Russian navy vessel off east of Scotland

One of the Russian Navy’s Baltic fleet warships is reported as sailing off the Moray coast on the east of Scotland.

She is thought to be outside British territorial waters whose limit is 14 miles; and she may be one of a task force on exercise in the  North Sea.

The Royal Navy is reported as having sent a vessel from the south on a shadow operation – which, given the distance concerned, seems a little pointless.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

36 Responses to Russian navy vessel off east of Scotland

  1. …original post didn’t attract much interest on other thread, re posted on here

    Why don’t you all Google “Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhpov” and “Stanislav Petrov” perhaps then you’ll understand the futility of both sides of your discussion. Third time unlucky?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

    • OK I’ll bite – what exactly is your point? Many conclusions could be drawn from your “Google” links. PS What are the two sides of the discussion here?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      • I first posted that on the “”Defence Secretary’s report to parliament confirms commitment to Trident” thread and the two sides of the discussion were the “for” & “against” nuclear weapons, campaigners, their purpose and location being debated on that thread. The purpose of my suggestion was to give the main protagonists something to mull over and realise that their debate is perhaps a wee bit futile considering what could and nearly did happen due to system failure and humans not understanding certain circumstances, if you’ve checked Google? what are the many conclusions that you believe could be drawn from that info.?seems pretty plain and simple to me and I’m sure my “point” was quite clear to others! I copied the post to here because of the parties involved in this incident!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

        • The conclusion I can now draw from all that is that nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, human beings are inherently fallible, and that the two should not co-exist.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        • Furthermore, who cares about the Russians – they have more to worry about than the RN which is a shadow of it’s former self. Any residual care they may have about us can be negated by returning Trident to it’s enthusiasts down south.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

          • Furthermore, we should care, there’s a Russian warship in the North sea and you can bet it’s not carrying crossbows and systems still fail and humans are still fallible. I was not taking sides in the debate just adding to the bigger picture. P.S. you said in your 1st post that you’d “bite” suggesting there was some kind of bait. I can assure you that I am not one of the regular master baiters (as in master baker, master craftsman etc) who constantlly troll these pages.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

          • The Royal Navy has been reduced to just :-

            4 assault ships – 2 not available plus one of the 2 now in service to be decommissioned this year
            19 surface warships ( 6 destroyers and 13 frigates )
            4 ballistic subs
            7 fleet subs
            15 mine countermeasure ships
            and numerous small craft.

            Many of those will be undergoing re-fit and maintenance at any one time.

            The UK Home Fleet now comprises a single surface warship and it will require 30% of our surface warships to protect one of our new carriers when they eventually come into service.

            75 years ago the fleet consisted of 15 battleships and battle-cruisers with 5 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with 9 under construction and 1 on order, and 60 submarines with 9 under construction

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • ‘Who cares about the Russians’?

            Not the SNP, that’s for sure. I think the SNP and their followers see Russia as some sort of peace loving ally that doesn’t lock up protesters, murder political foes, actively discriminate against gay people, or have bribery and corruption at the heart of it’s political system. As a country that has no desire to be a world super power.

            ‘And in the SNP world, they all lived happily ever after’

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  2. “bite” was just a figure of speech – no innuendo intended. I think we should worry about the next crazy war the US want to drag us into, rather than any left-over, under heated cold war fantasies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    • that’s fairy nuff Kassandra but what fantasies do you refer to? and why does’nt the doon thumber join the exchange and explain the negative responses to my posts, or are they just happy to curl up in their pleasure cave thumbing and trolling away:)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

      • I can’t think of any realistic scenarios where an independent Scotland, without nukes, (as opposed to possible antics perpetrated by the crazies in Westminster) would be of any large importance to Russia. Russia, China & Amerika have much bigger fish to fry elsewhere. In my opinion to think otherwise is a fantasy. (PS – thumbing, not me.)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        • With all due respect Kassandra you’re being a bit too specific, my point does not involve wee Scotland indy or not, with Trident or not, being directly attacked by a big fish, my point is more concerned with the existence of Trident and it’s many equivalents known and unknown . I quite believe the two incidents involving the Russians named did take place along with how many others not made public, I wont get into an argument for or against nuclear deterrents or first strike weapons , but they are not designed for conventional warfare blowing up bridges, buildings and killing people, they are weapons of mass destruction., one first strike (whether deliberate,system malfunction or human error) followed by automatic retaliation , goodnight Vienna and most other places. You state that the Russians and the RN etc.are not the forces they were, they all still have the power to destroy us. You also mention that they have bigger fish to fry, could I cordially suggest that none of us are too far away from the fryer, the Russian warship in the north sea might be heading for KFC in Ohio but it’s not a stones throw from Norrie’s in Oban just now! To conclude; the debate regarding Trident anywhere in the UK is slightly smaller and less life threatening than the bigger picture, when it’s deployed or attacked (from afar) it then becomes part of the bigger picture.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          • I’m not quite sure why you are concentrating on the Russian Navy. The US seems to have had at least an equal share in nuclear risk incidents. I don’t regard Russia as being a greater threat to us and world peace than the US. (Hint: do some research on how many wars, military interventions, undercover sponsored revolutions, etc which have been perpetrated by the US versus Russia).

