End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

[somnath]

One of the more interesting tidbits given to me by a forum member who visited HAL and had a detailed look at the LCA assembly line was that people of various nationalities were milling about all over the HAL shop floor. Notable were the Chinese technicians milling (pun unintended) over the CNC machines that they were tasked to maintain - i.e they were the company maintenance technicians.

Must have been some stupid intrusive agreement signed about maintenance of those machines...

Shiv are you have a rhetorical discussion or real one? Do you really want to compare the presence of some other nationalities on the floor of HAL manufacturing unit to a EUMA with the clauses given before?

Are we having a serious discussion here?

So you are ok with chinese technicians milling around our "topmost" secret national aeronautics project...But US technicians doing the same for equipment sold by them at a place of our choosing - capitulation!!

Somnath, I am very well aware of your world view you made it very clear in the very beginning, "best we can do is make sure our families are better off" werent these your words?

I have already said many a times already that there is wide chasms in our world view -- however the only difference is that you chose to mock me for it and some how desperately need to prove me wrong.

Meanwhile how do you know that I am also not "My generation has enjoyed the fruits of the '90s reforms, and is supportive of a much larger engagement with the US."


I have never expressed a desire for disengagement even?

Yes, I have no time for akhand bharat concepts -RSS knickerwalla fantasies cannot be rational national grand strategy...To me, we need our place in the sun now, for our generation...That destiny cannot be achieved by playing the '60s and '70s game, it can be achieved by the playing the 21st centiry game...

To Archan: The reference was to the concept of Akhand Bharat, not to an individual...I see nothing wrong in that..

[shiv]

The other important thing is a learning process as to how good a supplier the US may be. India has virtually no experience of this.

We had the Soviets for friends and they stood by us through thick and thin. Spares of course had to be sourced from the USSR and if we did not get spares it was tough. In fact it was only after the USSR broke up and the spares crunch became really severe that India started searching high and low for spares from former Soviet bloc states.

The UK and France have been friends who have applied sanctions during wars and have also had pretty much a monopoly on spares. I have read some good stories of the spares supplied by the UK for its Sea Kings. - to keep them flying.

The US brings its own culture of business. The culture appears designed to upset the stuffy closed-collar egos of Indians. But unless we do business with the US we will never know how good they are. Does their stuff work? Will they stand by us when we need them? We don't know. These are all uncertain quantities. But we are certainly learning a thing or two about how the US conducts serious business.

[shiv]

Are we having a serious discussion here?

The ball is as often in your court as it is in mine or anyone elses.

Exactly what capitulation was it that we were talking about?

[Sanku]

Neither of these posts actually addresses the question of why existing EUAs suddenly become more intrusive and represent a new threat that they did not represent till a few months ago. The same intrusive clauses already exist.

Yes correct.

. We could of course sit and argue with the US and ask them to flout their own laws. Better not to buy American at all.

Or we can ask them to change their laws if they want our biz.

China after all,

Last I checked we still talking about things in an Indian context with Indian piskology and Indian GoI and the attendant institutional behavior.

China is irrelevant to the discussion.

Where exactly is the "capitulation" before any of these have occurred?

Loss of opportunity to get a agreement on terms which have been more favorable to people like CNS
Dissolution of a important principle as opposed to ad hoc dilution
Loss of bargaining card.
Increased chance of making deals on poor terms

[Sanku]

Exactly what capitulation was it that we were talking about?

Loss of opportunity to get a agreement on terms which have been more favorable to people like CNS
Dissolution of a important principle as opposed to ad hoc dilution
Loss of bargaining card.
Increased chance of making deals on poor terms

[somnath]

^^^ Good point Shiv....Reminded me of a conversation with a Pakistani colleague who is ex-PAF, engineer..

He was telling me that for the F16s, the yanks had maintained a full ERP s/w in PAF premises..SO the exhaustive list of spares and services were listed on the computer - all that the Pakis needed to do was to punch in the requirements and the stuff would be delvered/done wihtin the defined TOT...He was very impressed, though cut up as well with the sanctions that followed....

But this kind of thing will enable us raise the benchmark as a client for all our supliers...And overall get a better customer experience...Also use it in our own supply train..

