A conundrum...

As recently as Dec of last year, I posted a note about the Russians selling Soviet-era warships to emerging regional powers like India (HERE, for example) and gaining several advantages from the deal, not the least of which is cold hard CASH.

Today, I read an article about the proposed sale of a Mistral-class naval vessel by the French to the Russians. This article wasn't front page material, mind you... it was buried within a list of 479 other articles on recent European economic stories. Now, follow the above link and read the details about this particular class of warship. 45 day cruising ability, with the capacity to transport one-half of an entire heavy regiment of infantry and one-third of a regiment of tanks AND all the command and control features found in American "flag ships" today. In short, the ENTIRE Georgian intervention that gained so much press time last year by the Russians could have been conducted and controlled by ONE of these ships, which would then be next to impervious to counter attacks.

Perhaps you remember that France renewed its full member status in NATO in April of 2009. It has now agreed (for the second time) to allow its military forces and facilities to be utilized by the NATO Command for the mutual defense of Europe and the member states. This is the conundrum I spoke of in the post title: Is this sale of state-of-the-art naval technology to the Russians counter-productive to the goals and objectives of a NATO member?

I'm a huge fan of treaty obligations never being allowed to compromise national sovereignty, whether that sovereignty is US or anyone else. Part of me wants to say that if France is producing a "product" that they can profit by through selling to "partner states" (and Russia is a trading partner with the French), then it is their sovereign right to be able to do so.

I'm also perfectly aware of what the Russians/Soviets are so very VERY good at doing... reverse engineering technology for their own gains. Let me give you an example:

In 1945, Truman was pressured by the Soviets to turn over a regiment of B-29 Super Fortress bombers through the Lend-Lease Act... but Truman refused to do so because the B-29 represented the pinnacle of aviation technology at the time. However, three B-29s had been forced to make emergency landings in Soviet territory late in '44 and early in '45... and the Soviets kept the planes for themselves.

The result? The Tu-4 "Bull" bomber, which almost immediately spawned the Tu-85/95 "Bear" bomber... which is STILL in service today and constitutes the pinnacle of Russian long-range bomber/reconnaissance technology. From only three examples, the Soviets countered the threat that the B-29 presented to the USSR and bridged the gap between the US and USSR strategic aviation capabilities for the next 40 years.

My point in all of this is that the Russians are selling off the "old" (but perfectly serviceable) Soviet surplus for cash and are "buying" the latest and greatest technology from the "west"... even from NATO members themselves! I don't have to restate my opinion on the long-term goals of Russia, and especially the Putin-Medvedev partnership in the Kremlin, do I? They want their "super power" status back in a big way.

My questions is: Is it wrong for France (or anyone else) to help in that effort by selling them platforms and technology that can help Russia reach those goals?