Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

Military Officials Angered Over UK Dispatch Of “Survey Ship” To Black Sea; Calls For Destroyer

Deployment of the Type 45 would likely put Russian forces on high alert that a potential confrontation with the West in the Black Sea could be on the horizon.

Avatar

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The national security monitor and publication Strategic Sentinel confirms that Britain is to dispatch the HMS Echo, a UK Royal Navy survey vessel and monitoring ship to the Black Sea following the Russia-Ukraine incident near the Kerch Strait.

But crucially there are already calls from top British commanders to send a much more powerful and capable Type 45 destroyer, or guided missile warship, into the Black Sea amid escalating tensions and after the UK condemned Russia for seizing Ukrainian ships and their crew off the coast of Crimea, which the Russian Navy said were “maneuvering dangerously”.

There’s concern that should the situation escalate between Russia and Ukraine, the Royal Navy would need more serious military hardware in the vicinity.

Plymouth-based Royal Navy survey ship HMS Echo out in action

The growing calls from the top echelons of the military establishment means we could soon witness a major build-up of forces in the Black Sea, and greater potential for outbreak of war.

According to the UK Plymouth Live newspaper:

Britain’s former top sailor has raised concerns over the decision to send a Plymouth Royal Navy ship out to the Black Sea as tensions escalate between Russia and Ukraine.

Admiral Lord West warned that sending HMS Echo – a vessel that specialises in survey exercises – and not a more advanced Type 45 destroyer that can ‘look after itself’ is not a good idea following troublesome sea clashes.

The criticism comes as Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson announced he would send the hydrographic survey ship HMS to the area, and perhaps more significantly would commit more troops to Ukraine following Sunday’s incident. It’s hugely significant that the former commander of the UK Navy would issue such strong and biting criticism of the decision to send a less muscular, less aggressive ship.

In a formal statement the UK Ministry of Defence said the monitory vessel’s mission is to “demonstrate the UK’s support to ensuring freedom of navigation”.

Admiral Lord West said after the Russia-Ukraine flare up in the Kerch Strait: “The minister will be aware that it has been stated that we are sending a warship to Black Sea. That warship as I understand it is actually a survey ship.”

Type 45 Destroyer in the foreground, which Admiral Lord West wants to see deployed to the Black Sea

And West made the call for more advanced warships to be deployed: “If things are hotting up in the Black Sea to send a ship in harm’s way that is not really capable of looking after itself is not a clever idea,” he said.

“Should this reviewed and perhaps we should send a ship like the (Type) 45 that is able to look after itself in these circumstances,” he concluded.

The former highest ranking Naval commander is further likely voicing the sentiment of active high ranking members of the UK military.

The Royal Navy touts its Type 45 destroyers as “the most advanced warships the nation has ever built” — of which there are six in operation. They are designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare and are equipped with long-range radars.

Deployment of the Type 45 would likely put Russian forces on high alert that a potential confrontation with the West in the Black Sea could be on the horizon, but it appears for now the Ministry of Defence is resisting such calls and cooler minds are prevailing.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
23 Comments

23
Leave a Reply

avatar
14 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
macColin SmithrucawigginsWalter Dublanica Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ruca
Guest
ruca

How pathetic. Does Britain only choose village idiots for leadership roles? As if porkosheckle’s provocation wasn’t enough. Somebody needs a war to cover their impossible debt.

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

Pig-ratShenko needs baked beans on toast!! What a sad joke. Russia must be wetting itself laughing.

Sally Snyder
Guest
Sally Snyder

Here is an interesting look at recent comments from Vladimir Putin about the eventuality of nuclear war:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/10/nuclear-brinkmanship-and-march-toward.html

One can’t help but be concerned that one wrong move by either Russia and the United States could create an end of the world scenario in this period of nuclear brinksmanship.

FlorianGeyer
Guest
FlorianGeyer

Russian people have fought many wars against belligerent and aggressive foes and won.
Tis better to fight and die rather than spend the remainder of your life in chains.

FUKUS nations will be dealt a blow that is likely to totally destroy the fantasy that they are all powerful if they attack Russia.

The US would also be a wasteland after a nuclear exchange, so that’s a bonus 🙂

Stunned_at_Sunset
Guest
Stunned_at_Sunset

They’re just going to the Black Sea to “survey” the situation and determine yet another way to provoke the Russians by not minding their own business.

JPH
Guest
JPH

So UK wants a Tonkin of its own, but fails to realize that its sailors are at real serious risk.

ruca
Guest
ruca

They don’t care about even their own sailors. As soon as you sign up, you’re worm food.

dennis morrisseau
Guest

Sea of AZOV. BRITANNIA NO LONGER RULES THE WAVES–nor anything else of significance.
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP YOU LITTLE LIMEY BAST…..s

regolo gellini
Guest

Well spoken m8 !

Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

Lord West’s remarks are foolish in the extreme.

There is no naval vessel in existence that could “look after itself” in the Black Sea, should Russia wish to destroy it. Even if a whole US carrier task group could get into the Black Sea, it could not defend itself.

Guy
Member
Guy

Just the military beating it’s chest again and being extremely childish at that.You are correct of course.The bigger the ships the bigger the targets.

regolo gellini
Guest

Senility and alcoholism at work in ols blighty 🙂

ruca
Guest
ruca

Why bother calling him lord?

Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

I think it’s about time that Russia, China and Iran should send a joint naval task force to the English Channel to investigate the UK’s strange and abhorrent annexation of the “Channel Islands”. By their geographical position they are clearly part of France, yet the UK claims them.

Also, of course, the Islas Malvinas (which the British obnoxiously call “the Falkland Islands”). They obviously belong to Argentina, by far the closest nation, while they are 8,000 miles away from the UK. That’s a whole third of the Earth’s circumference!

Smokingeagle
Guest
Smokingeagle

The Islas Malvinas were so named because French fishermen from St. Malo had established a small colony there. The French called the islands the Malouines (from St. Malo), which translated to the Spanish “Malvinas”. The islands changed hands between the Spanish and British, ending with the British claiming ownership. At the time, Argentina as a country did not exist so the islands cannot possibly “belong to Argentina”. Not only that, but the islands were uninhabited when first the French, and then the Spaniards and British arrived, so no “Argentinians” were displaced. “The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France… Read more »

Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

‘The Royal Navy touts its Type 45 destroyers as “the most advanced warships the nation has ever built”…’

That depends on what they mean by “advanced”, doesn’t it? Like the F-35, I am sure they are very expensive and contain all kinds of fancy gadgets.

On the other hand, I don’t think it makes the slightest difference to a Bastion or Kindzhal how advanced the little tin and plastic boat it hits might be. They will just go up in flames, break in half, and sink without trace.

ruca
Guest
ruca

Type 45, meet Onyx, or Granat! Not even a need to fire a Zircon.

Doug Brown
Guest
Doug Brown

It’s been downhill since Henry VIII for poor old England. What wimps. What cowards. What a pathetic excuse for what once was.

Guy
Member
Guy

I think it would be a good idea to re-enact the Donald Cook event should the UK want to flex it’s flabby muscle.

Walter Dublanica
Member

There used to be a song ” rule Britania ,Britania rules the waves tra la la” Never heard this song in decades. I guess that Britania ain’t much any more.

wiggins
Guest
wiggins

Try Last Night Of The Proms…. 🙂

Colin Smith
Guest
Colin Smith

West is off his rocker. The U.K. is no longer in the big navy league. One warship would be blown out of the water. West ran the Falklands fiasco, which was against a quite minor regional military. And they only just pulled it off with US. help. West should go back to golf or whatever and enjoy his retirement. I also doubt he’s any kind of seaman. Probably decades since he ran a watch at sea.

mac
Guest
mac

I notice so many grammatical errors in these articles, I wonder if The Duran has heard of proof reading yet.

Latest

Trump Has Gifted “No More Wars” Policy Position To Bernie Sanders (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 148.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss how US President Donald Tump appears to have ceded his popular 2016 ‘no more wars’ campaign message and policy position to Bernie Sanders and any other US 2020 candidate willing to grad onto a non-interventionist approach to the upcoming Democrat primaries.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Is Bernie Stealing Trump’s ‘No More Wars’ Issue?” by Patrick J. Buchanan…


The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016.

“The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars… I agree with that,” Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday’s town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Then turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added:

“Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: Sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country.”

Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.

Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of the GOP led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump’s veto, that should be the end of the matter.

It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the “no-more-wars” theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president?

Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing “Trump’s endless wars” in the Middle East? Because that is where he is headed.

In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia, lost.

Yet, in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq War and an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and get out of these Middle East wars.

Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.

Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.

He declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which Iran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, closed the consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi Netanyahu’s threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and castigating the “right-wing” Netanyahu regime.

Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the troops are still there.

Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 INF treaty that outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Caracas — ostensibly to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts — Trump, drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to “get out.”

Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the left wing of his party, and by Sanders, who voted “no” on the Iraq War that Biden supported.

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.

And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Prediction: By the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have captured the “no-more-wars” political high ground that Candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Over 200 killed, hundreds injured in series of blasts at Sri Lankan hotels & churches

A series of bombings hit churches and hotels across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, killing more than 200 people.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


A series of eight explosions rocked Catholic churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka as Christians began Easter Sunday celebrations, with over 200 killed and hundreds injured, media reported, citing police.

The blasts started at around 8:45am local time at St. Anthony’s Church in Colombo and St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, a Catholic-majority town outside of the capital. The Zion Church in Batticaloa on the eastern coast was also targeted. At around the same time, the Shangri-La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury five-star hotels were also hit, police confirmed.

Two more explosions happened later in the day, targeting two more locations in Colombo. All attacks appear to have been coordinated.

At least 207 people were killed, Reuters reported, citing police. More than 450 were injured in the attacks.

Alleged footage of the aftermath, shared on social media, showed chaos and large-scale destruction inside at least one of the churches.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 147.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a Texas A&M University speech, and subsequent interview, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The former CIA Director admitted, ‘as an aside’ to the question asked, that the Intelligence agency he headed up before being appointed as the top US Diplomat had a motto “we lied, we cheated, we stole”…which, according to Pompeo, contained entire CIA training courses based on ‘lying, cheating and stealing.’

Pompeo finally speaks some truth.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending