U.S. arms makers see booming European demand as threats multiply

[pikao]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

Russia Not A Threat To EU, Says Pro-Russian Poster

Russia will only be a threat to the EU if the US are starting their war on Russia from European soil, which is likely

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, BestB said:

If you say so, not that any of it was factual or relevant besides your “ I said so” but carry on????

 

You have to be far gone or trolling to assert that.

 

Russia did annex Crimea. Russia did carry/carries interventions in neighboring countries. Russia did carry out assassination attempts on European soil. It is claimed that Russia meddled/meddles with European politics. It is claimed Russia developed and deployed new nuclear weapons (breaching a relevant treaty). 

 

These aren't thing "I say". Some of it is plain fact. Some is strongly alleged by European governments. That you do not approve of the current European sentiment doesn't mean it does not exist. That you seek to claim that it does not rely on anything "real" is partly false and partly irrelevant - apparently European governments do not share your views.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, pikao said:

Russia will only be a threat to the EU if the US are starting their war on Russia from European soil, which is likely

 

Can you guarantee (or even support) either assertion in your one liner statement? Somehow, it doesn't seem as if European governments buy into these sort of assurances much.

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You have to be far gone or trolling to assert that.

 

Russia did annex Crimea. Russia did carry/carries interventions in neighboring countries. Russia did carry out assassination attempts on European soil. It is claimed that Russia meddled/meddles with European politics. It is claimed Russia developed and deployed new nuclear weapons (breaching a relevant treaty). 

 

These aren't thing "I say". Some of it is plain fact. Some is strongly alleged by European governments. That you do not approve of the current European sentiment doesn't mean it does not exist. That you seek to claim that it does not rely on anything "real" is partly false and partly irrelevant - apparently European governments do not share your views.

Again, Russia did not posses any threat to EU until US decided to play in Russian backyard.

 

Alleged Russian assassinations were on their own living abroad .

 

Russia has not threatened any EU countries and up until US interference enjoyed great economical and cultural relationship with all EU countries.

 

iran which you conviniently leaving out each time despite OP clearly stating Iranian threat also has not been a threat to EU until American interference .

 

So who is trolling ? 

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Can you guarantee (or even support) either assertion in your one liner statement? Somehow, it doesn't seem as if European governments buy into these sort of assurances much.

Says who? You again?

 

EU is bullied by US just like all other countries into doing what US wants or face possible cut off here or there.

 

Germany , Italy are loosing billions of euros in trade because of US threats .

 

take away US threats and see what and who EU would prefer to deal

with

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, BestB said:

Alleged Russian assassinations were on their own living abroad .

Salisbury novichok suspects say they were only visiting cathedral

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/russian-television-channel-rt-says-it-is-to-air-interview-with-skripal-salisbury-attack-suspects

 

Skripal Suspect Boshirov Identified as GRU Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/08/uk/skripal-russia-gru-petrov-suspect-intl/index.html

 

Salisbury poisoning: Russian doctor identified by Bellingcat as second Skripal suspect

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/08/uk/skripal-russia-gru-petrov-suspect-intl/index.html

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

Again, Russia did not posses any threat to EU until US decided to play in Russian backyard.

 

Alleged Russian assassinations were on their own living abroad .

 

Russia has not threatened any EU countries and up until US interference enjoyed great economical and cultural relationship with all EU countries.

 

iran which you conviniently leaving out each time despite OP clearly stating Iranian threat also has not been a threat to EU until American interference .

 

So who is trolling ? 

 

Russia not posing a threat until the US decided to play in Russia's backyard is counterfactual. Russia was seen as a threat and remained a threat. The first assertion is both false and amounts to "saying so".

 

Russian assassinations attempts are a fact. It makes no difference whether you claim targets were "their own". Ignoring citizenship and sovereignty issues doesn't make your argument stronger.

 

Economic ties are a matter of interests and needs. They do not always substitute security concerns or seeing trade partners as threats. You haven't supported your view that things have solely originated with USA actions in any of your posts up to now.