[svinayak]

^^^ Good point Shiv....Reminded me of a conversation with a Pakistani colleague who is ex-PAF, engineer..

He was telling me that for the F16s, the yanks had maintained a full ERP s/w in PAF premises..SO the exhaustive list of spares and services were listed on the computer - all that the Pakis needed to do was to punch in the requirements and the stuff would be delvered/done wihtin the defined TOT...He was very impressed, though cut up as well with the sanctions that followed....

But this kind of thing will enable us raise the benchmark as a client for all our supliers...And overall get a better customer experience...Also use it in our own supply train..

Indian private such as Tata Motors have such s/w and use it routinely to benchmark suppliers on quality and delivery times.
The supplier relationship has reached good sophistication in the private sector that defense and public institutions can easily adopt it.

USN is implementing SAP software deep logistics chain to supply it remote battle front and monitor battle readiness and they do this routinely.

[shiv]

Exactly what capitulation was it that we were talking about?

Loss of opportunity to get a agreement on terms which have been more favorable to people like CNS
Dissolution of a important principle as opposed to ad hoc dilution
Loss of bargaining card.
Increased chance of making deals on poor terms

These points are all strawmen. Such opportunities never existed. There was no question of making any deal with the US outside of US law.

[Sanku]

These points are all strawmen. Such opportunities never existed. There was no question of making any deal with the US outside of US law.

You are entitled to your POV.

BTW who is asking US to make a deal outside its laws.

[John Snow]

AA Aha

While this dicussion of EUM AUM (pronounced with deep inhaling) is going on PRC is supplying USAF with spurious spares from its rip off factories.


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 193886.htm




The harvesting of microchips in China occurs in open-air stalls


Please listen to the video

Then take a deep breath and say "AUM" and sign the EUM

[Sanku]

Indian private such as Tata Motors have such s/w and use it routinely to benchmark suppliers on quality and delivery times.

And many others

[Sanku]

The other important thing is a learning process as to how good a supplier the US may be. India has virtually no experience of this.

I agree and thus the few stand alone deals that we have done are good. The relationship with USSR was also not built in a day.

[negi]

USN is implementing SAP software deep logistics chain to supply it remote battle front and monitor battle readiness and they do this routinely.

So has IN infact they have already done an end to end SC implementation with an Indian vendor .

[svinayak]

USN is implementing SAP software deep logistics chain to supply it remote battle front and monitor battle readiness and they do this routinely.

So has IN infact they have already done an end to end SC implementation with an Indian vendor .

Do they use RFID to track the logistics to the battle front. Do they have s/w for battle readiness, BI, visibility and troop training. You dont have to answer.

[RajeshA]

He added: 'The US may have this kind of (end user) agreements with everyone. I don't believe in that. We pay for something and we get some technology. What I do with it, is my thing.'

Pity it is not as easy as that.
If a lady in Iraq goes and buys a cucumber in Sabzi-Mandi, she can do anything with it, but then there are other cases -

• One does not sell software, one sells license for that software, and even then there is limits what one can do with it, on how many CPUs it can run, how users can use it, etc.
• Often Music bought online comes with Digital Rights Management. It is not to be freely shared.
• Land that one buys, can also not be used for arbitrary purposes.

Similarly every purchase comes with conditions. The ownership for all aspects of the item is not transferred. An item is more than just nuts and bolts.

[Abhi_G]

AA Aha

While this dicussion of EUM AUM (pronounced with deep inhaling) is going on PRC is supplying USAF with spurious spares from its rip off factories.


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 193886.htm


The harvesting of microchips in China occurs in open-air stalls


Please listen to the video

Then take a deep breath and say "AUM" and sign the EUM

SDREs look what is the REAL End User Monitoring of Unkil by China.
We should pay our tributes in a CHENIS dhaga like BENIS.

[Sanku]

He added: 'The US may have this kind of (end user) agreements with everyone. I don't believe in that. We pay for something and we get some technology. What I do with it, is my thing.'

Pity it is not as easy as that.

Interesting that the CNS doesn't understand the complications, could it possibly be that, the use model that he is describing is what he is used to?

[vera_k]

X-Posting from nuclear thread.

