• France faces up to 3bn euro in bills for Mistral delay to Russia, French shipbuilders express outrag
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DrAkcel;45898410]Trading laws are independent. Right?[/QUOTE] Would be interesting to see how independent they actually are. Like the west has a "monopoly" on credit rating agencies.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45898418]You're talking about isolation when most countries support their decision?[/QUOTE] Prove it. "Most countries". 99 countries, find supporting evidence please.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;45898394]It's funny how people forget about all advanced electronics they manufacture, high speed bullet trains and that they even sent a man into space 10 years ago.[/QUOTE] It is another debate; but I can assure you ( at least for the comac C919 ) that without the help of the occidental engineers to train ( sorry for the pun ) and support them those projects would have had a really hard time to come to life. But it's totally normal, and it's true that china have made a lot of advances. As far as I can tell ( I might be saying shit but whatever ) they put themselves in the same standard to the other powerful countries - but never actually set new standards.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45898418]You're talking about isolation when most countries support their decision?[/QUOTE] Your "most countries" are mainly NATO countries, all of which probably won't have france renege on a deal or can produce their own goods or get it else where. Other countries which might want to buy these goods, which aren't in your "most countries" have to trust france to deliver and this will be a mark on their record. France will never be isolated from the EU and US, at least not without something really bad happening. Other countries though they may not want to take their chances.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45898451]Your "most countries" are mainly NATO countries, all of which probably won't have france renege on a deal or can produce their own goods or get it else where. Other countries which might want to buy these goods, which aren't in your "most countries" have to trust france to deliver and this will be a mark on their record. France will never be isolated from the EU and US, at least not without something really bad happening. Other countries though they may not want to take their chances.[/QUOTE] Other countries won't take their chances if they're invading neighboring countries, just a thought you know, oh wait it's not a thought, it's a fact that this deal has been halted because Russia has been in an aggressive offense the past few months against anyone that dares say a word about their actions. Plus the whole invading a country thing.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Arbitral_Awards[/url] Recognized by all NATO members, unless France opts to be at the same level as North Korea and Congo, they will be forced to repay assuming a recognized international arbitration court ruled in favour of Russia, which they would because France signed a contract and is now possibly violating it.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45898418] If India is supporting Russia in this, neither France nor the Allies will care if they don't want to trade equipment anymore and it'll only deteriorate relations for the worse(and I doubt the Allies have anything to lose with India).[/QUOTE] Sorry if I misinterpreted your post but France do have something to lose ;I'll try to be more clear this time; - India supported Russia during the Crimean crisis ( we don't know india's position on actual Donetsk/Luhanks events ) - France [U]desperately wants[/U] to sell the rafale - India [U]might sign a contract[/U] to buy Rafales soon and it's one of the last serious potential buyer since brasil said no - France suspended the delivery of the ship because of actual Ukrainian events - India [U]might not want[/U] his potential command to be suspended if they project to actively support Russia btw now it's a tricky situation, no matter what France will do , each option will make a half of the planet hate us anyway...
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45896060]Yeah nah I don't think France wants to destroy their credibility in doing business with other nations. A contract is a contract, and agreed obligations must be met no matter whoever is the other party on the contract.[/QUOTE] i think any contract is null when one party proceeds to invade the ally of the other party
[QUOTE=Sableye;45898603]i think any contract is null when one party proceeds to invade the ally of the other party[/QUOTE] Ukraine is not an "ally" of France.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45897887]the era of "lol cheap chinese shit" is far over.[/QUOTE] Hardly.
I think Russia would much prefer to make a deal with France rather than go through a long tedious process getting their money back - they might say that this won't impede their modernization process, but why did they buy the ships in the first place then? They've trained on them and they've already paid for one of them, taking business elsewhere would mean they would have to wait at least 3-4 years more. They'll most probably find a political solution to this - with the ceasefire in place (kind of, at least), half the demands are already met. Seems like a dumb idea to be a bitch about this.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45898666]I think Russia would much prefer to make a deal with France rather than go through a long tedious process getting their money back - they might say that this won't impede their modernization process, but why did they buy the ships in the first place then? They've trained on them and they've already paid for one of them, taking business elsewhere would mean they would have to wait at least 3-4 years more. They'll most probably find a political solution to this - with the ceasefire in place (kind of, at least), half the demands are already met. Seems like a dumb idea to be a bitch about this.[/QUOTE] If anything Russia would get free technology from France if France decides to cancel delivery of the warship. SENIT-9 and other NATO standard fleet control technology and western ship building technology.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45898373]Quite literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read in SH. Russia would probably launch a lawsuit against France for the failure to deliver the ships in a recognized international arbitration court, for example the court in Geneva. Just as Iran threatened to do when Russia refused to deliver S-300's... and history repeats itself.. I don't think France wants to isolate itself considering arms exports are a major part of their economy.[/QUOTE] Oh no, not international court! The judge might send the international police after France! Law does not exist without enforcement. A judicial system with no enforcement arm is effectively worthless and an insult to real justice systems. Russia invaded a non hostile nation in an effort to overthrow a peaceful country. Nobody outside of Russia is going to give a shit if France tells them to go fuck themselves. Frankly I'd avoid doing business with France if they DIDNT tell Russia to fuck off.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45899014]Oh no, not international court! The judge might send the international police after France! Law does not exist without enforcement. A judicial system with no enforcement arm is effectively worthless and an insult to real justice systems. Russia invaded a non hostile nation in an effort to overthrow a peaceful country. Nobody outside of Russia is going to give a shit if France tells them to go fuck themselves. Frankly I'd avoid doing business with France if they DIDNT tell Russia to fuck off.[/QUOTE] France is a party to the New York Convention. It is binding domestically to all parties. It would essentially put France onto the same level as a pariah state and backing out of this globally recognized treaty would discredit their arms business globally.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45899027]France is a party to the New York Convention. It is binding domestically to all parties.[/QUOTE] No international agreement is binding unless you plan on invading or enacting broad spectrum sanctions as a result. Even then, nothing necessarily compels member nations to carry out punishment. Russia absolutely realizes this, which is what allows bold action and blatant obvious lies from them.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45896060]Yeah nah I don't think France wants to destroy their credibility in doing business with other nations. A contract is a contract, and agreed obligations must be met no matter whoever is the other party on the contract.[/QUOTE] Unless there is an embargo in place of course, which there might be. There are quite a few in force in the EU right now.
