AspisFrom the Mod’s press conference pubblished, it was a compromise with the Arabs to ensure the jobs of the workers and some new rights of the greek state over the shipyards and a better price for new subs in exchange for getting Papanikolis.
From what i understood from the interview:
– Greece pays Papanikolis for 390 mln instead of the original 463 mln (2000 contract price without price adjustments). The MoD accused the previous MoD that in 2006 he should have rejected the sub instead of waiting to be fixed.
– The next subs (which will be built instead of the upgrade of U209) will be priced at fixed price of 500 mln, regardless of time adjustments (basically there won’t be price adjustments over the years).
– Abu Dhabi drops her initial demand to fire 350 workers in the shipyards.
– The Greek state with Thyssen, had veto power over the sale of shipyard shares up until 2011. The right of veto is now extended indefinitely, as long as the Hellenic Navy has ongoing orders in the shipyards. And as the MoD said, since the HN will always have pending works in the shipyards, the greek state will retain control over who buys shares indefinitely as long as Abu Dhabi is the major shareholder.
– The greek state gets veto power over the composition of the administration board of the shipyards.
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11281&Itemid=40
* Theoretically, Papanikolis with the aid of Abu Dhabi Mar will be sold. Practically, the likelyhood is low, both because the legal framework is complicated and because new buyers will more likely want to buy a “brand new” sub.
AspisAgreement was made. Abu Dhabi Mar gets 75,1% of Skaramanga, Thyssen retains the rest.
P.S.: Tomorrow Greece is ordering 12 FREMMs and 120 Eurofighters, after the generous and massive bailout given to Greece (For more information, please contact “bgnewf” and the rest of foreign news agencies that in the past 2 months have anounced about 100 different ways of bailout. With so much money in grants and loans given, the current greek need for 37 bln this year has been over-covered, so the extra money will be directed to weapons purchases).
P.S.: No, bgnewf, the above was a joke, you shouldn’t believe anything you read before it is real news. Believe me, our PM has Denmark as prototype, army including. I agree with you, we ‘d rather put missiles on islands, it’s much more economic.
AspisI ‘ve read the wikipedia article and my conclusions, although i didn’t pay too much attention to everything is:
1) No wonder that the UN and the whole world don’t have a clear opinion about the sovereignty. Even wikipedia states the timeline of “de facto” control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Because apparently, there are no legal, internationally agreed titles. Meaning, there is no international treaty, where the interessed countries agree on sovereignty. Each one was leaving, throwing behind him a… plaque saying that “i don’t renounce sovereignty”. So there is no “de jure” control.
The most recent real treaty, appears to be the spanish-british of Nootka, but i ll be damned if i am able to understand whether the paragraph cited is relevant or not to the islands.
That’s the most recent and hence valid treaty that in theory should clarify things (the most recent treaty replaces older ones).
2) If this was 1830 i ‘d side with the Argentinians, because after all, this was part of colonialism era. But it is not 1830, today there is international law (although only the powerful ones can apply it).
3) The principle of self-determination, is something that came into fashion mainly after the cold war, because it suits more the interference of great powers. The problem is that it conflicts with another principle, of the UN Charter, the one of territorial integrity. According to eras, the powerful people of the planet, promote the one principle over the other, according to their interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity
For example, you want to cut into pieces a country because it suits your geopolitical games? You help an ethnic minority to make secession in the name of self determination. If another country suits your game to remain intact, you support territorial integrity.
For example, Britain favours self-determination of the islanders in Falklands. But if say tomorrow, 5 million Afghan refugees were to settle en masse in a corner of the British coast, gather the rest of muslims that live in Britain and ask for independent muslim state in the name of self-determination in that isolated British corner, i am pretty sure that Britain as any other country, would evoke the principle of territorial integrity. Spain does the same with Basques as another example, even if Basques are aborigines in their area.
