Home » Budget Industry » Two U.S. Guided-missile Destroyers Now Operating in the Black Sea


Two U.S. Guided-missile Destroyers Now Operating in the Black Sea

USS Carney (DDG-64) transits the Bosphorus Strait on Feb, 17, 2018. US Navy Photo

Under cover of darkness, U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Ross (DDG-71) slipped through the Bosporus Strait and into the Black Sea on Friday. The next day USS Carney (DDG-64) joined Ross.

The ships are operating are part of an unspecified regional “proactive” presence mission in the sea bordered by Russia, according to the Navy.

“Our decision to have two ships simultaneously operate in the Black Sea is proactive, not reactive,” U.S. 6th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Christopher Grady said in a statement.
“We operate at the tempo and timing of our choosing in this strategically important region. By nature, ships are flexible, mobile forces.”

While the U.S. didn’t specify a reason for the patrol, the destroyers arrive at a particularly tense period between Moscow and Washington. On Friday, federal prosecutors indicted 13 Russian citizens for being part of a systemic operation to spread misinformation during the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign. The patrol also follows a Feb. 7 incident in Syria in which pro-Bashar al Assad forces and Russian contractors attempting to assault a rebel headquarters were killed by U.S. airstrikes.

The destroyers also arrived in the Black Sea during the fourth anniversary of the Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia. Russia’s success hosting the games is thought to have helped President Vladimir Putin win the nationalist support he needed to proceed with Moscow’s forced annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

“The last time two U.S. ships operated in the Black Sea was July 2017, during U.S.-Ukraine co-hosted exercise Sea Breeze,” read a statement from the 6th Fleet.
“U.S. 6th Fleet ships regularly conduct bilateral and multilateral patrols with our Black Sea partners and allies, including Bulgaria and Turkey, and to conduct exercises with other partners and allies.”

Ross and Carney are two of four U.S. ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers that are forward deployed to Naval Station Rota, Spain and routinely patrol the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

Ross and fellow forward deployed destroyer USS Porter (DDG-78) fired almost 60 Tomahawk land attack missiles in April in a retaliation strike against pro-Assad forces after the regime used chemical weapons against civilian targets.

  • Mark J

    I was on the Yorktown back in 88 when we got rammed by that Soviet ship. We were shadowed and overflown by aircraft the entire time were were there then, don’t see it being any different now.

    • Eld

      And I can almost guarantee you had at least one Akula or Victor within 10,000 yards, with a firing solution on you the whole time.

      • David Oldham

        With a Los Angeles closer to them with a firing solution too.

        • RDF

          Yes. FA rules.

      • El Kabong

        LOL!

        And I can almost guarantee you had at least one Los Angeles, Sea Wolf or Virginia class is within 10,000 yards, with a firing solution on you the whole time.

      • USNVO

        I seriously doubt it. A quick check of the Russian Black Sea fleet shows that there are not now and never were nuclear submarines attached tothe Black Sea fleet let alone in any condition to get underway.

        • Marcd30319

          Concur. The Soviets did not want to bottle up their nuclear subs so they based where there was easier access to open water, like the Kola Peninsula or the Soviet Pacific.

        • Eld

          Because subs report their positions and would NEVER deploy OOA right?

          • USNVO

            No, that is just silly. Rather,
            1. They Turkish straits are internal waters of Turkey and sending a submerged sub through the straits would be risky since Turkey could and probably would legally attack them without warning. Forget how hard it would be with numerous shoals, rapid currents, and narrow channels.
            2. The Montreaux Convention requires Black Sea nations transiting submarines through the straits to notify Turkey in advance and travel on the surface in daylight. And they didn’t do it so they probably didn’t enter the Black Sea. The Soviets and Russians have generally tried to follow the Montreaux Convention since it has several benefits to them.
            3. During the Cold War, the US had a very good idea of where Soviet Subs were operating and when they arrived and departed base. Simple time distance calculations showed nuclear subs never entered the Black Sea. Since the Cold War, the Russian Navy hasn’t had enough operational submarines that one transiting to the Black Sea wouldn’t be noticed, even if just to remark on how amazing it was that the sub was able to get underway for a month.
            4. The Black Sea and its approaches are small and confined, something more suited for a diesel submarine such as the ones currently assigned to the Black Sea fleet.

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    We should send an Iowa-class battleship into that beeatch, that’ll show them Crazy Ivans we mean bidness!

    • Robert Partridge

      So it could be turned into a huge piece of scrap by kh-22’s slamming into her hull at mach 4+???

      • Ralph apmann

        Ya, that’s really going to hapoen

        • Robert Partridge

          Like the realistic suggestion of sending a Iowa class bb into the black sea? Seriously…. didn’t everybody get the memo by now? Iowa’s ARE DECOMMISSIONED!

          • RDF

            Montreaux has limits. Read it.

