Should France deliver the Mistral warships to Russia?

The annexation of Crimea and the armed force used by Russia in Eastern Ukraine have been unanimously condemned by the member states of the European Union. However, none of the countries are willing to take a risk to go too far with their sanctions against Russia.

Ending hypocrisy

Behind the official declarations of the European leaders, are there any real measures are taken to support Ukraine? The European chancelleries have chosen the path of financial sanctions, but on the battlefield, the situation is still as serious, and has even been getting worse in the last months. However, despite its imperfections, the policy of sanctions against Russia has to continue.

The responsibility of a country such as France is to stay coherent in the policy of sanctions. To continue the military cooperation with Russia simultaneously with the economic sanctions, would not only be incoherent but also hypocritical.

A halt the sale of weapons to the aggressor state

The sanctions policy is contradictory since it is first and foremost aimed at the population, who will also suffer the most. A sanction in the domain of the military cooperation, however, has the benefit to not directly affect the wellbeing of the population.

In addition to that, even if in an acute need of money, France should think about the real price of these ships. According to Ukrainian authorities and military forces on the spot, Russia delivers  weapons and soldiers to the separatists every day, and in doing so violates also the Minsk Memorandum. The estimated number of military and civil deaths in Eastern Ukraine increases day by day.

The Mistrals cannot be put on the same footing as any other commercial good, like wine or cheese that France is proud to export. The Mistrals are weapons that we have to try to avoid giving to an aggressor at all costs.

European solidarity

This year, in spite of all the internal problems that the European Union's member states have to face, and in spite of the recurring difficulties of finding a consensus when it comes to common foreign policy, the European Union has been united in terms of the Ukrainian question. EU has been surprisingly fast and determined to take sanctions against Russia. The countries were united by a consensus on the threat that Russia meant for the peace and balance on the European continent by violating international law.

Solidarity is what Putin is the most afraid of. This shows in his manner to pursue his European policy: the Russian president handles each country separately, emphasizes that the sanctions cause harm to Europe, and that its a mere emanation of Brussels who gives orders to European countries.

Let’s not make a mistake here: the sanctions against Russia were not ordered by Brussels or by the United States. They were simply the product of a political will and consciousness, necessary to protect  democratic values, peace and freedom.

If France delivers the Mistrals, the other EU member states will have a reason to think that solidarity is only mask and in reality, each country is allowed to act according to its own commercial interest.

To respect the spirit of the Budapest Memorandum

With the Budapest Memorandum, signed the 5th December 1994, Ukraine has given up its nuclear weapons in exchange of keeping its sovereignty and the integrity of the State. According to this treaty, the countries that are supposed to guarantee the independence and the security of Ukraine are the United States, Great Britain and Russia. However, the latter has now violated Ukraine’s sovereignty, firstly through annexation of Crimea and then by starting a war in the Eastern part of the country.

In 1994, Ukraine has made an important sacrifice by giving up the supreme weapon. In doing so, it has proved its sensibility and willingness to relieve new tensions in Europe. Under these circumstances, shouldn't France abandon its profitable military contracts in order to give a chance of sovereignty to Ukraine, and in the long run, to whole Eastern Europe?

The Mistrals affair opens a wider discussion about pacifism and a generalized refusal to use weapons as means of international relations. This article argues that weapon delivery contracts such as this one are not acceptable: commercial advantages should never come before the need to maintain peace and to avoid war.