Reply With QuoteThey could just say "sorry guys we don't have the monies right now" instead of making up hypocrisy excuses.
U.S. Lawmakers Cut Pentagon Ties with Russian Arms Exporter
http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120720/174693347.htmlU.S. lawmakers passed on Thursday a bill breaking contracts between the Pentagon and Russian state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport, which they claim is "arming the oppressive Syrian regime,” the House of Representatives said on its web site.
The bill, introduced by Democrat Congressman Jim Moran, was passed by an overwhelming 407-5 vote and was attached to the 2013 U.S. military budget, according to the House of Representatives’ statement.
“It is beyond unacceptable for the United States Government to work with a firm that is arming the oppressive Syrian regime,” Moran said. “The United States does not condone the massacre of innocent men, women and children. Furthering contracts with Rosoboronexport contradicts our nation's commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy.”
The passage of the bill came several hours after Russia and China vetoed for the third time a UN Security Council resolution on Syria authorizing non-military sanctions against President Bashar al-Assad's regime if it fails to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from urban areas within 10 days.
Rosoboronexport declined to comment on the move when contacted by RIA Novosti on Friday.
According to the statement by the U.S. lawmakers, Rosoboronexport has supplied nearly $1 billion in arms to Syria over the last year, including high-explosive mortars, sniper rifles, ammunition and attack helicopters which could have been used by Assad’s forces to kill civilians.
The bill scraps the Russian-U.S. $171-million contract on purchasing ten Mi-17 attack helicopters to be used by Afghan forces after the United States withdraws from Afghanistan in 2014.
“There has never been a competition for supplying rotorcraft for the Afghan National Security Forces. Had there been one, I’m confident American firms would have done exceptionally well,” Moran said.
In mid-June, U.S. Senator John Cornyn called on the Pentagon to take action against Rosoboronexport, but the Pentagon dismissed his claims, saying that dealing with Russia’s arms exporter was the "only legally available method" to supply the helicopters to Afghanistan.
Rosoboronexport was subject to U.S. sanctions from 2006 to 2010 for allegedly providing nations including Iran and Syria with equipment that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.
They could just say "sorry guys we don't have the monies right now" instead of making up hypocrisy excuses.
Btw. what exactly does Russia sell to USA beside helicopters for Afghanistan?
It's a tough hit for Rosboronexport because besides US' purchases, this should have a negative effect on other potential customers.
No, Rosboronexport doesn't care about it. It never planned to sell weapons to the U.S. that deal was unexpected so no one cries. Syrian contracts can be compensated by sales to Iran. S-300 contract can be resumed and some other systems are available too. They simply canceled the deal by the pretext to neck down on militaries resistance.Originally Posted by Camera
Will Pentagon also cancel it's contracts with it's Chinese suppliers?
In comparrison to what they rake in, $170M isn't a whole lot to Rosoboronexport.
Well looks like Rosoboronexport can close down now. Oh wait....
News from Jane's Defense just yesterday...
US, Russia sign contract for 10 more Afghan Mi-17s
Will the Army now have to use 3rd party contractors for spares and support, tacking on another 300% to the already inflated prices?By James Hardy
7/20/2012
The US Army has signed a USD171.4 million contract with Russian government export agency Rosoboronexport for 10 more Mil Mi-17V-5 'Hip' multi-role helicopters for the Afghan Air Force (AAF), the Pentagon announced on 18 July.
................The bill scraps the Russian-U.S. $171-million contract on purchasing ten Mi-17 attack helicopters to be used by Afghan forces after the United States withdraws from Afghanistan in 2014.
And? The "
If the bill was on the table the contract should have never been signed. There are likely financial penalties involved not to mention how much more expensive it may become keeping the current fleet flying.The US Army has signed a USD171.4 million contract...
My apologies I misinterpreted your post.And? The "
If the bill was on the table the contract should have never been signed. There are likely financial penalties involved not to mention how much more expensive it may become keeping the current fleet flying.
No apologies needed! I just reread my initial reply and I realized I didn't highlight or underline the "signed" text from the Janes article as I did in my second reply to you. I thought I did. My point would have been it a bit clearer had I done so. And here I thought you were being snarky and I was the one that ended up coming off as prickly.
Posting Permissions