        • Ralph apmann

          I agree with you, that guys suggestions is silly, I was on the iowa as a tourist in 2005 in Norfolk

      • Bruce Parker

        Oh Really, Just how much Armored Steel will your example, the KH-22 , pierce? There is armor on a Battleship like the Iowa Class ships, that is Proof against a 16″ Armor Piercing Shell. And Torpedo belts along their sides. They are or Were the Most Survivable Ships ever to sail!…

        • Robert Partridge

          Yeah, they were tough. Have you ever read up on Russian missile systems? Or do you think Murica Fuc Ya simply has the best and cant be beat no matter what?

          • lebeaux

            Half-wits like you said that Mig-29s would beat F-15s over Iraq and Serbia. Half-wits like you said that T-72s would beat M1s. Half-wits like you said that Russian air defenses would protect Saddam. Name a single time that Russian gear has beat American gear in the last 30 years. Now go back to touching yourself while you look at pictures of shirtless grampa putin.

          • Ceci Pipe

            As much as I hate to defend Russians, to be totally fair to their technology there’s a few mitigating circumstances to most engagements with American technology, that being it’s usually not being operated by Russians (local forces are even more poorly trained) and export gear isn’t home gear.

            Think IS gunning through American Humvees in Iraq. They can’t really take American gear, they’re just taking on forces who aren’t nearly as good as Americans. Don’t get me wrong, I’d still put money on American gear every time, but I can’t recall a true contest in the last 30 years between top of the line Russian tech and top of the line American tech, both being operated by a capable force.

            And not just because it’s been a while since Russia has had a capable force.

          • El Kabong

            Have you any actual combat record for it?

            Oh, that’s right, all you have is nonsense propaganda…

        • Robert Partridge

          Any missile designed to take out a CVN will take out a BB. It will be under 10 missiles before the kill/mission-kill, and might be one. It is actually harder to break thru a CVN weather deck than the Iowa weather deck. A 1″ weather deck (Iowa) is not going to stop much bigger than a 50 caliber.
          The main armor is near the water line. Any modern anti-ship will penetrate into an Iowa class. You then deal with two items. The first is the explosive power of warhead. Its damage can be to something minor or something major. Well before you get to 100’s of missiles, you will get something important. But the warhead is by far the lesser issue unless you are dealing with the larger anti-ship missiles. The warhead also set unused missile fuel on fire, and this can be hard to putout. This fire again can do small damage or if it gets to a powder magazine, it can blow the ship in half. Anyway, you will be having major issues well before you get to the 10-15 fire range (hits).

          • El Kabong

            LMAO!

            “Any missile designed to take out a CVN will take out a BB.”

            Sure, suka.

            IF you get it launched.
            IF you make it past the CAP.
            IF you make it past the SM-6 screen.
            IF you make it past the SM-3 screen.
            IF you make it past the CIWS screen.

      • jack anderson

        they would merely bounce off, these things were designed to go toe to toe with IJN Yamato.

        • Robert Partridge

          Ok…. So modern day Russia couldn’t sink a Iowa… LOL really?

          • El Kabong

            LMAO!

            Sober up suka.

            You’re delusional and trying to fight a MUSEUM ship.

        • Robert Partridge

          The Japanese Yamato was struck by some ten torpedoes, mainly on the port side, and several bombs before she sank. Musashi and her consorts were attacked by hundreds of U.S. Navy carrier aircraft. This battlewagon was hit by some nineteen torpedoes and seventeen bombs. Though her heavy protection withstood this massive damage to a degree probably unsurpassed by any other contemporary warship, Musashi capsized and sank about four hours after she received her last hit.

          • jack anderson

            incredible, and look at the beating the Bismarck took! 3 battlewagons at less than 10,000 yards for over an hour and a half, and she still had to be scuttled.

          • Robert Partridge

            My point is that no matter how much armor we put onto a ship, a determined attack by a powerful enemy can and will sink a BB. Even an a Iowa.

          • jack anderson

            actually, the few battleships sunk at sea usually succumbed to torpedoes. Prince of Wales, Musashi, Yamato, Barham all went down due to torpedoes. Aerial bombing was usually ineffective except for immobile targets like Pearl Harbor or Germany’s Tirpitz. The only ship to ship action that comes to mind is USS Washington vs IJN Kirishima and in that instance the Japs were hit a dozen times with 16 inch shells from 4,000 yards. But even then, Kirishima would have made it home had not so many 16 in shells struck below the waterline, opening her up. In closing would a barrage of heavy missiles sink an Iowa? i doubt it, tear up her topsides for sure but unless they can get below the belt then she will hit back, just like Ironman ,”my turn”.

          • El Kabong

            “…a determined attack by a powerful enemy…”?

            So, NOT Russia.

            Couldn’t win in Chechna.
            Couldn’t win in Afghanistan.
            Couldn’t win in Georgia.

