Russian Subs Seen Off U.S. East Coast

[BanglaBhoot]

By PETER SPIEGEL

WASHINGTON -- Two Russian attack submarines were detected patrolling the waters off the East Coast of the U.S. in recent days, including one that came as close as 200 miles offshore, according to U.S. military officials.

Although Pentagon officials monitoring the subs' movements didn't consider them threatening, one senior military official said the patrols were unusual, given the weakened state of the Russian navy and the failure of Moscow to conduct such missions in years.

"Is it unusual? Yes, but we don't view it as provocative at all," the official said, adding that both subs remained in international waters at all times. The patrols were reported on the Web site of the New York Times.

During the Cold War, subs from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union regularly patrolled the North Atlantic in an elaborate game of naval brinkmanship intended to track rival fleets and position themselves strategically in case of war.

The senior military official said the two Russian vessels were nuclear-powered Akula class submarines, which were used during the Cold War to track North Atlantic Treaty Organization vessels and, in the event of war, attack enemy subs and ships with torpedoes and missiles. Only larger ballistic-missile subs are used for nuclear-weapons launches.

The Times reported that one of the subs had recently made port in Cuba, but the official said the U.S. has no confirmation of that move and that the second sub is believed instead to have remained close to Greenland.

The submarine patrols are the latest series of recent military operations by the Russians -- many of which Moscow dropped in the years following the Cold War -- which analysts believe are an attempt to reassert the stature of its military.

Last year, a Russian long-range strategic bomber buzzed the U.S. aircraft carrier Nimitz and its accompanying flotilla as the Pearl Harbor-based strike group was patrolling the Pacific.

Two years ago, the Royal Air Force scrambled fighters to intercept Russian strategic "Bear" bombers that were flying patrols close to British airspace.

Russian Subs Seen Off U.S. East Coast - WSJ.com

 

[gambit]

US doesn't admit it a threat and keep saying 'not provocative at all' but actually, it is a big threat to US. US doesn't have the ability to prevent on Bear Bombers, Nuclear Submarines, and some AirForce fighters around the corner of US. US didn't respond but Russia know it.

It is excellent provocative at this point.

Keep it up, Russian Bear !

Buddy...As long as the Russian bear skulk outside US territorial airspace, there is nothing we or anyone else can do...But when the Soviet Union existed, we violated Soviet airspace with the SR-71 with impunity. Theirs and their allies'. You are cheering for a has-been air power.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

What are two Russian subs doing off the US coast?

The Pentagon doesn't know. But it's the first such incident in nearly 10 years, suggesting that the Russian military is flexing its muscle.

By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 5, 2009 edition

Washington - The Pentagon confirmed Wednesday that two Russian submarines are operating off the East Coast of the United States.

The two nuclear-powered subs are actually operating in international waters as close as 200 miles from the Eastern seaboard. That is the closest Russian subs have come to the US in about a decade, Pentagon officials said.

The patrols are probably meant to send a political signal, not a military one, says Stephen Flanagan, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

This is Russia essentially saying: "don't count us out," he says. "They want to show that they are a capable military power that can do these things."

The subs' foray is part of a trend. Reports suggest that Russian "Bear Bombers" have been flying over the North Cape of Norway more often lately. The Japanese have reported similar overflights, Mr. Flanagan says. The Russians conducted some naval exercises with Venezuela during the last year, as well.

"It's not a good sign politically, but not a militarily worrisome development," Flanagan says.

The Pentagon has sought to play down the subs's significance.

"What are they doing? I don't know what they're doing off the coast, I don't think any of us know what they're doing," Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon's press secretary, told reporters Wednesday.

Mr. Morrell acknowledged that American vessels freely operate in international waters off the Russian coast from time to time, and that the Russian subs are "entitled" to do the same. He said he did not believe the US had reached out to the Russians for clarification on the subs' operations.

But with US attempting to improve its relations with Russia, it is important not to have a knee-jerk reaction, assigning motives that may not necessarily be there, he added.

"While it's interesting and noteworthy that they are in this part of the world, it doesn't pose any threat and it doesn't cause any concern," he said. "So we watch it, we're mindful of it, but it doesn't necessitate anything more than that."

Mr. Flanagan says the subs could be on a tactical mission of some sort, or they may simply be stretching their naval muscles, monitoring US naval traffic out of ports in Virginia and Georgia.

What are two Russian subs doing off the US coast? | csmonitor.com

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Fear of a Weak Russia

If Moscow's failures continue, the world may soon become a much more dangerous place.

BY DONALD K. BANDLER , JAKUB KULHANEK | AUGUST 5, 2009

The reaction from the American defense establishment to news that Russian submarines have been operating off the U.S. coast has been fairly nonchalant, bordering on smug. The submarine operation is widely seen as a rather feeble show of strength by the Russian military after a series of embarrassments over botched missile tests and undistinguished conduct during last year's war with Georgia.

Russia's weakness -- military, political, and economic -- is fast becoming conventional wisdom in Washington. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal before his trip to Georgia and Ukraine, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden even suggested that a weakened Russia might work to the advantage of the United States. His words, of course, were primarily meant to reassure the skittish leaders in Tblisi and Kiev, who fear that a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations might lead Washington to abandon them. Whether he was speaking for President Barack Obama or not, Biden also sent an unequivocal signal to the Kremlin that it should not take any "reset" for granted and that the White House will not be intimidated by Russian aggression.

But before the new administration gets too comfortable, it's worth examining whether a weakened Russia is really in anyone's interest. In fact, an unstable Russia might prove far more dangerous. For the sake of argument, we present the following not-so-unlikely scenario in which Russia undergoes a series of political and economic upheavals. Consider it less a prediction than a worst-case course of events for how Russian weakness could mean trouble.

