• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Russia invades Ukraine

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,347
Location
SE London
Ah, okay. The original poster added the excitable anti-EU commentary themselves then. The Germans really aren't painting themselves in glory over any aspect of their delusional Russia policy though.

Ah I think I see what you mean. I'm guessing you're referring to the statement 'What is the point of the EU? we are better off out of it.' - yes, that's just what @REVUpminster wrote in this thread - it's not from the article.

I guess I shouldn't quote the entire article since the Telegraph has a paywall, but the first few paragraphs read:

Telegraph said:
France and Germany armed Russia with €273 million (£230 million) of military hardware now likely being used in Ukraine, an EU analysis shared with The Telegraph has revealed.

They sent equipment, which included bombs, rockets, missiles and guns, to Moscow despite an EU-wide embargo on arms shipments to Russia, introduced in the wake of its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

The European Commission was this month forced to close a loophole in its blockade after it was found that at least 10 member states exported almost €350 million (£294 million) in hardware to Vladimir Putin’s regime. Some 78 per cent of that total was supplied by German and French firms.

As far as I can make out, it's referring to the period between 2014, when the EU imposed the arms embargo in response to the annexation of Crimea, and the start of the Ukraine war.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,392
Location
Yorks
Here’s a list of countries that the U.K. has sold military weapons to: link
(I currently can’t quote this as it’s a table and I’m using a mobile device)

The problem with any political law is that vested interests deliberately ensure there are loopholes. Our British government are excellent at doing this with our own legislation.

The loopholes in the E.U. embargo are what allowed the sales of weapons to Russia.

The real question is do you think it is more or less likely that such loopholes would be allowed if the U.K. was still in the E.U.

As we are now outside the E.U. we have no say in any E.U. internal matters.

It does make one wonder what's the point of having the embargo in the first place if you're just going to ignore the spirit and purpose of it.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,660
Location
West is best
Here’s an article from a different source www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2022/eu-states-exported-weapons-to-russia/

EU member states exported weapons to Russia after the 2014 embargo​

Missiles, aircraft, rockets, torpedoes, bombs. Russia continued to buy EU weapons until at least 2020. Despite the ongoing embargo, ten member states exported € 346 million worth of military equipment, according to public data analysed by Investigate Europe. Some of these weapons could be used against Ukraine now.

17 March 2022

By Laure Brillaud, Ana Curic, Maria Maggiore, Leïla Miñano and Nico Schmidt
Picture of the 27 EU leaders meeting in Versailles, 10 March 2022
The 27 leaders of the EU in front of the Chateau de Versailles, France. © European Union, 2022

“Our destinies are linked. Ukraine is part of the European family. Vladimir Putin’s aggression is an aggression against all the principles we hold dear” said EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Last week’s Versailles summit showed how the European Union is trying to unite after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yet, just over a year ago, Vladimir Putin and his army were still good customers of the European arms industry. A third of the European Union’s member states exported arms to the Russian Federation, according to data from the official Working Party of the Council on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM), analysed by Investigate Europe.
This data from all EU-27 official arms exports registers shows that between 2015 and 2020, at least 10 EU member states have exported a total of €346 million worth of arms to Russia.s. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Finland, Slovakia and Spain – to different extents – have sold “military equipment” to Russia. Our investigation shows that the term “military equipment” is broad and can include missiles, bombs, torpedoes, guns and rockets, land vehicles and ships.

An embargo full of loopholes

This is despite an embargo of the European Union that prohibits arms sales to Russia and which has been in place since 2014:
The direct or indirect sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts therefore, to Russia by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.
COUNCIL DECISION 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014
This decision followed the annexation of Crimea and the proclamation of the Donbas separatist republics. However, in the EU, the arms trade continued, as official data shows.
Many of the EU countries that exported weapons to Russia used a legal loophole in the EU regulations to continue their ongoing trade. The Working Party on Conventional Arms Exports of the Council answered IE’s questions, explaining that “the EU arms embargo contains the following exemption: contracts concluded before 1 August 2014 or ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts. The figures you find in the database should fall under this exemption. Member States are responsible to ensure compliance with the arms embargo and the EU Common Position.” That’s why, COARM concludes, “Member States are not arming Russia.”
But the conclusion is not that simple. Siemon Wezeman, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), makes a distinction between the regular economic trade and arms exports. “Weapons are a part of our foreign policy, not of economic policy. Political reasons are the main thing.”

