US sanctions Rosoboronexport, Sukhoi over Iran

[highsea]

...I mentioned Japan because it was the original matter of the thread.

Lol, which thread was that?

[HistoricalDavid]

Lol, which thread was that?

Oops.

Well what about the archangel? A town in northern russnya that the US Army held through an entire winter, during the same revolution that ousted the last Czar.

What about it? I have no sympathy for the Red side in Russia's civil war and very little for the white side, but that's still +0.0001 sympatico-units for the white side, which the US Army was part of.

[Confed999]

Say it for ghosts of Hiroshima...

I am...

Oh, yes! Only the 320 000 (mere trifle)

Compared to the projected loss of a million Allied soldiers, Russians included, and the civilian casualties caused from the bombardment and blocade of the country, it's a sad, but fair trade.

Japanesies (peaceful citizens)

Were the Germans "peaceful citizens" while Russia was bombing and shooting them? The same genocidal war Russia was fighting with Germany, the US was fighting with Japan.

Want remind what at that time Japan was almost beaten.

Not really, their mainland had barely been touched. Were the Germans beaten before Germany was invaded?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/...huBHNlYwNtdHM-

Even one empty one was a breach of the cease-fire. ;)

Intentional killing civilians is war crime. Nazi leaders were hanged up for it.

Then Russia was packed to the brim with war criminals. Both targets were militarily strategic targets, enemy naval, air, manufacturing and supply. Both of those cities were going to be leveled anyway.

The justification of murder of civilians is a hypocrisy.

Are people actively supporting the war effort "civilians"?

A Russian preaching to anyone about war crimes is hypocracy. Pardon for violating your comfort zones. :)

[Confed999]

A Russian preaching to anyone about war crimes is hypocracy. Pardon for violating your comfort zones. :)

I feel I must apologize for that remark. I know a few Russians here on the net, and they are decent folks. When someone digs at another for no reason, I like to turn that same argument around for them to contemplate, but that was a bit much even for me...

[Tronic]

According to Marxist theory, it's the other way around.

Primitive pre-civilisation >> Feudalism >> Capitalism >> Socialism >> Communism, where the state has 'withered' away.

You might be talking about another system, but we all know it was Marx which inspired the twentieth century version.

has there been any state which has achieved Socialism without Communism??? (or a better question still.. has there been any state which has achieved Socialism???... no....)... there lies the fault in this scale... (btw, this is the first time i'm seeing this order...)

Great, and those satellite states had to pay the price with half a century of economic non-development.

yea they did... but it was the Cold War and the Soviets can use the same reason as the American can of dropping the A-bombs... National Security.

You've misunderstood me. Say the national TV station is, of course, communally owned, so decisions must be comunal. It is within the democratic power to ban all anti-communist opinion.

After all, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not my phrase.

yes decisions must be comunal... and the state may decide that they have to ban anti-communist opinions... it is not always the case... or well shouldn't be.. that all depends on how corupt and power hungry the communist leaders have gotten... usually in communism the leaders start to move very slow when it comes to handing power to the people... btw, that is more of a flaw in human nature then in the idea of Socialism...

Straw man. I believe in freedom, and if someone is being exploited in the truest sense, i.e. being coerced or defrauded out of their wealth, their freedom not to be so is being violated, and they should be protected. Like, a lot of the time, in liberal democracy and capitalism.

It's not the 'country's treasury', it's the treasury of he who owns the land and put the work in to extract it.

no... a lot of times they aren't protected... be it Democracy or Socialism... Widespread corruption my friend... it all depends on the majority of the people's mindset... if the government is more likely to be corrupt like South Vietnam, the no ones freedoms will be protected be it capitalism or communism...