 

My original comment was about Russia. That's because I think the Iran part is rather weak in comparison. I'm not obligated to fully adopt or subscribe to any and all positions appearing in the OP. But be that as it may, I've actually addressed the Iran part in at least one of my posts above. You're welcome to deny or ignore that as well. Iran's nuclear efforts were definitely seen as a threat by European governments, and to  a lesser degree, the same holds with regard to its ballistic missile program. Good luck tying either with the USA.

 

As for your last query - answered already in my previous post as well.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, BestB said:

Says who? You again?

 

EU is bullied by US just like all other countries into doing what US wants or face possible cut off here or there.

 

Germany , Italy are loosing billions of euros in trade because of US threats .

 

take away US threats and see what and who EU would prefer to deal

with

 

Says European defense spending expenditure, reactions to Russia's moves in Crimea and neighboring states, or Russia's assassination attempts. Same applies for European claims regarding Russian meddling with European politics. All of these are matters of record, and were discussed across multiple topics on TVF. Feigning ignorance, engaging in outright denials and alleging these are poster opinions isn't going to change facts and reality.

 

If you think all of the above is purely due to "bullying" by the USA, and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia, guess we'll have to disagree.

[BestB]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Russia not posing a threat until the US decided to play in Russia's backyard is counterfactual. Russia was seen as a threat and remained a threat. The first assertion is both false and amounts to "saying so".

 

Russian assassinations attempts are a fact. It makes no difference whether you claim targets were "their own". Ignoring citizenship and sovereignty issues doesn't make your argument stronger.

 

Economic ties are a matter of interests and needs. They do not always substitute security concerns or seeing trade partners as threats. You haven't supported your view that things have solely originated with USA actions in any of your posts up to now.

 

My original comment was about Russia. That's because I think the Iran part is rather weak in comparison. I'm not obligated to fully adopt or subscribe to any and all positions appearing in the OP. But be that as it may, I've actually addressed the Iran part in at least one of my posts above. You're welcome to deny or ignore that as well. Iran's nuclear efforts were definitely seen as a threat by European governments, and to  a lesser degree, the same holds with regard to its ballistic missile program. Good luck tying either with the USA.

 

As for your last query - answered already in my previous post as well.

So again tell me when was Russia a threat to EU? Did Russia threatened Germany ?france? Italy? Austria? Even UK? Even after all the theatrical fiasco

 

fire away. Or you now claiming Russia was a threat prior to crimea? If so any particular reason why demand is high now and not 5 years ago?

 

when Russia placed missiles in Cuba , US was ready to go to war, any reason why Russia should sit idle when US tried to cut her from its navy and place missiles ?

[BestB]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Says European defense spending expenditure, reactions to Russia's moves in Crimea and neighboring states, or Russia's assassination attempts. Same applies for European claims regarding Russian meddling with European politics. All of these are matters of record, and were discussed across multiple topics on TVF. Feigning ignorance, engaging in outright denials and alleging these are poster opinions isn't going to change facts and reality.

 

If you think all of the above is purely due to "bullying" by the USA, and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia, guess we'll have to disagree.

Russia meddling in EU politics ? Which country ? 

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, BestB said:

So again tell me when was Russia a threat to EU? Did Russia threatened Germany ?france? Italy? Austria? Even UK? Even after all the theatrical fiasco

 

fire away. Or you now claiming Russia was a threat prior to crimea? If so any particular reason why demand is high now and not 5 years ago?

 

when Russia placed missiles in Cuba , US was ready to go to war, any reason why Russia should sit idle when US tried to cut her from its navy and place missiles ?

 

You can argue all you like that Russia was not a threat, and is not a threat, to European countries. That your opinion, and you're welcome to it. It doesn't follow that European governments see things your way, though. Or that they are much assured by your assertions.

 

I have provided more than one points of discussion related to Russia-related stuff contributing to its perception as as a threat. You keep denying, minimizing or justifying pretty much all matters involved. Even if this effort would have held much merit, it doesn't relate to how European governments see things. To put it more plainly, they're not buying what you're selling.

 

I think demands are up mainly because of three factors - Russia increasingly being perceived as a threat, USA pressure regarding NATO members' defense spending, and European armed forces main systems life cycles.

 

If you seek to justify Russia's actions, that's a different discussion and argument. Russia's actions can be construed as justified from its point of view, and as a threat as far as others are concerned. Not mutually exclusive.

