Category Archives: Russia

Context of US Aid to Ukraine, Schiff’s Team is Teeming with Deception

Posted on by

Ever heard of an organization called U.S. Ukraine Foundation? The organization has Directors and and Advisory Board that lobbies Congress and does a good job at that apparently. The organization calls itself a ‘do-tank’ with headquarters in Washington DC., that works for fostering a legitimate human rights, democratic government that enhances Ukraine’s stability and place in the community of nations.
After Russia invaded Ukraine five years ago, reliance of monetary and military aid to Ukraine has been critical to fight back against Russian aggression on several fronts. Since 1992, the United States has given Ukraine more than $7.2 billion from many domestic agencies that include: the Department of Defense, USAID, Energy, Agriculture, Justice and Commerce. Smaller U.S. agencies have also been quite involved in Ukraine including Peace Corps. All these resources are to ‘bolster civil society supporting the reform process where anti-corruption is a priority.
USAID, which operates under the U.S. State Department manages all assistance programs for Ukraine shoring up vulnerabilities of the country. Ukraine obviously does need help but control and oversight of U.S. assistance is tantamount. Seems since the Obama administration, it had none.

There actually is a USAID audit report for Ukraine found here.

Image result for usaid ukraine

Impeachment is hardly deserved and below proves that fact. Gotta wonder what the real posture of Col. Vindman actually was. Further, did anyone in Congress go back and read congressional records as they related to Ukraine or tap the State Department, Ukraine desk for a summary of diplomatic efforts including corruption and what our own Justice Department or FBI did and is doing still for the benefit of Ukraine? Ah perhaps Lev Parnas is part of that eh?
Published on the website for this organization is the following in part:

The Ukrainian American community and other friends of Ukraine have long advocated for U.S. government aid and for a few years in the mid-1990s, under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was one of our largest recipients of bilateral aid. Some readers may recall that the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, championed Ukraine assistance in his capacity as chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, and was sometimes referred to as “Mr. Ukraine” at the time. He enjoyed bipartisan support back then, and, thankfully, assistance to Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support to this day, despite the difficult budget climate.

U.S. assistance, which increased substantially following Russia’s invasion, was backed by the Obama administration and funded by Congress. With the proposed severe cuts in foreign assistance called for by the Trump administration, there were fears that Ukraine aid, too, would be affected. Based on my sources, it looks as if assistance to Ukraine for Fiscal Year 2018 will most likely be maintained at levels similar to the last two fiscal years – underscoring the importance that the United States attaches to Ukraine. And while there is always room for improvement in how it is implemented, U.S. assistance has been substantial and vital to Ukraine – a good use of taxpayer money. Friends of Ukraine, including the Ukrainian American community, need to make sure that this practical, consequential support for Ukraine remains a priority for the United States.

The importance of those two paragraphs is the fact that President Trump questioned foreign aid to Ukraine long before the phone call with the newly elected Ukraine president Zelensky, in fact going back to the summer of 2018. When President Trump inquired what other countries were doing on behalf of Ukraine was and is the right question then and now. It is no wonder aid was held given facts, context, conditions and future plans and estimates for the country.

Focusing on Pending Ukraine-Related Action on Capitol Hill August 2018: Members of the Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN), the Ukrainian-American community, the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation and other supporters of Ukraine met on August 7th to discuss pending and future legislative action on Capitol Hill regarding Ukraine.

The lobbying on The Hill went into overdrive and members of Congress visited by members of the organization clearly know/knew of all conditions in Ukraine and how sending U.S. taxpayers dollars to the struggling country should be circumspect because of human-trafficking, financial corruption, military hostilities and Ukraine military doctrine effectiveness along with split loyalties within the Ukraine government, security challenges and reforms across the board.

Putin to Lead Russia for Life?

Posted on by

In his annual state-of-the-nation speech on Wednesday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia shook up the country and its political class by calling for constitutional changes that would give him a new path to holding onto power after his current — and, in theory, last — term ends in 2024.

With that, the entire cabinet, led by a long-serving Putin ally, Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev, abruptly resigned. The head of the Federal Tax Service, Mikhail V. Mishustin — a little-known but skilled technocrat — will become the next prime minister.

The spate of moves offers some clues about Mr. Putin’s plans and priorities, but also raises questions about what may lie ahead for the Russian president. Here are answers to some of them.