If you ask me, a contract is a contract. Doesn't matter what happened between signing and completion, both parties entered into a legally binding contract, Russia has already paid the majority of the cost of the ship, and France promised them two mistrals. Finish the contract, take Russia's money, and then refuse to take more contracts from Russia. The only other alternative besides breaking the contract and losing several billion euros is to break the contract and keep the money. But then France will be the bad guy and Russia will have a legitimate reason to sue France, and that's not something we need happening.
There's gotta be a way out of the contract considering the circumstances. If France gives them these ships, there's a chance they'll be used against Ukraine, and even though Ukraine isn't an ally, we support them. In the event they do have to give them to Russia, hopefully NATO will be at least willing to supply the equipment to destroy them, if not the personnel as well (temporarily operating under the UA's name, of course).
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45905175]There's gotta be a way out of the contract considering the circumstances. If France gives them these ships, there's a chance they'll be used against Ukraine, and even though Ukraine isn't an ally, we support them. In the event they do have to give them to Russia, hopefully NATO will be at least willing to supply the equipment to destroy them, if not the personnel as well (temporarily operating under the UA's name, of course).[/QUOTE] Yeah France can get out of the contract by refunding Russia the 3 billion Euros.
[QUOTE=Telepethi;45900264]If you ask me, a contract is a contract. Doesn't matter what happened between signing and completion, both parties entered into a legally binding contract, Russia has already paid the majority of the cost of the ship, and France promised them two mistrals. Finish the contract, take Russia's money, and then refuse to take more contracts from Russia. The only other alternative besides breaking the contract and losing several billion euros is to break the contract and keep the money. But then France will be the bad guy and Russia will have a legitimate reason to sue France, and that's not something we need happening.[/QUOTE] Given your stance on contracts what do you think about Russia breaking the one they made with Ukraine? Contract clearly stated if Ukraine gives up their nukes Russia will respect their borders and sovereignty....
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;45906144]Given your stance on contracts what do you think about Russia breaking the one they made with Ukraine? Contract clearly stated if Ukraine gives up their nukes Russia will respect their borders and sovereignty....[/QUOTE] One of the conditions was also for US and Russia to not interfere with Ukraine. Russia claims US did interfere.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45906499]One of the conditions was also for US and Russia to not interfere with Ukraine. Russia claims US did interfere.[/QUOTE] Of course they did.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45906506]Of course they did.[/QUOTE] The US openly supported the Revolution earlier this year, if that doesn't count as interference I don't know what does.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45906643]The US openly supported the Revolution earlier this year, if that doesn't count as interference I don't know what does.[/QUOTE] You can't compare vocal support to military presence though? "Good job, you want to be European and not Russian, fight for your rights!" "Ukraine has nazis, better invade." How does voicing your opinion interfere with sovereignty and borders compared to occupying a huge chunk of land?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45906653]You can't compare vocal support to military presence though? "Good job, you want to be European and not Russian, fight for your rights!" "Ukraine has nazis, better invade." How does voicing your opinion interfere with sovereignty and borders compared to occupying a huge chunk of land?[/QUOTE] It didn't specify military interference though.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45906705]It didn't specify military interference though.[/QUOTE] Guess everything is okay then, Russia is just acting according their rights to invade, hah hahah because hey, it's not in the contract, that doesn't interfere with anything, sneaky little devils don't you even dare [I]TALK[/I] about it though, that's breaching the rules
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45906643]The US openly supported the Revolution earlier this year, if that doesn't count as interference I don't know what does.[/QUOTE] They didn't physically do anything in Ukraine. All the US did was state they hoped they sided with Europe over Russia. How is voicing an opinion "interfering"? Russia is stretching the definition for an excuse to [I]actually[/I] interfere.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45907210]They didn't physically do anything in Ukraine. All the US did was state they hoped they sided with Europe over Russia. How is voicing an opinion "interfering"? Russia is stretching the definition for an excuse to [I]actually[/I] interfere.[/QUOTE] You can bet that the United States' role in the uprising was a lot more expansive than simply voicing an opinion. But even if it wasn't, expressing support for the uprising was a stupid thing to do in the first place. Remember Obama's reset with the Russians? I thought he was trying to say that America had gotten past it's Cold War hangups? It's like telling a guy you've been falling out with for years that you want to put it all behind you and then turning around and encouraging his girlfriend to break up with him.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45907503]You can bet that the United States' role in the uprising was a lot more expansive than simply voicing an opinion. [/QUOTE] How?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45906717]Guess everything is okay then, Russia is just acting according their rights to invade, hah hahah because hey, it's not in the contract, that doesn't interfere with anything, sneaky little devils don't you even dare [I]TALK[/I] about it though, that's breaching the rules[/QUOTE] I think they are saying the US did more than "just talk about it" America was/is clearly interested in having more influence in Ukraine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.