Mistrals for Peace?

Dmitry Gorenburg on the Mistral sale, and on the more general topic of Western arms sales to Russia:

Major arms sales by NATO states to Russia would increase Russian dependence on the West, decreasing the likelihood that Russia would take unilateral military action contrary to Western interests. Such sales would also enhance regional security by improving the ability of Russian forces to cooperate with NATO against threats to their mutual interests.

Maybe... I can certainly understand the logic of the argument that arms sales should create dependence, which should lead to reluctance on the part of Russia to irritate the West. However, there are problems both logical and empirical. First, "France" and "the West" aren't identical; it may be possible to engage in certain adventures that bother Washington, but not Paris. Second, I'm not sure about the empirical question. We can certainly identify cases in which an arms transfer relationship did not prevent war. Type 42 destroyers, for example, fought on both sides of the Falklands War. Cassady Craft wrote a book about this ten years ago suggesting that the relationship was really pretty complicated, although unfortunately it's hard to track down any good reviews or synopses of Weapons for War, Weapons for Peace.