Mr. Putin with Prime Minister Dmitry A. Medvedev last year. Credit…Yuri Kochetkov/EPA, via Shutterstock

Mr. Putin’s hold on power in Russia is unrivaled, built up over the last 20 years in his posts as president and prime minister.

But Russia’s Constitution bars a president from serving more than two consecutive terms. To maintain his grip on power, as he has hinted he intends to do, Mr. Putin needs to find a way to engineer a leadership transition that will allow that to happen.

To that end, it appears, he has proposed changes to the Constitution that would weaken the presidency while increasing the sway of the Parliament and the prime minister.

He said, for example, that the president should in the future be required to accept the prime minister’s cabinet appointments. This and other changes could give Mr. Putin more leeway to find a position in which he can maintain power without violating the Constitution.

That’s not entirely clear.

Mr. Putin could become prime minister again, taking advantage of the position’s expanded influence. Alternatively, some analysts have pointed to a leadership maneuver engineered by Nursultan Nazarbayev, the longtime president of Kazakhstan, another former Soviet republic.

In 2018, Mr. Nazarbayev increased the power of Kazakhstan’s Security Council and made himself its chairman for life. When he resigned from the presidency last year in favor of a handpicked successor, his position at the helm of the Security Council allowed him to hold on to key levers of power.

On Wednesday, offering few details, Mr. Putin dangled the possibility of a similar move in Russia. The State Council — currently an advisory body made up of the governors of Russia’s regions — should have its “status and role” fixed in the Constitution, he said.

That quickly raised speculation among Russian political analysts that a revamped State Council could become a vehicle for Mr. Putin to maintain power if he relinquishes the presidency, particularly over the military and foreign policy.

Despite Mr. Putin’s immense sway, he’d be taking a risk if he simply declared himself president for life.

Mr. Putin served two consecutive presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, and then became prime minister. His announcement in 2011 that he would seek the presidency again, followed by parliamentary elections widely seen as rigged, helped trigger Russia’s biggest street protests since the 1990s.

This time around, Mr. Putin looks determined to orchestrate his next move in a slow-motion fashion that’s less likely to produce a backlash. The changes to the Constitution he called for give him several options to hold on to power — while affording him as much as four years’ time to set his course.

“Our society is clearly calling for change.” Mr. Putin said at the beginning of his speech on Wednesday.

Indeed, over the last year, Russia has seen its most vigorous street protests since the anti-Putin rallies of 2011 and 2012.

Polls show that Russians increasingly distrust pro-Kremlin TV channels and are getting their news on the internet, which remains largely uncensored.

And the Kremlin’s appeal to patriotism — so effective after Mr. Putin’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014 — has lost its visceral power, overshadowed by Russia’s economic problems.

All of this means that the Kremlin is likely to portray the resignation on Wednesday of Mr. Medvedev and every cabinet minister as a sign that Mr. Putin has heard Russians’ demand for change.

While Russians do increasingly blame Mr. Putin for their ills, many more blame the bureaucrats below him. Mr. Putin’s approval rating has fallen to 68 percent from 82 percent in April 2018, an independent pollster, Levada, says. But Mr. Medvedev is in far worse shape, with an approval rating of 38 percent.

Mr. Putin’s choice of Mr. Mishustin seems to reflect his concerns about Russia’s declining standard of living, which has contributed to spasms of unrest over the last year.

Mr. Mishustin is widely seen as one of Russia’s most effective technocrats. He has headed Russia’s Federal Tax Service since 2010, modernizing a notoriously ineffective and corrupt tax-collecting system. The Financial Times dubbed the computerized, real-time approach to taxation he developed as “the taxman of the future.”

In his early years as president, Mr. Putin built his popularity on soaring living standards, which coincided with a period of rising oil prices. But with lower oil prices and Western sanctions, those steady improvements are now a thing of the past. Disposable incomes are still effectively below what they were in 2013.

Mr. Putin also used his state-of-the-nation speech to make a raft of pledges to improve Russians’ daily lives. For example: free hot meals for all elementary school students from grades one through four.

Unlike Russia’s more prominent economic reformers, the 53-year-old Mr. Mishustin has no political base of his own, reducing the likelihood that he might use the powers of his new office to chip away at Mr. Putin’s authority.

