Is Russia still paying US WWII lend lease?

[Afro-European]

Apparently the agreement was only signed in 1972 that the SU should pay $722mln until 2001,with several previous rounds falling through because both sides couldn't agree on the amount the SU owed the US.After laborious negociations, both sides signed the 1972 agreement,which only lasted for a couple of years,when USSR stopped in protest for Jackson-Vanik amendment after paying $48mln.The agreement was revived in 1990 that the SU should pay $674mln until 2030. Russia absorbed this debt when USSR fell apart.

-Is Russia still paying the US off since the 40's? If yes:
-with oil,gas or just cash?
-with or without interest rate?

[ARGAR FORKBEARD]

uk was until recently.

dunno if russia still is!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Latest I could find regarding Russian debt was an article from 2003 talking about forgiving the debt (they didn't say how much) in exchange for non-proliferation concessions.

If enacted in its current form, the DRNA would authorize the president to establish an office at the Treasury Department to administer the debt reduction and authorize $300 million in appropriations in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to offset the cost of the debt reduction to the US Treasury. It would authorize the president to reduce the Lend Lease and agricultural portions of the Soviet-era debt and replace those obligations with new obligations defined in a “Russian Nonproliferation
http://pnwcgs.pnl.gov/Newsletter/Htm...002May_DfN.htm

[gazell]

That's quite likely to be correct, just as they are in force forever, 60+ years, but in practice nobody really pays them back. WWI - only Finnland, AFAIK.

[ramthor]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.

[shingo_tln]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.

it was indeed

[LineDoggie]

Debatable................

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.

Not saying Russian losses weren't horrific, but Barbarossa had nothing to do "paying a debt" to the US

All sides lost men and machines in the conflict.

And If Stalin hadn't been completely blind to the threat Hitler posed (and in many other incompetent), Russian losses could possibly have been lower.

[Mousepad]

All LL supply to USSR was 11.4 bln$ in 1941 vintage dollars, it's 140 bln in modern. In 1972 was signed final agreement on USSR debt in 722 mln $ wich must be paid before 2001, untill 1973, 48$ was paid and then payments were put on hold by SU, because of Jackson-Venik ammendment, in 1990 debt was reconfirmed, 674 mln$ must be paid before 2030. After break up of SU, all debt was inherited by Russia. In 2003 it was 100 mln$. And that's all info i have. Methinks it was paid in full by now, 100 mln it's not much of a sum nowadays.

[Hast2]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

[Mousepad]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

Found it in "I know all about Stalin" -kinda books?

[GazB]

And If Stalin hadn't been completely blind to the threat Hitler posed (and in many other incompetent), Russian losses could possibly have been lower.

It is easy to say now that Hitler was the bad guy and anyone picking his side would be mad, but at the time the US and UK weren't exactly buddies. Afterall the US and the UK and the Japanese amongst others supported the white forces in the revolution.
Stalin was no genius but it is not like the Soviets and the Germans were buddies. The Soviets sold material to Germany, but that was largely commercial. They had a non aggression pact, but if they were buddies WTF would they need a non aggression pact for? Think about it. Do real friends need to sign a document that states they will not fight each other and will divide third party land amongst themselves?

All LL supply to USSR was 11.4 bln$ in 1941 vintage dollars, it's 140 bln in modern.

Except for two main problems. First material was under a lease to lend to the Soviets. Any material that was lent but consumed (ie food) or destroyed (either in combat or on delivery) did not have to be paid for. Also all material returned did not have to be paid for either. There was plenty of stuff that was collected by US vessels from the Soviet Union that was taken out to international waters and dumped into the sea. The Soviets didn't have to pay for that.

[GazB]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

If Stalin was so set on the conquest of Europe why did they not take Austria? Why was Finnland left as a seperate country. Indeed, why didn't all the Soviet occupied countries return to what most of them were before WWI and become part of the Russian Empire again?
Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

It is easy to say now that Hitler was the bad guy and anyone picking his side would be mad, but at the time the US and UK weren't exactly buddies. Afterall the US and the UK and the Japanese amongst others supported the white forces in the revolution.
Stalin was no genius but it is not like the Soviets and the Germans were buddies. The Soviets sold material to Germany, but that was largely commercial. They had a non aggression pact, but if they were buddies WTF would they need a non aggression pact for? Think about it. Do real friends need to sign a document that states they will not fight each other and will divide third party land amongst themselves?

I'm a little unclear about the point you're making. I wouldn't dispute any of your statements. I say Stalin was incompetent because he was the head of military and political apparatus of the Soviet Union and he failed to prepare the Soviet Union for war. One of his brilliant moves was to sack or kill competent soldiers and officers in the years before the war.

I'm sure there was mutual suspicion between Hitler and Stalin.

IIRC, the Fascists killed and imprisoned Communists in Germany before Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

[Hast2]

Found it in "I know all about Stalin" -kinda books?

Can you recommend me any?

If Stalin was so set on the conquest of Europe why did they not take Austria? Why was Finnland left as a seperate country. Indeed, why didn't all the Soviet occupied countries return to what most of them were before WWI and become part of the Russian Empire again?
Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.

The "West" had the desire to destroy the Soviet Union as much as to destroy the Nazis. The West knew what a clash between Nazi and Soviets was inevitable.The Soviets could care less about The West, because the West was busy with Hitler. If Stalin ever launches a liberation operation "Europe without Nazis" what do you think the outcome would be? Everything the West could do is to support "the lesser evil" and try to hold it as much as possible when the Big one is destroyed. And that's exactly what they've done.