VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS
breakingnews
Go to main page   USA   News   “Do not sell arms to Russia!” – US congresswoman   Comments  
MORE ON THE STORY
AFP Photo / Dominique Faget 10.07.2009, 19:07 2 comments

Anti-missile defence plans in Eastern Europe ditched – newspaper

The US has ditched its anti-missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to a conservative right-wing Polish newspaper.

20.04.2009, 22:30

‘NATO troops cut will depend on Russia-US relations’

NATO’s response to Russian plans to cut military units and calls for similar actions from the alliance will mainly depend on Russia-U.S. relations, says Dmitry Suslov from the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy.

08.12.2009, 12:04 8 comments

EU needs mutual trust with Russia – Italian FM

Italy trusts the Russian Federation and its government, but it needs to spread knowledge about Russia to promote confidence and trust, believes Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini in an exclusive interview to RT.

23.02.2010, 21:42 7 comments

Moldova welcomes US ballistic missile defense system to Romania

Moldova is downplaying Romania's decision to host elements of a US missile defense system on its territory.

24.07.2009, 20:04 5 comments

United States says it will not re-arm Georgia

The US will not supply heavy weaponry to Georgia or deploy its monitors there, according to the American ambassador to Russia John Beyrle.

Image from military-today.com 03.10.2009, 11:16 7 comments

Tug-of-war in Mistral helicarrier deal

Russia’s Defense Ministry is exclusively negotiating the purchase of a large helicopter carrier – the French Mistral.

22.12.2009, 10:55 6 comments

Iran nukes are a problem – William Perry

If the US and Russia take the leadership in bringing nuclear weapons down, other nations will follow this lead, insists former US Secretary of Defense (1994-1997) William Perry.

Medvedev-Obama
(RIA Novosti / Danichev Alexay, STF) 04.03.2010, 13:53 6 comments

NATO calls for calm as Russia goes shopping for French warships

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s Secretary General, attempted to ease alliance members’ concerns over Russia’s planned purchase of French-made warships.

12.03.2009, 11:42 3 comments

France rejoining NATO command good news for Moscow

France’s intention to fully integrate NATO structures will strengthen the position of those countries within the alliance who don’t seek conflict with Russia, say experts.

27.05.2009, 20:33 3 comments

“Russia tests prevailing mood in NATO countries”

Mikhail Troitsky, a political analyst from Moscow University of International Relations, discusses the predominant concerns in the Russia-NATO council meeting in Brussels.

“Do not sell arms to Russia!” – US congresswoman

Published: 18 December, 2009, 10:11
Edited: 30 June, 2010, 07:30


French "Mistral" helicopter carrier

A US congresswoman is urging NATO and the European Union not to sell weapons to Russia.

 
21 COMMENTS
Artyom December 18, 2009, 07:32 quote
+1

Unfortunately, that is the real sentiments of the US government who continues to try and encircle Russia, block deals, and interfere at every junction of Russia's bilateral relations with other sovereignties. The US government claims Russia is holding onto Cold War mentalities is very ridiculous and now shows hypocrisy in their own actions. Many in Russia are against this deal alone. Russia is supposed to be a partner and bending over backwards for US foreign interests, bending on issues like Iran, breaking the S-300 contract they've signed for US interests. They let US and its NATO to fly over Russia. Yet they won't stop the poppy fields and opium trade that increased under their watch. TAKE TAKE TAKE and no give. This is the nonsense of this congressman when she tries to involve herself in a partner's bilateral relationship which she has no business even looking into.

lolo December 18, 2009, 09:37 quote
-1

As harsh as it sounds, many in America know that Russia is not really interested in good relations with the West. They are very different in many ways from their western counter-parts.

peter December 18, 2009, 09:44 quote
+1

Even with US on the brink of disintegration with their economic disaster with more than 20% unemployment with millions living on charity handouts, their leadership still preaches antagonism with more powerful nations. Who is leaving with the illusion in Russia that partnership is possible with this kind of country when US has been denying Russia even membership into World Trade Centre for more than a decade for no reason. But fortunately Russia does NOT need anyone else’s armament nor any lessons whom to sell S-300 to.

