'Aggressive and erratic' Russian fighter jet barrel-rolls within 15m of US plane

[Penguin]

American submarines trying to enter the Area-based SSBNs that are inside the territorial waters of Russia. often it comes to physical contact and prevention of discharges of depth charges. There were cases of battering ram, when the protection of submarine squeezed Americans from the area of action of SSBNs.
Add to this that the American ships come close to the Russian bases, less than 60 km away.
Permanent mission of scouts from the Russian border. Permanent military aircraft escorting Russian leaders. Therefore, now all the leadership of Russia, accompanied by flying the Su-27. The last case was recently.
For a long time the Americans did not fulfill its obligations. And oniyavlyayutsya violators of these agreements.

Chinese navy ships sailed into US territorial waters off Alaska. You don't see the US go bonkers over that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-military-idUSKCN0R22DN20150902

Territorial waters extend 12nmi from coast i.e. 22km. That is where defence is allowed. However, it is not autimatic, as there are many instances in which it is perfectly legal and legitimate for a navy ship of one nation to be in or pass through the trerritorial waters of another. However, there are certain rules that the ship would need to adhere to in terms of e.g. use of radars, use of helicopters etc. This is all outlines in treaties. There is no internationally recognized treaty from which one can derive the claim that navy ships cannot come closer than 60km from someone's coast. Besides, in the case of the USS Cook, the ship was 70nmi i.e. 130km from Russia's coast, in waters that are at best 193km wide. That is to say, two thirds of the way to closer to Sweden than to Kaliningrad Oblast.

I would like to see those claims about US submarines documented, and given a data and place. For all I know, you are referring to Cold War era exploits. We are discussing current times. And as for submarines, recently a Russian SSBN turned intelligence boat was discovered near UK and near French coast (in the latter case, near French base of nuclear submarines).
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160310/russian-subs-and-fighter-jets-doing-off-the-french-coast
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-submarine-france-idUSKCN0WC23T
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russian-ballistic-missile-sub-spotted-french-coast-15463

Your video shows a passenger carrying aircraft being escorted by a Su-27 and has some footage of a Typhoon flying along too. The Typhoon is flying in formation while keeping ample distance and it is not making any reckless or sudden moves.
There is no narration with the video. The translation of the caption in Russian reads "NATO fighters accompanied Sergei Shoigu plane over neutral waters of the Baltic Sea", which they might well do to insure Sergei's as well as their own safety. On the youtube page of this footage is also states "On the way to Kaliningrad over neutral waters of the Baltic Russian aircraft Su-27 Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Defence of Russia in addition accompanied by NATO fighters Eurofighter, flying in the 2 km away from the board." That's a very safe distance. Besides, Russia can't very well claim 'neutral water of the Baltic Sea' in one case and then pretend 70nmi offshore from Kaliningrad Oblast is somehow 'in Russian waters' or 'near Russian coast' and 'intimidating'. That's not a very consistent line to pull, wouldn't you say? But perhaps that's just how RT reports.

https:// www.youtube.com / watch?v=bnVdvgyh-a0&feature=youtu.be

Again, wrt aircraft and ships, the point is NOT that intercepts are made. This goes on between all nations. That is the job of the military. The point is the manner in which they are made. 30 successive low passes a.k.a. simulated attack runs is simply unnecessary. Passing below bridge level at less than 100ft of a ship is unnecessary, not to mention dangerous. Doing a barrel roll over an RC-135, or cutting across its flight path, is unnecessary and dangerous. All this well of the Russian BALTIC SEA coast (and the Baltic has very little room for manouvre). It increases the chances of accidents and of escalation. Often, in recent times, intercepted Russian aircraft have not given or deviated from given flight plans and have failed to communicate and/or switched of transponders, while entering or crossing areas used for commercial flight. That too is dangerous. And we all know that since 9/11, knowing who is approach in your skies (and being able to do something about it) has become more important than ever.

 

[phantomrush]

Chinese navy ships sailed into US territorial waters off Alaska. You don't see the US go bonkers over that. Territorial waters extend 12nmi from coast i.e. 22km. That is where defence is allowed. However, there are many instances in which it is perfectly legal and legitimate for a navy ship of one nation to be in or pass through the trerritorial waters of another. However, there are certain rules that the ship would need to adhere to in terms of e.g. use of radars, use of helicopters etc. This is all outlines in treaties. There is no internationally recognized treaty from which one can derive the claim that navy ships cannot come closer than 60km from someone's coast. Besides, in the case of the USS Cook, the ship was 70nmi i.e. 130km from Russia's coast, in waters that are at best 193km wide. That is to say, two thirds of the way to closer to Sweden than to Kaliningrad Oblast.

