The Mistral deal explained



By Guil Sho. This article in Ukrainian

The contract and problems it poses

In 2011, France and Russia signed a contract in which France agreed to sell 2 Mistral class ships to Russia for EUR 1,2bn, with an option of two additional vessels. It was the first time that a NATO member agreed to deliver sensitive military equipment to Moscow, and this contract was signed only three years after Russian aggression on pro-European Georgia. The delivery of the first vessel is scheduled for October 2014. The Mistral is an amphibious assault vessel designed to lead invasions from sea to land. The commander in chief of the Russian Navy during the Georgia war said that with such vessels the attack against Georgia would have lasted only 40 minutes, and not 26 hours as was the case.


A Mistral can carry 16 helicopters, 4 landing craft utilities, 60 BTRs including about 15 tanks, and up to 900 soldiers. It is not just a command ship with a hospital, as the French like to describe it, but a real strategic weapon capable of significant strikes. French allies had already expressed concerns before the signature of the contract. For instance, the then US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2010 that “this would send the wrong signal to Russia and our allies.” Four years later, with the annexation of Crimea and an expansionist and anti-European Russian rhetoric, claiming Russian rights on former USSR republics and bearing worrying resemblances with Nazi Germany’s rhetoric of the 1930s, this sale appears more and more problematic and dangerous, as it poses a direct threat to countries neighboring Russia and to countries on the Black Sea, most of them being NATO members and partners. Russia has made clear that it wants to use these Mistrals in the Black Sea. This would make it very hard for Ukraine to gain back control over Crimea, de facto acknowledging the annexation. This would also put at risk the southern coast of Ukraine – let’s not forget that Putin’s Russia has openly stated that their goal is to create a new state called “New Russia” in the South and East of Ukraine, and Mistral ships could be used to realize this plan. Mistrals in the Black Sea will also jeopardize NATO members in the region, such as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Why should France arm an expansionist state that has already proven on several instances that it is ready to invade sovereign states, and that increasingly poses itself as an aggressive adversary of the European Union and of the free world? Why does not France cancel this sale, jeopardizing peace in Europe and the security of its allies and partners?

Alternative Options

There are other options than Russia available. American and Canadian senators have suggested that NATO, the US or Canada should buy these ships. Claudia Major and Christian Mölling, fellows at the German Institute for International Affairs and Security (SWP) have suggested that the European Union should buy these ships. They have pointed out that one of the priorities of the French president is to build a common defense, and they have suggested that these two ships could become the first step in that direction. Bernard Grua, the organizer of the global protests against this sale, has even suggested that BNP Paribas could negotiate with the US government a smaller fine if it buys the ships in order to rent them out to NATO members or the UN. All this shows that with a bit of creative thinking and good will, it is possible to find alternative solutions for these ships. It may cost a bit of money (penalties for cancelling the contract), but this seems nothing in comparison to becoming an ally of an aggressive, totalitarian state like Putin’s Russia, and in comparison to peace and stability in Europe.

French arguments


This is a wrong argument. First of all, we are not talking about cancelling the production of these ships, as France should easily find another buyer among NATO members, as suggested above. Second, STX have said in several instances that their order book is full for the next 5 years, with one large ship to deliver each year until 2019. Recently, a labor union representative also confirmed on French radio that this is not a valid reason, because the ships are already nearly completed anyways.


France and Russia claim that there is a reputation risk. The French minister of foreign affairs Laurent Fabius said for instance, on his way back from Poroshenko’s inauguration, that France signed a contract, and will honor its commitments, in the same way as Russia is honoring its commitments (sic; he must have forgotten about the Budapest treaty which guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, also signed by Russia). Collaborating with a totalitarian state that is increasingly using fascist rhetoric, and that is attacking its neighbors and questioning the world order that democracies of the free world have built over the past 70 years, is much more dangerous for French reputation than invoking Russian imperialism in order to cancel the contracts. By selling this weapons to Russia, France is becoming Russia’s military ally in its adventures, supporting Russian plans to redraw Europe’s borders using force. France will also have blood of innocent people on its hands, should Russia use these ships in order to attack peaceful sovereign states in the future. France is transferring technology to an aggressor, and is also accepting Russian sailors on its soil in order to train them. France is becoming Russia’s ally.

The Mistrals are just command ships with hospitals

False, as shown above, they are a significant strategic weapon. Also, each Mistral does not cost more than 300mn. Russia is paying twice this price, because of technology transfers. After the delivery of such ships, Russia will have the capabilities to build them itself. We are giving an aggressor what it needs to build a strong Navy and threaten our allies in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and in the Pacific, to mention only the countries directly neighboring Russia.  France is not only arming an aggressor, but also transferring sensitive technology. Some say that Russia could build these ships itself, then logically we should wonder why they are paying France double the price for these ships. The answer is simple – because they cannot build them now, as they do not have the technology.

France will pay penalties

Maybe. We do not know exactly how much, because the contract is not made public, which in itself is a shame. But it is the price to pay for irresponsible decisions (the signature of this contract) and in order to preserve peace and stability in Europe. France could negotiate with its allies in order to try to share the burden of these penalties. Further interesting articles on this topic, in French: here, here and here.

Facebook group No Mistrals For Putin

Join us in the nearest global protest against the Mistral Deal on July 14

By Guil Sho

Dear readers! Since you’ ve made it to this point, we have a favor to ask. Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine is ongoing, but major news agencies have gone away, which is why it's extra important to provide news about Ukraine in English. We are a small independent journalist team on a shoestring budget, have no political or state affiliation, and depend on our readers to keep going (using ťhe chance - a big thank you to our generous supporters, we couldn't make it without you). We are now $5,000 short of our financial goal and need your support to continue working. If you like what you see, please help keep us online with a donation!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


  1. Avatar Mykola Banderachuk says:

    to be fair, France should GIVE Ukraine the most advanced Exocet anti-ship missiles that they have and the mistrals will be with the fishes. problem solved

  2. Avatar evanlarkspur says:

    I think, to be fair, we should just give Ukraine back her nukes. We are not keeping up our end of the agreement under which she surrendered them, so she should get them back. Then bring on the Mistrals, Russia!

    1. Avatar mapkom says:

      I don’t think anybody has to ‘give back Ukraine their nukes’. I believe they actually have the capability to re-up as a nuclear power within a relatively short period of time (months) if they so chose. In fact, they built most of the Russian’s stuff.

  3. Avatar Jacks Channel says:

    I laughed at Putin, his claims against Ukraine being so absolutely baseless and without a shred of

  4. Avatar Укросос-Пропагандон says:

    С добрым Укром, Укрососы.

  5. Avatar Kjetil Kronstad says:

    The Exocet rocket is a old and outdated rocket. A rocket should be able to fly in undetected and damage or sink the vessel. If the rocket is detected it should have capabilities to countermeasure whatever is coming.

    The state-of-the-art rocket is the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) from Norway does all of this.
    It´s using composite materials and is designed with stealth capabilities (can’t / hard to be detected on radar). It can fly 185 km near coastline and in open sea. It can fly over and around landmasses and flies in sea skim mode (to avoid radar and infrared detection during their approach) and then do random maneuvers making it hard to stop by Russian countermessures. The rocket navigates by GPS, terrain reference and inertial (uses a computer, motion sensors and rotation sensors to continuously calculate the direction and speed of movement without the need for external references.)
    It can do independent detection, recognition, and discrimination of targets at sea or on the coast. This is possible by the combination of an imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker and an onboard target database.
    After being launched it’s propelled to subsonic speed leaving the 125 kg warhead doing its work impacting the France/Russian ships near or at the waterline.
    Poland just bought nearly 50 of these rockets to protects its sea coast.
    A multirole Joint Strike Missile (JSM) is under development making it possible to hit land/naval targets as well from land launchers, airplanes and submarines.

    1. Avatar Murf says:

      The Kongstade is a formidable weapon. But the Mistrals will be well out of range until the target area’s deference are suppressed by front line forces. This is basic amphibious assault tactics. Nor can there be missile batteries everywhere an enemy can strike.

  6. Avatar Murf says:

    Part of the reason the ships cost so much is that they custom designed heating elements in the deck to prevent icing.
    How many of NATO’s enemies are in a cold climate?
    How many of Frances allies are?

    1. Avatar Kjetil Kronstad says:

      Norway is in cold climate in Europe, and Canada and USA (Alaska).

  7. Avatar Wal Pyrih says:

    If it wasn’t for the yanks entering the war and then arming the
    Bolsheviks the whole bloody decrepit European bunch would be speaking German.
    Seems nothing has changed and their current conduct suggests a Russian speaking
    Europe is achievable. Maybe the yanks should step back and let it happen. The
    undertones and Russian arse kissing by the frogs and a few others already
    suggest a name change to the Russian Union!

  8. Avatar Tyson says:

    I met this French guy today and asked him if he spoke German.. He said ‘NO’ and I said back to him..’You’re Welcome’

  9. Avatar flypaper says:

    France and Germany along with the rest of the EU have on their hands the blood of every person killed in Ukraines battle with the terrorist. If they had acted early instead of worrying about money they could have stopped this back before Crimea fell. They have turned into a collection of greedy money counters who have given up justice for an extra Euro.