The Politicsparty reporter says that the EUVA/EUM allows the US to inspect military nuclear facilities. The non-proliferation aspect makes sense if this is so. How does this happen and for what?

http://www.politicsparty.com/surrender.php

[Bade]

From the Business week link

Contractor reports to the GIDEP counterfeits database show a total of 115 incidents over the past six years. But "everybody believes the [GIDEP] reports are just the tip of the iceberg," says Brian Hughitt, manager of quality assurance for NASA. Hughitt says that, during testing, NASA inspectors have identified two shipments of counterfeit chips in the past 18 months. One lot was installed in flight hardware. "That's something that is going to be launched into space," Hughitt says, declining to elaborate. "It could have been real bad." NASA, which helps launch military satellites and missiles, is investigating the shipments.

More than EUM we need to worry about the damn things we are buying from the US itself first.

[Nihat]

New Delhi: There was turmoil in Parliament on Tuesday when India finalised a military inspections regime with the US. The Opposition, which called it a sell-out to Washington, may have wasted its breath.

CNN-IBN has learnt that the text of the End Use Monitoring Agreement has been modified to India's advantage. Inspections of American supplied equipment will be done by the US on India's terms at a place of India's choosing and inspectors will have no access to sensitive military bases.

MoS External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor said, "The Government of India will have a say in deciding how, where, when, in what circumstances the inspection will take place. There is no intrusive right granted for on-site inspection nor any dilution of sovereignty."

Top military sources told CNN-IBN that there would be no operational restrictions on the use of American weaponry. The concessions have been wrested after tough bargaining.

Defence Minister, AK Antony said, "After three years of hard bargaining between both sides, the Government has finally taken a decision to go ahead."

Defence sources also revealed that similar end-use verification agreements had been signed with other countries as part of specific arms contracts. But no foreign inspection of armaments has ever been carried out in India so far.

India has opened up its defence market to the US with some big ticket deals including those for P8 spy planes and Hercules transport aircraft. The rules are being drawn up for a new engagement.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-intrusive ... 820-3.html

[RajeshA]

What we should aim for is to do in defense what we have managed to do in IT.

In the last century, India was hardly on the IT map. One decade into it, and our IT landscape looks totally different. We are the IT services outsourcing workshop of the world.

This is what we should strive for.

Most of the defense equipment is expensive. To keep all the research and manufacturing in defense items going, America needs to diversify its market. In the long run, American military budgets cannot finance the American defense industry. So where to look? It can hardly sell weaponry to its old-time rivals like Russia and PRC. Russia has its own defense industry. So do some of its own NATO Allies. The EU likes to buy military items produced in the EU itself. Besides countries like France, UK, Sweden are in competition with USA in other markets. The pacifist outlook of many European countries has meant, they are already cutting their military budgets. Its other big market, Japan is still shackled to its peaceful constitution. The Iranian bogey helps in selling a some items to the Gulf, but there are limits from strategic viewpoint.

What America really needs is a big trustworthy market for its defense items. It is clear to America, that India would never be challenging America or may become an adversary some time in the near future. There is a large overlap of long-term goals and adversaries, even if in the mid-term we will be having differing priorities. So America is comfortable selling to us, high value and relative new technology.

India has the economic clout and scale to demand to be more than just a market. We have the chance of becoming a part of the most technologically advanced defense equipment supply chain in the world. We would want to get ever bigger share in research & development, production, assembly, field testing of defense equipment. Over the next 30 years, much of the military industrial complex of USA could have shifted to India.

The vision is for an empire in decline to transfer its life blood to the next empire in rise, which promises to uphold its values and look after its interests. That has to be India.

Just like we had a transfusion in IT from America, similarly its time to start a transfusion in defense equipment. Boeing and LM will some day be Indo-American companies.

If India believes in this vision, then EUMA is just a little bump on the way. The current leadership in India may be taking this route out of servitude and gratitude, but the coming generations of leaders in India will be reaching the end of this route with confidence, knowing that they decide how the world is to be run.

[BajKhedawal]

If a lady in Iraq goes and buys a cucumber in Sabzi-Mandi, she can do anything with it, but then there are other cases -

She cannot do anything with it, she is not even ALLOWED to purchase one. Its NOT halal for women to buy cucumbers.

