Russia chases off U.S. warship in row over waters in Sea of Japan

 

The guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain sails in formation during exercise Foal Eagle 2013 in waters west of the Korean peninsula in this March 21, 2013 handout photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy. The Pentagon said on Tuesday that a second U.S. guided-missile destroyer had taken position in the western Pacific on a missile defense mission, as tensions rise over North Korea's threats of war against the United States and its ally, South Korea. REUTERS/U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Declan Barnes/Handout

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday one of its warships caught and chased off a U.S. destroyer operating illegally in its territorial waters in the Sea of Japan, but the U.S. Navy denied wrongdoing by its vessel and accused Moscow of making excessive maritime claims.

 

The Admiral Vinogradov, a Russian destroyer, verbally warned USS John S. McCain, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer, and threatened to ram it in order to force it to leave the area, prompting it to return to neutral waters, Moscow said.

 

Russia said its Pacific Fleet warship had been tracking the American destroyer in the Peter the Great Gulf, and that the U.S. vessel had violated Russia's territorial waters at 0317 GMT by going two kilometres beyond the sea border.

 

But the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters throughout as it carried out a "freedom of navigation" operation to assert its rights and challenge what it said were Russia's excessive maritime claims.

 

"...the United States will never bow in intimidation or be coerced into accepting illegitimate maritime claims, such as those made by the Russian Federation," said Lieutenant Joe Keiley, 7th Fleet spokesperson.

 

"The Russian Federation's statement about this mission is false," he said. "USS John S. McCain was not 'expelled' from any nation's territory."

 

The U.S. destroyer made no further attempts to enter Russian waters after leaving the area, Moscow said. The Admiral Vinogradov was continuing to observe its movements and another vessel, a corvette, was dispatched to the area, it added.  

 

Such incidents at sea are rare, but they underscore the poor diplomatic and military relations between Russia and the United States whose ties are languishing at a post-Cold War low.

 

The last remaining major arms control pact between the former Cold War foes is due to expire in February despite months of talks to find a replacement.

 

Also, President Vladimir Putin has yet to congratulate U.S. Democratic President-elect Joe Biden with his Nov. 3 election victory over President Donald Trump.

 

(Reporting by Maxim Rodionov in Moscow and Ben Blanchard in Taipei; Writing by Alexander Marrow/Tom Balmforth; Editing by Andrew Osborn and Chizu Nomiyama)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Oh I wouldent try that when joe is in the White House it might work with Donald but I doubt it with joe

"Donaldt, I do not like this..."

 

Expect all US matters with Russia up to Jan. 20th to be dealt with from a position of Uncle Sam grasping his ankles.

 

 

Edited November 25, 20205 yr by bendejo

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Oh I wouldent try that when joe is in the White House it might work with Donald but I doubt it with joe

 

Ol' Joe will get his shotgun and fire it out the front door. That'll show 'em.

 

Trump, twice, fired 100+ cruise missiles straight  through Putin's cherished S300 defence systems in Syria.  Putin lost a lot of face on that one.

Just now, rabas said:

 

Ol' Joe will get his shotgun and fire it out the front door. That'll show 'em.

 

Trump, twice, fired 100+ cruise missiles straight  through Putin's cherished S300 defence systems in Syria.  Putin lost a lot of face on that one.

I beg to differ trump believes Putin over our guys he’s terrified of Putin he had the russans abandon the airfield and remove all their equipment before he fired a shot and don’t forget what he did to the Kurds in Syria our allies abandoned to be murdered naa not buying it not for a nano second 

Putin doing one final bit of stick waving before he loses his poodle.

52 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Expect all US matters with Russia up to Jan. 20th to be dealt with from a position of Uncle Sam grasping his ankles

Expect all US matters with Russia up to Jan. 20th to be dealt with from a position of Uncle Sam grasping his ankles (insert as appropriate!)

the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters

 

If that is true then why did the US Navy run away ?

1 hour ago, canopus1969 said:

the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters

 

If that is true then why did the US Navy run away ?

Because da boss sez so.

 

 

since all conventional naval warfare became obsolete when hypersonic missiles were introduced, stand by for sabre rattling like we have never seen before.

8 hours ago, Tug said:

Oh I wouldent try that when joe is in the White House it might work with Donald but I doubt it with joe

all joe is going to do is keep re-drawing the line in the sand like obama did

6 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters

 

If that is true then why did the US Navy run away ?

 

The story was written and released by the Moscow Reuters office.....they're there to produce official-government-approved Russia-friendly news. That's what they do.

 

 

Edited November 25, 20205 yr by Hayduke

6 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters

 

If that is true then why did the US Navy run away ?

The Russians claimed that the warship was in their territorial waters.

The Russians claimed that the US Navy run away.

11 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

 

The story was written and released by the Moscow Reuters office.....

 

 

Yes, of course it would be.

 

Right......

 

 

7 minutes ago, loong said:

The Russians claimed that the warship was in their territorial waters.

The Russians claimed that the US Navy run away.

Ok so please enlighten us all as to what happened ?

26 minutes ago, canopus1969 said:

Ok so please enlighten us all as to what happened ?

Why would you credit the Russian version over the American version?

If , If what the Russians say is correct then it comes across as a bit hypocritical given their long range bombers regularly skirt U K airspace and have to be " escorted " off by the RAF .. 

