Russian Foreign Ministry calls U.S. warship in Black Sea "Security Threat"

reply to post by mr-lizard


Actually quite the contrary. During the cold war we scrambled aircraft all the time to track their bombers when they approached our airspace, and Russia did the same. The difference would be in the latest encounters the Russians are violating sovergn airspace.

We have had russian trawlers off the coast of the US all throughout the coldwar, and we kept an eye on them.

At no point have we ever told them to leave those waters, like the Russians are demanding we do in the black sea.

Huge difference.

How do you think we'd feel if the Russians had a warship in the Great Lakes?

?

The Russians were happy enough when the land based missiles were canned in 2009 - part of that decision was the idea of putting Aegis ships in the Black Sea, and Putin welcomed the whole thing way back then articles.latimes.com... and ricks.foreignpolicy.com...

This is just Russia attempting to become relevant again. They used to be the big fish in a little pond over there, but Europe, the Middle East, and China took the spotlight away from them. More blustering will be oncoming.

/TOA

Originally posted by deltaboy
Are the Russians so weak that they are afraid of one American surface warship? Wow!!!

Just one little Ticonderoga-class vertical-launch Aegis-array guide-missile cruiser. Heck, might as well be a row boat.

Not exactly a trawler.

Edit to add: Interesting story. I was on-board a Tico-class cruiser during a CSSQT exercise off the coast of California when we encountered a Russian trawler in the mid-80's, a rusty old bucket of a boat with antennas coming out of everywhere. We made a close pass by them, very close, and a number of the crew not on-duty were out on the weather decks mooning them as we passed by.

I think the real concern is the placement of this ship.

Shielding Europe from a possible Iranian strike.

Therefore, this could be one of the final chess moves before an attack on Iran.

Highly unlikely, however, not impossible.

Ummm i guess you havent read the recent reports of Russians subs just off the coast of the US?

Originally posted by tooo many pills
How do you think we'd feel if the Russians had a warship in the Great Lakes?

?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Wrong, wrong and wrong

Russia has no problem with American ships being there, it is it's unique armament and fuzzy reason for being there is what has the Russians concerned. See here:

Last year, too, an exercise took place. But, as Moscow posed, "While leaving aside the unsettled issue of a possible European missile shield architecture, Russia would like to know, in compliance with the Russia-NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Lisbon summit decisions, what 'aggravation' the US command meant by moving the basic strike unit of the regional missile defense grouping being formed by NATO in the region, from the Mediterranean to the East?"

...

The US claims that this is a routine naval exercise. On the other hand, Moscow asks: "If this is an ordinary visit, then it is unclear why a warship with this type of armament was chosen to move to this quite sensitive region."

Source

As per your post on RT. RT is not government run, and is independently funded. pravda.ru is the state mouthpiece for Russia, not RT. RT has had Alex Jones, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser and others that have no love for either Russia or the U.S. Stop trying to discredit a credible news organization. Where do you get your news from anyway? Whitehouse.gov?

Nice links, but when you actually read through them, the Russian bombers where more than 500 miles away, and unarmed. The American vessel in the black sea will be up to 100 miles from Russia, packed with munitions that are unique on U.S. cruisers. Everyone in the world knows that U.S. tech is something not to be taken lightly.

reply to post by princeofpeace


Don't fall to the propaganda.

Dozens of countries do sub drills in the Ocean, afterall that's where the most water is. They are allso always 500 miles or more out. (international waters) That is akin to the U.S. doing Sub drills in the east Pacific. The black sea are more like the great lakes or gulf on mexico here. What do you think the U.S. would do if Russia, Mexico and Cuba were doing live fire drills and war games 100 miles from the coast?

The USS Monterey is an AEGIS ship....they call them "Guided Missle Cruisers"and they can carry some Tomahawk cruise stuff but they are designed as Fleet Anti-Air Defense ships....the only threat they can pose ,realisticly,is providing real time radar pics of that section of Russia that can be linked to the rest of the world......for anti-missle defense...Ill bet they really dont like that...oh well...if its not that,its something else

Thats my point-these drills were carried out much closer than 500 miles. Even if it were 500 miles, there is a lot of ocean out there so why come all the way across the pond and do it off the coast of the US? We're the only thing out here.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

Don't fall to the propaganda.