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

You can argue all you like that Russia was not a threat, and is not a threat, to European countries. That your opinion, and you're welcome to it. It doesn't follow that European governments see things your way, though. Or that they are much assured by your assertions.

 

I have provided more than one points of discussion related to Russia-related stuff contributing to its perception as as a threat. You keep denying, minimizing or justifying pretty much all matters involved. Even if this effort would have held much merit, it doesn't relate to how European governments see things. To put it more plainly, they're not buying what you're selling.

 

I think demands are up mainly because of three factors - Russia increasingly being perceived as a threat, USA pressure regarding NATO members' defense spending, and European armed forces main systems life cycles.

 

If you seek to justify Russia's actions, that's a different discussion and argument. Russia's actions can be construed as justified from its point of view, and as a threat as far as others are concerned. Not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

EU government see conflict and pressure from US is precisely the reason. 

 

Using Russia and Iran is just a pretext to justify the spending , does not actually mean there was or is a threat 

 

India and turkey buying Russian hardware no doubt also made s dent in scaremongering to push for more sales from US arms dealers 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, BestB said:

Russia meddling in EU politics ? Which country ? 

 

It was an issue raised with regard to almost all of the recent elections (including the UK referendum). Most recently with regard to the European Parliament elections. Again, this was discussed across multiple topics on this forum alone. You've participated in some. The feigning of ignorance is dully noted.

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

It was an issue raised with regard to almost all of the recent elections (including the UK referendum). Most recently with regard to the European Parliament elections. Again, this was discussed across multiple topics on this forum alone. You've participated in some. The feigning of ignorance is dully noted.

Oh I see, so the brexit mess is actually Russian doing ????????????

[Morch]

Just now, BestB said:

EU government see conflict and pressure from US is precisely the reason. 

 

Using Russia and Iran is just a pretext to justify the spending , does not actually mean there was or is a threat 

 

India and turkey buying Russian hardware no doubt also made s dent in scaremongering to push for more sales from US arms dealers 

 

Could you credibly support your first assertion?

 

As for the second, again - you may claim there is no threat, or that it's just a pretext - but that doesn't make it so, nor implies European governments see things this way. Even if you were right, and Russia was indeed no threat, it would still need to convince European governments of that.

 

India got a long history of sourcing arms from Russia, and generally speaking it's ties to the USA aren't as close as Europe's. Not sure how that relates to the topic at hand. As for Turkey - how do you figure that purchasing Russian arms had the claimed effect? NATO members aren't really thrilled with the prospect, and the EU's view of Turkey isn't necessarily a favorable one.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

Oh I see, so the brexit mess is actually Russian doing ????????????

 

You've asked in which contexts Russian meddling was referenced. An answer was provided. You don't like the answer? Fine. There wasn't anything concrete claimed in my post about effects. It is a fact that's how European governments see things. You don't like it? Fine as well. Doesn't change reality one bit.

[pikao]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

Can you guarantee (or even support) either assertion in your one liner statement? Somehow, it doesn't seem as if European governments buy into these sort of assurances much.

I can´t guarantee anything in this world, who can ??, the governments do what they are told. Unfortunately they don´t do what their people would like them to do. Pesonally, and I can´t speek for every single person in Europe, of course, I do not know anybody in Europe (and I´ve got a number of friends from all around) that feels threatened by the Russians. We were doing quite well until someone decided we have to do otherwise.

 

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

Russia was seen as a threat and remained a threat.

Sorry Morch. This is what you US (just assuming that you are) people are told on a daily bases ever since. If you wouldn´t believe it, the war industry could suffer a serious breakdown, which is not in the interest of certain entities.

BTW I´m not pro Russia in terms of, that they are the good guys

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, pikao said:

I can´t guarantee anything in this world, who can ??, the governments do what they are told. Unfortunately they don´t do what their people would like them to do. Pesonally, and I can´t speek for every single person in Europe, of course, I do not know anybody in Europe (and I´ve got a number of friends from all around) that feels threatened by the Russians. We were doing quite well until someone decided we have to do otherwise.

 

Sorry Morch. This is what you US (just assuming that you are) people are told on a daily bases ever since. If you wouldn´t believe it, the war industry could suffer a serious breakdown, which is not in the interest of certain entities.