          • Robert Partridge

            Pretty sure the only one they didnt win was afghanistan. Which US isn’t doing good at all in. Lol really? Lol. XD

          • El Kabong

            Lame, failed deflection attempt.

            The supposedly “mighty” USSR was DEFEATED and had to RUN AWAY from a bunch of primitive goat herders.

            LOL!

            Couldn’t win in Chechna.

            Couldn’t win in Afghanistan.

            Couldn’t win in Georgia.

      • El Kabong

        LOL!

        It’d be shot down long before it got close to a US ship.

        Good to see you missed the part about BB’s all being museum ships, BTW, comrade.

        • Robert Partridge

          I was actually trying to make that point numerous times. The absurdity of the whole scenario….
          With that said Iowa would have no chance of defending itself from such an attack. Mainly because …. they’re museums now.

          • El Kabong

            Yet you kept commenting…. LOL!

    • Mu’ammar Abdur-Rashid

      A recommissioned and modernized Iowa-Class.

      • David Hassell

        Manning MIGHT be a problem with a crew of over 2700.

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          If they were modernized and reactivated they’d probably sail with a crew less than 1,500. They were below 1,800 during the 1980s…. and they’d probably remove at least one 5″ mount on each side (*if not more) in any reactivation. The guns and propulsion are the biggest manpower problems… If the Iowa-class battleships were reactivated for the long-haul, their propulsion plants would probably be upgraded to gas turbines…. which would reduce the crew by at least 100-200.

          Further, if they actually did it (*which I do not believe at all they will, I am just having fun here) they’d no doubt modernize everything. One of the problems even back in the 1980s was everything was discreet… the Harpoon ASM system was it’s own computer and fire-control system, the Tomahawk was discreet, the fire-control radars and stuff like that. That needs separate people, trained for that task, to stand those watches and be especially trained for those tasks. Nowadays it would be a total ship combat system like the Aegis or TSCI like the DDG-1000s etc.

          Plus they could retire the Long Beach-class command ships and make the battleships their fleet flagships and command ships, mitigating any personnell problems. Even the Marines could get in by manning the guns (again).

          • Mu’ammar Abdur-Rashid

            Exactly, I read somewhere that the propulsion system “would” be the biggest hurdle in modernizing. And if that’s the case, might as well build from scratch with an entire new class. Compared to today’s ships, the Iowa Class would struggle in keeping pace at cruising speeds.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            I have to respectfully disagree with you there… the ships COULD keep up, no problem – they were designed to be able to basically sail the entire globe @ 20 knots but be able to steam at full speed (33 knots which was amazing — almost unheard of — for a ship of that size, armament, armor, and capabilities) to keep up with the carriers– that was their actual design, “the fast battleships” to escort carriers (which unlike today, were not grouped in 1 Carrier, Lots of extra ship “Strike Groups” but were assigned to divisions with multiple , 2, 3, 4 carrier striking divisions) — so they COULD keep up … the problem is, the steam boilers use a TON of people, I mean a TON, it’s extremely hands-on, labor-intensive, and of course uses a lot of fuel. But I have done reading on it. They absolutely could redo the entire ships… in less than 2 years. Probably would be like 10 billion total, 2.5 bil per ship, and would become some of the most powerful and equipped ships on the planet.

          • Mu’ammar Abdur-Rashid

            The Iowa was assigned to multiple strike groups? That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. As far as cost, that raises my question earlier as to whether it would be cost effective to reward a contract and build from scratch with a new class ship; especially at $2.5Bn a ship and not including going over budget. We’ll see if this actually comes to fruition but, I doubt it,

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            As I understand it, they didn’t have the same “strike groups” we have now. They had Carrier “task forces” with 2, 3, and 4 (sometimes) carriers operating and steaming together … and they were protected by fast battleship divisions (multiple groups of multiple battleships protecting the carriers with their substantial AA defenses) with cruisers and destroyers producing the screen defense. And listen, I doubt an Iowa-class will get reactivated, I know it’s a pipe dream, but I think it’s way more possible AND desirable than a lot of people realize. Anyway take care

      • RDF

        Spare me.

  • SueandJohn KestrelHaven

    “under cover of darkness” a bit dramatic for a routine passage that must be announced and accepted by the Turks before it happens and is also common knowledge in those parts.

  • SueandJohn KestrelHaven

    Concur. the Montreux Convention has been around a long time. Just my gentle way of reminding Sam that this is trusted news and not a media hype page. john

  • chris chuba

    When we do it, we call it ‘proactive measure’, when they do it, we call it ‘aggression’ 🙂

  • RDF

    First Iran would have to buy or rent a fleet. Ask not for whom the bell trolls, it trolls for thee.