The Cucumber Farace

They have imposed a ban on women buying suggestively-shaped vegetables like cucumber in the western province of Anbar.

“The Al Qaeda regarded the cucumber as male and tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men.”
“They even killed female goats because their private parts were not covered and their tails were pointed upward, which they said was haram,” he added.

[RajeshA]

Yes that was the story I was referring to.

[somnath]

Ashok Malik on EUM

[enqyoob]

So after 270,000 posts, the conclusion is that the End User Monitoring Agreement - was NOT an Indian capitulation to US interests.

Man! It's Cyclone season in the teacup.

[somnath]

While there is this tsunami (not cyclone!) in a teacup over EUVA, what is really interesting is actualy the offset requirements laid down by the govt now...

This is the latest offset report of the US DoD...

there is a lot of interesting data here....World over countries are looking at offsets on defence contracts..Depending on the type of offset domestic industry is able to absorb, it substantially immunises the purchasing country from the "wrath" of US displeasure, if it came to that...The trick should be to max direct offsets (co production and subcontracting) rather than indirect ones...For example, if we are buying the P8I, we should be looking at absorbing the development of the full s/w suite....this would mean that even if the US sneezes, we would be able to upgrade the whole thing oursleves..

A lot of the things mentioned repeatedly (actually till now only by Sid Vardarajan) about cradle-tograve dependence etc are obviated depending on the offsets we manage to negotiate - and we have a very large headroom, offset commitments are pegged at 70% of the value of the contract now, thats very large..For example, if we buy the F16s and get the entire assembly line and MRO of F16 to India, given that LM is shutting the lines for F16 shortly, guess where Paki F16s will come to for servicing?

[Sanku]

So after 270,000 posts, the conclusion is that the End User Monitoring Agreement - was NOT an Indian capitulation to US interests.

Man! It's Cyclone season in the teacup.

Man Narayanan, you knew this even before EUM was thought of onlee. I tip my hat to you.

Meanwhile in terms of real actions on the ground, the previously made predictions are coming true one by one, they seemed to have not known that their existence was mocked by great powers. Pity, poor them.

[somnath]

USN is implementing SAP software deep logistics chain to supply it remote battle front and monitor battle readiness and they do this routinely.

So has IN infact they have already done an end to end SC implementation with an Indian vendor .

Indian private such as Tata Motors have such s/w and use it routinely to benchmark suppliers on quality and delivery times.

And many others

It doesnt matter if the Tatas or any other Indian business group have an SCM solution implemented -in fact I would expect most large ones to have..the fact is that our primary weapons vendors dont - Russians obviosuly dont, the French dont, dont know of the Israelis do...Each SCM solution is different, as anyone who has studied/implemented SCM even perfunctorily would know..I expect Indian companies to get the contract to implement these SCMs from US vendors as part of the offsets...It would be a huge learning experience, most importantly for the IA/IAF - very often customers of these solutions need more eperien tial training than the suppliers!

[Sanku]

Russians obviosuly dont, the French dont, dont know of the Israelis do..

Really how sure are you of this and can you quote some data points to support this assertion (another amongst a long list of misinformed data you have posted)

[somnath]

Russians obviosuly dont, the French dont, dont know of the Israelis do..

Really how sure are you of this and can you quote some data points to support this assertion (another amongst a long list of misinformed data you have posted)

About the Russians, the complaints on after sales service is the stuff of services (and DPSU) legend..IAF in fact has just implemented an internal SCM solution for various types of spares, but its not integrated with any of the major foreign vendors...About the French, well, the same ex-PAF colleague who told me about the US SCM solution also made the point on how different it was to Chinese and French sales support...dont suppose the French do something exceptional for India..

[Sanku]

Russians obviosuly dont, the French dont, dont know of the Israelis do..

About the Russians, the complaints on after sales service is the stuff of services (and DPSU) legend..IAF in fact has just implemented an internal SCM solution for various types of spares, but its not integrated with any of the major foreign vendors...About the French, well, the same ex-PAF colleague who told me about the US SCM solution also made the point on how different it was to Chinese and French sales support...dont suppose the French do something exceptional for India..