However, in a territory with generally accepted a sovereignty problem because of lack of proper treaties , self-determination IMHO does become important. So, it is not surprising that the UN pronounced no opinion on sovereignty but asked to solve this taking in consideration also the will of the locals.
4) I noted that Britain offered 3 times to settle this in the international Court of Hague and Argentina declined. In such a case, that’s really the only way to solve legally something that doesn’t exist on treaties. You can’t show a treaty and point at the article that says “The contracting parties agree that the islands are mine or his”. So the only legal solution to this is in court. Points in favour of Britain…
5) The current statement of Britain to the Court excludes disputes that have arised before 1974 (and so the Falklands too)
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
, while Argentina doesn’t recognize the juristiction of the court at all. It is understandable that Britain after a victorious war isn’t eager to put the issue before a judge. So now, the only means of legal solution, provided that no part will back off, would be if they both agreed to go to Hague.
6) The Convention for the Law of Sea of 1982 says that islands also have right to their own continental shelf. Same applies for exclusive economic zone. Although the line of middle may not apply entirely. The problem is, that since there is no agreement on the sovereignty, they 2 countries can’t agree on the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone either…
7) Britain exerts de facto sovereignty and the islanders, i don’t know whether they were settles or not, but de facto today feel British. So the British may exploit the oil ejoying popular support and security. Points in favour of Britain.
8) If i were Argentina, i would have pursued the International Court of Hague, when i had the chance. Now Britain is in a much stronger position. Probably Argentina at the time declined, thinking that she should not risk the court and rather wait for a better opportunity to take the islands for sure.
9) Given the 2 positions and that the option for court solution is currently out of the table, there can’t be any solution. The issue has re-emerged, to consolidate the and keep alive the issue as a dispute, so that Argentina in a future time, in more favourable conditions may choose to do something about it. This is something usual. A dispute, if you don’t want to drop it, you must find ways to keep it alive, so that in 100, 200 years, you may still have the chance to act about it.
Legally , i have no idea on who really had the last legal sovereignty over the island. I don’t even know if throwing “plaques” when you leave is today considered “legally recognized title”. Maybe it’s a bad remnant of bad times, but today it is de facto British with a population massively British, so as long as Argentina can’t find a legal way to bring this to court, this won’t change.
Ι think Argentina lost a golden chance, when she rejected 3 times the offer of Hague… After the war, i don’t see this offer coming again soon.
Even if Argentinian claims were to be legally correct, today her position is much weaker.
Thucydides was writing in ancient times what still holds true today: “in the discussion of human matters, the argument of justice, has value,only where there is equal power in its enforcement. Otherwise the strong enforces what his strength allows him and the weak concedes what his weakness dictates him.”
This is the final juice. Even our venerable “international law”, is basically applied only by those who are powerful enough to apply it and where they want to apply it.
Argentina lost 3 good chances in court. In the war, she had to concede what her weakness dictated. The resurface of the matter today, can be of no value outside a court and can serve only to consolidate the argentinian position that the dispute is still on and hope for a better occasion in the future.
The UN in this case, has showed no will to pronounce verdict. The court of Hague is a tool recognized by the UN that would suit such a case. Hoping that Britain would simply give away the islands after a victorious war and with the support of the local population is naive. So if Argentina really wants something more than consolidating the dispute for future use, she should ask Britain to Court. Britain could refuse this time , but that’s all Argentina could do.
Unless a Court says otherwise, after examining… plaques and treaties, the Falklands have British population on them and are under British de facto sovereignty.
Aspissounds like Greeks and Americans have much in common.
At least the US politicians work for the US interests, well, they try (Bush for example i am not sure whether he worked more for or against US interests). Ours don’t even want to try. They just try to assure their next elections and they try to do something for the country only when they ‘re with the back on the wall.
Of course, unlike Americans, we have also some other minor parties, with very colourful positions that are completely out of their minds that i am sure the Americans are happy that they don’t have (especially our comunist party, which lives still in the Lenin era and for example even now in the time of crisis the only thing that can think of is “everyone go on strike! Say no to the capitalist, anti-worker plans”! ).