BTW I´m not pro Russia in terms of, that they are the good guys

 

If "governments do what they are told" is an opening to one of them conspiracy theories, I'll pass. Asserting that governments don't do what their people would like them to do is based on what? The echo-chamber referenced?

 

And no, you're assuming wrong.

Obviously the arms industry got an interest in hyping military and security threats. Question is whether one embraces the view that their influence on all matters political and diplomatic is as described. I tend to see it as an exaggeration, and a useful political tool by itself. It's worth bearing in mind that the arms trade, while significant, does not really constitute the lion's share of most relevant economic relations. As posted in one recent topic, arms sales don't make it into the top 10 USA export lists.

[BestB]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Could you credibly support your first assertion?

 

As for the second, again - you may claim there is no threat, or that it's just a pretext - but that doesn't make it so, nor implies European governments see things this way. Even if you were right, and Russia was indeed no threat, it would still need to convince European governments of that.

 

India got a long history of sourcing arms from Russia, and generally speaking it's ties to the USA aren't as close as Europe's. Not sure how that relates to the topic at hand. As for Turkey - how do you figure that purchasing Russian arms had the claimed effect? NATO members aren't really thrilled with the prospect, and the EU's view of Turkey isn't necessarily a favorable one.

If India and Turkey buying arms from Russia was not significant , then US would not have been issuing warnings and treats to either one.

 

Which assertion requires credible support? The US pressure on EU or Russia not being a threat ?

[BestB]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You've asked in which contexts Russian meddling was referenced. An answer was provided. You don't like the answer? Fine. There wasn't anything concrete claimed in my post about effects. It is a fact that's how European governments see things. You don't like it? Fine as well. Doesn't change reality one bit.

You do realise how ridiculous you sound with this kind of answer right?

 

it is American fashion to blame Russia for everything besides you say so and UK incompetence, there is not a single shred of evidence Russia had anything to do with brexit mess and Russia has nothing to gain from creating brexit mess. 

[brokenbone]

so thats what the fuss about iran etc is all about ?

creating a demand for arms.

well, a creative sales strategy

[pikao]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

If "governments do what they are told" is an opening to one of them conspiracy theories,

Some things are theories, others not. Up to every one´s belief theories.

 

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

Asserting that governments don't do what their people would like them to do is based on what?

Daily observations

 

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

And no, you're assuming wrong.

Obviously the arms industry got an interest in hyping military and security threats. Question is whether one embraces the view that their influence on all matters political and diplomatic is as described. I tend to see it as an exaggeration, and a useful political tool by itself. It's worth bearing in mind that the arms trade, while significant, does not really constitute the lion's share of most relevant economic relations. As posted in one recent topic, arms sales don't make it into the top 10 USA export lists.

Maybe. But actually I wasn´t talking about arms trade only. More about a mechanism that I called "war industry".

Destabilise, destroy, build up (preferably with your own companies or affiliates), things like that. Arms trade is a part of it

Sorry, forgot to mention natural resources

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, BestB said:

If India and Turkey buying arms from Russia was not significant , then US would not have been issuing warnings and treats to either one.

 

Which assertion requires credible support? The US pressure on EU or Russia not being a threat ?

 

I don't think I've said they were insignificant, but that neither seems very relevant to whatever argument you're trying to make.

 

Your assertion was:

 

Quote

EU government see conflict and pressure from US is precisely the reason. 

 

As precisely the reason for what, I'm not even sure. But even the first part sounds more like your view, rather than a European position.

 

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, BestB said:

You do realise how ridiculous you sound with this kind of answer right?

 

it is American fashion to blame Russia for everything besides you say so and UK incompetence, there is not a single shred of evidence Russia had anything to do with brexit mess and Russia has nothing to gain from creating brexit mess. 

 

What "kind of answer" would that be? You've asked a question regarding the context in which such issues was raised. An answer was provided.

 

I did not allege anything regarding Brexit, you did. What Russia had to gain from it was discussed on many of them Brexit topics. This isn't a Brexit topic.