I am looking for some credible data points please. Not anecdotal evidence, especially not from you. Remember we are specifically talking about

USN is implementing SAP software deep logistics chain to supply it remote battle front and monitor battle readiness and they do this routinely.

Are you saying that Russians and French do not have a software system to track and document supply chain that they use routinely?

[putnanja]

End-use monitoring woes for India - Brahma Chellaney

...But EUMA is no insignificant accord: It imposes on India conditions that no other arms-supplying state has ever sought. Yet, the arms the U.S. is selling India are not the top-of-the-line weapons — a reality EUMA’s conclusion is unlikely to change. In fact, the U.S. has transferred to Pakistan weapon systems matching those on sale or offer to India, especially big-ticket items like maritime reconnaissance aircraft, military transport planes and fighter-jets. Today, while Washington seeks to sell India 1970s-era F-16s or F-18s in an $11-billion deal, Japan debates the merits of F-22s versus F-35s for air superiority.
...
There are three separate end-use monitoring (EUM) programmes. The Pentagon-administered EUM — known in U.S. parlance as the “Golden Sentry” programme — applies only to government-to-government defence contracts (like the ones signed with India in recent years) and imposes stringent “cradle-to-grave” obligations on the recipient state covering the use and final disposition of transferred items, with the U.S. holding “reversionary rights” to take back equipment no longer needed. Direct commercial sales fall under the State Department’s “Blue Lantern” programme. The Commerce Department’s “Extrancheck” monitors dual-use items exported by U.S. industry via the Export Administration Regulation (EAR).
...
...
Negotiated with New Delhi over a three-year period, the all-embracing EUMA has some clauses that few can object to, such as a prohibition on second-hand sales. But it also has several controversial provisions that arm Washington with considerable leverage. EUMA explicitly restricts what India can do with the U.S.-origin defence equipment. Under its terms, India cannot modify the imported weapon system in any form. Also, to keep the importing state dependent on the U.S., EUMA restricts India from getting U.S.-sold defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from America.
...
No less significant is America’s right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended. This may mean that a system bought by India to bolster defences against China cannot be deployed against Pakistan, still a valued strategic pawn for U.S. policy. EUMA gives the U.S. the “right to verify” that a transferred system was not being used for purposes other than those agreed upon. Change in the end-use of any U.S.-origin component or system without Washington’s authorisation will constitute a EUMA violation.
...
...
A close, mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S. is in India’s interest. But as India gets sucked into the U.S. strategic dominion through EUMA and other arrangements — with the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CIS MoA) next on Washington’s list, along with the Mutual Logistic Support Agreement (MLSA) — its special relationship with Moscow is bound to change. If America can merrily sell growing quantities of arms on both sides of the subcontinental divide and yet get New Delhi to accept restrictive measures, an economically struggling Russia has little incentive to stick to its traditional policy of not exporting arms to Pakistan. And with India hopelessly dependent on conventional-arms imports to meet basic defence meets, this means a rougher Indian defence-procurement trajectory in the years ahead. After all, as the pattern of current arms sales and offers underscores, American transfers are intended not to help India gain a combat edge but to promote regional military balance and U.S. leverage.

[somnath]

^^ BRahma Chellany is a sharp analyst, but is a bit too prone to selective quoting to buttress his point..

Under its terms, India cannot modify the imported weapon system in any form. Also, to keep the importing state dependent on the U.S., EUMA restricts India from getting U.S.-sold defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from America.

Which country does? Do the French allow the M2ks to be serviced in LockMart? Do we get the spares of Su30 from the French? Is the MLU of any platform carried out anywhere outside the country of original sale? Where there are examples of co-developemnt with third parties (Mig21 avionics, Phalcon etc), there are other overrisding specific agreements entered into..

The trick is always in the terms and conditions of the sepcific TXN, and that is where the offsets come into play so importantly..

Where BC is right is in this

And with India hopelessly dependent on conventional-arms imports to meet basic defence meets, this means a rougher Indian defence-procurement trajectory in the years ahead.

But suprisingly naive when he says this

American transfers are intended not to help India gain a combat edge but to promote regional military balance and U.S. leverage.