AspisI disagree with you. I think if the HAF had an option to choose, they’d rather fight the Albanian AF. The Chinese Mig-19 copies are not much of a threat :diablo:
Ah, i was meaning to choose between Bulgaria and Turkey. If you leave all options open, then i am sure they would choose FYRO Macedonian AF.
but I agree with you that Greek politicians are more poisonous than any Turk or Bulgarian to your country. Its time for Greek to put a stop to its unruly unions and corrupt politicians for economic progress to continue.
If i told you that i hope that Greeks will stop voting for the 2 parties that have been sharing the power in the last 30 years and are more or less responsible for the current situation, i would lie to you. I am not that foolish. Greeks are sentimental, treating political parties like football clubs. “I won’t betray my team”. So they ‘re morons enough to keep voting the same, hoping that just because the leader changed, the entire party changed. So i don’t fool myself in beliving that. That could happen only in the case that we ‘d fall in a total collapse, but our politicians are clever enough to go to the IMF before that.
What i do hope is that at least, in the next elections, they will “eliminate” from the Parlament many of the “old guard” politicians from those 2 parties, who have been in power over the past years.
The bad side, is that if the goverment manages to bring the economy back on track without excessive measures or loans, we will probably have them in power for the next 12 years at least. The good side is that because of the crisis, many good reforms are supposed to be done. The bad side is that after 12 years, they will be corrupted (long time power corrupts, inevitably) and we will have to hope that the opposition will be better. But if they make it, it will be a huge political weapon against the conservatives. And usually greek politicians “grow wings” when they ‘re with the back on the wall (if you recall the olympic games delays in preparation you will understand.), because they think “that’s it, if we mess up this time, we won’t be elected for the next 10 years for sure!”. And that’s the only think they ‘re really scared of.
I see the crisis as an opportunity to make reforms that otherwise they would never do and i hope the goverment makes it. But on the other hand, i don’t want to think of the idea that they will later “cash” their success into God knows how many years in power. I ‘d much more prefer to put new parties in the parlament. But i am in the minority. The majority votes for their “football clubs”.
AspisSens, since i want to prevent a flamewar, although i am too tired to continue on the “Balkan derailing train” in this “israeli derailed train”, i will only give you a hint to explain Hawx’s reaction.
What you say, i understand your point, is about the extension of the wider geographical area, which was named like that by the Romans. Yes, we all know that. I bet that the bunch of University Professors that sign the letter and most of which are ancient history professors (some are your compatriots) know that too without having to read wikipedia. Still, they wrote the letter, because they know the part of the political issue that you haven’t grasped in this situation and is connected to the ancient kingdom before the Romans.
And that’s why Hawx reacted with the colourful manner he did.
If someone else has the will and stamina to explain further, then so be it.
Personally i am tired enough. Already having to think about yet another threat has been quite demanding mentally.
Aspisyou’re exactly right that many Bulgarians are still hanging on to the concept of a greater bulgaria. Many greeks don’t realize that. Until they give up their dreams, the HAF should be ready.. after all in this financial crisis, handling the Bulgarians is cheaper than the Turks 😉
I am sure that if HAF had the option to choose , they would prefer Bulgaria. HAF in theory is ready for Turkey , so i would imagine that they are ready enough for Bulgaria too. Not to mention that we wouldn’t need to have the Navy ready, so i imagine that it would be a positive vote from everyone. The Navy would cheer actually!
