Russia sends spy ship near US coast, deploys banned missiles at home, officials say

anatta

100% recycled karma
A Russian spy ship was spotted patrolling off the East Coast of the United States on Tuesday morning, the first such instance during the Trump administration -- and the same day it was learned the Kremlin had secretly deployed controversial cruise missiles inside Russia and flew within 200 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials told Fox News.

The Russian ship was in international waters, 70 miles off the coast of Delaware and heading north at 10 knots, according to one official. The U.S. territory line is 12 nautical miles.

It was not immediately clear where the ship is headed.

Later Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Russia had deployed ground-launched cruise missiles to two locations inside the country in December. The New York Times first reported that the Obama administration had previously seen the missiles -- then in a testing phase -- as a violation of a 1987 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that banned ground-launched intermediate-range missiles.

But Russia has pressed ahead with its program, apparently testing a Trump administration which has sought better ties with Moscow -- but is also fresh off the loss of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned Monday night in the wake of a scandal surrounding his communications with Russia.

Adding to the aggressive actions, Fox News confirmed a report from The Washington Free Beacon that four Russian jets buzzed the USS Porter in the Black Sea on Friday. The destroyer was roughly 186 miles southwest of Crimea and roughly 50 miles off the coast of Romania, a U.S. official said.

The jets buzzed the destroyer over course of “several hours,” the official said without specifying. A Russian IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft came in first, followed by two Su-24 attack jets, and then a single Su-24.

All approached “low and fast,” the official added, saying the ship was conducting “routine operations in international waters.”

The USS Porter made repeated radio calls to the Russian jets, but the calls were ignored. The jets had their transponders turned off, the official said.

"There were several incidents involving multiple Russian aircraft," Navy Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the European Command, told The Free Beacon. "They were assessed by the commanding officer as unsafe and unprofessional."

The ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, last sailed near the U.S. in April 2015, an official said. It was also seen in Havana in January 2015.

Capable of intercepting communications or signals, known as SIGINT, the ship can also measure U.S. Navy sonar capabilities, a separate official said.

The Russian spy ship is also armed with surface-to-air missiles.

“It’s not a huge concern, but we are keeping our eyes on it,” one official said.

This action by the Russian military follows recent missile test launches by Iran and North Korea.

In the past, Russian spy ships have loitered off the coast of Kings Bay, Ga., home to a U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine base. During the Cold War, Russian intelligence gathering ships routinely parked off U.S. submarine bases along the East Coast

In September 2015, another Russian spy ship was spotted near the U.S. outside the submarine base in Kings Bay.

Outside of U.S. intelligence gathering satellites monitoring the Russian spy ship’s voyage north, there are several airborne platforms along the East Coast that could be used by the U.S. military to monitor the Russian ship, according to one official.

Currently there are four U.S. Navy warships in the Atlantic off the coast of Norfolk participating in normal training, but none have been tasked with shadowing the Russian spy ship.

There are no U.S. Navy aircraft carriers nearby.

The USS Eisenhower, an aircraft carrier, is currently off the coast of Florida doing carrier qualifications, with young pilots making their first landings. Ike does not currently have strike aircraft.

Last April, Russian Su-24s buzzed the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea flying as low as 30 feet above the ocean and coming very close to the American warship.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russian-spy-ship-off-east-coast-us-officials-say.html
 
Viktor Leonov CCB175 a Russian Navy intelligence warship is docked to a pier in Old Havana January 20 2015 in Havana Cuba

the-viktor-leonov-ccb175-a-russian-navy-intelligence-warship-is-to-a-picture-id461843048
 
I'm so weary of endless cold war. This should have stopped after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You can blame NATO expansionism (I do) or the "murderous thug" Putin-but it benefits neither.
For gawds sake stop the madness - there has got to be a better way.