Not at all.

In theory, at least, Russia’s system of governance echoes that of France — a powerful presidency checked by an independent judiciary, by parliament and by a cabinet of ministers headed by a prime minister with his own locus of authority.

But Mr. Putin has steadily subsumed the authority of all those institutions, often justifying crackdowns on political pluralism as necessary in the face of external threats. He reprised that language in his speech on Wednesday, signaling that no political thaw is in the offing.

“Russia can be and can remain Russia only as a sovereign state,” he said.

That was an allusion to Mr. Putin’s frequent charge the West is fomenting political opposition to undermine Russian sovereignty.

To drive home the point, Mr. Putin proposed a constitutional amendment that offered the day’s clearest statement of how he views his successor: Russia’s future president, Mr. Putin said, may not ever have had citizenship or permanent residency in another country.

Daily Gas Pump Prices are Based on the Strait of Hormuz

Posted on by

Experts said Iranian officials are trying to demonstrate to the U.S. and its allies that the Islamic Republic is able to push back and gain leverage against the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy, which intensified after President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the landmark nuclear deal in May 2018 and reimposed crippling sanctions, making it difficult for Iran to export oil, the foundation of the country’s economy.

China, Russia and leading Western European countries have sought ways around the U.S. sanctions, but it has been difficult to bypass them.

“The message that Iran is sending is that it is capable of making international waters unsafe not just for the U.S., but for international trade,” said Reza H. Akbari, a program manager and Iran expert at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

These are the reasons for oil tanker seizures and attacks by Iranian limpet mines.

Tensions between the West and Iran bubbled to a historic height in recent days after the assassination of top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Tehran bombed two Iraqi bases that housed US troops.

They have sparked fears of wider US-Iran attacks in the greater region, which could take place in and around the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow body of water linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, which feeds into Arabian Sea and the rest of the world.

strait of hormuz jan 2020

A satellite image of marine traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz as on January 9, 2020.MarineTraffic.com

While Iran’s leaders claim to have “concluded” their revenge for Soleimani’s death — and President Donald Trump appears to believe them — many regional experts and diplomatic sources say Iran could unleash other modes of attack, which include unleashing allied militias to disrupt the Middle East.

One strategy could include Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would stop oil tanker traffic, disrupt global oil supply, and send prices shooting up.

Here’s what you need to know about this valuable strait.

Some 21 million barrels of crude and refined oil pass through the strait every day, the EIA said, citing 2018 statistics.

That’s about one-third of the world’s sea-traded oil, or $1.2 billion worth of oil a day, at current oil prices. The majority of Saudi Arabia’s crude exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning much of the oil-dependent economy’s wealth is situated there. Saudi state-backed oil tanker Bahri temporarily suspended its shipments through the strait after Iran’s missile strikes in Iran, the Financial Times reported.

Last June Iran shot down a US drone flying near the strait, and a month later a US warship — USS Boxer — also shot down an Iranian drone in the same area.

Shortly after Iran’s drone attack, President Donald Trump questioned the US’ presence in the region, and called on China, Japan, and other countries to protect their own ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump noted that much of China and Japan’s oil flow through the strait, and added: “So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation.”

While a large proportion — 76% — of oil flowing through the chokepoint does end up in Asian countries, the US still imports more than 30 million barrels of oil a month from countries in the Middle East, Business Insider has reported, citing the EIA.

That’s about $1.7 billion worth of oil, and 10% of the US’s total oil imports per month.

Iranian leaders, who have also vowed retaliation for the death of Soleimani, have threatened to close down the strait multiple times in the past.

If Iran followed through with these threats, it would likely cause huge disruption to the global oil trade. As the strait is so narrow, any sort of interference in tanker traffic could decrease the world’s oil supply, and send prices shooting up.

Global oil prices have proven vulnerable to tensions between Iran and the West before. After the Trump administration said in April 2019 it would stop providing sanctions waivers to countries who purchase Iranian oil, prices rose to their highest level since November the year before, Axios reported.

How likely is Iran to shut down the strait?

Iran is more likely to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz than to engage in an all-out conventional war with the US, which is much stronger militarily.

But doing so comes with high costs to Iran.