Made with Flourish
According to the COARM data, after 2014 Member States issued more than a thousand licences (editor’s note: general authorisations for arms deals), while barely a hundred were refused. And at the top of the list of European exporters? France.

France, top exporter of arms to Russia​

As reported by Disclose, France has sold €152 million worth of military equipment to Russia. A figure confirmed by Investigate Europe’s analysis, and places France far ahead of its neighbours, exporting 44% of European arms to Russia.
Our investigation found that since 2015 France has given its authorisation to export military equipment belonging to the category “bombs, rockets, torpedoes, missiles, explosive charges”, weapons directly lethal but also “imaging equipment, aircraft with their components and ‘lighter-than-air vehicles’”.
According to Disclose, French exports also include “thermal imaging cameras for more than 1,000 Russian tanks, as well as navigation systems and infrared detectors for fighter jets and combat helicopters. The Kremlin bought these from Safran and Thales, whose main shareholder is the French state. This equipment can now be found on-board the land vehicles, fighters and helicopters operating on the Ukrainian front.
The number of licences issued by France jumped in 2015, immediately after the embargo (see data visualisation). In 2014, according to our research, the French authorities were still giving their authorisation to send to Russia “chemical agents”, “biological agents”, “riot control agents”, “radioactive materials, related equipment, components and material”.

Made with Flourish
Questioned on Friday 4t March by IE, the Ministry of the Armed Forces took 11 days to reply that France is committed “to apply very strictly” the 2014 embargo. The missiles, rockets, torpedoes and bombs sold to Russia over the past five years are “in a word, a residual flow, resulting from past contracts (…) and which has gradually died out”, assures the French government.

Germany: €122 million for guns and vessels​

According to information collected by Investigate Europe, Germany exported €121.8 million worth of military equipment to Russia. This represents 35% of all EU arms exports to Russia. It mainly consisted of icebreaker vessels, but also included rifles, and “special protection” vehicles which were sent to Russia. The German government has not responded to questions about this from Investigate Europe.
The German exports are labelled “dual use”. This is why even German politicians critical of the weapons exports and pacifist NGOs contacted by Investigate Europe don’t consider the exports a legal breach of the embargo.
Hannah Neumann, member of the European Parliament of the German Green Party, and member of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, is upset by the situation. “Each country exports according to its own will, we need a common policy on arms exports, based on law and transparency with the involvement of the European Parliament (…)”, she told us “I am tired of backdoor deals to the benefit of only the arms industry and at the detriment of joint EU foreign policy – and peace.

Italy: Land vehicles on the Ukrainian frontline​

In third place on the list of exporters COARM data shows Italy, which has sold €22.5 million worth of military equipment to Russia between 2015 and 2020. According to our investigation, the first big contract signed with the Federation happened in 2015, when the government of Matteo Renzi authorised the Italian company Iveco to sell €25 million worth of land vehicles to Russia. Investigate Europe was able to read the “final authorisation” delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the minister at that time was Paolo Gentiloni, now European Commissioner). In the end, our research shows that only €22.5 million worth of equipment went to Russia. But the war vehicles – the Lynce model, produced by IVECO – were clearly spotted by a journalist on the TV channel La 7 on the Ukrainian frontline, in the beginning of March. These vehicles were assembled in one of the three factories that Iveco has in Russia, but assembled from Italian parts.
image-2.png
War vehicle produced by the Italian firm IVECO in Russia, spotted by the TV channel “La 7” on the Ukrainian frontline in March 2022

Giorgio Beretta, Analyst at the Permanent Observatory on Light Weapons (OPAL), told IE:
“In arms export it’s mainly a political decision, the Italian government could have refused, then go into a legitimate trial with the arms company, and a judge would have taken into account the political situation and the need to respect a European agreement.”
After 2015, the flow of weapons and ammunition exported to Russia from Italy decreased, only to rise again in 2021.r. According to the Italian statistical office, Istat, data for foreign trade, between January and November 2021 Italy delivered €21.9 million worth of ‘arms and ammunition to Russia. This included ‘common arms’ such as rifles, pistols, ammunition and accessories.
How is it possible that six years after the embargo went into force, that the Italian government could still licence so many arms? These weapons – semi-automatic rifles and ammunition – were sold to the Russian civilian market, which includes private security, para-military and special State bodies.

