Exclusive Content > News

Russia's spy ship off our coast

(1/3) > >>

pjohns:
I am usually in agreement with Donald Trump--and, to paraphrase the old saying, he should be compared to the alternative (which, last November, was Hillary Clinton), rather to the Almighty--but I will have to say that I am a bit troubled by his easy dismissal of a Russian spy ship's operating off the coast of Connecticut.

Yes, I would agree with him--in theory, at least--that it would be desirable to have better relations with Russia.

But that is not likely to happen, what with Vladimir Putin at the helm in Moscow.  He is no Boris Yeltsin--or even Mikhail Gorbachev. 

Moreover, the desire to have better relations has to be reciprocal, in order to work.  And Putin evidently desires a Russia that dominates the entire world; and sees the US as an impediment to his longing. 

If I were in the White House, I would instruct Putin to get that spy ship out of there within the next 24 hours.

And if he were to do so, then fine.

Otherwise, I would have the ship blown out of the water.

(No, this would almost certainly not begin WWIII, as some have suggested.  Syria, for instance, downed a Russian warplane in November of 2015, and that did not start any war.  Moreover, Putin is a pragmatist; he will push hard, to see just how much this new American administration will take--but he does not desire war with the US.)

Idaho_Cowboy:
I understand the frustration, but as long as they stay in international waters there ain't much we can do. Maritime law is very clear on the subject.

Joe Wooten:
As long as the ship stays in international waters it can go wherever it wants. The old USSR used to keep scores of "fishing trawlers" off the east and west coasts right up to the time they collapsed. Freedom of navigation laws apply to everyone.

dfwgator:

EC:
Said it on another thread - you start to worry when the spy ship isn't there.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page