  • rex

    It really doesn’t make any sense sending any of the U.S. assets into the Black Sea. Despite whatever NATO alliances we have, there is simply nothing there for us. No commerce or trade, no territory to protect, no interests. Perhaps to keep the Russians from developing the Caspian region oil from being shipped through there? Other than that, the only other purpose that can be seen is to simply antagonize Russia. Its very much like if the reverse happened, and Russia were to transit the St. Lawrence seaway to Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. The Russians have no trade or commerce there or any territory to protect, or any other interests. Perhaps they could come to protect those ten thousand Russian immigrants, who had settled in Wisconsin in the 1880’s from that dastardly U.S. evil empire? Its certainly a better reason than what the U.S. has for being in the Black Sea!

    • jack anderson

      they can and do transit the St. Lawrence, all the way to Chicago. And last I checked, only one country borders Lake Michigan, not so the Black Sea.

    • Mu’ammar Abdur-Rashid

      Agreed, it really wouldn’t serve a purpose there. I think idea places would be, “and in a mission support roll” would be the Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, and in international waters “S. China Sea”.

    • El Kabong

      Why don’t you go learn which NATO allies border the Black Sea, before commenting?

  • Matthew Schilling

    The Iowa class BB’s were 3X bigger than the upper limit in ship displacement for the U.S. – a nation without a border touching the Black Sea. There was never a day when any Iowa class BB was on active duty when they could have legally sailed into the Black Sea.
    I recommend you not trust what comes off the top of your head. Bing is your friend.

    • jack anderson

      as I recall the Brits tried to force passage about a 100 years ago. It did not go well.

  • Bill

    It took the Kremlin trolls a while to show up. Putin will not be happy!

    Iranian Navy in the Gulf of Mexico? Sure. Maybe the NORK’s can join them.

  • Eld

    Those ships were on Russian radar screens, and sonar displays long before they came anywhere near the Black Sea.

    • Marcd30319

      LMAO! Your just won the dumbest comment of the day on this message board, and as always, there was plenty competition.

      • Ed L

        Eld comment was 90 percent right. They Russians were most likely give advance warning by the
        Turkish government and wee able to pick up the Destroyers as they were leaving the straits.

        • Marcd30319

          Anyone who refers to themselves by their Disqus name and then proceeds to misspell their Disqus name cannot claim credibility on any subject.

  • Matthew Schilling

    Because you said, and I quote, “Off the top of my head, only one ship can be deployed in the Black Sea for a period of no more than 30 days.” Obviously, the top of your head didn’t realize there was a further displacement limit regarding that ship. The Iowa BB’s aren’t ruled out merely because they are currently museum pieces – in theory that could change pretty quickly. They have never ever, not for a single day of their entire existence, been allowed into the Black Sea. Because they are too big.
    Also, the top of your head got the duration wrong: It’s 21 days, not 30.
    I’ll reply to whom I want when I want. I won’t be asking for your permission ahead of time, or your forgiveness afterward.
    As for you, feel free to keep making incorrect posts online, and then stating others look like idiots when they try to clean up the mess you leave behind.

  • Bruce Parker

    I’m Not worried about Irans “Fleet” of Non existent Ships!….

  • Jim

    The article notes that ” … [t]he destroyers arrive at a particularly tense period between Moscow and Washington. On Friday, federal prosecutors indicted 13 Russian citizens for being part of a systemic operation to spread misinformation during the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign”.

    Would suggest that CNN, NBC and like news (oops – “breaking” news) organizations spread more misinformation hourly than any Russian attempts ever could. Putin smiles – he has our “press” so he needs do nothing

    Solution – instead of the Black Sea, park one of those Cans in the Hudson, the other in the East River and one Marine ashore with a transponder calling in offsets. to the real sources.

  • Daniel T. O’Toole

    Nice to see 2 DDG’S operating in the Black Sea. Demonstrates U.S. resolve not to be intimidated by enemy forces.

  • jack anderson

    Pick up the survivors

    • kye154

      Good point!

      • jack anderson

        we don’t even need to waste ammo, they break down, they leak, they catch on fire.

  • Marcd30319

    It’s still international water, and who exactly invaded Ukraine and Georgia again?

    And who is pouring thousands of tons of concrete over reefs to create illegal artificial islands in the South China Sea?

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    Uh, yeah, right, chief.

  • Marcd30319

    And where do you get your info? RT? Chinese Daily News a.k.a. World Journal? Fars?

  • Pacemaker4

    Cue the Russian overflight in … 3-2-1.