Small exporters, big weapons​

Looking at what other Member States were exporting to Russia in this period, some of them also had a constant flow of exports, albeit on a much smaller scale than the big suppliers. The Czech Republic exported “aircraft, lighter than air vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, aero-engines and aircraft equipment” every year between 2015 and 2019.
Austria also continued to export military equipment to Russia every year, “smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of less than 20mm, other arms and automatic weapons with a calibre of 12,7mm” and “ammunition and fuse setting devices, and specially designed components”.
Bulgaria had two deals, in 2016 and 2018, exporting “vessels of war, (surface or underwater) special naval equipment, accessories, components and other surface vessels” and “technology” for the “development”, “production” or “use” of items controlled in the EU Common Military List”, worth €16.5 million. Finland, Spain, Slovakia and Croatia each had one export to Russia, of a much smaller amount, in the previous years.
But Europe is not alone in having to deal with contradictions regarding their exports. According to SIPRI’s data on arms exports, there’s an even stranger fact: it was not just the EU selling arms to Russia after the annexation of Crimea – Russia also remained the second biggest market for weapons exports from Ukraine.
Edited by Paulo Pena and Juliet Ferguson
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,503
Todays paper; German and French weapons are likely being used in the Ukraine by the Russians. £230m sold by the two countries defying EU sanctions since 2014. What is the point of the EU? we are better off out of it. Even the the German greens want to send heavy weaponry to Ukraine.
The cynics might say we are only doing it because it gives a real world test to our weapons.

This just sounds like an anti-EU post for the sake of it, unless it's the EU itself who has been selling weapons.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
I think the key thing that's been misconstrued in the Telegraph article is:
France has given its authorisation to export military equipment belonging to the category “bombs, rockets, torpedoes, missiles, explosive charges”, weapons directly lethal but also “imaging equipment, aircraft with their components and ‘lighter-than-air vehicles’”.
It's highly unlikely that France will have sold bombs, rockets, missiles or torpedoes as the systems will be completely incompatible - you can't launch an Aster missile out of a S-300 launcher for example . It's more likely than not that the "explosives charges" will be industrial explosives designed for the mining industry (but which could be repurposed as demolition weapons). And "imaging equipment" can include thermal cameras that can equally be used to find either people lost in the wilderness or camouflaged enemy troops. And so on.
 
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Messages
777
….It's highly unlikely that France will have sold bombs, rockets, missiles or torpedoes as the systems will be completely incompatible - you can't launch an Aster missile out of a S-300 launcher for example . It's more likely than not that the "explosives charges" will be industrial explosives designed for the mining industry (but which could be repurposed as demolition weapons). And "imaging equipment" can include thermal cameras that can equally be used to find either people lost in the wilderness or camouflaged enemy troops. And so on.

According to evidence given to the European Parliament, and published on their web site…

“….since 2015 France has issued 76 licences for the export of military goods, such as thermal imaging cameras for tanks, navigation systems and infrared detectors for fighters and attack helicopters, with a total value of about EUR 152 million, which are now being used in Ukraine(1).

The equipment was supplied by Thales and Safran, whose main shareholder is the French State. Paris took advantage of the fact that the EU embargo on arms exports to Russia imposed in 2014 was not retroactive to continue deliveries under previously concluded contracts(2).”

This was all equipment, explicitly designed for use in military applications.

Macron went to see Putin before the invasion, not only to be seen to be advocating peace, but with the threat to French arms and other contracts, firmly in mind.
The French media reported that, so why do you seem to dispute it?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
The French media reported that, so why do you seem to dispute it?
I'm not disputing it. I'm just pointing out that the Telegraph article gives the impression that EU companies supplied actual munitions, rather than dual-use items and equipment.
 