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

          • I’m not concentrating on the Russian navy perhaps “Russian navy vessel off east of Scotland” might be a clue to the content of my posts I only highlighted the two Russians as I knew about them. I am pointing out the futility of having such weapons in the 1st (and in my humble opinion the last) place.I was not regarding any one a greater threat than another so therefore do not have to take any hints! but since you seem so keen hint: you do the maths

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  3. America didn’t drag us into a war,Blair couldn’t wait to get into it and they certainly didn’t drag us into WW1 and WW2,they were late for both.Korea wasn’t a war it was a U.N. police action allegedly and we didn’t take part in Vietnam.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

    • Korea (If it wasn’t a war tell that to all the squaddies who died), Afghanistan, Libya, only by the skin of our teeth not Syria, etc. etc. And are you saying we would have invaded Iraq by ourselves?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      • I think it is a little too easy to try and blame the US for our involvement in those wars.

        Britain’s involvement in the Korean War was primarily because we were a member of the Security Council and Clement Atlee saw our involvement as an obligation. Admittedly it was led by the US but it was actually a United Nations war with the US making up the majority of the troops.

        The Libyan war was a monster coalition of countries again under the banner of the UN with Britain the US and France being the main players. I wouldn’t say the US ‘dragged us into it’

        Afghanistan is probably the only genuine example where we, and other countries, blindly followed the US into war. A war which should never have happened and in which our government, and the governments of other countries, should be ashamed of.

        I am not necessarily saying we should have been involved in all the wars we were – I just think trying to lay the blame at the feet of the US for them is a little far fetched.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

        • I’m not blaming JUST the US. The “where’s-our-empire” warmongers down in Westminster have been all too eager to prop up their ego’s by joining in whenever they can. But see my post above re US v Russia. (That does not mean that the Russians do not also act in what they see as their own interest).

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  4. Iraq war missing from your comments.
    While Bush wanted to finish what his dad previously had started and gave 9/11 and weapons that didn’t exist gave Bin Laden etc time to imbed in other countries.
    Korea was us v them in terms of the “commies” v the “free world” determined primarily by the USA
    Thankfully the UK learned enough to keep out of Vietnam but Blair forgot about come Iraq.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    • I agree about Iraq. We should have been nowhere near that war and the involvement and some of the actions of our politicians are shameful.

      The Korean war I see as a little more complex than communism vs the ‘free’ world.

      When you cut a country in half after a war, almost sharing the ‘spoils’ there is a certain inevitability that there will be trouble somewhere down the line (especially when the split was in breach of agreed protocol) . Once North Korea invaded the South war was the only possible outcome

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      • On the contrary, the Korean war WAS basically about “communism” v the so called “free world” (Free world – meaning US and international capitalism’s project to roll back the “communist threat”). If you don’t agree what DO you think it was about (In less than 1000 words please). :-)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        • Have I just entered into a fifth year history exam room?

          I am not denying that the desire to stop the spread of communism wasn’t a major factor (especially for the US) – I just think it is too simplistic that the war was purely about communism vs the ‘free world’

          As I have already mentioned the division of Korea into North and South without any consultation with the people of Korea (and breaching the terms of the Cairo agreement) with the North largely controlled by Russia and the South by the US was almost inviting a conflict. Given the way it was now set up, when North Korea troops attacked the border in 1950 and started heading south, the Security Council had little choice but to declare war. There was of course the nonsense by Truman trying to claim it wasn’t a war but “police action” – absolute twaddle.

          For the US there certainly was a fear of Russian expansion – they were worried about Russia’s military strength and testing of atomic bombs, and also the strength they were forming through building relationships with China. Of course this was the time of McCarthyism which was a shameful piece of American history so there is no doubt fear and loathing of communism was high in the US.

          However when North invaded South it was an act of war and therefore the UN had to respond, regardless of the communism issue. They had a duty to defend the South and the UN resolution to defend the South was backed almost unanimously by its members (there were a few abstentions).

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

          • You seem to be missing the point that as Korea was initially divided by the occupying forces of “communist” USSR and capitalist US at the end of the war – this was the pre-condition for the whole subsequent Korean war – communist on one side – capitalist on the other. I don’t see what’s so difficult about this for you. But as sokay says, have a good christmas.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  5. sokay says:
    December 23, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    “Russian navy vessel off east of Scotland” only tells me that you are still stuck in some kind of cold war fixation. Your attempted disingenuousness just doesn’t wash. As for “doing the maths” here’s another hint for you – I’ve done them, but you don’t seem to want to, as it might prove difficult for some of your illusions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    • I’ve a short while ago replied to your intercourse with Mr Kirk, and would now like to know why you have become so personal and accused me of attempting to be disingenuous I was in my 1st year in secondary school in Oct 1962 when the Cuban crisis took place and didn’t understand how very serious it was until many years later well into adulthood and after a very good and sound education I found out more about that and other incidents and formed the opinion that nuclear had much more to offer than bombs the existence of which were pointless. I am anti nuclear weapons, there is no point in having them, they can’t be used, they are only the end of the world waiting to happen I didn’t intend to start a debate.on communism vs the ‘free’ world. I am not declaring sides. My simple point which you seem to have difficulty with was that there is no point debating Trident’s home on here , no matter where it is it’s redundant and a waste of money. (Hint: do some research on how many wars, military interventions, undercover sponsored revolutions, etc which have been perpetrated by the US versus Russia). I don’t have to do the arithmetic on that you have kindly proved my point, dropping references to the big bad countries that seem to occupy your understanding of my point. If big fish A had 14 incidents …B had 11 incidents…. C had 10 incidents it matters not a jot that A had the most incidents in a scenario where 1 could be too many. Could you use your undoubted research skills and report back on how many pieces of nuclear hardware and materials are unaccounted for since the cold war and guess where they might be and to what end? PS what illusions do you think I have?? Have a nice Christmas..

