America Sends Missile-Destroying Warship Into Russian Waters.

[cabri]

Now THIS is how a leader should act. Russia should not be allowed to invade and intimidate countries without consequences. If the President really wanted to make them think twice, he would have the ship do a port call in Ukraine.

Which port? Crimea is Russia now, and they won't be welcome in Russian speaking Odessa, it may even trigger riots when Ukraine already has plenty to deal with in the east.

Odessa is not under Russian control

 

[Jhhnn]

Read the article.

The ship is being redeployed to the Black Sea.

Fern

Thank you for that. My mistake.

Not that the ship or the Navy will do anything if the shooting starts, other than make a quick run for Turkish territorial waters if that happens.

I'm trying to figure out what this is supposed to accomplish other than pandering to domestic old cold warriors.

 

[senseamp]

Odessa is not under Russian control

I didn't say it was. It's majority Russian speaking.

 

[crashtech]

Eh, this is just a bid to pump up Raytheon stock...

 

[Brovane]

The thread title is not in the least bit deceptive -- the full title was.... America Sends Missile-Destroying Warship Into Russian Waters. President Putin Presumably Not Pleased. had you bothered to read the article -- This week, it appears the Obama administration hit upon its solution. It took the USS Donald Cook and sent it to Russia.

The Black Sea isn't Russian waters. Multiple countries like Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania all have coastline on the Black Sea including Russia. Just because Russia has coastline on the Black Sea doesn't make it Russian waters. So I will say the thread title is deceptive.

 

[Brovane]

So we needed to give the Russians more of a reason to justify their future actions in a follow up response. Awesome.

Considering the Black Sea isn't Russian waters, US warships have the right to navigate in these waters. As long as the US warships remain over 12 miles off any Russian Coastline they are well within the rights of of the Law of the Sea treaty to be in the Black Sea.

 

[radtechtips]

Misleading title is misleading

 

[senseamp]

Considering the Black Sea isn't Russian waters, US warships have the right to navigate in these waters. As long as the US warships remain over 12 miles off any Russian Coastline they are well within the rights of of the Law of the Sea treaty to be in the Baltic Sea.

You have a right to poke an angry bear with a stick too. Doesn't make it a smart thing to do.
The main question is what's the bigger long term US foreign policy? Do we have one? Who is our geopolitical rival?
Is it really Russia? If so, then we should keep isolating it and re-fighting the Cold War. That's not a hard fight for the West to win. NATO will be in Ukraine soon, yippee! We are all so much safer now.
But if our geopolitical rival is China, then winning the fight to isolate Russia only pushes it into China's arms. Then China gets access to enormous natural resources on favorable terms, and Europe and the West get denied those resources. This is in our long term interest?
Is securing a transit country for Russian natural resources (Ukraine) worth losing access to those resources to your real geopolitical rival?
The biggest battle of 21st century geopolitics is going to be a fight FOR Russia, not a fight WITH Russia. Russia has more to fear from China than US, by far, and US has more to fear from China than Russia, by far. Russia and US are natural allies against China. But because both US and Russia haven't been able to end the Cold War and bury the hatchet, now Russia is going to end up in Chinese embrace, fueling it's economy and war machinery. To win the Cold War and have Russia eating from your hands in early 90s, and in the span of 20 years just hand it over to China, because it was oh so important to keep expanding NATO to Russia's doorstep, it's foreign policy malpractice.

 

[OCGuy]

Considering the Black Sea isn't Russian waters, US warships have the right to navigate in these waters. As long as the US warships remain over 12 miles off any Russian Coastline they are well within the rights of of the Law of the Sea treaty to be in the Baltic Sea.

We did sign a treaty that limits the size of warships that can deploy there, as well as for how long, but other than that there are no special restrictions.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So I will say the thread title is deceptive.

complain to yahoo...I see no deception! Everybody knows why the destroyer was sent to the Black Sea..

 

[Brovane]

We did sign a treaty that limits the size of warships that can deploy there, as well as for how long, but other than that there are no special restrictions.