If 99.99% of the population vote to ban eating of watermelons on private property at 3.42am, is it right?

depends if you are one of the 99.99% or the remaining 0.01%... if 99.99% people vote for such a thing then obviously the most sensible thing would be to respect it... even if it was a ban on eating watermelon... lol... its like this... there are plenty of people out there who also belive that doing drugs should not be illegalized, afterall they are only destroying their own bodies... but no, not many countries have drugs legalized... you just have to suck it up and respect the other 99.99% of your fellow countrymen... because i'm pretty sure there will be no place where 100% of the population agree on a particular issue...

You have definitely got the order of Marxist historicism wrong, unless you're talking about another system.

lol... we both have different images of the same system... But again... Socialism is the final destination for Socialists and Communism is just a path towards Socialism and no county has been able to succefully pass the step of Communism and reach Socialism...

A very liberal democracy is one which protects rights to the greatest extent, but quite how that's anarchy is beyond me.

it's not anarchy... nowhere close... but leaning towards that side of the scale... and by your defintion even some Western countries like Canada are not "liberal" democracies as they have harsh drug laws and banning of firearms and all... and especially since Canada now has a Conservative government...

Notice how the freest countries in the world are also the most stable.

define "freest"... again are you saying that Netherlands is more stable then Canada because the Dutch permit most of the stuff whereelse in Canada there are harsh restrictions placed??? (the most stable countries in the world are Democracies... period.)

Tyranny-------------------------------------------Liberalism

That's my scale, and anarchy is off it and in its own category because it's the complete absence of government. To protect freedom you need a very limited minarchist government, not no government, otherwise it's simply anarchism, where any governmental tyranny is replaced by unrestrained criminal tyranny.

gah... my scale is better... lol... I can even fit Tyranny and Liberalism on my scale...
here:

Socialism--------------Tyranny-------------Liberalism(Centre point)---------------------Anarchy

And this scale works because Liberalism means more personal freedoms... now keep going down the scale of more and more personal freedoms and you end up with Anarchy...
now, going the other way.... keep going left and it means more and more state control... ending up in Socialism (complete state control; in which the state is run by the people... <again hasn't been proven possible>)

By the way, interesting discussion. :)

yes, quite...

[HistoricalDavid]

has there been any state which has achieved Socialism without Communism??? (or a better question still.. has there been any state which has achieved Socialism???... no....)... there lies the fault in this scale... (btw, this is the first time i'm seeing this order...)

Then we've been reading different histories. My history teachers seem to agree with that order.

yea they did... but it was the Cold War and the Soviets can use the same reason as the American can of dropping the A-bombs... National Security.

Yes, the mighty armies of Eastern Europe threatened them... Assuming that a tyrannical state even has a right to defend itself.

yes decisions must be comunal... and the state may decide that they have to ban anti-communist opinions... it is not always the case... or well shouldn't be.. that all depends on how corupt and power hungry the communist leaders have gotten... usually in communism the leaders start to move very slow when it comes to handing power to the people... btw, that is more of a flaw in human nature then in the idea of Socialism...

What's the difference? Any system we design has to work with and accomodate the faults of human nature. It is socialism's fault because the power being wielded simply invites abuse.

no... a lot of times they aren't protected... be it Democracy or Socialism... Widespread corruption my friend... it all depends on the majority of the people's mindset... if the government is more likely to be corrupt like South Vietnam, the no ones freedoms will be protected be it capitalism or communism...

Where is corruption more prevalent? Communist or capitalist societies?

depends if you are one of the 99.99% or the remaining 0.01%... if 99.99% people vote for such a thing then obviously the most sensible thing would be to respect it...

Appeal to coercion/populism fallacy. Just because something has adverse consequences because of its unpopularity, doesn't mean it's not morally right.

even if it was a ban on eating watermelon... lol... its like this... there are plenty of people out there who also belive that doing drugs should not be illegalized, afterall they are only destroying their own bodies... but no, not many countries have drugs legalized... you just have to suck it up and respect the other 99.99% of your fellow countrymen...

Why's that? Because the state can't be bothered to properly protect my rights, or let me do so with firearms?

