Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

The Russian aircraft never responded to any of the American Ships warnings.

The Russian aircraft was not privy to the "track and monitor" statement. That would have been a communication from the Operations Room to the Bridge or Captain a bit like a SITREP - or Situation Report to the Captain on the bridge. The captain needs to be informed of the situation as it evolves.

The Russian Aircraft would have heard something like this:

"This is the USS Donald Cook, a United States warship. We are operating in International Waters in accordance with Freedom of Navigation or UNCLOS innocent passage rules. You are conducting operations in an area which jeopardizes your safety. Please acknowledge receipt and move away from the area immediately"

The Russian aircraft would have received transmissions like the above, which were ignored.

You didn't understand. The absence of ANY response in radio communication proves their systems were in fact nullified.

You're kidding? How did you come up with that conclusion?

And who's systems were nullified?

Given the fact that the Russian Aircraft was to buzz the US Ship, I doubt there would be any intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances.

There was never any intend to cooperate with the US Ship, but the US Ship never had any intent or authorization to escalate the matter either like shoot at the Russian Aircraft. But it was tracked as you would expect it to be, and that means they could lock it. Whether they locked weapons is another matter. But the Ship was not incapacitated with a single ECM pod. It isn't that easy.

US and Australian Ships and Aircraft are contacted by the Chinese Navy in International Waters on a regular basis, but the Australian and American Ships and Aircraft respond to them and even identify themselves saying they are in International waters and exercising freedom of navigation under UNCLOS. But the Americans and the Australian MPAs don't buzz the Chinese navy either at 75FT, and the Chinese have never done it to the US or Australian Navy either. There are protocols to follow to ensure no one gets too upset and pissed off and behave in a dangerous and irrational manner which can result in a major incident.

The Russian Aircraft was behaving dangerously and was not following any procedure. When the Kuznetsov was passing through the English Channel, the RAF and French released video of how it is done. The made several passes near the Kuznetsov, probably around 300FT and about 1 nm abeam. Just enough to let the Russians know they were there and watching them.

[Pyrpolizer]

And who's systems were nullified?

The US’s Ship

Given the fact that the Russian Aircraft was to buzz the US Ship, I doubt there would be any intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances.

Correct

There was never any intend to cooperate with the US Ship, but the US Ship never had any intent or authorization to escalate the matter either like shoot at the Russian Aircraft. But it was tracked as you would expect it to be, and that means they could lock it. Whether they locked weapons is another matter. But the Ship was not incapacitated with a single ECM pod. It isn't that easy.

US and Australian Ships and Aircraft are contacted by the Chinese Navy in International Waters on a regular basis, but the Australian and American Ships and Aircraft respond to them and even identify themselves saying they are in International waters and exercising freedom of navigation under UNCLOS. But the Americans and the Australian MPAs don't buzz the Chinese navy either at 75FT, and the Chinese have never done it to the US or Australian Navy either. There are protocols to follow to ensure no one gets too upset and pissed off and behave in a dangerous and irrational manner which can result in a major incident.

However the Russians demonstrated absolutely no fear of having upset or pissed off the American crue, they followed absolutely no protocol, and they responded to nothing, or better using your own words "they had no intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances".
This clearly proves they had nothing to fear, because the ship was incapacitated.

The Russian Aircraft was behaving dangerously and was not following any procedure. When the Kuznetsov was passing through the English Channel, the RAF and French released video of how it is done. The made several passes near the Kuznetsov, probably around 300FT and about 1 nm abeam. Just enough to let the Russians know they were there and watching them.

See? You finally got there. The Russians were actually threatening them. The last threat was clearly shown on the video, when the ship's crew started screaming "Oh, my God". No war plane would dare threat any US ship in international waters, by flying just 10m above it’s deck, without been sure the ship was not already dead in the water.

[Paphitis]

And who's systems were nullified?

The US’s Ship

Given the fact that the Russian Aircraft was to buzz the US Ship, I doubt there would be any intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances.

Correct

There was never any intend to cooperate with the US Ship, but the US Ship never had any intent or authorization to escalate the matter either like shoot at the Russian Aircraft. But it was tracked as you would expect it to be, and that means they could lock it. Whether they locked weapons is another matter. But the Ship was not incapacitated with a single ECM pod. It isn't that easy.