  • Michael Robinson

    The Iowa class battleships are just where they should be, tied up as museums. Great ships in their time. Bringing these great ships back to active duty status would not be cost effective. Furthermore the Iowa and Wisconsin that were brought back to active service had numerous parts failures and they could not find replacement parts. Furthermore the #2 turret explosion on the Iowa showed numerous problems that had not been addressed. One of those problem was the difficulty in keeping senior gunner’s mates that had the experience to supervise and train younger sailors. Upon the second investigation of this explosion, Sandia determined that a significant overram of the powder bags into the gun had occurred as it was being loaded and that the overram could have caused the explosion. A subsequent test by the Navy of the overram scenario confirmed that an overram could have caused an explosion in the gun breech. Sandia’s technicians also found that the physical evidence did not support the U.S. Navy’s theory that an electronic or chemical detonator had been used to initiate the explosion. What may be history and seem irrelevant is the reason why the ships were retired and should not be recommissioned.

  • Ed L

    Good for them. As long as they are not made a forlon hope

  • Marcd30319

    Better get some new “friends,” chief.

    And since you did ask, I get my information from the USNI, STRATFOR, the Wall Street Journal, etc., from legitimate news sources and research outlets.

    BTW – What I said to you originally does not need moderating from USNI News, but it does show that you are not a standup guy.

  • Marcd30319

    It’s still international water, old-timer. But don’t worry — just 10 more months to 2019, and retirement can’t come soon enough.

    • tiger

      Then go back to the Med & do something useful.

      • Marcd30319

        Non sequiturs, the next-to-last weapon of choice for all trolls stymied when their falsehoods and prevarications have been exposed. So lame, so pathetic.

  • RDF

    So an around the world deployment of diesel subs to make an undisclosed or detected deployment into some place close to our shores. And the support and communications and logistics to support these? For instance where do they get diesel? And what is the point of an underwater territorial infringe? Isn’t the point to make a public statement? Or is this a sneak attack for real? Trollwork. Bad Trollwork.

  • RDF

    Battleships are too large. Over the Montreaux limits. That’s all.

    • Robert Partridge

      Also they no longer exist….

      • RDF

        There is one in Philly. Be a long tow to Istanbul.

        • Robert Partridge

          Exactly.

  • Marcd30319

    No, I get my news from legitimate, professional news outlets and research organizations, not from unknown, unverified so-called witnesses who may very well be just trolls or Russian FSB or SVR agents provocateurs.

  • Marcd30319

    And it is impossible that I have any influence whatsoever with the clerks who moderate this blog.

    Then why do you even blog here? Are you a member of the USNI?

  • rex

    Possibly. But, like you say, range is a problem. But, then, we would be sending intercepting missiles over Turkey’s airspace, and that would not be good either. I really think the destroyers are there to antagonize the Russians and nothing more. Not really enough for a good defensive shield of any sort. Besides, how would they be rearmed unless they left the Black Sea?

    • Pacemaker4

      actually to stop the longer range stuff would require you into Ukraine or maybe Russia itself.
      The trick in sending the stuff is it reaches high altitude before its close to anything that will target it. Thats a big reason they never to a pot shot at the NK missiles (besdies lots of other reasons) ..by the time it was in international space…it was nearly in space.

  • Marcd30319

    International is still international, and we have been the right to exercise our freedom of navigation there as a non-Black Sea power under the Montreux Convention, which you should know all too well, old-timer, after getting schooled so badly on this subject.

  • Marcd30319

    Ha-ha yourself, old-timer.

    I said credibility.

  • Marcd30319

    Non sequitur, since the Great Lakes, with the exception of Lake Michigan, fall under the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909, a bilateral diplomatic agreement between the United States and Canada.

    Of course if a Soviet warship wants to pay a port visit to Lake Superior, then the ship can transit the Saint Lawrence Seaway and the other Great Lakes.

    Just like your old ship, the USS Newport News, did when it transited the Kiel Canal in Germany back in 1962.

  • Marcd30319

    Sorry, old-timer, that I busted you on your wanna-be-attorney talk, particularly since I did answer your query very directly (Hint – read my second sentence in my previous post again). Quit beating yourself because it is embarrassing.

  • Gary Wilson

    We don’t care about their trade routes, we get paid to care and protect our trade routes. If we wanted to protect our trade routes in a similar manner we could build artificial islands and fortify them as well, and perhaps we could harass Chinese naval vessels and PLAN aircraft….but we don’t. Don’t forget which side you are supposed to be on. Oh, and The Little Green Men in eastern Ukraine came from where?

  • Marcd30319

    Resorting to pejoratives, old-timer? What a surprise.

    • muzzleloader

      You can tell when Kye’s magazines are empty, lol.

      • Marcd30319

        His bilge pumps gave out.

  • Marcd30319

    Since I am a member and my membership fees helps to pay for this message board, freeloading troll have no place here.

  • ShermansWar

    Russia doesn’t own the black sea, and we can go wherever we want. that’s the point.

    • Observator14

      You are avoiding the point that the government is Pushing into a delicate area as in Provocation.