Again, appeal to coercion/populism fallacy.

lol... we both have different images of the same system... But again... Socialism is the final destination for Socialists and Communism is just a path towards Socialism and no county has been able to succefully pass the step of Communism and reach Socialism...

Everything I've heard reverses the order.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...s/marxism.html

"Communism, which evolves peacefully from socialism, is a classless society under which the state will wither away."

Previously I referred to communism in the slang, however, as the Soviet Union, North Korea...

it's not anarchy... nowhere close... but leaning towards that side of the scale... and by your defintion even some Western countries like Canada are not "liberal" democracies as they have harsh drug laws and banning of firearms and all... and especially since Canada now has a Conservative government...

They have anti-liberal corruptions, doesn't mean they generally aren't liberal. Take a white piece of paper, and draw two lines on it. Is it not still, essentially white with some corruption?

Of course, those laws should eventually be repealed.

define "freest"... again are you saying that Netherlands is more stable then Canada because the Dutch permit most of the stuff whereelse in Canada there are harsh restrictions placed??? (the most stable countries in the world are Democracies... period.)

They are not democracies, they are liberal-democracies since they have parliaments, constitutions, and a myriad of processes which detach the will of the people from the law.

What I meant was that it is generally the military dictatorships, or authoritarian monarchies, or shoddy communist states, or fascist regimes, or so on so forth, which seem to succumb to coups, or are under serious threat from guerillas, or from external sources...

gah... my scale is better... lol... I can even fit Tyranny and Liberalism on my scale...
here:

Socialism--------------Tyranny-------------Liberalism(Centre point)---------------------Anarchy

And this scale works because Liberalism means more personal freedoms... now keep going down the scale of more and more personal freedoms and you end up with Anarchy...

With anarchy, you have very little personal freedoms, if at all, since they aren't protected.

The trouble is, your line of argument can be used by 'benevolent' tyrants - like how there wasn't sectarian violence under Saddam Hussein, bad as he was...

now, going the other way.... keep going left and it means more and more state control... ending up in Socialism (complete state control; in which the state is run by the people... <again hasn't been proven possible>)

Still tyranny, merely because of the extension of state control.

Even if a certain measure has 99% popular support, it might still be tyrannical, since when it's the state, people usually have no choice to retreat once it's in place.

[Tronic]

Yes, the mighty armies of Eastern Europe threatened them... Assuming that a tyrannical state even has a right to defend itself.

any state has a right to defend itself, yes even tyrannical states... that is why it is a right and not a privilage... and no, the threat the Soviets faced was not the mighty armies of Eastern Europe, the threat was from NATO nations... and the Soviets used Eastern Europe as a buffer zone...

What's the difference? Any system we design has to work with and accomodate the faults of human nature. It is socialism's fault because the power being wielded simply invites abuse.

it is not Socialism's fault... Socialism is a system which does not accomodate the faults of human nature... true... BUT that is human nature which is at fault for not being able to handle such a system.. that is why Socialism is simply an idea, nothing more...

Where is corruption more prevalent? Communist or capitalist societies?

Corruption pops up anywhere... capitalist or communist... the difference being that capitalist countries make it possible for many more people to be corrupt in contrast to communist where only a selected few can be corrupt...

Appeal to coercion/populism fallacy. Just because something has adverse consequences because of its unpopularity, doesn't mean it's not morally right.

if you're that 0.01% then its not morally right... if you're that 99.99%, then it is morally right... besides, morally right or not, this is democracy... majority rules... and if you think that 0.01% of the minority is going to get its rights protected then you're dead wrong... that is too small of a minority for the government to even care...

Why's that? Because the state can't be bothered to properly protect my rights, or let me do so with firearms?

I think usually democracies end up working because the majority is tended to be respected... no matter what your views... if the majority votes no drugs or no firearms then no drugs and no firearms... btw, I doubt many countries even hold referendums on these issues... mostly the government decides if its going to let the population play with drugs and firearms or not...

Everything I've heard reverses the order.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...s/marxism.html

"Communism, which evolves peacefully from socialism, is a classless society under which the state will wither away."