US and Australian Ships and Aircraft are contacted by the Chinese Navy in International Waters on a regular basis, but the Australian and American Ships and Aircraft respond to them and even identify themselves saying they are in International waters and exercising freedom of navigation under UNCLOS. But the Americans and the Australian MPAs don't buzz the Chinese navy either at 75FT, and the Chinese have never done it to the US or Australian Navy either. There are protocols to follow to ensure no one gets too upset and pissed off and behave in a dangerous and irrational manner which can result in a major incident.

However the Russians demonstrated absolutely no fear of having upset or pissed off the American crue, they followed absolutely no protocol, and they responded to nothing, or better using your own words "they had no intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances".
This clearly proves they had nothing to fear, because the ship was incapacitated.

The Russian Aircraft was behaving dangerously and was not following any procedure. When the Kuznetsov was passing through the English Channel, the RAF and French released video of how it is done. The made several passes near the Kuznetsov, probably around 300FT and about 1 nm abeam. Just enough to let the Russians know they were there and watching them.

See? You finally got there. The Russians were actually threatening them. The last threat was clearly shown on the video, when the ship's crew started screaming "Oh, my God". No war plane would dare threat any US ship in international waters, by flying just 10m above it’s deck, without been sure the ship was not already dead in the water.

The US Ship was not incapacitated. Any hint of such a thing and the Americans would have been upgrading all their systems and that has never happened. The USS Donald Cook, still operates with the same AEGIS and AEGIS is being installed on new ships, so there is no indication of any concern at all.

The Russians demonstrated no fear because they knew that the Americans will not fire. And they were not wrong, because it would have been a big mistake to shoot at them. Things can get unpredictable after that, and the Americans are not going to take such stupid risks unless their ship was in danger. The Americans assessed that the Russians were going to make their passes and then they saw that they were even unarmed.

The Oh My God was just some Able Seaman making a comment. That was not from the Operations Room or The Bridge.

The Ops Room doesn't say things like that. They talk about the target and say things like "track and monitor". And yes, you can buzz a ship but it is irresponsible to do it at 75FT because if you crashed into the ship and killed American sailors then the Americans will presume that they were indeed under attack and they will retaliate. It would escalate from there.

It doesn't matter if you are 75FT over the Ship or at 30 nms. The Ship has weapons which are able to shoot down the Russian Jet and the AEGIS will fire multiple missiles at the aircraft.

If the USS Donald Cook was incapacitated, then the Russians would be buzzing it all day long to make a point but it wasn't incapacitated and it will never be incapacitated.

If the Russians had such technology, then they would start a war and the war would be a foregone conclusion and it would be NATO that would eat its arsehole not Russia but we do know that that isn't realistic at all.

[Robin Hood]

And who's systems were nullified?

The US’s Ship

Given the fact that the Russian Aircraft was to buzz the US Ship, I doubt there would be any intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances.

Correct

There was never any intend to cooperate with the US Ship, but the US Ship never had any intent or authorization to escalate the matter either like shoot at the Russian Aircraft. But it was tracked as you would expect it to be, and that means they could lock it. Whether they locked weapons is another matter. But the Ship was not incapacitated with a single ECM pod. It isn't that easy.

US and Australian Ships and Aircraft are contacted by the Chinese Navy in International Waters on a regular basis, but the Australian and American Ships and Aircraft respond to them and even identify themselves saying they are in International waters and exercising freedom of navigation under UNCLOS. But the Americans and the Australian MPAs don't buzz the Chinese navy either at 75FT, and the Chinese have never done it to the US or Australian Navy either. There are protocols to follow to ensure no one gets too upset and pissed off and behave in a dangerous and irrational manner which can result in a major incident.

However the Russians demonstrated absolutely no fear of having upset or pissed off the American crue, they followed absolutely no protocol, and they responded to nothing, or better using your own words "they had no intend to acknowledge the USN Ship's warnings under any circumstances".
This clearly proves they had nothing to fear, because the ship was incapacitated.

The Russian Aircraft was behaving dangerously and was not following any procedure. When the Kuznetsov was passing through the English Channel, the RAF and French released video of how it is done. The made several passes near the Kuznetsov, probably around 300FT and about 1 nm abeam. Just enough to let the Russians know they were there and watching them.