I would like to see those claims about US submarines documented, and given a data and place. For all I know, you are referring to Cold War era exploits. We are discussing current times. And as for submarines, recently a Russian SSBN turned intelligence boat was discovered near UK and near French coast (in the latter case, near French base of nuclear submarines).
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160310/russian-subs-and-fighter-jets-doing-off-the-french-coast
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-submarine-france-idUSKCN0WC23T
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russian-ballistic-missile-sub-spotted-french-coast-15463

Again, wrt aircraft and ships, the point is NOT that intercepts are made. This goes on between all nations. That is the job of the military. The point is the manner in which they are made. 30 successive low passes a.k.a. simulated attack runs is simply unnecessary. Passing below bridge level at less than 100ft of a ship is unnecessary, not to mention dangerous. Doing a barrel roll over an RC-135, or cutting across its flight path, is unnecessary and dangerous. All this well of the Russian BALTIC SEA coast (and the Baltic has very little room for manouvre). It increases the chances of accidents and of escalation. Often, in recent times, intercepted Russian aircraft have not given or deviated from given flight plans and have failed to communicate and/or switched of transponders, while entering or crossing areas used for commercial flight. That too is dangerous. And we all know that since 9/11, knowing who is approach in your skies (and being able to do something about it) has become more important than ever.

ordinary territorial waters is a trifle, to which no one will respond.
American submarine is in area-based SSBNs invade. Those. in places where the on duty 955 and 667BDRM. Just trying to invade the ranges where weapons are tested.

 

[Penguin]

ordinary territorial waters is a trifle, to which no one will respond.
American submarine is in area-based SSBNs invade. Those. in places where the on duty 955 and 667BDRM. Just trying to invade the ranges where weapons are tested.

Territorial waters are the (internationally agreed) law. And then there is the contiguous zone and the EEZ. For each of which (iinternationally agreed) treaties spell out what behaviours are and are not appropriate, for both 'owner' and 'visitor'. Russia is a signatory, and has at least an significant ecomic interest in a stable international environment in which its trade can take place (any political muscle rolling notwithstanding).

Again, you claim something, without backing your claim up. For example, have there been any official Russian complaints about this? If so, what has been the US response? Is there any other supporting evidence e.g. interviews with or statements from servicemen? Sonar registrations? Pictures of damage to boats? Can you date and place any incidents, has anybody else attempted to do so and, if so, with what level of credibility?

Really, at this point, it comes back to not what navies or air forces do (their tasks), but how they do it (their professionalism). Unnecessary risk of accidents and escalation should be avoided.

Of course, what Russia does e.g. buzzing ships or barrel rolling primarily has propaganda ratyher than military value ("look what we do, and they can't do anything back"), which is kind of a silly way of risking the lives of your own and others' servicemen. After all, it is not that an Arleigh Burke can't handle a couple of Soviet-era Su-24 and a Ka-27 all by itself.

 

[Boss Dragun]

Russia will be responsible of 3rd world war.

nah they won't. i'm currently staying in Russia and i can say they are all good people.

 

[phantomrush]

Territorial waters are the (internationally agreed) law. And then there is the contiguous zone and the EEZ. For each of which (iinternationally agreed) treaties spell out what behaviours are and are not appropriate, for both 'owner' and 'visitor'. Russia is a signatory, and has at least an significant ecomic interest in a stable international environment in which its trade can take place (any political muscle rolling notwithstanding).

Again, you claim something, without backing your claim up. For example, have there been any official Russian complaints about this? If so, what has been the US response? Is there any other supporting evidence e.g. interviews with or statements from servicemen? Sonar registrations? Pictures of damage to boats? Can you date and place any incidents, has anybody else attempted to do so and, if so, with what level of credibility?

Really, at this point, it comes back to not what navies or air forces do (their tasks), but how they do it (their professionalism). Unnecessary risk of accidents and escalation should be avoided.

Of course, what Russia does e.g. buzzing ships or barrel rolling primarily has propaganda ratyher than military value ("look what we do, and they can't do anything back"), which is kind of a silly way of risking the lives of your own and others' servicemen. After all, it is not that an Arleigh Burke can't handle a couple of Soviet-era Su-24 and a Ka-27 all by itself.