Kihnu December 18, 2009, 11:26 quote
+2

Another example of the true American intentions toward Russia: weaken Russia in any way possible and then dismember the Russian Federation. Russia must never lose sight of the fact that America and NATO harbor hostile intentions towards her.

toma December 18, 2009, 15:13 quote
+1

if Europe can see through this blatant US BS, and actually make deals between EU and RF, makes itself independent... this can be ver good for the situation that heats up.(in central-southern Yurop) Russia needs western tech, because Russia may have its own supa-high-tech, but after dissolution of USSR much seems to have stalled. Everybody should ignore US, its dollar. EU should kick out Bilderberg out of its sight, those criminals. No wannabe empire needed here.(Europe) Russia should get something real instead of dollar with only 2 cents out of 100 backed... I wonder what US tries while START is now gone, if theyre ready for space warfare? I "feel" there is more to it. Nothing in politics is a coincidence

Sarah December 18, 2009, 15:13 quote
+1

It was reported just yesterday at the British media that Al Qaida terrorists were able to breach the security system of the United States's most expensive and sophisticated unmanned warplanes [drons]. now, why Russia, a nation known for its smart engineering feat, a nation that defeated The Third Reich with simply to make and effective weapons needs NATO made weapons in the first place? All I can say this is that Russia needs to go back to its history, that Russia needs to use its own human and technological resources to defend this great country for the Russian people and for our collective humanity.

Paul December 18, 2009, 22:33 quote
+1

The subjugation of Russia and the control of its natural resources is a major aim of the US. Obama's presidency does not change this aim. Only the tactics for achieving it are different. Russia beware! Do not make deals with the devil.

Kihnu December 18, 2009, 23:09 quote
0

It makes perfect sense for Russia to buy this French vessel. Russia should not expend scare resources to develop specific purpose vessels such as this helicopter carrier if they are available for purchase. Resources would be better spent on 5th generation sleath aircraft technology; submarines; sublaunched missiles (the Bulava missile has not been successful); and, drones (which the Russians do not produce, except for a few primitive craft). Russia already purchased drones from Israel which will kick start their own production of such aircraft. Nothing wrong purchasing this vessel. But, I am afraid that America will put pressure on the French not to sell it to Russia.

JohnyCash December 18, 2009, 23:21 quote
-1

First that Congresswoman is Cuban and normally she doesnt like Russia after she had to live her country in big part because of Soviet Union. Second US does not have 20% unemployment and is not gonna collapse. Third US drives the dollar down on purpose to manipulate how much they owe and to make their products cheaper.Fourth Russia cannot compare to US in nothing period, US has superior Naval and air power over any country which is what you need to win any war. Fifth show respect for the country founded by a group of men compare to none( Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton) who used ideas from John Locke and Adam Smith. Thank you and have a nice day.

Nuta December 19, 2009, 00:39 quote
-1

You want to talk about BS…“20% unemployment with millions living on charity handouts”....sounds like the type of rhetoric that use to come out of the USSR… First of all, Russia doesn’t have the brain power within its own borders to compete with the US, Japan, Germany, France and England; which is why they turned to France to attain a state of the art war ship. Let’s not kid ourselves (as much as you would like too) and stopping dreaming the dream that the US, will soon crumble and fade away…..

Sarah December 19, 2009, 01:45 quote
+1

Paul, but let us not forget that Russia’s vast landmass and abundant natural resources have lured over the ages many would be conquerors-all were defeated. But Russia shall never purchase weapons from NATO. Russia should create new employment opportunities for the Russian labour force whilst rebuilding the nation’s defence capability.

alldo December 19, 2009, 06:33 quote
+1

DUMB, DUMBER AND DUMBEST. Americans do not wish ill will toward the Russian people. Most of the Russian people are very similar to the average American people. We all work long hours and pay our taxes in a world that is becomming more and more difficult for us all. Americans, as a whole, should not be judged by the actions of a few politicians. Also, Americans should not judge Russians based on the actions of a few Russian politicians. It is not wise to let the small stuff divide us. Our people have too much in common.

Josh December 19, 2009, 20:26 quote
+1

Don't worry guys, these are just the death throes of a once powerful nation about to go bankrupt. If Russia wants to buy weapons from BAE, you'll get no complaints from me as everyone is a winner, our economy gets a boost, and you get some well made and trustworthy military equipment. Peace and Love guys.

Thomas December 22, 2009, 21:50 quote
+1

This is such a joke, some obscure congresswoman dictating to the French...Laughable. The United States and Russia have been the two largest arms exporters in the world for the last 65 years. And have fought proxy wars for decades, in the Miiddle East, Africa, Asia, Central and South America and the list goes on. Russia is and always will be a super-power and can buy from whomever it wants, and so can any other country, including the United States..which will never relinquish its super-power status. If the world in general really knew how much the US Congress is disliked and so out of touch with the "Real" Average Working America, people in the world just don't have a clue, and get their view of America through Hollywood movies. The US Congress is run by Corporate Lobbyist and Wall Street, not the American People, Get a real clue People. Follow the money and you will get the answers you seek.

Daniel December 25, 2009, 18:24 quote
+1

What hypocrisy! The sad thing is, this woman should be more concerned with the corporate hucksters and globalists that are robbing Americans of their individual freedoms. Our president has surrounded himself with Wall Street scum, the very ones who have aided and abetted the financial "crisis" and she wantes to meddle in affairs between france and Russia. What an absolute idiot!

