mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Merkel Defends French Warship Sale

Should France halt its sale of Mistral ships to Russia? Angel Merkel says no, because this sale is not part of the current round of sanctions. And a future round of sanctions is not exactly about to be triggered:

“The question of exports to Russia falls under stage three. About when to trigger stage three, if there is more destabilisation we have agreed, also myself bilaterally with the US President, that if elections take place we won’t trigger stage three. We see elections have taken place successfully, but that there were also negative elements of destabilisation [in east Ukraine],” she noted.

“If there is further destabilisation, yes, stage three—we’ve always said it,” she added.

Business as usual, nothing to see here.

As for the notion that the United States might purchase the Mistrals itself, thereby sparing French jobs, we just note in passing that the French bank BNP Paribas is on the verge of having to pay the United States a fine in excess of $8 billion for circumventing U.S. sanctions against Sudan and other countries. It might be overly simplistic to think that any of that money could be used for other means; the U.S. financial regulators pursuing the case are supposed to be operating independently of political considerations. But when you look at the figures (the Mistral contract is $1.6 billion) and consider that the French bank is getting ready to plead guilty to knowingly undermining official state policy, perhaps it’s not so crazy to think that BNP should pitch in and help the French shipbuilding industry as part of their settlement.

It won’t happen. But it’s worth thinking about. Even if the two stories aren’t directly linked, they both contribute to an overall portrait of the stranglehold that business interests have on European foreign policy.

Features Icon
show comments
  • rheddles

    The real question is should the US continue to to defend a bigger and wealthier EUrope if it won’t take the appropriate measures to protect itself.

    • Diws

      That depends on what the forecasted consequences would be for the conquest of Europe by a third party, or by one of the countries within it. Given that two destructive world wars in the 20th century originated in Europe, there would seem to be a case for our involvement, not to mention that the core of US geopolitical strategy is to prevent a unified power from emerging in Eurasia (just as Britain’s was to prevent a dominant power from emerging in Europe). It is unfair, especially when the Europeans are, with few exceptions not pulling their weight. But fairness does not weigh for much where geopolitics are concerned.

      • rheddles

        Is it the case that the United States owes eternal protection to every country it conquers? If not, who better to stand on their own than the richer, bigger EUropeans. And if so, who pays?

        I’m also at a loss as to why the EUropean’s ability to start wars requires our involvement in their foolishness. It was a mistake to get involved the first time and the second would not have happened had we not..

        Defending EUrope is not unfair, it is unwise.

    • S.C. Schwarz

      I couldn’t agree more. I’m no isolationist but why we spend a nickel defending these clowns is beyond me. Close every base, recall every soldier, redeploy the fleet to the Pacific and withdraw from NATO.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service