Dozens of countries do sub drills in the Ocean, afterall that's where the most water is. They are allso always 500 miles or more out. (international waters) That is akin to the U.S. doing Sub drills in the east Pacific. The black sea are more like the great lakes or gulf on mexico here. What do you think the U.S. would do if Russia, Mexico and Cuba were doing live fire drills and war games 100 miles from the coast?

Originally posted by Skerrako
Wrong, wrong and wrong

Russia has no problem with American ships being there, it is it's unique armament and fuzzy reason for being there is what has the Russians concerned. See here:

Last year, too, an exercise took place. But, as Moscow posed, "While leaving aside the unsettled issue of a possible European missile shield architecture, Russia would like to know, in compliance with the Russia-NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Lisbon summit decisions, what 'aggravation' the US command meant by moving the basic strike unit of the regional missile defense grouping being formed by NATO in the region, from the Mediterranean to the East?"

Fuzzy reason for being there? The US has allies in that region, and since they are sovereign nations and dont answer to Russia, they can invite naval vessels of any country they wish to visit to show the flag / joint training, port call etc etc etc. Just as Russia is allowed to do if they are invited.

Originally posted by Skerrako
The US claims that this is a routine naval exercise. On the other hand, Moscow asks: "If this is an ordinary visit, then it is unclear why a warship with this type of armament was chosen to move to this quite sensitive region."

Source

Well, the claims are true, and Russia knows this since they are taking part in some of the scheduled exercises. Funny how thats left out. The intent on the joint exercise - to detect, intercept and deter air piracy.
Russian and Nato jets to hold first ever joint exercise

The aircraft will take part in a four-day event that begins on June 6, dubbed "Vigilant Skies 2011," with flights over Poland and the Black Sea.

Two Polish F-16s will intercept a "renegade" aeroplane on June 7 after its take-off from Kraków and then hand the mission over to two Russian Sukhoi jets that will guide the plane to the northern Polish city of Malbork.

As far as the joint training and the American naval vessel, again this is nothing new to Russia, since the joint training has been occuring in the same region since 1997 - named Sea Breeze 2011 military exercises. The intent of these exercise -
Ukraine, NATO launch Sea Breeze 2011 military exercises

Naval, land and air exercises under the title "Planning and carrying out the international peacekeeping operations" will be held till June 18. International anti-piracy operations at sea and on shore will be a major part of the exercises.

The drills will involve around 2,400 navy personnel from 15 countries, including Ukraine, the United States, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Britain, Algeria, Denmark, Georgia, Canada, Macedonia, Moldova, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey and France.

Originally posted by Skerrako
As per your post on RT. RT is not government run, and is independently funded. pravda.ru is the state mouthpiece for Russia, not RT. RT has had Alex Jones, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser and others that have no love for either Russia or the U.S. Stop trying to discredit a credible news organization. Where do you get your news from anyway? Whitehouse.gov?

and yet your news source fails to mention the fact Russia was informed and is participating in some of the joint training exercise occuring in the Black Sea. I wonder why that information was left out of their reporting? I wonder why it only calls out one American military vessel, when other countrys have naval vessels present as well. I wonder why the article fails to mention the name of the joint exercise or the fact its been occuring since 1997?

SO yeah, RT is not giving the entire story and neither is the source you linked, even when all of the information about the exercise has been known for about 13+ years now since it occurs every year.

Originally posted by Skerrako
Nice links, but when you actually read through them, the Russian bombers where more than 500 miles away, and unarmed. The American vessel in the black sea will be up to 100 miles from Russia, packed with munitions that are unique on U.S. cruisers. Everyone in the world knows that U.S. tech is something not to be taken lightly.

edit on 13-6-2011 by Skerrako because: link

Fear monger much?
As I pointed out that you seem to be ignoring are the times Russian strategic bombers have violated sovereign airspace intentionally. Its one thing to have a fighter aircraft do it, but when you have a strategic bomber do it its a completely different issue. Please provide a source for each incident of intercepted Russian aircraft where it states they were not armed.

As far as our tech goes, Russia can cry all they want. If they didnt try to cling to communism for as long as they did, they might be a little bit more up to date with their own technology.

Also, I dont see the US throwing a temper tantrum when Russia sent military vessels to the Carribean Sea, Pacific / Atlantic Oceans and port calls with Venezuela, not to mention joint military exercises with Venezuela involving land air and sea.