As for the fact that many Greeks don’t understand that. I know all of the “great something” theories in the Balkans. The problem is, as long as someone keeps them into his head, what are you supposed to do? Get HAF ready? HAF is ready. Get army over there? It’s already over there for the Turks. The only thing that is left is to start a hostile foreign policy towards Bulgaria. And when someone asks us why we will reply “Because we know that deep inside their mind, they think of great Bulgaria!”. The only one that won’t say “You ‘re paranoid and i am sick of your idiotic excuses for phantomatic threats” (which they already say), would be you. 😀 Try going to the EU Parlament and try to convince them that you have hostile policy because “many Bulgarians think of that”. 95% of the foreign politicians don’t have a clue about what’s going on in our region and you expect it to be viable policy to try to do something about something that “one may think”? They would throw their shoes to our deputees. 😀
As for the greek goverments, if i don’t care 1 time, they don’t care 10 times as long as they don’t have to deal with anything officially. Even for Turkey, if they could figure out a way to give Turkey what she wants without having to explain to us why and how they did it and still win the elections, they ‘d do it.
Think that the previous PM, which is largely (although not the only one) responsible for the status of the economy that he left to this successor, while all this havoc was plaguing Greece, he went skiing to Austria and now sits on the Parlament on the rear rows and enjoys the tranquillity (he feels like he is in pension now) without even making an apologize (hoping that he would resign is too good to be true).
In Greece, personally, i am not worried about HAF. I am worried about the politicians that cripple the real capabilities of the armed forces. When your Bulgarians will invade (so to stay to your line of thought), HAF pilots will take off with or without the EW suite installed. Simply the politicians will have killed those that will fly without the EW suite.
Your question should rather be : “I hope your politicians are ready”. I answer to you: “They ‘re not”.
AspisI don’t see that Greece will be in a position to embark on any high cost procurements for a long time. Remember that Typhoon procurement was shelved for budget reasons when Greece’s financial problems were far less serious than they are now.
Greece will order aircrafts after the current crisis has been in a more normal trail and in any case, the aircraft contract will follow the signing of the frigate contract, from what the MoD’s words left to be guessed. And this won’t happen within this year at least. It’s not just a financial issue, it’s a political issue. Yesterday a journalist attacked the PM in press conference exactly about the fact that he confirmed to Sarko the frigates and that the MoD said that later in this year they will see the matter of aircrafts. The PM of course, replied “Needless to say, we won’t order such weapons while we are in the middle of our effort”.
My prediction, we will order around 2015 for aircrafts. The previous goverment had a plan for 30-40 (I am guessing 40 if F16s, 30 if newer, more costly type). By the time the new MoD will have to see the matter, we will see how many. Anyway, the greek defence won’t follow the arms race anymore, that’s obvious in the intentions since the last gov, so if we buy 40 in 2015, i will be satisfied. More or less, the Danish military model will be adopted as our PM had always envisioned.
AspisDassault should be praying for the Greek crisis to bring down the euro. Back to the 2001 level would do. :diablo:
In fact, given the unflexible EU monetary policy, which no matter what happens on the globe, is locked to the stability pact, while the Americans and Chinese keep their respective currencies slightly devaluated, the greek sparkle is the only chance for EU to bring the exchange rates a bit down and boost the EU exports towards non EU destinations.
And instead of saying “Thanks”, everyone is angry with us! Ahaha! 😀 The euro is strong? They ‘re unhappy, because we can’t compete $ and yuan. The euro dropped a bit? Unhappy again because it dropped and lost its prestige of “rock solid”. Ungrateful…
Just joking, i could resist. For the sake of Greece, the crisis should better end. Whatever the euro lost in the meantime, you can thank us later.
Aspisthe problem my friend is that you see conflict purely through a conventional perspective and purely through a greek one.
Bulgaria need not to resort to provocative incursions like Turkey simply because the Bulgars know they are weaker than Greek in that regard. Turkey can get away with its incursions because they know they have a large military.What the Bulgars do instead is through lower intensity means, political and financial. For example, their continued support for ethnic bulgarians during the Yugoslav era, and their immediate recognition of the bulgar nation of Macedonia. They were the first in fact, to recognize the Bulgar Macedonia.
then there is continued weapons “gifts” from the bulgar bulgarians to the bulgar macedons. In many bulgar historical discourses, they do not recognize the bulgar macedons as seperately macedonians, but rather they view the entire area that is macedonia as being the same as bulgaria. which could be worse. The support for two bulgar states is a step towards the union of one larger one.