To close down the entire strait, Iran would have to place at least 1,000 mines with submarines and surface craft along the chokepoint, security researcher Caitlin Talmadge posited in a 2009 MIT study. Such an effort could take weeks, the study added. (taken in part from here)

About that Ukraine Airline Crash in Iran

Posted on by

So an engine overheated? Planes can still fly.
So, there was no radio communication with the tower declaring trouble?
Allegedly the plane was turning around?
The black box has been recovered but Iran wont turn over to authorities.
Perhaps other clues may be in the passenger manifest as noted below:

Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) has published a list of 167 passengers who were on board the Boeing-737 flight PS752 Tehran-Kyiv that crashed early on Wednesday shortly after takeoff. The relevant information has been posted on the UIA website.
The list contains the names in English, as well as dates of birth.
Flight PS752 passenger list: Abaspourqadi Mohamm 1986 Abbasnezhad Mojtaba 1993 Abtahiforoushani Seyedmehran 1982 Aghabali Iman 1991 Agha Miri Maryam 1973 Ahmadi Motahereh 2011 Ahmadi Muh Sen 2014 Ahmadi Rahmtin 2010 Ahmadi Sekinhe 1989 Ahmady Mitra 1973 Amirliravi Mahsa 1989 Arasteh Fareed 1987 Arbabbahrami Arshia 2000 Arsalani Evin 1990 Asadilari Mohammadhossein 1996 Asadilari Zeynab 1998 Ashrafi Habibabadi Amir 1991 Attar Mahmood 1950 Azadian Roja 1977 Azhdari Ghanimat 1983 Badiei Ardestani Mehraban 2001 Bashiri Samira 1990 Beiruti Mohammad Amin 1990 Borghei Negar 1989 Choupannejad Shekoufeh 1963 Dadashnejad Delaram 1993 Daneshmand Mojgan 1976 Dhirani Asgar 1945 Djavadi Asll Hamidreza 1967 Djavadi Asll Kian 2002 Ebnoddin Hamidi Ardalan 1971 Ebnoddin Hamidi Kamyar 2004 Ebrahim Niloufar 1985 Ebrahimi Khoei Behnaz 1974 Eghbali Bazoft Shahrokh 1960 Eghbali Bazoft Shahzad 2011 Eghbalian Parisa 1977 Elyasi Mohammad Mahdi 1991 Emami Sayedmahdi 1959 Emami Sophie 2014 Eshaghian Dorcheh Mehdi 1995 Esmaeilion Reera 2010 Esnaashary Esfahani Mansour 1990 Faghihi Sharieh 1961 Falsafi Faezeh 1973 Falsafi Faraz 1988 Farzaneh Aida 1986 Feghahati Shakiba 1980 Foroutan Marzieh 1982 Ghaderpanah Iman 1985 Ghaderpanah Parinaz 1986 Ghafouri Azar Siavash 1984 Ghandchi Daniel 2011 Ghandchi Dorsa 2003 Ghasemi Ariani Milad 1987 Ghasemi Dastjerdi Fatemeh 1994 Ghasemi Amirhossein 1987 Ghasemi Kiana 2000 Ghavi Mandieh 1999 Ghavi Masoumeh 1989 Gholami Farideh 1981 Ghorbani Bahabadi A 1998 Golbabapour Suzan 1970 Gorji Pouneh 1994 Haghjoo Saharnaz 1982 Hajesfandiari Bahareh 1978 Hajiaghavand Sadaf 1992 Hajighassemi Mandieh 1981 Hamzeei Sara 1986 Hasani/sadi Zahra 1994 Hashemi Shanrzad 1974 Hassannezhad Parsa 2003 Hatefi Mostaghim Sahan 1987 Hayatdavoudi Hadis 1992 Jadidi Elsa 2011 Jadidi Pedran 1991 Jamshidi Shadi 1988 Jebelli Mohammaddam 1990 Kadkhoda Zaden Mohammaddam 1979 Kadkhodazaden Kasha 1990 Karamimoghadam Bahareh 1986 Katebi Rahimen 1999 Kaveh Azaden 1979 Kazerani Fatemeh 1987 Khadem Forough 1981 Kobiuk Olga 1958 Lindberg Emil 2012 Lindberg Erik 2010 Lindberg Raheleh 1982 Lindberg Mikael 1979 Madani Firouzeh 1965 Maghsoudlouestarabadi Siavash 1976 Maghsoudlouesterabadi Paria 2004 Mahmoodi Fatemeh 1989 Malakhova Olena 1981 Malek Maryam 1979 Maleki Dizaje Fereshteh 1972 Mamani Sara 1983 Mianji Mohammadjavad 1992 Moeini Mohammad 1984 Moghaddam Rosstin 2010 Mohammadi Mehdi 1999 Molani Hiva 1981 Molani Kurdia 2018 Moradi Amir 1998 Morattab Arvin 1984 Moshrefrazavimoghaddam Soheila 1964 Mousavi Daria 2005 Mousavi Dorina 2010 Mousavibafrooei Pedram 1972 Nabiyi Elnaz 1989 Naderi Farzahen 1981 Naghibi Zahra 1975 Naghib Lahouti Mehr 1987 Nahavandi Milad 1985 Niazi Arnica 2011 Niazi Arsan 2008 Niknam Farhad 1975 Norouzi Alireza 2008 Nourian Ghazal 1993 Oladi Alma 1992 Omidbakhsh Roja 1996 Ovaysi Amir Hossein 1978 Ovaysi Asal 2013 Pasavand Fatemeh 2002 Pey Alireza 1972 Pourghaderi Ayeshe 1983 Pourjam Mansour 1966 Pourshabanoshibi Naser 1966 Pourzarabi Arash 1993 Raana Shahab 1983 Rahimi Jiwan 2016 Rahimi Razgar 1981 Rahmanifar Nasim 1994 Razzaghi Khamsi Ni 1974 Rezai Mahdi 2000 Rezae Hossain 1999 Saadat Saba 1998 Saadat Sara 1996 Saadat Zeinolabedin 1990 Saati Kasra 1972 Sadeghi Alvand 1990 Sadeghi Anisa 2009 Sadeghi Mirmohammad 1976 Sadeghi Sahand 1980 Sadighi Neda 1969 Sadr Niloufar 1958 Sadr Seyednoojan 2008 Saeedinia Amirhosse 1994 Safarpoorkoloor Pe 1999 Saket Mohammadhosse 1986 Salahi Moh 1988 Saleheh Mohammad 1987 Saraeian Sajedeh 1993 Setareh Kokab Hamid 1988 Shadkhoo Sheyda 1978 Shaterpour Khiaban 1988 Soltani Paniz 1991 Tahmasebi Khademasa 1984 Tajik Mahdi 1999 Tajik Shahram 1998 Tarbhai Afifa 1964 Tarbha Alina 1988 Toghian Darya 1997 Zarei Arad 2002 Zibaie Maya 2004 Zokaei Sam 1977

