas for actual weapons... to help defend Ukraine against the actual weapons Russia is sending to Ukraine's south-eastern region. Heck, the US is even brave enough to admit they are helping Ukraine a little bit; that's more than Russia can say, which is pulling an "there are no Americans in Baghdad" and keep denying everything after having been caught red-handed... repeatedly... Or would you like to propose a mountain range to throw Putin off of as well?

All their claimed aid is of the nonlethal kind, all the important aid is of the lethal kind. Russia is saying the same thing, that they are sending humanitarian aid to rebellious regions, but under every medkit, American and Russian, there lies an AK-12 and an M4. Although it is ridiculous Putin is still denying involvement in this.

Edited 8/10/2015 21:26:53

Everyone forgets that America is a much stronger and militarily active country than Russia, we should be wary of America, not Russia.

But China is the hibernating gargantua.

Everyone forgets that America is a much stronger and militarily active country than Russia, we should be wary of America, not Russia.

I'd say be wary of both. The only difference between the U.S and Russia is that the U.S makes itself obvious. Russia seems to prefer more subtle operations so they can deny everything once it's over.

But China is the hibernating gargantua.

This statement I can fully agree with.