That’s something that should concern primarily FYROM, as Bulgaria recognized them as “Macedonia” but not as “macedonian nation”, because as you say, they regard them as Bulgarians. If you ask me, they ‘re right. There are already thousands of Slavomacedonians that have taken the Bulgarian citizenship as soon as Bulgaria made it available. One of them, is actually their ex nationalist PM Georgievski. Go figure. Now, as long as the Bulgarians eye them, it’s fine for me. If, some day (unlikely as long as the EU exists) , they are interested in Greece , then i may take it more seriously. If i were to take as real policy everything that has been written in history books over the decades in the Balkans, we should expect imminent attack from everywhere. Things go with priorities. Right now , the threat is on the east. If things change, we may do something about it. What are we supposed to do? Put more soldiers in Thrace? Those already present are enough for a bulgarian attack without calling reserves. Start a hostile policy towards Bulgaria based on a hypothesis or a “secret plan”? We supported the bulgarian entry in EU and we are in the same EU “battlegroup” with Bulgaria and Romania.
And as i said, this isn’t 1877. Conditions are different and the area, with a greek majority and a minority claimed entirely by Turkey as hers for obvious reasons, it would be more trouble than worth it. 100 years ago, it could be worth it to have a sea exit to the Aegean. Today with the customs union you have the exit almost as if it was yours. Free of the trouble we have to guard it.
If something goes off in the Balkans right now, you can be sure of one thing. That it won’t be something supported only from the Balkan countries, but also from outside. Too many foreign presence right now and by coincidence too many pipelines passing or planed to pass from the Balkans. So, i am less afraid of the locals and more afraid of bigger players, which may have financial interests into changing borders.
Just my opinion…
AspisAgainst EU support for Greece speak, there is general reservations. All EU countries are suffering from financial problems, and it is not easily communicated to taxpayers that they need to help Greece!;)
Yes, i do realize that. What i tried to explain to you, is that if needed, Greece could loan from the IMF. But if the EU won’t let us for prestige reasons, then i suppose your politicians will have to explain that to the taxpayers…
On the more optimistic side, as long as the greek plan doesn’t derail, Greece won’t ask for loans, so your taxpayers for now can sleep smoothly. So don’t lose your sleep yet for a loan that may never come. You know, if you watched TV today, the part where your Chanchellor said “Greece didn’t ask for financial support”.
The “political” support, is exactly to come out and say that one supports and will monitor how things go so to be more trustworthy and call that “rescue plan”. Political , as to “i help without actually showing my money”.
The financial support is “we have 20 bln euros ready for loan on Monday, come and get it”.
Right now we are on the “political support”. Which costs nothing other than beautiful words and a vague insinuation of if needed financial support. We both hope to stay in the political support part. So, it’s useless to lose your sleep over the money that Greece hasn’t asked for. It only makes you more unhappy. If we ask them, then, you have all the time to lose your sleep.
Goodnight.
Aspis+1 here.
I was additionally amazed at the fact that not only there was a test launch, but also that it was unannounced, totally a surprise to friends and foes alike and the missile fired at the direction of that common turco-egyptian naval drill nearby.
I did not expect too many people at the Navy General Staff having the “balls” for that, especially at a time when money for training is scarce and every measure is taken to prevent excercises from being perceived as “provocative” by the other side…
Well, those must have been block I Exocets so with limited range. The turco-egyptians were far beyond the range that the fuel would last, even if we believe that they were pointing to the exact direction. It could be that the minister that day didn’t even read that there will be a test fire in that area…
What shocked me is who, how and with what funds, connected them to what ground radar in order to make them acquire target. And how come it wasn’t “cut” as “irrational, waste of time- experiment”.
I never myself understood why Greece had limited itself in buying the FEW ground based MM40, when you have so many islands that can act as unsinkable missile launchers.