Why should the Yanks do anything different?

It is upto us to get the best deal possible for us, and if the Americans dont measure up, we dont buy!

[samuel]

It may be worth examining the logic associated with some transactions that seem to be repeating themselves.

1. US hangs a carrot, (nuclear cooperation, defense cooperation), music to our ears.
2. We approach it "in all sincerity."
3. US brings the fine print.
4. We start to cry foul, a momentum seems to build.
5. Then we say, "ah but it is acting in its own best interest, ok ok, if push comes to shove, we can do what we want too. We also can act in our best interest if we wished to."
6. Eventually, nothing much seems to happen and things seem to stall at the "haan bas, hone hi walla hai, sign vaign"

What's wrong with this picchar, irrespective of which side of the argument you fall on?

This is take two in recent memory, but go back and you'll find many.

S

[somnath]

It may be worth examining the logic associated with some transactions that seem to be repeating themselves.

1. US hangs a carrot, (nuclear cooperation, defense cooperation), music to our ears.
2. We approach it "in all sincerity."
3. US brings the fine print.
4. We start to cry foul, a momentum seems to build.
5. Then we say, "ah but it is acting in its own best interest, ok ok, if push comes to shove, we can do what we want too. We also can act in our best interest if we wished to."
6. Eventually, nothing much seems to happen and things seem to stall at the "haan bas, hone hi walla hai, sign vaign"

What's wrong with this picchar, irrespective of which side of the argument you fall on?

This is take two in recent memory, but go back and you'll find many.

S

Not entirely accurate..The nuke deal with the US was a bilateral deal only in its letter, in spirit it was a multilateral agreement (hence the NSG leg)..So while the deal was between India and the US, the contracts have been signed with Russia, France and Kazakhstan! We have acted in our best interests already...

similarly, EUM is also multilaterla in its implications...It sends out a huge signal to the FRench, Russians and Israelis that a 600 lb gorilla is getting into the Indian market with vengeance..Will force them to drastically alter their offerings, both in terms of content as well as in terms of price..Then it will be up to us to choose the best!

[Sanku]

This is take two in recent memory, but go back and you'll find many.

Kudos.

[Sanku]

Somnath, many of the assertions you are making are clearly inaccurate, there appears to be an either a wide chasm in your knowledge base and understanding, or you are deliberating manufacturing data to suit your theories.

You will yourself know which is which

Meanwhile can you answer at least this one ?

Are you saying that Russians and French do not have a software system to track and document supply chain that they use routinely?

Please supply links to back up your claim.

-------------------------------------

Also please stop peddling logic like,
"we sign agreement with Russian, we sign one with American, Agreement is agreement know, whats is different it is equal equal only"

BC articles has the clear links to offending clauses, please do some homework and pick up one other non US agreement and show us those clauses exist. No here is going to take your word on how there all the world is the same.

Heck you really surpass even the worst apologists in your spin, be it here or the S e S thread. Even the folks like Raja Mohan publicly say that we can live with the clauses even if different.

You are one of the truly rare entities who has actually come out and argued that all agreements are the same only. Feels like debating with Rahul Mehta all over again.

[somnath]

Somnath, many of the assertions you are making are clearly inaccurate, there appears to be an either a wide chasm in your knowledge base and understanding, or you are deliberating manufacturing data to suit your theories.

You will yourself know which is which

Meanwhile can you answer at least this one ?

Are you saying that Russians and French do not have a software system to track and document supply chain that they use routinely?

Please supply links to back up your claim.

Sanku, I mentioned once before that you had long stopped making even rhetorical sense on this topic, forget logical ones..

About "software system to track..." - anyone with a scintilla of education/awareness about SCM would know that SCM is not about having a document tracking software..It is about a whole system, processes, procedures - and integrating them with third party militaries is a very different challenge..

the American military has been waaay ahead of everyone else in the world on this for many decades now - many of the essential concepts of SCM - starting with MRPI, MRPII etc - have originated from the US Army....

about Russian efficiency of "after sales service" - look no beyond the CAG reports! Not to mention the innumerable crib posts here itself on BRF about Russian after sales..Even if they have a computer and a software to "track documents", it isnt obviously all that effective! About the others. look no beyond the spare parts problems with the Hawk months after the aircraft started flying in India....