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      • You seem to agree with me that Nuclear weapons are disgusting and should be got rid of. I don’t see why it follows that there is no point in discussing it here. Surely that is the point of the reply facility on FA, and surely there are still people who need convincing?

        The illusion I think you have is that Russia is a continuing danger to world peace and especially, to us. I contend that the US is a far bigger threat to everyone.

        In the meantime, a happy christmas to you too.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  6. Sokay, despite your claimed level of erudition, you do not seem to understand two quite simple constructs which were of importance in consideration of twentieth century history, viz. “Maintaining the balance of power” & “How a deterrent works”.

    In 1918 Germany suffered a crushing defeat and had to pay enormous war reparations to other nations. Then along came The Great Depression and yet, just 21 years later, in 1939, they were ready, willing and able to start another major war. How was this possible? Other countries, including the UK had not kept up the balance of power in Europe, partly believing the myth the WWI had been the war to end all wars.

    When WWII ended in 1945, the Russians had taken control of all of Eastern Europe, including Poland the invasion of which drew the UK into the war. Europe had had 6 years of
    devastating war. The UK was broke and tired of war as were the people of the US. It was recognised by Churchill and the US that this was not how the war should end, the Russians should have been driven back to their borders and Poland, in particular, freed. This did not happen because the balance of power was in the favour of the Russians and the Poles were sold down the river. (As an interesting aside, the Free Polish Army had been responsible for defending Scotland against a German invasion during WWII.)

    The world had entered the thermo nuclear age and to hold back the “tide of communism” it was necessary for the West to maintain the balance of power in what became known as the nuclear arms race in which the Polaris and Trident missile systems played their part. War is expensive, but so is maintaining the balance of power to prevent further major hostilities.

    Deterrence is a simple concept likened to fitting a burglar alarm to your house. If you don’t get broken into is it because of your alarm or did the burglars fancy your neighbours telly more than yours? You will never know!

    Simples!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

    • …not that erudite Jim “Sokay, despite your claimed level of erudition” please explain the claim and the level of erudition claimed ”Germany had to pay enormous war reparations to other nations.” It was the other nations that made Germany do this, sucking their economy dry (weighing paper money to pay for food) this weakening of the economy plus the other factors you mention allowed Hitler to slowly gain a grip on Germany leading to ww2 .To try and sum up for you and Kass, I understand what your saying but where’s the benefit in the scenario “you bomb us we’ll bomb you or v.v” more comfortable not to have the bombs which in the RIGHT hands will never be used but in the wrong hands or subject to system failure or human error who knows?, I cited an example of each and I am sure there are more regardless of nation or politics. Is it not the case that if I gave you a mobile phone you’d be more inclined to make a call? Have a nice Christmas

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  7. It’s good to see the Russians back in power and keeping the crazies in check.
    There was a similar stushie when the three large warships sheltered in the Moray Firth on their way down to the Russian base in Syria last year. Those who understood knew how critical their mission was for the Syrian people and so it turned out.
    When the Bankster’s Gangsters fired a missile from the West Med aimed at Syria the Russians were able to demonstrate their advanced capability by easily intercepting and destroying it.
    It was a major game changer and even the mighty US of A were stopped in their tracks. Only nutcases like Fourteen Pints Billy seem brave enough, or blackmailed enough, to want to continue the terrorist invasion of this brave Arab country.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    • “brave Arab country”?
      Quite what as been “brave” about the Assad regime or that of his father, with a human rights record “”among the worst in the world”, completely escapes me :-(

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      • The Assad regime is no better and no worse than many other Middle Eastern governments, which are the legacy of decades of colonialism. The only brave thing can see about Assad is that he is continuing to resist the extreme Sunni and Saudi sponsored Al Kaeda jehadi’s who are trying to establish a Wahabi tyranny in the middle East. Assad’s record is no worse than the US’s – in fact – better.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • Yes, a Brave Arab Country that is fighting and winning against all the odds. Despite their people being gassed by the terrorist insurgents that the monstrous regimes in London, Israel and Washington promote, train and arm, they will prevail with the help from friends like Hezbollah and the Russians and the other genuine people of the Middle East.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.