Naval face off's t'wixt the U S and Russia are nothing new .. The U S detected the Soviet submarine B-59 off the coast of Cuba during the missile crisis depth charging to force it to surface .. the Sub captain and political officer bereft of radio contact and fearing WW3 was kicking off elected to use the sub's nuclear torpedo's against U S vessels .. A 3rd senior officer Vasily Arkhipov aboard who happened to be the Sub flotilla's senior commanding officer resisted and using his seniority as flotilla commander ordered against it as they could not be sure what was happening on the surface before surfacing to find thereselves surrounded by U S warships .. the crew were detained before eventually being returned to Russia amid great embarrassment .. 

Arkhipov would go on to be known as the man who saved the world as the repercussions of B-59 firing nuclear torpedo's at U S vessels with all the other tension of the time would quite likely have led to a more serious nuclear conflagration .. 

Edited November 25, 20205 yr by Justgrazing
Sp

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Why would you credit the Russian version over the American version?

Oh dear, would Reuters reporting not be unbiased.

20 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Oh dear, would Reuters reporting not be unbiased.

Now people of a certain political ilk are accusing Fox of being biased against conservatives. As for the Reuters report, what exactly in it is biased? Seems a pretty straightforward piece of reporting. If they wanted to be biased the article might have remarked on Trump's conspicuous silence over the alleged incident. Odd how he's willing to suffer in silence the disrespect of a certain country.

When you’re the top dog, the smaller dogs always nip at your heels.

Transition periods are always times where hostile powers are likely to test limits. This transition period especially so. It's definitely a time fraught with danger. The U.S. of course is very focused on internal divisions, the pandemic, and a psychologically bizarre authoritarian president that insists he won an election he clearly lost. So it's definitely an opportune time for enemies. Expect more of this kind of thing in the coming weeks and likely worse.

Off-topic posts removed.

 

More aggressive and inflammatory action by the US military. Hopefully the Chinese will adopt a similar response to repeated violations in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits.

9 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

More aggressive and inflammatory action by the US military. Hopefully the Chinese will adopt a similar response to repeated violations in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits.

Ummm...you might want to research this. You don't seem to understand the facts.

Never happened.  If I were the commander of that boat, I would have trained all my weapons on the russian ship, and replied, you ram me, you sink.

17 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

Ok so please enlighten us all as to what happened ?

According to the U.S. Navy, the McCain entered the Peter the Great Bay in the Sea of Japan Tuesday as part of the FONOP and the service claimed the destroyer adhered to international law while challenging “Russia’s excessive maritime claims.”

In response, Russia’s Defense Ministry said its destroyer Admiral Vinogradov issued a verbal warning to the McCain and accused the U.S. destroyer of trespassing 2 kilometers into its internal waters, Russian state-run outlet TASS reports. Russia also warned it would employ a “ramming maneuver” to drive the McCain out of the region, per TASS.

The Russian Defense Ministry said the McCain then exited its territory and resumed sailing in international waters.

But the 7th Fleet challenged Russia’s assertions and cited how the USSR established a 106-nautical mile line to claim the Peter the Great Bay as internal waters in 1984. Russia has continued to claim the waters are theirs, which is “inconsistent with the rules of international law,” the 7th Fleet said.

“The Russian Federation’s statement about this mission is false. USS John S. McCain was not ‘expelled’ from any nation’s territory,” the 7th Fleet said in a statement. “McCain conducted this FONOP in accordance with international law and continued to conduct normal operations in international waters.”

“By conducting this operation, the United States demonstrated that these waters are not Russia’s territorial sea and that the United States does not acquiesce in Russia’s claim that Peter the Great is a ‘historic bay’ under international law,” the 7th Fleet said.

On 11/25/2020 at 9:46 AM, canopus1969 said:

the U.S. Navy said its warship had been in international waters

 

If that is true then why did the US Navy run away ?

 

18 hours ago, loong said:

The Russians claimed that the warship was in their territorial waters.

The Russians claimed that the US Navy run away.

 

18 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

Ok so please enlighten us all as to what happened ?

I read the same article as you did, so what happened was

The Russians claimed that the warship was in their territorial waters.

The Russians claimed that the US Navy run away.

The US Navy claimed that they were in International waters.

From that I can only surmise that the US Navy claimed that they did not run away as there was no need to as they were in International waters.

Maritime law states that territorial waters extend 12 miles from the territory, unless there is a bay or inlet, in which case that bay can be included as territorial waters.

 

Here's a Google Earth view of the region, with Peter the Great Bay shown at the red marker.  Now if I were Russia, I'd be pretty p*ssed off to find a US ship hugging my shoreline when in that bay.

 

Think about it.  What do you think the USA navy would do if a Russian warship were 12 miles off New York?

 

18 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

Oh dear, would Reuters reporting not be unbiased.

They must have taken a poll to determine the actual wording and references for the story.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

Maritime law states that territorial waters extend 12 miles from the territory, unless there is a bay or inlet, in which case that bay can be included as territorial waters.

 

Here's a Google Earth view of the region, with Peter the Great Bay shown at the red marker.  Now if I were Russia, I'd be pretty p*ssed off to find a US ship hugging my shoreline when in that bay.

 

Think about it.  What do you think the USA navy would do if a Russian warship were 12 miles off New York?

 

Perhaps you missed this.

 

But the 7th Fleet challenged Russia’s assertions and cited how the USSR established a 106-nautical mile line to claim the Peter the Great Bay as internal waters in 1984. Russia has continued to claim the waters are theirs, which is “inconsistent with the rules of international law,” the 7th Fleet said.