Previously I referred to communism in the slang, however, as the Soviet Union, North Korea...

ok my bad then... but even taking it in this order, it just means no nation has achieved true communism then...
here's something from the present commie movements

Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html

and since the government never really got to the point of dispersing into the working population... true communism has never been achieved...

They have anti-liberal corruptions, doesn't mean they generally aren't liberal. Take a white piece of paper, and draw two lines on it. Is it not still, essentially white with some corruption?

corruption??? I didn't say Canada was corrupted... I just said that they have anti-drug laws and anti-arms laws; so are they less liberal??? I'm just expanding on your example of Singapore as being a less liberal country... By the same token, Canada also becomes less liberal... i.e. if we go by your definition...

Of course, those laws should eventually be repealed.

so you are saying that Canada is not a very liberal country at present???

They are not democracies, they are liberal-democracies since they have parliaments, constitutions, and a myriad of processes which detach the will of the people from the law.

Every democracy has parliaments, constitutions, and a myriad of processes which detach the will of the people from the law... give me one that doesn't...

What I meant was that it is generally the military dictatorships, or authoritarian monarchies, or shoddy communist states, or fascist regimes, or so on so forth, which seem to succumb to coups, or are under serious threat from guerillas, or from external sources...

yes... but then again military dictatorships, or authoritarian monarchies, or shoddy communist states, or fascist regimes, or so on so forth, are not democracies... what you claim is that more right leaning democracies are more stable then less right leaning democracies... so again with my example... so you think that Canada is any less stable then Holland???

With anarchy, you have very little personal freedoms, if at all, since they aren't protected.

no.... with Anarchy you have total personal freedoms... no laws, no nothing to hold you back from even killing someone...

The trouble is, your line of argument can be used by 'benevolent' tyrants - like how there wasn't sectarian violence under Saddam Hussein, bad as he was...

it can be used... and it can be used correctly... since Tyrannary is more state control there is less personal freedoms and in the case of Iraq that means less sectarian violence... so even if Saddam used this scale to measure his government, he would've been right...

Still tyranny, merely because of the extension of state control.

Even if a certain measure has 99% popular support, it might still be tyrannical, since when it's the state, people usually have no choice to retreat once it's in place.

yea, sure why not??? thats just one of our political elements... and that scale is a perfect measurement of it...

and have you heard the term left-wing paries; right-wing parties... or Left leaning, Right leaning... well where do you think those terms come from??? this scale ofcourse... ;)

[HistoricalDavid]

any state has a right to defend itself, yes even tyrannical states... that is why it is a right and not a privilage...

Why?

They can't claim to defend their own people, since they are also the ones enslaving them, which perhaps leaves their claim simply to defend their own power and prestige. I seriously doubt Stalin or Kim Jong-Il maintained armies to defend their people, considering such leaders don't give the remotest about either their people or even their votes.

and no, the threat the Soviets faced was not the mighty armies of Eastern Europe, the threat was from NATO nations... and the Soviets used Eastern Europe as a buffer zone...

And communised it. Why?

it is not Socialism's fault... Socialism is a system which does not accomodate the faults of human nature... true... BUT that is human nature which is at fault for not being able to handle such a system..

You're inversing common sense. Shouldn't we build a system to work with what we have? Otherwise, the question inherently arises, should we change what we have to work with the system - in other words, social and psychological engineering, and downright totalitarianism.

that is why Socialism is simply an idea, nothing more...

Unfortunately, the twentieth century saw it being implemented repeatedly, so poooof! goes that assertion.

Corruption pops up anywhere... capitalist or communist... the difference being that capitalist countries make it possible for many more people to be corrupt in contrast to communist where only a selected few can be corrupt...

You joking or what?

if you're that 0.01% then its not morally right... if you're that 99.99%, then it is morally right...

Reason?

besides, morally right or not, this is democracy... majority rules... and if you think that 0.01% of the minority is going to get its rights protected then you're dead wrong... that is too small of a minority for the government to even care...