It's costly,drains resources, and dangerous. we could greatly cut back our military and the spycraft
but it takes a will to do so,and not just coast along on hysteria
 
I'm so weary of endless cold war. This should have stopped after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You can blame NATO expansionism (I do) or the "murderous thug" Putin-but it benefits neither.
For gawds sake stop the madness - there has got to be a better way.

It's costly,drains resources, and dangerous

I was listening to John Bachelor cover the matter, and according to him and the panel he had on, they pointed to a number of instances involving NATO where Clinton and Bush both made promises to Putin (regarding NATO expansionism, etc.) and then straight-up reneged on them. It certainly lends credence to the idea that Putin has legitimate grievances.
 
I was listening to John Bachelor cover the matter, and according to him and the panel he had on, they pointed to a number of instances involving NATO where Clinton and Bush both made promises to Putin (regarding NATO expansionism, etc.) and then straight-up reneged on them. It certainly lends credence to the idea that Putin has legitimate grievances.

There is nothing legitimate about Vlad...
 
I was listening to John Bachelor cover the matter, and according to him and the panel he had on, they pointed to a number of instances involving NATO where Clinton and Bush both made promises to Putin (regarding NATO expansionism, etc.) and then straight-up reneged on them. It certainly lends credence to the idea that Putin has legitimate grievances.
This is a great read. up until 2009 Russian and NATO were actually talking about joint exercises!

Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?
No one in Russia can vent his anger over NATO's eastward expansion quite as vehemently as Viktor Baranez. The popular columnist with the tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda ("Komsomol Truth"), which has a readership of millions, is fond of railing against the "insidious and reckless" Western military alliance. Russia, Baranez writes, must finally stop treating NATO as a partner.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...est-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
 
One Cannot Depend on American Politicians'

What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

Now, 20 years later, Gorbachev is still outraged when he is asked about this episode. "One cannot depend on American politicians," he told SPIEGEL. Baker, for his part, now offers a different interpretation of what he said in 1990, arguing that he was merely referring to East Germany, which was to be given a special status in the alliance -- nothing more.

But Genscher, in a conversation with Shevardnadze just one day later, had expressly referred to Eastern Europe. In fact, talking about Eastern Europe, and not just East Germany, was consistent with the logic of the West's position.

If East Germany was to be granted a special status within NATO, so as not to provoke the Soviet leadership, the promise not to expand the alliance to the east certainly had to include countries like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which directly bordered the Soviet Union.
 
Why do I bother, you just lie and lie and lie. I show you threads/posts criticizing Trump and you still babble your little meme. Saying he is more legitimate than you is not a defense of him, it is a fact.

Poor Sockkkle.
he's an idiot..why waste your time? Putin is president of Russia.
 
Do you think Putin was legitimately elected to the Russian presidency?
why do you care? are you a Russian citizen? Of course he limited his opposition, and kills journalists/

If he didn't do so -what would change between the US and Russian relations? (nothing).

This is why we don't use foreign policy of human rights (Carter did,and look where that got him) -
and why everyone from Kissinger to Brezynski ( sp) use realpolitik for the real world.

It is what it is. deal with that -it's reality based. everything else is wishful thinking
 
Anatta - your being tired of Russia and the "cold war" doesn't make that country less of a threat & adversary, or make Putin a better guy.
 
Anatta - your being tired of Russia and the "cold war" doesn't make that country less of a threat & adversary, or make Putin a better guy.
Putin is Putin. He's not going to change.
But that doesn't mean our relationship can't change ( and right now he's winning all the geopolitics) and it behooves us to change it!

What does he want? He got some border buffering by federating out Donbas, and leaving the Uk
a divided country. He got land access to Sevastopol. Do you think he wants Finland or the Baltics ? ( no)

He's an crafty guy -sit down and start some talks and get some mutual understanding of what either side won't tolerate. Use that as a stopping point. Then try to find some mutual interests.
THERE IS NO REASON THIS CANNOT BE DONE -it just takes some political will to say the status quo is unacceptable.

And tell McCain and Graham to go throw their rocks elsewhere!! :whoa:
 
Back
Top