 

As for trying to make it a solely USA and UK thing, well - try Italy, France, Germany and the recent European Parliament elections. Russian efforts were claimed by various agencies and various countries. You can go on about no evidence and such - it doesn't change the fact that Russia is seen as responsible.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

so thats what the fuss about iran etc is all about ?

creating a demand for arms.

well, a creative sales strategy

 

I think it's more like taking advantage of the situation to promote sales, rather than initiating it for this alleged purpose.

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think I've said they were insignificant, but that neither seems very relevant to whatever argument you're trying to make.

 

Your assertion was:

 

 

As precisely the reason for what, I'm not even sure. But even the first part sounds more like your view, rather than a European position.

 

Well, thats is your view, does not mean its any wiser than mine. With each new US undertaking, US does go to EU to convince EU to follow the suit. 

 

Just like US is doing now with Iran. 

 

EU has no beef with Iran, right or wrong, is debatable. But forbidding EU companies to do business with Iran is called pressuring and US did the very same thing with Russia.

 

If US wants to impose sanctions, US is most certainly free to do so, but ONLY on its own companies doing business with sanctioned country.

 

It should NOT be my enemy is automatically your enemy or else

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, pikao said:

Some things are theories, others not. Up to every one´s belief theories.

 

Daily observations

 

Maybe. But actually I wasn´t talking about arms trade only. More about a mechanism that I called "war industry".

Destabilise, destroy, build up (preferably with your own companies or affiliates), things like that. Arms trade is a part of it

Sorry, forgot to mention natural resources

 

Alright, that makes two meaningless replies, and a third one who doesn't apply much to the OP.

 

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What "kind of answer" would that be? You've asked a question regarding the context in which such issues was raised. An answer was provided.

 

I did not allege anything regarding Brexit, you did. What Russia had to gain from it was discussed on many of them Brexit topics. This isn't a Brexit topic.

 

As for trying to make it a solely USA and UK thing, well - try Italy, France, Germany and the recent European Parliament elections. Russian efforts were claimed by various agencies and various countries. You can go on about no evidence and such - it doesn't change the fact that Russia is seen as responsible.

GIve me some evidence Russia meddled with brexit give me credible evidence what Russia has to gained from it and make sure that credible evidence comes from other source than UK government, who has created the mess and does not know how to get out of it

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Well, thats is your view, does not mean its any wiser than mine. With each new US undertaking, US does go to EU to convince EU to follow the suit. 

 

Just like US is doing now with Iran. 

 

EU has no beef with Iran, right or wrong, is debatable. But forbidding EU companies to do business with Iran is called pressuring and US did the very same thing with Russia.

 

If US wants to impose sanctions, US is most certainly free to do so, but ONLY on its own companies doing business with sanctioned country.

 

It should NOT be my enemy is automatically your enemy or else

 

I'm not sure which post you're replying to. If you're still going on about India and Iran buying Russian weapon systems, hardly makes sense. Are EU countries, and specifically NATO members (other than Turkey) expressing concrete interest in purchasing Russian military hardware?

 

The EU does have issues with Iran. The JCPOA is the product of such issues. Iran's recent covert activities in Europe (Germany, Netherlands) are an issue. Iran's ballistic missile is a matter of concern. And so on and so forth.

 

EU companies may trade with either Iran or Russia, with the price tag of economic consequences. I don't know that there's a rule limiting application of sanctions in the way you claim. What it should or should not be is another matter.

 

None of this directly bears on the topic at hand, though.

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not sure which post you're replying to. If you're still going on about India and Iran buying Russian weapon systems, hardly makes sense. Are EU countries, and specifically NATO members (other than Turkey) expressing concrete interest in purchasing Russian military hardware?

 

The EU does have issues with Iran. The JCPOA is the product of such issues. Iran's recent covert activities in Europe (Germany, Netherlands) are an issue. Iran's ballistic missile is a matter of concern. And so on and so forth.

 

EU companies may trade with either Iran or Russia, with the price tag of economic consequences. I don't know that there's a rule limiting application of sanctions in the way you claim. What it should or should not be is another matter.

 

None of this directly bears on the topic at hand, though.

DO you see Iran chanting death to EU? or issuing threats to EU?

 

No EU companies that do trade despite sanctions get heavily penalized. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/deutsche-bank-fined-us258m-for-violating-us-sanctions