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

I think usually democracies end up working because the majority is tended to be respected... no matter what your views... if the majority votes no drugs or no firearms then no drugs and no firearms... btw, I doubt many countries even hold referendums on these issues... mostly the government decides if its going to let the population play with drugs and firearms or not...

Precisely, which is why you can't truly say there democracy anywhere in the world, except to a limited degree in some parts of Switzerland and the United States.

ok my bad then... but even taking it in this order, it just means no nation has achieved true communism then...
here's something from the present commie movements

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html

and since the government never really got to the point of dispersing into the working population... true communism has never been achieved...

Hence my 'slang' reference.

corruption??? I didn't say Canada was corrupted...

In the liberal sense, it has faults.

I just said that they have anti-drug laws and anti-arms laws; so are they less liberal???

Er... obviously. They ban the non-coercive activities of drugs and owning firearms, so that's two chalked off.

I'm just expanding on your example of Singapore as being a less liberal country... By the same token, Canada also becomes less liberal... i.e. if we go by your definition...

Singapore is infamous for a variety of very tight controls.

so you are saying that Canada is not a very liberal country at present???

No, where I implied that is beyond me. Can't you read? In my opinion Canada is a fairly strong liberal-democracy, but with faults.

Every democracy has parliaments, constitutions, and a myriad of processes which detach the will of the people from the law... give me one that doesn't...

Hence, it's not really 'democracy' - rule by the people.

yes... but then again military dictatorships, or authoritarian monarchies, or shoddy communist states, or fascist regimes, or so on so forth, are not democracies...

I wasn't talking about democracies, I was talking about free countries and their greater stability.

what you claim is that more right leaning democracies are more stable then less right leaning democracies... so again with my example... so you think that Canada is any less stable then Holland???

Viewed in the lens of the greater world, they're not different enough to notice the difference.

I'm not restricting the 'free=stable' generalisation to democracies.

no.... with Anarchy you have total personal freedoms... no laws, no nothing to hold you back from even killing someone...

Thus, that 'someone's' inalienable right to life is being violated.

it can be used... and it can be used correctly... since Tyrannary is more state control there is less personal freedoms and in the case of Iraq that means less sectarian violence... so even if Saddam used this scale to measure his government, he would've been right...

The trouble is, sectarian violence is just replaced by less graphic violence, in the form of a police state and so on.

yea, sure why not??? thats just one of our political elements... and that scale is a perfect measurement of it...

and have you heard the term left-wing paries; right-wing parties... or Left leaning, Right leaning... well where do you think those terms come from??? this scale ofcourse... ;)

They did? I was under the impression they came from the French Revolution, when the monarchists sat on the right and the republicans sat on the left.

[Bluesman]

They did? I was under the impression they came from the French Revolution, when the monarchists sat on the right and the republicans sat on the left.

You are correct, sir. It does not come from any scale.

[Tronic]

Why?

They can't claim to defend their own people, since they are also the ones enslaving them, which perhaps leaves their claim simply to defend their own power and prestige. I seriously doubt Stalin or Kim Jong-Il maintained armies to defend their people, considering such leaders don't give the remotest about either their people or even their votes.

Everyone's beliefs differ... Kim Jong is more of a tyrrant then a proper commie leader.. North Korea is his empire and its people his subjects... he's a wacko.... and Stalin... same thing; he was too obsessed with making the Soviet Union a superpower which resulted in the great purges... look at other Soviet leaders, Khrushchev and Brezhnev... these guys were nothing like Stalin... total opposite i might say... during the 1950's Khrushchev spent a great deal of energy in de-Stalinizing the Soviet Union... and I don't see why the Soviets don't have any right to defend their homeland...

And communised it. Why?

same reason South Korea had a capitalist regime installed and same reason why that was tried in South Vietnam also... its called ideology in which everyone was trying to spread their own ideology around... like I said, had America and Britain been commies then Western Europe and South Korea also would've been commie...

You're inversing common sense. Shouldn't we build a system to work with what we have? Otherwise, the question inherently arises, should we change what we have to work with the system - in other words, social and psychological engineering, and downright totalitarianism.

does it matter how we see it??? Socialism doesn't work with Human Nature... period... it doesn't really matter if you put the Socialist idea at fault or put Human nature at fault... both ways, its the same thing...

Unfortunately, the twentieth century saw it being implemented repeatedly, so poooof! goes that assertion.

it wasn't implemented... it was tried to be implemented... didn't work and resulted in failed states all over...

You joking or what?

why??? never seen corruption in Capitalist states??? you probably live in America/ Canda/ UK or other Western country... they all had widespread corruption to start with... these states have had centuries of building up and improving... even the Americas have been built up for over 200-300 years... come visit some new capitalist countries.... India, S. Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, etc, etc... India for example is only 50 years old and i'll show you how widespread corruption is here... capitalism doesn't mean no-corruption... corruption is not associated with capitalism or communism... it just needs time to slowly fade away... now you are talking about ages old independent countries...

Precisely, which is why you can't truly say there democracy anywhere in the world, except to a limited degree in some parts of Switzerland and the United States.

Er... obviously. They ban the non-coercive activities of drugs and owning firearms, so that's two chalked off.

ok.

Singapore is infamous for a variety of very tight controls.

No, where I implied that is beyond me. Can't you read? In my opinion Canada is a fairly strong liberal-democracy, but with faults.

hmm... ok. and don't loose your cool... and I don't get it... Canada also has very tight controls... they are not tightly enforced... but they still are very tight controls...

Hence, it's not really 'democracy' - rule by the people.

rule by the people is ot possible... that's Communism and Socialism for you again...

I wasn't talking about democracies, I was talking about free countries and their greater stability.

democratic countries = free countries

Viewed in the lens of the greater world, they're not different enough to notice the difference.

viewed in the lens of the greater world, Singapore is also not different enough to notice the difference...

Thus, that 'someone's' inalienable right to life is being violated.

and thus you need some state control to protect that someone... and thus most governments try to aim for the centre point of that scale...not too much state control not too little...

The trouble is, sectarian violence is just replaced by less graphic violence, in the form of a police state and so on.

yea sure... civil violence replaced by state violence... still fits on the scale...

They did? I was under the impression they came from the French Revolution, when the monarchists sat on the right and the republicans sat on the left.

You are correct, sir. It does not come from any scale.

I didn't know that... thanks...

[Garry]

Lol. We could call selling arms to Iran and Venezuela "unfriendly acts" too.
And we never said they did. Selling F-15's to Ukraine wouldn't violate International law either, but Russia would have a cow if we did it.

What will be interesting is what happens with the RRJ. Boeing can no longer partner with Sukhoi, and if Airbus tries step in, the sanctions could extend to EADS for doing business with Sukhoi. I doubt they would be willing to risk that for a regional jet project that may or may not ever see fruition.

Hi Highsea,

This was indeed stupid act in two ways
1) it punished US Corporations
2) it did not punish Sukhoi

I talked to my friends in Sukhoi - they expected sanctions while considering Venezuella..... they just did not expect that justification be stupidly fixed to Iran. I doubt that EADS would be put under any sanctions for collaborating with United Aircraft Corporation and its full subsidiary Sukhoi. I would bet that it would NEVER happen. It would hurt even more US corporations and incurr ENORMOUS political costs to USA.

Why it did not punish Sukhoi? I has not yet started any serious business with US suppliers. Now when they start considering switch to non US component base all US suppliers beg to leave them in business..... telling that they still would be reliable suppliers. However it seems like Sukhoi would rather change suppliers to limit possible risks in future. This involves insignificant delay and redesign costs but nothing really crucial at this stage.

In all other businesses Sukhoi is actually having NO business with USA. Since 2008 all new contracts for its product would be priced in Rubles and no settlement risk would be involved as well.