See? You finally got there. The Russians were actually threatening them. The last threat was clearly shown on the video, when the ship's crew started screaming "Oh, my God". No war plane would dare threat any US ship in international waters, by flying just 10m above it’s deck, without been sure the ship was not already dead in the water.

The US Ship was not incapacitated. Any hint of such a thing and the Americans would have been upgrading all their systems and that has never happened. The USS Donald Cook, still operates with the same AEGIS and AEGIS is being installed on new ships, so there is no indication of any concern at all.

The Russians demonstrated no fear because they knew that the Americans will not fire. And they were not wrong, because it would have been a big mistake to shoot at them. Things can get unpredictable after that, and the Americans are not going to take such stupid risks unless their ship was in danger. The Americans assessed that the Russians were going to make their passes and then they saw that they were even unarmed.

The Oh My God was just some Able Seaman making a comment. That was not from the Operations Room or The Bridge.

The Ops Room doesn't say things like that. They talk about the target and say things like "track and monitor". And yes, you can buzz a ship but it is irresponsible to do it at 75FT because if you crashed into the ship and killed American sailors then the Americans will presume that they were indeed under attack and they will retaliate. It would escalate from there.

It doesn't matter if you are 75FT over the Ship or at 30 nms. The Ship has weapons which are able to shoot down the Russian Jet and the AEGIS will fire multiple missiles at the aircraft.

If the USS Donald Cook was incapacitated, then the Russians would be buzzing it all day long to make a point but it wasn't incapacitated and it will never be incapacitated.

If the Russians had such technology, then they would start a war and the war would be a foregone conclusion and it would be NATO that would eat its arsehole not Russia but we do know that that isn't realistic at all.

Try living in the real World. The US ship was degraded to the point it could not bring weapons into use, otherwise I am sure the equivalent of a 'shot across the bows' or a stream of tracers would have been forthcoming.

If the Russians had such technology, then they would start a war and the war would be a foregone conclusion and it would be NATO that would eat its arsehole not Russia but we do know that that isn't realistic at all.

Yes, no doubt NATO would be 'eating its arsehole' if Russia was stupid enough to start a war, which they wont ..... but I am not so confident that it would apply to the US. But the Russians don't want a war and, unlike the US/UK/NATO, they have never attacked another country without provocation for decades and then just once in Georgia and the UN/EU both agreed it was a justified event.

I think Pyrpolizer is far nearer the actual scenario than you are .......... but then unlike your impartial analysis of events, I am slightly biased!

BTW: Shortly after this incident and a similar incident with a US Carrier off the Isle of White, the US carriers, all ten of them went back to the US for urgent upgrades .... if I recall correctly, in spite of proving evidence, you rejected it ever happened and ignored the fact that all ten US carriers were satellite photographed in port at the same time. Or did you just put that down to bad planning?

[Londonrake]

Let me get this straight.

Some cowboy jet-jockey buzzes a US ship that's within international waters in the Black Sea. During this entirely pointless, dangerously reckless exercise he uses an up-to-then totally secret, world-beating weapon. One capable it seems of neutralising an entire ship (well, assuming that in a wartime combat zone you actually get to on-top it ). If not a fleet.

He does this for what reason? A bit of fun? A warning? To whom? About what, exactly? To make sure nobody gets taken by surprise in a future war by it? Seriously, what credibility does anybody, other than the most devout worshiper, give that scenario?

Then, IIRC, a lone Russian frigate sails from Sevastopol, through the Bosphorous, past a zillion "enemy" ships, planes and troops into the Med, which is in essence a NATO lake (check it out). Closes the Syrian coast, where a couple of - double it's size and firepower - US destroyers are deployed (not to mention half the 6th fleet a gnat's cock away) and, when I joke about its using the "death ray," I get an (absolutely serious!) response that he will give the US Destroyers 30 minutes to abandon ship, before he activates "the device". So funny! You really couldn't make it up! But they do of course because there are some who actually swallow it.

Then, there's the matter that all NATO ships are just floating targets. Russian ships, like the pride of the fleet, Kuznetsov (limped in company with a rescue tug from Severomorsk to the East Med - where it lost 5 aircraft, due to technical reasons) are Death Stars though. Cue Darth Vader theme. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNv5sPu0C1E

It's all comic book, school boy hero-worship stuff.