Perun January 10, 2010, 08:41 quote
+1

December 18, 2009, 23:21, JohnyCash wrote > First that Congresswoman is Cuban and normally she doesnt like Russia after she had to live her country in big part because of Soviet Union. Second US does not have 20% unemployment and is not gonna collapse. Third US drives the dollar down on purpose to manipulate how much they owe and to make their products cheaper.Fourth Russia cannot compare to US in nothing period, US has superior Naval and air power over any country which is what you need to win any war. Fifth show respect for the country founded by a group of men compare to none( Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton) who used ideas from John Locke and Adam Smith. Thank you and have a nice day. ====================== God Bless Founders and Framers of the USA, unfortunately Bushomerika has lot more in common with Mr. Adolf and Uncle Joe! Power corrupts and ideals of the Framers have been replaced by the hooligans and opportunist serving masters with deepest pockets.

GarryB February 22, 2010, 01:36 quote
+1

The Russians of course have the expertise to make their own helicopter cruisers, but if the Mistral meets their requirements and is available why design from scratch? If the US had provided B-17s and B-29s during WWII the Soviets would no doubt have happily bought a production licence to make B-29s like they did with the DC-3 which was produced under licence because although they could design such an aircraft themselves why spend all the money to design and make something when it is available to buy? Not very well recognised in the west but in the Soviet Union and Russia there is fierce competition for every item in service, we just see the item enter service and see little of the competition. It is not just saving one company developing a Heli cruiser, it is saving 2 or more companies wasting scarce resources to develop unproven designs from scratch to meet the needs of the Russian navy. It could take a decade and for all that time the shipyards will be doing other things than building helo carriers. This French vessel is a proven design but although it might come with the high tech hospital, it wont come with the sensors and communications equipment or weapons so Russian designers will have to integrate such things on the shell they get from the French that will be the first vessel. Russian shipyards will build a further 3-4 vessels under licence with similar electronics and systems. Russian designers and ship builders will benefit from this. The Russian Navy will get a proven design quickly. The French ship workers will build a ship. If it is OK for the French armed forces to use Russian laser guided artillery shells and the Russian Army armoured vehicles to use Russian licence produced thermal imagers then why is it not OK for the Russians to buy a French ship. Perhaps the better question is WTF does this have to do with the US?

For Russia February 23, 2010, 18:50 quote
-1

Many Russian patriots do not want the French carrier because they BELIEVE that Russia may build its own. Sorry to disappoint friends (and god knows I love Russia) but our armed forces are not able to ship high-tech as the Mistral currently. And therefore it must buy to find out how. And especially to strengthen our relations with France that the country is the least painful of NATO

Arthur Borges April 04, 2010, 01:44 quote
0

February 22, 2010, 01:36, GarryB wrote > the Soviets would no doubt have happily bought a production licence to make B-29s Um, the Soviet B-29 is called the Tu-4. At the time the B-29 was the only nuclear-capable aircraft in the whole world, so the US was in no mood to export any to anywhere. As the story goes, Stalin ordered construction of an exact copy and there must have been nervous breakdowns working with metric equivalents of the foot & inch dimensions of every part from bolts to wing sections. See: http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm or Bing "Russian B-29".

GarryB June 30, 2010, 07:17 quote
-1

@ Arthur, Yes, I know the US wasn't prepared to offer the Soviets the B-29. The Soviets asked for B-17s and B-29s and got twin engine bombers very much like the ones they were making themselves like the Pe-2 and Tu-2. The point is that they copied the B-29, though they used Russian engines and replaced the 50 cal defensive guns with more effective 20mm cannon so even the Tu-4 it wasn't a direct copy. The Soviet bombers of the time were designed in 1933 like the Pe-8. The real irony is that it was a Soviet aircraft that saved the B-17 from being developed in the first place... it was a long range single engine Soviet aircraft that landed unexpectedly in the US that caused a mild panic and saved funding for the the strategic bomber. The Soviet plane was called the ANT-25. Regarding the B-29 being the worlds only nuclear bomber is a bit of a stretch as at the time only the specially modified B-29s used over Japan actually could make that claim, and considering an offer to sell the Soviets a B-29 would never have included a similar offer of a nuclear bomb it becomes a non issue. There had been no requirement for big heavy long range bombers for the Soviets during WWII so all their heavy 4 engine bomber projects were halted. At the end of WWII there was a sudden need and no time to develop so buying the B-29 design would have made more sense than trying to reverse engineer it if that had been an option then. It wasn't. Right now with the Mistral it seems it is an option so they are logically going to take it if it meets their needs.

POST COMMENT

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our posting rules


CAPTCHA image