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Messages
777
I'm not disputing it. I'm just pointing out that the Telegraph article gives the impression that EU companies supplied actual munitions, rather than dual-use items and equipment.

Those are not “dual-use items or equipment“, but dedicated military systems and components.
Designed, marketed and sold as such.
The manufacturers were happy with the PR for clinching those multi-million € deals.
Dont try and pretend it was anything else, when much of it has been out in the public domain for a few years.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,180
Location
UK
We're buying and selling to the Arab nations and happy to buy from (and occasionally sell to) China. We've supported one regime and then switched to another over the years.

It is all pretty dodgy, but normal. Our economy can rely heavily on such deals, so people can and will turn a blind eye.

It's business and every Government can be sure it is doing the right thing at the time. Sadly, I feel that most people were still supporting Russia through trade right up until the 2022 invasion. For some reason 2014 didn't seem as significant, which is perhaps why even now a lot of people seem to forget Russia had actually started the invasion then, not this February.

It will never change. Russia is the bad guy today, and if Putin goes then there may well be attempts made to rebuild bridges and carry on (assuming Putin's replacement isn't worse). In the future it might be somewhere in the middle east or China, and it will look bad in hindsight.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
Those are not “dual-use items or equipment“, but dedicated military systems and components.
Designed, marketed and sold as such.
Sorry, I left out a word. I meant to write "...that EU companies only supplied munitions, rather than dual-use items or equipment".

By which I mean that while there were sales of overtly military systems and components, the article gives the impression that the companies were supplying bombs and bullets.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,077
Location
Liverpool
Mod Note: Posts #3,371 - #3,374 originally in this thread.

Starmer has said Corbyn's remarks on NATO recently make him being re-admitted into the Parliamentary Labour party "very difficult to see":



Based on this I cannot see him being able to stand as a Labour candidate in the next election (although expect an awful lot of noise from his core supporters in the run-up to it trying to get him reinstated), and he may even decide to stand down as an MP at that point. Altogether this would very much demonstrate to the wider public that Starmer has well and truly broken off from Corbyn's leadership of the party, likely strengthen the party's approval from swing voters as a result, and further disprove Johnson's attempts to try and link Starmer and Corbyn.
Why does Corbyn keep saying things I like? NATO isn't blameless in the current fiasco, and it's nice to hear a politician agree with that, it's level headedness in a sea of warmongers who just want to escalate the war. Maybe there's a way out that doesn't mean blowing each other to bits?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,836
Location
No longer here
Why does Corbyn keep saying things I like? NATO isn't blameless in the current fiasco, and it's nice to hear a politician agree with that, it's level headedness in a sea of warmongers who just want to escalate the war. Maybe there's a way out that doesn't mean blowing each other to bits?

I keep feeling like he was the true opposition, and was set up to go (pure speculation, of course).
Corbyn is a dull bore who issues polytechnic-level platitudes to the credulous fools who support him.

Life is not as simple as he makes out. “Why don’t we get round a table” is exactly the kind of nonsense you expect from a completely unaccountable independent MP with no chance whatsoever of having his thesis put into practice.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
How the hell is NATO to blame for Putin’s imperialism?! Jesus Christ, these people walk among us…
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,842
Location
Redcar
Why does Corbyn keep saying things I like? NATO isn't blameless in the current fiasco, and it's nice to hear a politician agree with that, it's level headedness in a sea of warmongers who just want to escalate the war.
There is one nation that could bring the war to an end this afternoon and it isn't any member of NATO, it isn't the Ukraine, it's Russia. They're the aggressor here, they're the ones raping Ukrainian women and girls, executing men and burying them in mass graves (or burning the bodies in mobile crematoria), they're the ones targeting hospitals, schools and civilian shelters. Russia. Not NATO. Not Ukraine. Russia.

If Russia withdrew it's forces from Ukraine the war would be over today. There isn't a "sea of warmongers" there's Russia brutalising an independent sovereign nation and it's people.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
It really does scare me that we have people so devoid of the ability to think for themselves that they blindly repeat Putin propaganda and think they are on the right side of the argument. It’s truly face-palm inducing stuff.