Data from Flightradar24, a website that tracks aircraft, indicates the Ukrainian airliner crashed roughly two minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport bound for Kyiv just after 6 a.m. local time. The plane reached about 8,000 feet in altitude.

About four hours earlier, Iran launched 15 ballistic missiles against bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq.

According to Iraq’s military, the missiles landed between 1:45 and 2:15 a.m. local time. No Americans have been reported injured or killed in that attack, U.S. officials say.

The Ukrainian Embassy in Tehran initially said in a statement on its website that the crash of the Ukrainian airliner probably was not caused by a terrorist attack or a missile.

However, the embassy subsequently retracted that statement and now says it isn’t clear what caused the crash.

Ukrainian International Airlines announced it was suspending all flights to Tehran “until further notice.” The Ukrainian Aviation Administration banned all flights in Iranian airspace.

The Boeing 737-800 aircraft that went down was delivered direct to Ukraine International Airlines from the manufacturer in 2016. The aircraft had no known mechanical faults and had passed an inspection Jan. 6, Ukrainian officials said.

The single-aisle Boeing 737-800 is an earlier model of the 737-MAX aircraft, which was grounded after two fatal crashes last year. The 737-800 does not carry the flawed anti-stall software deemed responsible for the MAX crashes.

Some U.S. aviation experts initially were skeptical about the possibility that Iranian air defenses may have brought down the Ukrainian airliner, mistaking it for an American warplane.

However, the timing of the Ukrainian airliner’s crash just hours after the Iranian missile strike into neighboring Iraq has raised questions about why civilian aircraft were still flying from Tehran’s international airport Wednesday morning, given that Iran’s air defense network was certainly on high alert for U.S. retaliatory airstrikes.