People who boast about things like super weapons in reality usually have a problem in that area. It's bluster, like "shape".

Russia by the way, 6 months ago had a GDP a bit less than that of Texas. Now that the sanctions have started to really bite it's reduced to three quarters the size of that other world super power Italy. About 1/30th of NATO. And the oft expressed sentiment to that sort of reality is .......................... bring it on.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/coun ... ed-gdp.php

Apologies for taking the man's name in vain but ............... Get Real!

[Pyrpolizer]

Russia by the way, 6 months ago had a GDP a bit less than that of Texas. Now that the sanctions have started to really bite it's reduced to three quarters the size of that other world super power Italy. About 1/30th of NATO.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/coun ... ed-gdp.php

Apologies for taking the man's name in vain but ............... Get Real!

The ex USSR had even lower GNP....
Are you trying to say that the UK having a GNP of 2661M is militarily stronger than Russia who has a GNP of 1522M?

[Londonrake]

Russia by the way, 6 months ago had a GDP a bit less than that of Texas. Now that the sanctions have started to really bite it's reduced to three quarters the size of that other world super power Italy. About 1/30th of NATO.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/coun ... ed-gdp.php

Apologies for taking the man's name in vain but ............... Get Real!

The ex USSR had even lower GNP....
Are you trying to say that the UK having a GNP of 2661M is militarily stronger than Russia who has a GNP of 1522M?

No, of course not. Russian spends three times more of its GDP on defence than Britain. Moreover, its armaments industry is of course a State owned affair. That has its advantages (and disadvantages, too). But the UK is just one of 29 members of NATO. So, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

In that respect (although, my post is mainly about the fallacy of the Donald Cook incident) what I'm basically saying is, given the reality, does anybody really believe that somebody like Putin has any desire to go to war (and of course against the very countries that are buying his main exports)? How would that likely turn out? Despite the fact, we must acknowledge, all Russian hardware is far superior to NATO's and their troops are all supermen.

BTW. A principle reason for the downfall of the USSR was it's bankrupt funding of an arms race. Putin so far has been following in their footsteps quite closely. Those who don't learn by...........

[Pyrpolizer]

Russia by the way, 6 months ago had a GDP a bit less than that of Texas. Now that the sanctions have started to really bite it's reduced to three quarters the size of that other world super power Italy. About 1/30th of NATO.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/coun ... ed-gdp.php

Apologies for taking the man's name in vain but ............... Get Real!

The ex USSR had even lower GNP....
Are you trying to say that the UK having a GNP of 2661M is militarily stronger than Russia who has a GNP of 1522M?

No, of course not. Russian spends three times more of its GDP on defence than Britain. Moreover, its armaments industry is of course a State owned affair. That has its advantages (and disadvantages, too). But the UK is just one of 29 members of NATO. So, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

In that respect (although, my post is mainly about the fallacy of the Donald Cook incident) what I'm basically saying is, given the reality, does anybody really believe that somebody like Putin has any desire to go to war (and of course against the very countries that are buying his main exports)? How would that likely turn out? Despite the fact, we must acknowledge, all Russian hardware is far superior to NATO's and their troops are all supermen.

BTW. A principle reason for the downfall of the USSR was it's bankrupt funding of an arms race. Putin so far has been following in their footsteps quite closely. Those who don't learn by...........

I think you already answered my point. That GDP by itself doesn't define a nation's military power.

On the other hand NATO by itself is not as solid as you assume. look e.g at Greece and Turkey.
It's not even solid in considering Russia an enemy.
The only power in NATO that starts all wars is the USA.
Some of the rest within NATO just follow for decoration purposes, just like the UK who launched what 4 (?) aircraft from Akrotiri each one loaded with what 2(?) missiles at the recent attack in Syria. However Russia is a solid power, not a questionable alliance!

I totally agree that Russia doesn't want to start any war. Russia together with the ex-USSR satellitesare in the process of increasing their their economic power and standard of living as it has been demonstrated by doubling their GDP in the last 20 years. Compare to that of the EU which is actually declining.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp
So do you think Russia will swallow for ever all these provocations initiated by some idiotic European countries like the UK? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Regarding the Donald Cook incident what evidence do you have it was a fallacy? RH has provided enough evidence to make me think that it was actually real.
Logic also tells me that the Russians might have developed superior weapons because the US was always their only real threat.
On the other hand the US never needed such superior weapons because all her wars were so far against weaker nations. Basically all the US aimed at was developing weapons that could safely win a war Vs almost defenseless nations from a distance .