Because how do you prove that an American nuclear submarine? Or BatonRuzh, it had to take a battering ram? What we did in '92, when she monitored the 945 Barakudda. Under the water you can not prove it. If from the air, from the sea, you can take a picture, then under the water you do not do.
It is known and the Americans, and Russian. Therefore, the demonstration flight a continuation of the struggle,

http://rg.ru/2014/08/09/podlodka-site.html
the first link in Google

 

[Penguin]

Because how do you prove that an American nuclear submarine? Or BatonRuzh, it had to take a battering ram? What we did in '92, when she monitored the 945 Barakudda. Under the water you can not prove it. If from the air, from the sea, you can take a picture, then under the water you do not do.
It is known and the Americans, and Russian. Therefore, the demonstration flight a continuation of the struggle,

http://rg.ru/2014/08/09/podlodka-site.html
the first link in Google

Was there ever a formal protest by the government of the Russian Federation?

 

[damm1t]

nah they won't. i'm currently staying in Russia and i can say they are all good people.

Nations are ok dude, politics suck. Difference is huge.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Because how do you prove that an American nuclear submarine? Or BatonRuzh, it had to take a battering ram? What we did in '92, when she monitored the 945 Barakudda. Under the water you can not prove it. If from the air, from the sea, you can take a picture, then under the water you do not do.
It is known and the Americans, and Russian. Therefore, the demonstration flight a continuation of the struggle,

http://rg.ru/2014/08/09/podlodka-site.html
the first link in Google

If You cannot prove it, You simply don't make the accusation.
That is how a professional works.

 

[phantomrush]

Was there ever a formal protest by the government of the Russian Federation?

for what?
You have a childlike mind) These notes nobody cares, they are made to "show", which would then show on TV in the United States or the Russian Federation.

If You cannot prove it, You simply don't make the accusation.
That is how a professional works.

Indeed, it is better as the Swedes, screaming like a stuck pig all over the world, that they swim in the waters of the submarine.
And then it turns out that there was not a submarine.
This is a very professionally.
Or as the French, to detect a submarine in the Bay of Biscay, although it is at that time was based. Very, very professionally.

 

[Penguin]

http://rg.ru/2014/08/09/podlodka-site.html

See also:
US Submarine expelled from the Russian border waters in the Barents Sea
Submarine "Novorossiysk" will give the Russian Navy August 22
Submarines "Prince Oleg" and "Krasnoyarsk" will become the foundation of the Russian Navy


Wait, who is sailing!
Text: Yuri Gavrilov
08.10.2014 00:50 Category: Army
Rossiyskaya Gazeta - Federal release №6451 (179)

Expelled a foreign submarine in the Barents Sea

One of the main news today was the news that the border waters of Russia expelled a foreign submarine. This information is in the afternoon gave the agency with reference to a senior representative of the Main Staff of the Navy.

It was reported that on 7 August on duty forces of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea has been detected foreign submarine - presumably class "Virginia," the US Navy. In the area of its possible location for finding and tracking immediately sent to the ship's anti-submarine battle group. Detection alien submarine air crew engaged in anti-IL-38.

"Active actions of anti-submarine forces of the Northern Fleet submarine was "squeezed out" of the Russian Federation's border waters - news quoted a source in the Command of the Navy, and clarified that the contact with the submarine lasted about 27 minutes, after which she left the area.

This kind of news, where as a source of information serves an anonymous representative of the army or navy command, raise doubts as to their authenticity. To test how this message is true, the correspondent "RG" called the Ministry of Defense. The press-service management and information department confirmed that the incident with a foreign submarine actually took place in the Barents Sea. However, elaborate operations conducted there management staff for obvious reasons did not. Their methods of search in the sea of foreign submarines and methods of their removal from the fleet area of responsibility did not disclose in any military department. It is - absolutely closed to prying eyes and ears of the information.

However, it is known that such incidents happen often with submarines. Do not they just been far from Russian shores, including in the Barents Sea. Moreover, there is the appearance of foreign submarines sometimes ended with emergencies. For example, in 1992, at the outlet of the Kola Bay nuclear submarine of the US Navy, "Baton Rouge" collided with the submarine of the Northern Fleet K-276. Six years earlier, the British military icebreaker "Splendid" is
not sold under the water with the ballistic missile submarine of the Northern Fleet. If we remember the tragic incident with the submarine SF "Kursk" in 2000, then as one of the versions it was then called a possible collision with the ship of our nuclear submarine of the US Navy, "Toledo".