      • Marcd30319

        And those dangerous Russian fly-bys aren’t? The US Navy has a perfect reason to be in the Black Sea, to support our NATO allies there and to keep an eye on Russian activity in the eastern Ukraine’

        International water is international water, and the moment we do not exercise our right of navigation in international waters is the day we give up those rights.

        Get real.

        • USNVO

          And, the US followed all the the terms of the Montreux Convention to be there. Just like they have a right to be in the Persion Gulf or SCS. And, the US is actually consistent. The US doesn’t care if the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians or anyone else operates off of US waters. There was a Russian intelligence ship of the East Coast lately, did you see any mass hysteria? Chinese spy ship off Hawaii?

        • tiger

          Our NATO allies are joke. Nobody cares about Ukraine. This is Russia’s swimming pool.

          • Marcd30319

            This is Russia’s swimming pool.

            If you are talking about the Black Sea, then you are deeply mistaken. Access to the Black Sea is governed by the Montreux Convention, and there are other countries that share the Black Sea.

            Nobody cares about Ukraine.

            You might, but there are plenty who consider the situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and Russia interference there violates the 1994 Budapest Agreement that guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. Anyone who is interested in international norm ought to be concerned.

            Our NATO allies are joke.

            I am certain our NATO allies in the Black Sea — Bulgaria and Romania — would be deeply offended by your statement. They would remind you that their citizens suffered greatly under Soviet domination during the Cold War. Also, their nations are grateful for their NATO membership. Our ship regularly exercises with their navies as part of NATO.

          • tiger

            Sorry, it is still their pool, And we are not invited to play. Ukranie? See any tears over Crimea? See even anybody crying over the Airliner shootdown? And expanding Nato East was a bad idea 25 years ago & still is now.

          • Marcd30319

            So, Kitty-kat, it took you a whole five days to respond and this is the best you can come up? Pretty lame.

            Sorry, it is still their pool, And we are not invited to play.

            Laughable and untrue since we do have NATO partners — Bulgaria and Romania — who regularly exercise with us.

            See any tears over Crimea? See even anybody crying over the Airliner shootdown?

            Ridiculous, since there is ample outage when the Russians violated its word to respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapon per the 1994 Budapest agreement. The same holds true when the Russians shot down that airliner. Do not suggest otherwise.

            And expanding Nato East was a bad idea 25 years ago & still is now.

            Beyond the inherently fatuousness of deploying a “could-would” arguments in any discussion, let’s consider history. A defensive alliance was created to contain an aggressive nation. Once the aggressive regime of that nation is gone, do you give that nation veto over who to invite into that alliance? I think not, but in fact, we did consult with them. That is what we did and continue to do. May I submit how different things would be if the Ukraine and Georgia had been part of NATO before Putin got greedy?

          • El Kabong

            You’re a joke,

    • tiger

      Sounds nice on paper. Reality, is they do. There is no reason to have DDG’s in the Black SEA. We simply trying to show off.

      • Marcd30319

        We simply trying to show off.

        Hardly. It is still international water, and we have the right, no, the obligation to exercise our freedom of navigation on the high seas. If you do not exercise that right and often then you will be challenged. It is not a difficult concept and it is NOT showing off.

      • El Kabong

        Reality is, Russia does NOT own the Sea.

  • ShermansWar

    you need to read the definition of land locked again, buddy. If it was we couldn’t sail right into it.the caspain sea is lanlocked. The black sea is no more landlocked than the med or the baltic seas.

  • ShermansWar

    Keep pretending the Black sea is Russian territorial waters. it ain’t.

  • ShermansWar

    Oh, you are towing the party line, buddy. The Communist party.

  • ShermansWar

    Getting shot at is no proof of intelligence, analytic ability, good judgement, character,or unbiased or even worthwhile sources, or anything else, for that matter.

  • Crom!

    Considering neither of those two ships have any meaningful offensive anti ship weaponry I doubt the russians have anything to fear about. I mean the USN doctrine is completely different from the russian navy. Those US ships are pretty much floating SAM sites designed to protect aircraft carriers whereas the russian ships are armed to the teeth and are designed to defeat surface groups without the aid of aircraft. So I am somewhat confused why any US ship without the presence of an aircraft carrier would cause any alarm to the russians or chinese for that matter.

    • El Kabong

      Tomahawks….Harpoons….

      What do the Ruskies have?
      Assuming they have a seaworthy vessel, that is.

  • Marcd30319

    Nor paid for the privilege of being a member of the United States Naval Institute.

  • Marcd30319

    Since I don’t know what their credentials are, I cannot assess their credibility nor give credence to what they claim they say.

  • Marcd30319

    Answering your own posts is never a reassuring sign.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    How often do we read or see news reports about Russian ships and/or subs and/or planes coming close to our shores? They send their forces out to see what kind of attention they can stir up, and we do the exact same thing. It’s the proverbial question of “why does a dog lick himself?”, and the answer is the same for all involved: ‘because he can!’. Period. It’s only a story if someone gets shot at.