Yes the Montreux Convention, as long as the Warship is under 15,000 tons and doesn't stay for longer than 21 days everything is within international law.

 

[cabri]

Which port? Crimea is Russia now, and they won't be welcome in Russian speaking Odessa, it may even trigger riots when Ukraine already has plenty to deal with in the east.

Odessa is not under Russian control

I didn't say it was. It's majority Russian speaking.

You asked which port the US could go to as a port of call (implicitly to show support)



Odessa is still under Ukrainian control, not Russian.

Why would you state that a port of call would not be welcome?

 

[Brovane]

complain to yahoo...I see no deception! Everybody knows why the destroyer was sent to the Black Sea..

The deception is the article calling the entire Black Sea Russian waters. If you cannot see this deception I suggest spending some time looking at a Map of the Black Sea. Makes sure to pay close attention to which countries have coastline on the Black Sea.

 

[Jhhnn]

Odessa is still under Ukrainian control, not Russian.

As if the Ukrainian govt is in control of much of anything outside of Kiev, with even that being questionable.

 

[dawheat]

Granted TLAM's are, Harpoons are anti sub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29

Wonder if any of those W80 warheads still laying around, heh.

Harpoons are anti-ship, not anti-sub. But yeah, the "bigger" guns are the Tomahawks that it carries.

How much does Russia border the Black Sea? 1/4, 1/5? Looks like you can be 300 miles from the tip of the Crimea and more like 500 miles away from Russian waters and still be in the Black Sea. So unless Russia is pulling a China and claiming the entire sea, I don't see the issue.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Editor's note: The headline and text of this story have been edited to remove reference to the USS Donald Cook being in Russian waters.

Guess the editor decided that it was, in fact, misleading.

 

[Pulsar]

So the solution is to escalate??? Geez not like the Russian's wont respond right?

So moving around destroyers armed with defensive ABM systems in international waters is escalating?

I think you need to retune your appeasement meter.

 

[OCGuy]

Russia recklessly buzzed us. After the USS Liberty incident, where Israel did a false-flag attack to try to bring us into a war, I can't believe we allowed another jet to get so close. Cool heads prevailed, so far. Two powers with thousands of deployed warheads with three delivery methods each is never a good thing.

APNewsBreak: Russian jet passes near US warship

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press

In the first public account of the incident, the official said the Russian Fencer flew within 1,000 yards of the USS Donald Cook, a Navy destroyer, at about 500 feet above sea level. Ship commanders considered the actions provocative and inconsistent with international agreements, prompting the ship to issue several radio queries and warnings.

 

[cubby1223]

Russia invades nations while the mighty and powerful United States responds with a series of radio queries!

 

[fskimospy]

Russia invades nations while the mighty and powerful United States responds with a series of radio queries!

What do you think our ship should have done in that situation? Should we have shot their plane down?

 

[OCGuy]

What do you think our ship should have done in that situation? Should we have shot their plane down?

If their defenses warned them that a ASM was locked onto them? Unfortunately at that point, yes.

I am guessing there is some back-room cold-war unwritten protocol that let us know it was just brinksmanship.

 

[crashtech]

Target lock, maybe.

 

[fskimospy]

If their defenses warned them that a ASM was locked onto them? Unfortunately at that point, yes.

I am guessing there is some back-room cold-war unwritten protocol that let us know it was just brinksmanship.

Not only was the jet apparently unarmed, but there's no mention of any missile lock.

 

[fskimospy]

Target lock, maybe.

This was a pretty sudden event and I doubt the TAO would be willing to illuminate a Russian jet without that being on orders from the captain or higher. On a DDG the TAO is often a LT or perhaps an LCDR. I doubt they are interested in causing an international incident.

 

[OCGuy]

Not only was the jet apparently unarmed, but there's no mention of any missile lock.

Which is why I used the word "if", to relay under what conditions I believe they would have been forced to defend themselves.

The jet being "unarmed" has the same chance of being PR as it does being true.