Its a joint military exercise taking place in modified international waters. The concern directed at 1 US naval vessel (the US has 2 taking part) is nothing but a PR move by Russia because of their disagreement over the missile shield. The vessel taking part is an Aegis equipped vessel, whcih is a top of the line command and control platform with top of the line radar to track and target contacts.

What Russia has an issue with, which is their problem is this-:
MMSP - The Multi-Mission Signal Processor (MMSP) will be installed in US Navy ships starting in 2012.[6] This will result in the merger with Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Since the ABM treaty is defunct, Russia can develop their own missile systems if they choose to do so. The argument can be made, based on your logic, that the US was forced into this position when Russia decided to go forward with new merv designs for their ICBMs.

Now, rhetoric aside and bringing it baack on topic, this exercise is not new, the Russians are in the loop on it, they are participating in one segment of it in the Black Sea / Poland, and the US is NOT the only country with vessels present.

Also the AEGIS system is not isolated to US vessels. The systen has been purchased by our allies for use in their navies.

Russia is in the loop on all of these topics. They can voice their concerns all they want and we will give those concerns the same level of consideration they have given the US on a multitude of other areas.

This is a big to do about nothing.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro
"

" I was on-board a Tico-class cruiser during a CSSQT exercise off the coast of California when we encountered a Russian trawler in the mid-80's,"...a Tico class Cruiser in the mid 80's?.....If memory serves, the keel of 47 was laid until 86 or 87...dont remember when Ingalls actually launched her....after the "mid-80's" though

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly since the collapse of the Soviet Union they can no longer claim the entire Black Sea as their area. In addition to Turkey you have Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria. Russian territory only border the north east section of the black sea now.

Even though Russia has no control or say regarding military presence of other nations in the Black Sea, there is something called the Montreux Convention in place. This convention places strict limits on presence in the Black Sea of warships that do not belong to one of the countries bordering the Black Sea. The total tonnage allowed for "outside" countries' warships present in the sea is a combined 45,000 tons.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course one Ticonderoga class cruiser is not going to exceed this limit. The last time US came close to exceeding the limits of the Montreux Convention was in 2008 during the August War between Russia and Georgia.

Obviously this is not the case right now, and what the Russian minister is saying doesn't mean much. This is mostly for internal consumption, and likely has to do with reorganizing of Russia's military budget. Some of the military leadership probably wants to make a case to keep up the level of funding for the Black Sea fleet. Additionally, Russian minister is not saying that US warships cannot be in the Black Sea, but simply that there presence warrants special attention by the Russian warships stationed nearby.



But US and other outside nations know that they do not have total freedom in the Black Sea, unlike the nations that actually border the Black Sea.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Russia is the one who decided to start flying their bomber flight missions again, violating airspace of Canada, UK and several other European countries as a show of force. Russia is the one who is talking about the former glory days as the Soviet Union and the cold war, not the US.

Actually Russian training missions have not violated national airspace of any of those nations. The restricted national airspace is limited to territorial waters per UN Convention. Everything else is international airspace. What the UK and other report as "violating" or "trespassing" their airspace actually refers to their controlled or monitored airspace, which means absolutely nothing in terms of international law. Russian bombers are free to fly there, and UK or anyone else's fighters are free to intercept and tail them.

Russian training mission parameters usually have the bombers closely follow the outline of the territorial waters border, without actually crossing it, which is perfectly legal.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Canadian Jets intercept Russain Bombers
Canadian Jets intercept Russian Bombers on eve of Obama visit
Canadian jets repel Russin TU-95 bomber incursion
Russian bombers violate British Airspace
Russian Bombers intercepted close to American military vessels
Russian Bombers violate NATO airspace (UK and Norway)
Russian Bombers violate UK (Scottish) airspace
British, Danish and German airforces intercept Russian Bombers in the NOrth Sea
2 Russian strategic bombers violate Guam airspace, forcing us jets to scramble and intercept
Russian bombers intercepted by Japanese airforce

None of those refer to violations of "territorial waters" borders - which is the true restricted airspace as recognized by international laws. Notice that everytime this happens UK or anyone else simply says violation of "airspace" without specifying what airspace they are referring to. There are a number of different airspace borders and regions designated by a country for military or other purposes - and these have no bearing on international laws. If it is not within territorial waters boundaries, it is international airspace - regardless of what UK considers to be "their airspace". UK can say their airspace stretches 200 miles around their borders - and that wouldn't mean **** to anyone.

Also notice that Russia's response everytime is "all flights of our strategic bombers have been conducted in accordance with international rules." This is specifically referring to internationally recognized airspace aligning with territorial waters.



So again, can you provide any links saying that Russian aircraft violated International airspace, thereby violating international laws (which are the only laws applicable in this case)?

reply to post by Xcathdra


You don't think Russia has comparable theater SAM systems? Because they apparently already have S-500 systems developed, which out class anything the US (or the world) uses.

Russia's problem isn't technological inferiority. Their problem is the fact that the US keeps placing offensive military systems around Russia (ABM systems are offensive systems, especially when you place them right beside Russia).

This AEGIS ship is just another example of US provocation. They claim they are placing ABM systems around Europe to protect them from Iran. Iran doesn't have nukes, nor do they pose a ballistic missile threat. Who has ICBMs in the launch vicinity of these American ABM systems? Russia, France, UK.

If these were meant for defense, then the US would place them in and around the US.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


ABM...Anti-Ballistic Missle system...how is an "ANTI" an OFFENSIVE weapon?...JW

This is hardly the first time a US Navy ship has been in the Black Sea, which is considered International waters. It is also not the first time a large and capable ship has been in the Black Sea. The cruiser Yorktown was there as far back as 1988 or so with other ships as well. The fact that THIS ship has Aegis capabilities is really no big deal because every single destroyer and cruiser now on active duty has the same capability. Indeed, the Aegis platform is considered kind of old. Every time a US Navy ship enters the Black Sea, Russia does a protest.

Yawn.

The reason for this heat is pretty simple IMO.
By doing this, the USA will be able to provide a better missile launch detection and defense capability but what's more important: Russia won't be able to have nuclear bombers circling too close to that area in case of all out war.
This limits Russia's nuclear first-strike capabilities and it can be seen as the prologue to an aggressive defensive stature that Europe may adopt from the USA, denying Russia a good first-strike capability against Europe.

If I was, in this case, a russian military strategist, my paranoid mind would tell me that the most important move, prior to going to war (Especially nuclear) would be to put in place defenses that will be able to defend your own interests and territories by making sure you can take down as many air craft and ICBMs that the enemy throws at you.

I doubt Iran has anything to do with this, it's probably just being used as an excuse. This is just semi-aggressive military tactics combined and made possible by dangerous politics- the constantly keeping your enemy on its toes and testing their defenses to make sure they keep fearing you.
That's by the way the same reason why the USA sometimes flies fast movers close to Russian air-space and why Russian bombers do the same in Europe and Russian subs do the same close to the USA and close to US ships.

In situations like this, just switch your mind to "What if I was that country and I was paranoid" and you'll get your answer pretty close to the bullseye


IT--

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

ABM...Anti-Ballistic Missle system...how is an "ANTI" an OFFENSIVE weapon?...JW

ABM System can be deemed as being offensive when taken into context of an overall tactical nuclear strategy. If an ABM system is advanced enough to intercept the majority of the enemy's missiles, then the side fielding the ABM system may be more inclined to stage a first nuclear strike with a reasonable guarantee of survival. This can throw off the entire concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, which is the main deterrent to use of nuclear weapons. As such an ABM system can shift the balance of power in the same way that an increased number of missiles can. And in fact that was the primary rationale beind the ABM Treaty which was in place since the Cold War, and which the US withdrew from in 2001 despite protests from Russia and China.

en.wikipedia.org...

From a strategic outlook, it makes no sense to have a treaty limiting the number of missiles one side can field, if there is no treaty preventing one side from effectively negating the missiles of the other. Both the ABM system and the nuclear arsenal are part of the same military strategy - which you can see as being either or both: offensive and defensive.


Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the US ABM system in its current form can neutralize a large enough number of Russian missiles or not. By withdrawing from the ABM treaty, US can now work on developing a much more advanced and far-reaching system, which it may very well be doing. And the new installations in Eastern Europe, may be used in the future for the system under development.

Now do you see how this may prompt Russia (and to an extent China) to develop a new generation of their ICBM's, to overcome the potential advances in US ABM technology?