As for the collapse of the USSR please do some search. The main reasons were political followed by the fact that the communist system started failing in all aspects including the economy. The arms race had an impact to both the US and the USSR, but was not the main reason it collapsed.

[Paphitis]

Turkey is able to fight Russia and is strong enough to give Russia a very bad day. We saw a glimpse when they shot down a Russian aircraft too.

But let's assume you are correct and Russia is far stronger. We are far more willing to accept that. But Turkey is oly one member of NATO. There are another 28 countries that are members. Including France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the UK.

You said GDP doesn't define a countries power. Well Syria has one of the lowest GDP's in the world, but has been at war for 7 years, but Syria is not comparable to any NATO member including Greece, which btw is militarily no slug either. Greece has some very good capabilities. It has a good Air Force and Navy. And even greece all alone is extremely useful to NATO and it can hold its own and do Russia a lot of damage.

GDP is an indication of a States ability to sustain long term warfare such as what we saw in WW2. That war was heavily impacted by certain State's ability to finance the war, and manufacture the hardware needed to sustain the effort.

For instance, the USA was instrumental in building Ships, Tanks, and Aircraft. Also manufacturing bullets, bombs and guns. It eventually out did Germany because the Germans would lose their industrial capacity in bombardments. So they lost the war eventually.

Russia however would not go to war with NATO. they have nothing to gain. They will not win. They can only lose. If they do decide to take such a risky gamble, it would be a war that is very short, sharp and sweet. As mentioned though, Russia isn't going to war with the countries that buy their produce or trade with them. It will not turn out for them at all. And they will be humiliated. A war with Russia will involve all of NATO through Article 5 - that includes Greece and Turkey. It will not be the USA that will start it. It has never threatened Russia with war. But the Russians have given a couple of threats of their own, which have so far proven to be a bluff. Sometimes its better to say nothing than to be proven as being all talk only - or holding a false deck of cards in a poker game.

There will be only 1 possible outcome from any war between Russia and the West. It will not go Pootin's way.

In addition, if we are to believe that Russia has these super weapons, and that it completely disabled the AEGIS equipped USS Donald Cook (and I don't), then the Russians wouldn't have used it in the Black Sea.

There is also no evidence provided here that can prove that Russia has any such capability, and if it does it literally is news to all countries still building AEGIS equipped Destroyers. That includes the USA. All you have are these huge claims, and the cheerleaders accepting it as fact.

The UK is a power. They fact that it launched only 4 Tornadoes really isn't something to scoff at. The UK doesn't need to provide anything. There are 90+ Fast jet's just with the US 6th Fleet, and many Cruisers, and Destroyers that can launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. The French also have their Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf and there are another 45 Fast Jets on that.

Russia only has about 50 Fast Jets in all of Syria. That's it.

There are only 700 odd Russian Fighter Aircraft. There are more Fast Jets in the USN alone, before even looking at the USAF.

The UK's participation was only a political statement.

nevertheless, we are suppose to believe that a sole Russian frigate that sets off from the pacific and arrives in Syria is able to disable the entire US 6th Fleet with a Death Ray, or that the Russians have an ECM pod that can stop US Destroyers dead in the water and that they can shoot down 73 out of 101 Cruise Missiles or that the American technology is so inferior that it is substandard. have a closer look at these US weapons and tell us if they are really inferior - things like F117, B1, B2, SR71, F22, F35, F18F, F15, A10, B52, MQ-1, MQ-2, AWACS, P8, Nimitz Class, Wasp Class, San Antonio Class, Ticonderoga Class, Zumwalt Class, Ashleigh Burk Class (like the USS Donald Cook), Ohio Class, and Virginia Class etc etc

[Robin Hood]

Russia by the way, 6 months ago had a GDP a bit less than that of Texas. Now that the sanctions have started to really bite it's reduced to three quarters the size of that other world super power Italy. About 1/30th of NATO.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/coun ... ed-gdp.php

Apologies for taking the man's name in vain but ............... Get Real!