Rosoboronexport is becoming major shareholder of VSMPO Avisma - the globe largest supplier of titanium and most important supplier to both Boeing and Airbus. I guess that if Boeing is pulling out all this titanium would go to Airbus, while Boeing would have to take a more expensive deliveries. Rosoboronexport sells nothing to USA..... it loses absolutelly nothing. Who is punished?

Now about Sukhoi and Iran..... Sukhoi did not sell a bolt to Iran. That is FACT. Even MiG-29 which it has were not delivered there by Russia. I guess that US State Dep should have been more brave and used a true reason - Venezuela. Now it only looks hipocratic by using unrelated justification......

RRJ would definitelly lose US airlines. That would deteriorate project's economics as USA is the largest market for regional flights. However the current sanctions do not punish non US companies who buy RRJ or cooperate with Sukhoi. So the sanctions do hurt project economics but not lethally. Especially at this stage.

The cooperation from Boeing was a consulting. This was very crutial on initial stage when Sukhoi lacked marketing data and had no idea on what specifications should have been built to the project. Now most of it is provided. Boeing was supposed to get 5% of revenues...... not it is going to be for free...... who was punshed???

[highsea]

...This was indeed stupid act in two ways
1) it punished US Corporations
2) it did not punish Sukhoi

Hi Garry. I agree with most of what you said. This will not really hurt Sukhoi, and the Venezuela deal was most likely the real reason for the sanctions being applied to Sukhoi. Maybe the SU-30 deal was made prior to US sanctions on Venezuela, I don't know. It's also possible that Sukhoi provided Iran with some kind of technical support that we are not aware of.

I think Congress requires some hard evidence before sanctions can be placed, but the SU-30's to Chavez is pretty unpopular here...Like I said earlier, it's kind of equivalent to the US providing F-15's to Ukraine. That would not be taken too kindly by the Kremlin. ;)

As to the Avisma connection to Rosoboronexport, I was not aware of that. We will have to see if there is any fallout over that. The chairman of Avisma, Vyacheslav Bresht, told Reuters on Monday that it would not have any impact on the titanium supplies to Boeing.

I haven't read the text of the sanctions, it appears to only bar the US government and government agencies from doing business, and bars the transfer of sensitive technologies and services. It might not have that great of an effect on the RRJ project after all, being a civilian airliner. Boeing lawyers are currently analysing the sanctions to try to figure out what the influence on their Russian projects will be.

I guess we'll have to wait and see- Lol. We might see some back-peddling by the State Dept. if Boeing throws a fit!

[Confed999]

Thus, that 'someone's' inalienable right to life is being violated.

And that someone has the inalienable right to defend himself. A good government protects rights, it does not grant them, and it does this by taking liberties that harm other's rights. Anarchy is the freest "governmental" system, and possibly the least desireable if anyone else is around. If this doesn't make sense to you, you can visualize pure anarchy by imagining yourself, all alone, on an island, forever. ;)

[Garry]

As to the Avisma connection to Rosoboronexport, I was not aware of that. We will have to see if there is any fallout over that. The chairman of Avisma, Vyacheslav Bresht, told Reuters on Monday that it would not have any impact on the titanium supplies to Boeing.

I haven't read the text of the sanctions, it appears to only bar the US government and government agencies from doing business, and bars the transfer of sensitive technologies and services. It might not have that great of an effect on the RRJ project after all, being a civilian airliner. Boeing lawyers are currently analysing the sanctions to try to figure out what the influence on their Russian projects will be.

VSMPO Avisma is yet not part of Rosoboronexport growing impire but its head Sergei Chemisov announced on recent Farnbourough that he has principal agreement with Bresht on acquisition of majority stake in VSMPO Avisma by the end of the year.

He stated that they would try to keep contracts with Boeing and Airbus (and continue pursuing Embrayer). Indeed this is very important for company...... the margin which can be made on switch from basic titanium sheets and bars to a more value added components and deals mean a lot of profits for VSMPO Avisma.