  • El Kabong

    Russia INVADED the Ukraine.

  • El Kabong

    Russia INVADED the Ukraine…

    • Robert Partridge

      Ok, not long before Crimea voted to be Russian again(which is supported by UN charter), Russia started supporting their ally Assad in Syria with deployment of their air force. Before that Russia had been sending supplies and other support. Their main route used to supply Assad is mentioned above, by mainly the Black Sea Fleet. Which is based in Crimea. If we kick off Regime change in Ukraine and they become pro west, Ukraine can cancel their lease and kick out the Black Sea Fleet and their main supply route to Med. and Tartus. Crimea was already Russian til it was gifted to Ukraine SSR by Kruschev. Who was in fact Ukrainian. Russia saw this coming and moved to protect its assets. Not a shot was fired and Ukrainian servicemen were even given a choice to return to Ukraine or to serve and enlist. Over half chose to enlist in Russia’s armed forces. Thats all the whole Crimea thing was all about. And Russia beat us to the punch….

  • El Kabong

    Russia INVADED the Ukraine, suka.

  • El Kabong

    Wrong as usual drone.

  • El Kabong

    LMAO!

    Silly Russian drone….

    Try Infonapalm.

  • El Kabong

    Imagine if you RT drones weren’t here displaying your ignorance?

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    No shortages in the Navy then.

  • Marcd30319

    Which is also shared by other nations in accordance with the Mortreaux Convention, including NATO allies Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania, so it is NOT a Russian lake nor it is a land-locked sea.

    In any case, beyond the 12-mile limit, the Black Sea is international water, and under innocent passage, foreign ships can even pass through territorial waters.

    So quite lying or acting like a Russian troll.

    • tiger

      Just because it legal, does not make it a good idea.

      • Marcd30319

        Again, as a matter of international law and norms, you must regularly exercise your freedom to navigate on any body of international waters in order to assert your right to do so. To not to do so would be highly irresponsible and counterproductive.

        Just because you want to wish otherwise does not make it so or make it right.

  • Marcd30319

    Assisted by all those disguised Russian special operators, no doubt.

    Better cash your Putin stipend fast; with the continuing drop in oil prices, it could bounce.

  • Marcd30319

    Like I said, better cash that Putin stipend fast before it bounces.

  • vincedc

    And yet we don’t have resources to prevent collisions in the Western Pacific. Maybe it is time to evaluate our priorities.

    • Marcd30319

      Given the importance of its BMD mission, the ships of Destroyer Squadron 60 are very carefully supervised and trained.

  • El Kabong

    You mean the INVADED territory of the Ukraine.

  • old guy

    The Russkies will ignore, unless we make a big deal over it.

    • Le Ruse

      The Russkies, will laugh, at the stupidity ??
      Puting Naval ships in an enclosed sea ?? It will be like shooting fish in a barrel, for the Russian offshore missiles ??
      Did they learned, from USS Donald Duck ?? Oooops sorry , I mean USS Donald Cook ??

  • Marcd30319

    The United States didn’t cause the crisis in the Crimea; Russia did.

  • Marcd30319

    Hurts, doesn’t it, comrade.

  • Marcd30319

    Everyone did, Comrade Troll, and before 2014, the Crimea was Ukrainian territory, and its eastern provinces, too.

  • Marcd30319

    No doubt, Comrade Troll, you read the recent Wall Street Journal about Russian hacking of western websites, including Wikipedia.

    In any case, that so-called referendum was declared bogus by OSCE chairman Didier Burkhalter in a press release dated March 11, 2014.

    BTW – In 1994, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet-era nukes. So much for Russian promises!

  • Marcd30319

    Not as stale as “It’s everybody’s fault except Russia.”

    Or “Woe is me. Russia is so misunderstood. Everyone hates Russia. the world does not appreciate Russia’s greatness and superiority”

    Or “Russia has a historical right to the Black Sea, the Baltic States, warm-water ports, and everything else within our view.”

    Or “Those agreements that we signed was never formally, legally accepted so we can ignore it, unless it benefits Russia of course.”

    Or “The west betrays Russia. The west told Russia in secret that NATO would not station troops in former Warsaw Pact countries near its border. Russia also could veto any new members to NATO.”

    Or “Russia is so powerful! Russian technology is the greatest! We will delivery sledgehammer blows to those who oppose us.”

    Or “We will bury you.”

    I could go on and I have seen them all, but would be the point?

  • Marcd30319

    Okay, you earned that Putin stipend. Better put it into that time-share for old Soviet-era dacha before the check bounces for insufficient funds/

    BTW – With every keystroke, you confirm that you are a Russia troll. How do I know that? Not many people blog in the middle of the night … unless it is daytime where you are. Like Moscow?