***

It is 2011. The ongoing global financial crisis has proven far more damaging to the Russian economy than predicted, and the Russian ruling elite's once unshakeable optimism for a quick recovery is long gone. Russian companies are going bankrupt in droves, and there are massive layoffs. As a result, a rising number of protests are reported all over the country. Due to unpaid salaries and massive unemployment, ordinary people lose their inhibitions and openly challenge the government. Public outrage is mostly directed at President Dmitry Medvedev and liberal members of the government. In a desperate attempt to quell riots, troops are deployed to regions with the most unrest.

Things quickly get out of hand. In the city of Omsk, troops open fire on unarmed rioters, killing nine. The Omsk incident deals a decisive blow to Medvedev, who is forced out of office by powerful Kremlin clans that fear the imminent collapse of the Russian state. Appearing emotionally shaken, the president delivers a terse resignation speech in a televised address on Dec. 15, 2011.

Once again assuming the presidency, Vladimir Putin declares a national revitalization program involving a wide range of measures intended to prop up the ailing economy. Thanks to a massive spending spree, the state is able to generate new jobs and the welfare safety net is given a significant boost. Putin manages to temporarily placate the impoverished segments of the population. Yet, the state's coffers soon run dry, and it is widely assumed that the recent improvement in the Russian economy will be short-lived.

Meanwhile, civil wars rage in the North Caucasus republics of Dagestan and Ingushetia. A military buildup in the region does not resolve the situation, and attacks on government buildings and federal troops occur daily. In an attempt to rally people behind the regime and take their minds off the worsening economic malaise, a desperate Putin stokes aggressive nationalism, accusing unspecified foreign governments of instigating violence in the North Caucasus in order to dismember Russia. The Georgian government, still under the rule of President Mikheil Saakashvili, is accused of providing a staging ground for terrorists en route to the North Caucasus. Saakashvili vehemently rejects such accusations and blames massive social distress in Russia for the rising tide of violence.

In 2012, Putin faces reelection. Press freedoms are curtailed even further, and the right to protest is suspended temporarily. The Communist Party, until now the only significant opposition in the Russian parliament, is banned, and a number of opposition figures end up in prison. By now, the Kremlin and its spin doctors have managed to eradicate any semblance of free competition in the country, and the presidential elections are seen internationally as a farce. Putin faces two virtually unknown and uninspiring local politicians and is reelected by a landslide.

In early 2014, hostilities between Russia and Georgia reach a tipping point. A string of bombings at Russian military bases, including those in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, are attributed to the Georgian secret service by the Russian media. In a speech to the U.N. Security Council, the Russian foreign minister issues a 24-hour ultimatum for Saakashvili to leave the country and allow Russian peacekeepers to enter Georgia. The Georgian government refuses, prompting a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia. Although Russian forces eventually prevail, the Western-trained and equipped Georgian army inflicts massive causalities on the invaders. Saakashvili flees to Turkey.

In response to the Russian invasion, Washington imposes partial economic sanctions on Moscow. Azerbaijan and Finland demand quick admission to NATO. At the same time, the United States and Poland deploy troops to the Baltic countries to face an increasingly belligerent Russia.

After an accident over Estonia in which a Russian fighter jet -- violating that country's airspace -- collides with a Polish F-16, NATO and Russia accept that it is time to negotiate -- or risk massive bloodshed. Knowing full well that its obsolete army is no match for NATO's conventional forces, Moscow is forced to sue for peace. With the promise of hefty economic aid from the European Union, the Kremlin decides to withdraw from Georgia.

The political fallout from the Georgian fiasco has tremendous political repercussions at home. The military and security forces, as well as Putin himself, are widely discredited. Russian business elites, including the oligarchs who not long ago stood firmly behind Putin, push for change.

In 2018, Putin decides not to run again. A rather dull technocrat, bankrolled by a group of powerful oligarchs, succeeds him. Nevertheless, the Russian economy is still reeling from its long roller-coaster ride. The central government has been shaken to its core and exercises little control over vast swaths of Russian territory, where personal fiefdoms have sprung up. The volatile situation in the violent Northern Caucasus, which remains a ticking time bomb, threatens the territorial integrity of the Russian state itself. There is no hope of an effective reset button, and the future for Russia remains anything but bright.

Russia's weakness has proved to be the world's crisis.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/05/fear_of_a_weak_russia

 

[xebex]

As long as the subs are on International waters its safe and i dont see why should US cry out loud for such an unharm move. International waters is for everybody to use.

 

[Twain]

The story on this was a careful if blatant message to Russia.

We know your subs are out there.

We even know what kind of subs they are.

Don't try to cross into US territorial waters.

The only think that surprises me is that the US didn't "leak" what day the subs left port.

 

[Vassnti]

As a solution to this dilemna, our planners developed a strategic concept known generally as Operation Northern Storm -- a bold assertion of naval power aimed at sealing off Europe from its North American allies by deploying a massive fleet of nuclear attack submarines southward through the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK) and into the North Atlantic. This is a risky undertaking given the threat of NATO air strikes in this region but once they are free to roam the open Atlantic our subs would become the hunters, not the targets, and Russia will gain the upper hand, strategically, in the event of any outbreak of war in Europe.

Today, at 0800 Moscow time, the General Staff gave its approval to put Operation Northern Storm into motion.

Warning Order

So the imperialist have only spotted 2 of our subs

http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalthunder/Restricted/NorthernFleet/NFHQ.html