As we both know working with titanium means that around 40% of the material is wasted..... but VSMPO-Avisma being a largest titatium mill has much higher efficiency here and hence has lower costs. For them it was logical to move upstream and become producer of components for Boeing and Airbus - now the largest titanium consumers....

I was wrong when stated that sanctions jeopardize this project..... politicians on both sides would lobby whatever but would not let this project stop. It is beyond the recent histery.... Even at cold war times USSR was regulargly supplying its enemy with titanium so this trade will not stop now :)

[MOPO3]

http://en.rian.ru/business/20060810/52485362.html
MOSCOW, August 10 (RIA Novosti) - Sanctions imposed by the United States against two Russian companies will hardly affect deals with Russian titanium producers and a SuperJet project involving Boeing, the head of the U.S. giant in Russia said Thursday.

The U.S. State Department announced August 4 that two-year sanctions had been imposed on aircraft maker Sukhoi and arms exporter Rosoboronexport over their cooperation with Iran and alleged violations of non-proliferation commitments.

"We are continuing to study the legal aspects of the sanctions imposed by the U.S. government," said Sergei Kravchenko, president of Boeing-Russia/CIS.

The U.S. sanctions against Rosoboronexport might mean Boeing will face problems in relation to titanium supplies from Russia's Vsmpo-Avisma, whose controlling stake will be sold to Rosoboronexport in the near future. The multibillion-dollar contract between Boeing and the Urals-based company, which controls a third of the world's titanium market, should run for several years and plans for a joint venture were even mooted.

Kravchenko was upbeat, saying, "we believe Boeing's cooperation with Russian titanium producers and our joint work with Sukhoi Civil Aircraft on the SuperJet-100 program will be unaffected by the sanctions."

"Boeing will maintain close contacts with the U.S. Department of State ... to meet all the requirements of U.S. legislation while operating in Russia," he said.

Kravchenko said last month the U.S. giant's ambitious Boeing 787 Dreamliner project could be called a joint project with Russia as titanium parts would account for 20% of the plane's take-off weight and its titanium frame and parts would be made by Vsmpo-Avisma.

Sukhoi's ambitious project to build the Russian Regional Jet, renamed the Sukhoi SuperJet-100 recently, has been implemented in cooperation with Boeing and a series of other foreign companies. The RRJ market until 2023 is estimated at 5,400-5,600 units, and is valued at $100 billion.

http://en.rian.ru/business/20060811/52519565.html
MOSCOW, August 11 (RIA Novosti) - Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Russian titanium giant Vsmpo-Avisma (RTS: VSMO) announced Friday the establishment of a joint venture to assemble titanium products for Boeing passenger liners.

The U.S. aircraft giant said the joint venture would produce titanium aircraft parts for the Boeing-787 Dreamliner first in the Urals region of Sverdlovsk and then at a Boeing plant in Portland, Oregon.

Boeing signed a memorandum with Vsmpo-Avisma, the world's largest titanium producer, to set up this joint venture on April 13, 2006. The enterprise will also sell around the world.

Vsmpo-Avisma was established in July 2005, when Avisma (Special Aviation Materials, a Soviet-era enterprise) merged with Vsmpo (Verkhnaya Salda Metallurgical Production Association). The corporation controls a third of the global titanium market.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060807/52354860.html
...This is also another example of unscrupulous competition on the global arms market and another chapter of the undeclared trade war the United States has been waging against Russia since the middle of the 20th century.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which the U.S. Congress passed in the early 1970s to punish Moscow for not letting Jews immigrate to Israel, is still in force(M: lol), although it has been at least twenty years since Jews and all other ethnic groups have been able to leave Russia and return at will without attracting the attention of the authorities or law-enforcement bodies. Provided, of course, they are not involved in anything illegal....

PS My father works for Minatom. His plant is full of stainless, chemical-proof steel and titanium. Ten years ago he had a titanium spade in the car's trunk. Lol.