Before Wednesday, some airlines already had canceled flights into both Iranian and Iraqi airspace due to escalated military tensions between Washington and Tehran. According to Ukrainian news reports, though, other airlines such as Turkish Airlines, Pegasus, AtlasGlobal, and Qatar Airlines all had continued flights into Tehran after Iran launched the missiles.

According to multiple independent investigations, a Russian BUK surface-to-air missile, operated by a Russian military crew, shot down the Boeing 777 airliner, killing all 298 passengers and crew onboard. That incident increased worldwide restrictions on civilian airliners flying near active combat areas.

Iran’s missile attack marked the latest escalation of a monthslong, tit-for-tat military standoff between Iran and the U.S.

On Dec. 27, Iran’s proxy militants in Iraq attacked a U.S. military base in the country, killing an American contractor. Following a retaliatory U.S. airstrike, Iran-backed protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Full summary here.

That Russian Spy Ship is Back to Lurking off our Coast

Posted on by

The speculation for this ship is:

There are new indications that the spying target this time also included SpaceX’s space launch capability.

On Monday, the private space launch company founded by tech entrepreneur Elon Musk conducted the 13th successful launch of its Falcon 9 booster from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The launcher placed a communications satellite into orbit and then returned to Earth by landing on a barge in the Atlantic eight minutes later.

Analysts speculate that the ship may have been observing the launch to gather data that could benefit reusable Russian space launchers.

U.S. Northern Command and the Coast Guard have been tracking a Russian spy ship equipped with electronic surveillance gear that has been lurking off the East Coast of the United States.

On Monday, the Coast Guard sent out a Maritime Safety Information Bulletin warning boaters of reports of the Viktor Leonov operating in an “unsafe manner” off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia.

On Tuesday, the Coast Guard said the Russian ship was operating in USCG’s Jacksonville, Florida, area of responsibility, which encompasses roughly 40,000 square miles of ocean and stretches nearly 190 miles of coast from Kings Bay, Georgia, to Port Malabar, Florida.

“This unsafe operation includes not energizing running lights while in reduced visibility conditions, not responding to hails by commercial vessels attempting to coordinate safe passage and other erratic movements,” the Coast Guard posted on its bulletin.

“Vessels transiting these waters should maintain a sharp lookout and use extreme caution when navigating in proximity to this vessel. Mariners should make reports of any unsafe situations to the United States Coast Guard,” the Coast Guard said in its safety message.

Adm. James Foggo III, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and U.S. Naval Forces Africa, told reporters Dec. 18 that the Russian spy ship was operating a “couple hundred” miles off the East Coast.

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command told Military Times that they were tracking the Russian ship.

“We are aware of Russia’s naval activities, including the deployment of these intelligence collection ships in the region,” Maj. Mark R. Lazane, a spokesman with NORTHCOM, told Military Times in an emailed statement.

Image result for Russian warship Viktor Leonov

It’s not the first time the Viktor Leonov has conducted intelligence operations off the East Coast off the U.S.

In 2017, the Pentagon announced the Leonov was being trailed by a Coast Guard vessel but was operating in international waters.

“They routinely deploy intelligence vessels worldwide to monitor the activities and particularly naval activities of other nations, but then again conducted lawfully in international waters and not unlike operations we conduct ourselves,” Davis said in 2017 about the Leonov operating near the East Coast of the U.S.

Foggo said that the Coast Guard reported that the Russian ship was not responding to signals or “bridge to bridge” radio communications and was running without lights on at sea.

Those actions, Foggo said Wednesday, are risky. More here.

This ship is part of Project 864. The Project 864, also known as the Vishnya and Meridian, is an electronic surveillance and intelligence gathering ship built by Stocznia Polnocna shipyard in Gdansk (Poland) for the Soviet Union’s Navy in the 1980s. The ship’s capabilities are built around the Communication Intelligence (COMINT) and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) concepts. The Project 864 are equipped with two satellite communications antennas inside a radome. The propulsion system consists of two diesel engines developing 4,400-bhp and a top speed of 16 knots. The Project 864 weapon system is intended to counter airborne threats using two AK-630 30mm guns and two SA-N-8 surface-to-air missile systems. The Russian Navy operates seven Meridian-class vessels to be replaced by the Project 18280 intelligence ship by 2020.