What next? Pol Pot was just misunderstood? Chairman Mao is a hero?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,188
Location
Taunton or Kent
Lloyd Austin has come out with an unusually strong statement on his visit to Kyiv:


The visit to Ukraine by Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin was all that you might expect.

A visible show of support. An announcement that US diplomats will return to Ukraine shortly. The promise of more military support.

But what stood out was this comment from Austin: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. It has already lost a lot of military capability… we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”

That is a surprising thing for a US defence secretary to say.

He might, of course, have been referring to Western sanctions degrading Russia’s military industrial base.

Or was he instead expanding Western war aims? Was he even implying that a longer war in Ukraine might be a useful thing?

Not all Western allies might share Mr Austin’s position, or his candour.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
NATO isn't blameless in the current fiasco, and it's nice to hear a politician agree with that, it's level headedness in a sea of warmongers who just want to escalate the war.
Could you explain, precisely, how NATO is responsible for Vladimir Putin's decision to invade an independent, sovereign non NATO-member country.
Lloyd Austin has come out with an unusually strong statement on his visit to Kyiv:
To me the key is the " the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability" - which indicates to me that it's more focused on economic weakening, rather than military.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,812
Location
Up the creek
To me the key is the " the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability" - which indicates to me that it's more focused on economic weakening, rather than military.

Which may only feed Putin’s paranoia, bitterness, feeling of being targeted by the West, etc. It will also, no doubt, be distorted in the Russian media and portrayed as another reason why Russia is in the right.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,934
Location
Birmingham
Which may only feed Putin’s paranoia, bitterness, feeling of being targeted by the West, etc. It will also, no doubt, be distorted in the Russian media and portrayed as another reason why Russia is in the right.
I suspect the Russian media will focus heavily on the first 6 words of Austin's speech: “We want to see Russia weakened......"

As much as I agree with his sentiments, the speech itself is a gift to Putin's propaganda machine.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,570
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I suspect the Russian media will focus heavily on the first 6 words of Austin's speech: “We want to see Russia weakened......"

As much as I agree with his sentiments, the speech itself is a gift to Putin's propaganda machine.

It's like we're right back in the Cold War - rhetoric and babble and little else.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,180
Location
UK
Which may only feed Putin’s paranoia, bitterness, feeling of being targeted by the West, etc. It will also, no doubt, be distorted in the Russian media and portrayed as another reason why Russia is in the right.

Of course, but so will everything.. or indeed even if nothing was said. Russia will always tell its people something and I am not sure we can really worry too much.

I wonder if Putin has a WhatsApp group where they discuss what to say and then multiple Russian politicians and generals cut and paste it verbatim...?!
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
I see Russia are trying to nuclear willy waving again. Just in case NATO plans to nuke poor innocent victim Russia.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
I see Russia are trying to nuclear willy waving again. Just in case NATO plans to nuke poor innocent victim Russia.
Given the way the that their conventional forces have been performing, that's about all they've got to keep them in the "major power" club.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,449
I think Russia have quickly come to realise that in a conventional war they would be defeated by tea time so nuclear sable rattling is all they've got.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
I think Russia have quickly come to realise that in a conventional war they would be defeated by tea time so nuclear sable rattling is all they've got.

Thing is how much of the rot that is clearly in every other branch of the Russian military is pervasive within the Strategic Rocket Forces?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,164
Location
Scotland
Thing is how much of the rot that is clearly in every other branch of the Russian military is pervasive within the Strategic Rocket Forces?
Traditionally they were the best paid forces, and it's a lot harder to pilfer nuclear missiles and sell them on the black market (not impossible though!)
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,449
Traditionally they were the best paid forces, and it's a lot harder to pilfer nuclear missiles and sell them on the black market (not impossible though!)
Or potentially missiles where tye nuclear material has been paid for but no material exists, doubt that could happen, though it would be somewhat funny for Putin to launch a nuclear strike only for nothing much to really happen.
 

Top