All this is not surprising - the Americans spend way more than anyone else on their military, and export a lot more than most countries, and also export a whole lot more to "advanced" militaries than anyone else...

we sign agreement with Russian, we sign one with American, Agreement is agreement know, whats is different it is equal equal only"

And where exactly did I say that we sign the "same type" of agreement with Russia and US? The so called "offending points" in EUMA are known, in many cases "experientialled" as well..In any problem, you have an objective function, and some boundary conditions..Our objective function is (hopefully) well known, things like the EUMA clauses would be boundary conditions in the decision making process (much like Russian proclivity on delays, poor servicing record, French record of highly priced platforms and even higher priced spares and accessories etc)..


If you read the real analysists (like Brahma Chellaney) even they while opposing are not talking about "selling out" or anything..they are fearing that these are going to bring Indian foreign policy in congruence with the US - which is a fair point in case the assumption is something like that is necessarily bad for us..

Finally, I suggest you do some reading on high politics - start with Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy - before going ballistic over things like "selling the country cheap" sort of rhetoric..

[Sanku]

Somnath, so you have no data but that does not stop you from making assertions. Good I always knew that, thanks for making it so clear.

As always your ilk will always indulge in attacking others rather than looking at the truth.

[somnath]

Somnath, so you have no data but that does not stop you from making assertions. Good I always knew that, thanks for making it so clear.

As always your ilk will always indulge in attacking others rather than looking at the truth.

I would typically ignore you, but what the heck..

Here is Stratfor on Russian Defence exports - posting in full as the article is only meant for "premium" members:

If you are really interested in whats going around in the global "strategic space" - this is one more resource...Get your basics in place!

Russia: The Future of the Kremlin's Defense Exports
April 14, 2008 | 2004 GMT

LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP/Getty Images
Russian military equipment for saleSummary
Russia relies heavily on the military-industrial base it inherited from the Soviet Union, even as it moves to fundamentally reform it. The defense exports it facilitates are an important tool for the Kremlin and an important indicator of the pace of larger defense modernization.

Analysis
A country’s domestic military-industrial base is a geopolitical matter that goes to the heart of its military independence. But Russia is unique, both for its broad spectrum of capabilities and for its immense challenges — all inherited from the Soviet Union. Defense exports are a matter of fundamental importance for Moscow, and offer significant insight into the Russian military-industrial complex.

The significance of these foreign military sales for the Kremlin is twofold. First, they are a very powerful foreign policy tool. Not only can defense exports offer enticement to and cultivate ties (read: reliance and thus further leverage) with countries beyond the reach of the Russian energy infrastructure, but major deals can be used to persuade countries hopelessly awash in unpaid Soviet debt to enter into new payment plans. Algeria, for example, was carrying more than $4.5 billion in debt to Russia, which the Kremlin wrote off in exchange for a new, comprehensive repayment plan tied to new arms sales. In addition, it can make deliveries — as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War — to alter the military dynamic with the United States (as it did when it delivered to Iran Tor-M1 mobile, short-range air defense systems that reportedly came from stocks originally intended for a subsequently canceled Greek order).

But second — and more important — is the relation of these sales to Russia’s domestic defense industry. Long the primary privileged beneficiary of the entire Soviet economy, the industry continued much of its production through sheer inertia for several years after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Vast strategic reserves of raw material mandated by the Soviets helped sustain the military-industrial base through the darkest parts of the mid-to-late 1990s. Now, as then, that base relies heavily on foreign military sales. Moscow is still not buying its own military equipment at anywhere close to a sufficient scale to sustain that struggling military-industrial base. Even fully developed and modern Western nations sometimes struggle to maintain and cultivate key sectors of their own industrial capacity; shipbuilding in particular is a constant struggle. But the Kremlin faces something far more challenging: Its average worker is close to retirement, costs are rising, and incompetence, corruption and inefficiency are rampant.