The ex USSR had even lower GNP....
Are you trying to say that the UK having a GNP of 2661M is militarily stronger than Russia who has a GNP of 1522M?

No, of course not. Russian spends three times more of its GDP on defence than Britain. Moreover, its armaments industry is of course a State owned affair. That has its advantages (and disadvantages, too). But the UK is just one of 29 members of NATO. So, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

In that respect (although, my post is mainly about the fallacy of the Donald Cook incident) what I'm basically saying is, given the reality, does anybody really believe that somebody like Putin has any desire to go to war (and of course against the very countries that are buying his main exports)? How would that likely turn out? Despite the fact, we must acknowledge, all Russian hardware is far superior to NATO's and their troops are all supermen.

BTW. A principle reason for the downfall of the USSR was it's bankrupt funding of an arms race. Putin so far has been following in their footsteps quite closely. Those who don't learn by...........

I think you already answered my point. That GDP by itself doesn't define a nation's military power.

On the other hand NATO by itself is not as solid as you assume. look e.g at Greece and Turkey.
It's not even solid in considering Russia an enemy.
The only power in NATO that starts all wars is the USA.
Some of the rest within NATO just follow for decoration purposes, just like the UK who launched what 4 (?) aircraft from Akrotiri each one loaded with what 2(?) missiles at the recent attack in Syria. However Russia is a solid power, not a questionable alliance!

I totally agree that Russia doesn't want to start any war. Russia together with the ex-USSR satellites are in the process of increasing their their economic power and standard of living as it has been demonstrated by doubling their GDP in the last 20 years. Compare to that of the EU which is actually declining.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp
So do you think Russia will swallow for ever all these provocations initiated by some idiotic European countries like the UK? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Regarding the Donald Cook incident what evidence do you have it was a fallacy? RH has provided enough evidence to make me think that it was actually real.
Logic also tells me that the Russians might have developed superior weapons because the US was always their only real threat.
On the other hand the US never needed such superior weapons because all her wars were so far against weaker nations. Basically all the US aimed at was developing weapons that could safely win a war Vs almost defenseless nations from a distance .

As for the collapse of the USSR please do some search. The main reasons were political followed by the fact that the communist system started failing in all aspects including the economy. The arms race had an impact to both the US and the USSR, but was not the main reason it collapsed.

Nice one P !

I am afraid that the' USA,USA,USA ....'cheerleaders' are not known for their critical thinking. The one thing they overlook is what you have pointed out which is obvious if you apply a bit of common sense. The US has concentrated on offensive weapons to expand their Empire by invading other countries or funding proxies to fight for them. The Russians have realised that nullifying the effect of a superior offensive force .... requires a superior defence and that is significantly the cheaper option to preserve their country from a big predator. But of course introduce stupidity like 'death rays' and it is just an attempt to degrade the argument because there is no counter argument.

Anything that suggest that the US is not superior in ALL things is always ridiculed. But just look at Syria ..... for such a military weak and militarily inferior nation such as Russia and an even weaker Syria, they have turned the war around and defeated the US backed terrorists completely.

Paphits laughs at the probability that Syria (no doubt with the aid of the Russians) bought down 73 out of 103 missiles fired at the country ..... illegally of course. But he can't explain where they all went if that was not true! It appears there are very few craters where they crashed elsewhere. But, what was between the launch sites and the target ..... a lot of sea and quite a few Russian Naval vessels!!! Strange, that it has now happened twice and yet the US never broaches the subject of why their missiles keep disappearing. Russia says nothing!

As for defence spending ...... Russia spends less in total on defence than Trump has just increased the US defence budget by and reduced it last year by around 20% ! But Russia is the aggressor? I have yet to hear from the MSM exactly what the evidence is for their aggression. I have heard lots of allegations but actual evidence is all but non-existent. Of course every time Russian aggression comes up, Crimea and Georgia are cited but that argument does not stand up to any serious scrutiny of the known but conveniently ignored facts.

It will be interesting to see how the Russians respond to the latest aggressive move of the US to boost its naval presence by another 12 ships in Syria's coastal waters, including a carrier. But of course, once again, NATO thinks this is their exclusive 'pond'. Imagine what would happen if the Russians did that off the coast of the USA!