    Sweet dreams, Comrade Troll, and don’t let the bed bugs bite you.

  • El Kabong

    At what?

    The Ukrainian territory Russia INVADED?

    Yeah, I know all about it.

    Speaking of maps…..When will Russia give back Kaliningrad to Poland?

    • Observator14

      When was Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) part of Poland? Study history. It belonged to the Teutonic Knights and later to Prussia a part of northern East Prussia. which became part of Germany. The Soviets took it and gave southern East Prussia to Poland.
      READ. GET INFORMED>

      • Marcd30319

        Typical fixation on perceived past slights. So 19th century.

  • El Kabong

    You keep displaying reasons why pregnant women shouldn’t do meth.

  • Marcd30319

    Given the fly-overs and other harassing activities o the perfectly legitimate freedom of navigation ope ration in international water, I would not characterize Russia as being muted or passive.

    Reckless and irrational may be more accurate, though.

  • Marcd30319

    Again, international waters, Comrade Troll. Low-level, high-speed fly-byes are hardly peaceful reactions, but reckless hooliganism. If anyone has started a new Cold War, it is the that new imperialist, your bud Putin.

  • Marcd30319

    Need more sleep, Comrade Troll, since you seem pretty irrational and excitable.

    Let get back to cases, shall we? First, US Navy has a perfect right to sail in international waters anywhere, including the Black Sea.

    Second, Ukraine will solve its own problems, without interference.

    Third, the territorial integrity of Ukraine was guaranteed in 1994 by the Russians.

    Russians, go home!

    • tiger

      Having the right to do it & wasting the time & fuel to show the flag are different things.

      • Marcd30319

        LMOA!

        Actually it is the same, kitty-kat!

        Showing in the flag, in naval parlance know as presence, is a major part of what the Navy does, to remind everyone that the United States is here. You can’t do that tied up to the pier in Norfolk or San Diego.

  • Marcd30319

    Russian pledged to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapon in accordance with the Budapest Accord in 1994. So Crimea was and still is part of Ukraine, Comrade Troll.

    You call me a Communist, then you call me a McCarthyite, My, you are confused. Your poor little brain isn’t getting enough sleep, Comrade Troll, so why don’t you go away.

  • Marcd30319

    Like I said, Comrade Troll, middle of the night. Still didn’t get enough sleep, did we? Not very smart.

  • Marcd30319

    Trolls like you, comrade, don’t believe in open dialog. You just want to poison the well and create confusion and chaos. We are onto to you and your fellow travelers and bots.

  • Marcd30319

    Stressing, are we?

    Ukraine will solve its problems without Russian interference which Mother Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes back in 1994. So much for Russian integrity.

  • Marcd30319

    LMAO!

    Pot calling the kettle black, Comrade Troll?

    Mother Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes back in 1994. So much for Russian integrity, or lack therein.

  • Marcd30319

    The truth hurts so bad that you squeal in laughter like a stuck pig.

  • Marcd30319

    Aw, is baby troll have its feeling hurt? Pitiful, so sad.

    Okay, how about Useful Idiot?

    Or Putin’s Sock Puppet

    Or Internet Research Agency employee #6969?

    How does that grab you, comrade?

  • Marcd30319

    Typical crypto-authoritarian reaction that on I don’t have the right to respond to others’ post and not just the one addressed to me. How Stalinist!

  • Marcd30319

    Kleverness?

    Don’t you mean “Cleverness,” comrade? That “K” gave it away, didn’t it?

    Better take the next English as a Second Language (ESL) remedial course that the Internet Research Agency offers. You need to brush up on your grammar and spelling.

    In any case, so long and make sure the doorknob doesn’t hit you on your backside on the way out.

    Dasvidania, comrade.

    ;P

  • El Kabong

    Seek help, drone.

  • Marcd30319

    I thought you said that you were gone.

    Just like all things Russian — not to be believed or just plain unbelievable.

    Dasvidania again, comrade.

    ;P

  • El Kabong

    Learn English, drone. LOL!

    Look at all your DELETED spew…

  • El Kabong

    If Russia continues to INVADE it’s neighbours, it’s going to get taught a lesson.

  • El Kabong

    You’re trolling, suka.

  • El Kabong

    Shoo, comrade suka.

  • El Kabong

    You’re a troll, suka…. LOL

  • Marcd30319

    And how exactly did the Russians seized the Crimea — with water pistols?

    In any case, I find this posting deeply repugnant, but thank you for coming clean about being an anti-American troll.

    Now, say bye-bye.

  • El Kabong

    Add delusional to the list of your traits.

  • John B. Morgen

    I would have sent four or five DDGs into the Black Sea, maybe three DDGs.

  • El Kabong

    Where’d your FSB spew disappear to, drone?

    LOL!

  • Ed L

    Damming the Black Sea would be a good idea Maybe God will have an earthquake there