The most prominent case has been the fiasco with the Indian-funded Russian renovation of the Kiev-class aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. In that case, gross incompetence could have been combined with a higher-up decision to allow other shipbuilding efforts for the Russian fleet to take priority (or even to deliberately redirect funds and efforts), but other cracks in the system are emerging. The second batch of three Russian-built Talwar-class (Project 1135.6) guided missile frigates for the Indian navy already look to be behind schedule (and after the first run of three, which was also a year behind schedule, the builders have had sufficient time to work out most of the kinks).


INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images
A model of a Sukhoi-30MK “Flanker” fighter jetBoth Algeria and India have called Russia out on inferior quality or problems with delivered defense equipment. The Chinese market — long Moscow’s most loyal and lucrative — is beginning to show signs of drying up. In India, Russia is beginning to face direct competition with Western defense companies.

All of this spells trouble for Russia. Western defense companies have started participating in a wider market and are salivating at the chance to get access to India’s defense dollars. Though late-Soviet technology is quite good (the later-model Sukhoi “Flanker” variants, for example, are by almost all measures very capable aircraft), Russia has yet to show itself to be at all competitive in the areas of post-sales sustainment, maintenance and service — some have characterized Russia’s service after sale as “abysmal.”

Moscow could move quickly into emerging markets, thereby pre-empting other suppliers (as it did with Vietnam) or treading where they will not (Venezuela, for example), thereby locking in strong defense relationships. It might also leverage large debts from the Soviet era, as it did with Algeria and is attempting with Libya — notably potentially drawing Tripoli away from a very enthusiastic French defense industry. This is where pure military sales begin to play a role in geopolitics. By securing these markets, the Kremlin is securing for itself an important foothold in East Asia, North Africa and Latin America.

Related Links
Russia: The Fundamentals of Russian Air Defense Exports
Russia: A New Patrol Submarine on the Market
Russia: Future Naval Prospects
Related Special Topic Page
Russia’s Military
While some modernization is under way, even the latest equipment Russia is keeping for itself evinces only evolutionary steps, rather than generational advances, beyond late-Soviet technology. Presently, this is sufficient to keep Russia competitive in most of the world. Many of its products still have relevance to the U.S. systems they were designed to counter — often a compelling selling point. In areas such as antitank guided missiles and supersonic missiles (everything from air-to-air to submarine-launched antiship missiles), Russia still enjoys a healthy competitive product. But technological developments are encroaching on Russia’s core competencies; the fifth-generation, stealth Joint Strike Fighter is making even the best late fourth-generation Sukhoi start to feel obsolete, and several other countries now field operational air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems in their submarine fleets while Russia has yet to field an operational AIP system.

The Kremlin can also sometimes outpace its competitors by offering higher levels of technology transfer or licensed production than Western companies — hampered by either economic prudence or legal restraint — can offer. But in the long run, unless Russia ramps up operationalization of next-generation technology, it will be increasingly uncompetitive. And its current reputation needs to be improved if it is to compete effectively with its Western competitors’ better (but hardly immaculate) track records.

But Moscow is trying to remake the entire sector, consolidating disparate and competing enterprises into unified entities such as the United Aircraft Building Corp. and the United Shipbuilding Corp. Moscow could even be laying the groundwork for cooperation with Western defense establishments; Russia now holds 5 percent of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., which in turn holds a stake in the United Aircraft Building Corp. (although the West appears to be interested mostly in the potential market for the civilian Sukhoi Superjet 100). In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concerted and consolidated leadership (which will be sustained when he takes the prime ministerial post) and the backing of a massive currency reserve will enable Russia to make further headway. Meanwhile, there is a lot of old Soviet equipment lying around throughout the world that needs upgrades — something Moscow has proven capable of doing. That, too, will help keep the Kremlin’s exports afloat.

Ultimately, the future of Russia’s defense exports is — like much of the Russian military’s future — opaque. Immense challenges loom, even as Russia moves to address them. Moscow could make further progress and push through further reform and revitalization of the military-industrial complex. But there remains ample room for failure as well.

The fact is that no one's perfect..But the yanks spend so much money and time behind this that they set a different standard..Think of the logisitical challenge of two full fledged operations to two different parts of the world far away from home, both without the infrastructure that aid smooth logistcs...this is apart from the dozens of bases they maintain in various countries..No one even has the experience of doing anything on that scale...