If i were the MoD i ‘d use the new configuration to wide extend and place in the eastern Aegean such batteries. Automatically you give a big hand of help to the navy units. But i don’t want to be too optimistic, do i… These things are far too reasonable to happen.
AspisI often seen 1 Rafale + weapons + support is around 142 mln but it was in dollars at that time 😮
Well, in $ and with weapons, it may so be. It depends on what and how many weapons… By “weapons” for example, the AdlA may consider also the SCALP, which is very costly. Or a big stock of MICA. Tmor’s explanation seems a reasonable one.
In 2009, we heard about many new sub system in devellopement for the Rafale, obviously, it has a cost.
About the competitivity with the Typhoon, I guess we can say that the Rafale even more expensive has a very good reason to be :diablo:
The Rafale surely has a reason to be. For France the reason is obvious. For customers that want a native multirole platform, also makes sense, since the EF has still things to add in the A-G sector and the radar. But, the EADS consorcium seems to have been more careful to bring down costs (even the 4 countries asked to cut support costs and this is a plus for customers too) and in the “multirole” area the Rafale has currently also to compete with the generally cheaper F16 (specially if you consider weapons) and in the close future the F35. Which i doubt it will cost as low as USAF had hoped initially, but it could end up near the same price range.
The eternal problem of french aircrafts for export was always the price. Good aircrafts but for one reason or another, they don’t have the export success they could have, if they were produced in large numbers like the US aircrafts for example.
AspisFirst the IMF is always good for rigid reforms and this is was greece now need!;)
Yes, that’s why Greece had already asked technical advice from IMF. But JoeyR is right. For prestige reasons, the EU wouldn’t allow Greece to take loan from the IMF. Basically we take the “know how” of the IMF without the money part.
So, the less panic and hoaxes “sources” from here and there (including EU countries) spread, the less likely is that you will have to loan Greece.
That’s why your Chancellor and Sarkozy etc made the political statement today. To support politically Greece, in order to stop the financial speculation which was contageous to 2 other countries and affected the euro. Although this last part, may actually be beneficial, allowing more exports.
Greece must follow its plan, the monitoring will help control that easier, and if things go well, you won’t have to put your hands on your wallets. It’s all about how spreads will go at the moments that Greece will sell bonds and the banks will get loans. After this political statement, the financial speculators should become more cautious, if Greece does apply the plan regularly.
That’s the harsh reality. You ‘re stuck with us. You can complain, you can tear your hair apart, but you ‘re stuck with us.
Countries don’t “die” like that. Even if one goes bankrupt and can’t find creditors and you don’t want to loan, you go to the IMF and get a loan. That’s why the IMF is for. It’s not that Greece can’t go to the IMF. It’s that a) it’s not necessary at this point (because bankruptcy in economy is another thing than the one you perceive) and b) if it would become necessary, the EU won’t let us.
So you can continue playing the “damn you Greece, i hate your guts” game and feel better, but that won’t change reality. I do sympathize though.
I also damned my compatriots for voting the morons and thieves that brought the economy to this point, but it doesn’t change reality nor does it help me solve the problem.
AspisWe can all congratulate Tmor to spend so much time trying to understand exactly what are those figures because it’s not as simple as it looks like.
But from the little I understood, I fear that we are now quite away from the €55 millions fly away price ….
In deed, Tmor’s intervention was very helpful because i read a greek aviation blog with title “1 Rafale costs 142 mln euros!” and i was doubtful to say the least, specially when the article speculated that it could even be fly-away because it was unclear. So i thought to ask the French about it instead of just believing what i read… And Tmor’s explanation is far more logical. Because i was remembering a figure of about 55 flyaway exactly for Adla and couldn’t find how it could climb to 142 from there.
Still the increase in price is consistent, probably following the more advanced additions in the F3. But, i am afraid it will make loose competitiveness against the Typhoon.
Sign In
