Commentary
The Defense Department’s current contract with Airbus, and any future contracts with Airbus, place U.S. taxpayers in the position of subsidizing Vladimir Putin’s war machine, as long as it pays for Russian titanium. The French aircraft manufacturer heavily relies on shipments of the Russian metal for its manufacturing.
Airbus currently
has a contract with the U.S. Army to provide spare parts to its UH-72A and UH-72B Lakota fleet of 482 utility and training helicopters as
part of a $1.5 billion contract.
Airbus might say that it
stopped providing spare parts and supporting Russian airliners in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that’s not good enough.
It
lobbied the European Union (EU) against imposing sanctions on Russian titanium shipments. Estimates
suggest that at least 65 percent of the titanium that Airbus uses comes from Russia. Airbus chief Guillaume Faury
warned in April and again in June that such sanctions would hardly dent the Russian economy, but it would hurt his company.
“Sanctioning titanium from Russia would be sanctioning ourselves,” Faury told
reporters in June.
Titanium
accounted for $415 million in exports for the Russian economy in 2020.
Airbus’s lobbying led to
the removal of VSMPO-AVISMA, a subsidiary of Russian state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec, from the EU sanctions list. Rostec
owns most of Russia’s defense companies whose ordnance has been used in Ukraine against civilians and civilian infrastructure. It’s
responsible for everything from Russia’s Kalashnikov rifles to its military helicopters.
Rostec head Sergei Chemezov is a close associate of Vladimir Putin. The U.S. Treasury Department
placed Chemezov on its Office of Foreign Assets Control list in March. He has
been blacklisted by the U.S. government since 2014 due to his having served in the KGB in East Germany alongside Putin in the 1980s.
A major Airbus subcontractor signed an agreement with VSMP-AVISMA in January to keep procuring Russian titanium through 2028,
according to a Rostec press release posted on its website.
On the other hand, Russia in September
announced it would build its own jetliners.
Boeing,
likewise, was dependent on the same source of titanium until March 2022. It has
been locked in competition with Airbus for the next-generation tanker for the U.S. Air Force for several years.
In contrast with Airbus, Boeing maintains a significant stockpile of raw titanium and finished goods because it sought to diversify its supply chain years ago, a company spokeswoman
told The Wall Street Journal.
This stands in contrast with the Biden administration’s stated desire to get Ukraine and Russia to participate in peace talks. It serves as a disincentive for Putin to stop fighting, because Airbus’s financial dealings help keep Russia in the fight.
The Biden administration needs to take a hardline on Airbus like it should with the EU’s refusal to end purchases of Russian oil and gas.
As Sun-Tzu said in “The Art of War”: “[T]o fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
The West will continue to enable Russia as long as it continues to serve as a source of revenue for the Russian economy. Funding Airbus while the West tries to force the Russians to capitulate in their war on Ukraine runs contrary to U.S. policy aims in Ukraine, because it puts the U.S. government in the position of funding the Russian war machine.
The Biden administration has
given billions in defense assistance to Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion,
providing military hardware such as the HIMARS multiple-launched rocket system, the Javelin anti-tank missile, and an assortment of vehicles and electronic equipment. Subsidizing Airbus amid its refusal to decouple from Russia places the U.S. taxpayer in the position of funding both sides of the conflict.
The administration thus far has shown weakness in countering Europe’s double-dealing with Russia in its oil exports to the continent. This needs to change.
Funding Airbus puts the Biden administration in the awkward position of indirectly funding both sides of the conflict through the Defense Department.
The Wilson Center
estimates that Russia can continue production of weapons and other military materials for at least two years, possibly longer, based on Putin’s increasing military expenditures.
Shouldn’t the Pentagon then tread lightly when it comes to doing business with Airbus and critically evaluate its business dealings with Russia as long as the war continues?
How can contracts with a company that funds a subsidiary of Russia’s state defense conglomerate Rostec that has been linked to alleged war crimes in Ukraine be justified as long as the business relationship remains?
Biden stated clearly in Executive Order 14024 that “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, a government whose property and interests in property are blocked.”
It would seem that dealing with Airbus while it provides material support to Rostec violates the spirit of the order.
The State Department and Treasury Department
sanctioned Rostec under the executive order in June; consequently, the Defense Department must examine Airbus’s compliance with the Executive Order.
“The Airbus reliance on Russian metal is at least as much of a national security concern as the recent discovery that some Chinese parts were being used in the construction of F-35s. There are three grave concerns here—[one is] Airbus’s political role in lobbying against sanctions on Russia, which undermines the security/sanctions regime,” said Ukrainian-American human rights attorney Irina Tsukerman. “Any sanctions that give room for U.S. companies to engage with the Russian economy should be strengthened and tightened.”
Tsukerman continued, “The U.S. military should either put an end to its dealings with Airbus as a way to protect U.S. security and send a message to contractors about engagement with an adversarial state or demand that Airbus immediately cease and desist from all these activities.”
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