As for the incident last Thursday, August 7th, in the opinion of some experts, it is indicative of activation of the US and NATO against the Russian Northern Fleet intelligence work. Former commander of the Northern Fleet, a member of the Marine Board of the Government of Russia Vyacheslav Popov told RIA Novosti that "tracking submarines the US Navy over the actions of the Russian Navy is traditional. It has not changed since Soviet times, times the intensity of
their actions was reduced, but now we can talk to increase the activity of the ships and submarines of NATO, including the United States, the Russian banks. " The Admiral said that, despite repeated offers from the Soviet and Russian leaders to conclude an agreement on the avoidance of incidents under water, Americans still refuses. "The US does not want to take on the obligations related to this contract, and that is what motivated their actions near the
Russian coast," - Popov said.
© 1998-2016 FGBU
"Revision" Rossiyskaya Gazeta "

http://rg.ru/2014/08/09/podlodka-site.html

A few remarks:

• A nuclear sub was apparently detected but it is not certain it was a US boat.

• The Barentz Sea is a rather large area (1,400,000 km2, as compared to 377,000 km2 for the Baltic Sea). Not all of the Barentz Sea is Russian territory or even in its 200nmi EEZ. And not all of the EEZ is undisputed e.g. with Norway.

• The article states a sub was 'in Russian border waters' but doesn't give any indication of distance from Russian shore. We can assume that territorial waters are meant, but we cannot rule out that EEZ is meant.

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/barentssea.htm

EEZs in the Area

http://www.eurodialogue.eu/energy-security/Priorities-of Russia-Arctic-policy

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/det...cean-maritime-delimitation-and-disputes_e19c#

• UNCLOS SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS COULD APPLY.
  • Article 17 (Right of innocent passage) states "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea."
    
  • Article 19 (Meaning of innocent passage): "1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
    • (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
      
    • (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
      
    • (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
      
    • (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
      
    • (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
      
    • (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
      
    • (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
    • (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
      
    • (i) any fishing activities;
      
    • (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
    • (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
      
    • (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
  • UNCLOS states in Article 20 (Submarines and other underwater vehicles) "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag."

• So, one needs to show passage is not innocent - which is not evident from the russian report - and UNCLOS doesn't state subs can't be in territorial waters: they just need to surface when coming within 22km of coastal state shore. A ship may be require to leave but that's about the extent of it.

• The sub was 'engaged' by an Il-38 and, with the help of the ships of a 'ASW battle group', it was expelled from, 'squeezed out' of 'border waters'. Now, I hope there are some members here that have a better understandingh of ASW than I have, and who can shed some light, but I personally do not know of any method of expelling a submerged nuclear submarine from an area, short of ramming it or shooting it. In peacetime, neither is an option AFAIK. I suggest the submarine left of its own account, having noted it had been detected.

• The former commander of the Northern Fleet and member of the Marine Board of the Government of Russia, Vyacheslav Popov, made clear this was a routine occurance. There is no hint or suggestion by him that anything untoward occurred, on either side.

• The Admiral's remark that "despite repeated offers from the Soviet and Russian leaders to conclude an agreement on the avoidance of incidents under water, Americans still refuse" conflicts the facts. See the 1972 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Soviet Socialist Republic on the Prevention of Incidents on and over the High Seas. ( http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4791.htm )

• The article mentions 3 prior incidents: Colission Baton Rouge/K-276 in Kolsky Bay (1992), SSN Splendid looses her towed array (1987) and sinking of the Kursk (2000).
  • On February 11, 1992, the Kostroma - then still named K-276 Crab - collided with the USS Baton Rouge. The Baton Rouge was damaged (as was the Crab/Kostroma) and was eventually deactivated in 1993. The crew of the K-276 painted the number "1" bordered by a star on the sail, as did Soviet submarines during World War II to indicate the number of their victories. IMHO that suggests they - the Russians - viewed it as a kill, i.e. a deliberate act on their part.
  • On 1 january 1987, SSN HMS Splendid looses its towed array sonar system during a close encounter with a Soviet submarine in the Barents Sea off Murmansk. The submarine was reportedly a Soviet Typhoon class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. It is unclear whether the Soviet submarine severed the Splendid's tow-line accidentally or deliberately in an effort to obtain the sensitive technology. Doesn't sound to me like the Splendid did anything to the far larger Russian SSBN (a towed array is towed at the rear, and I doubt a sub towing such an array would deliberately cross close to the bow of another submarine).
  • HMS Splendid was present, along with the US Navy submarines the USS Memphis and the USS Toledo at the Russian war games in 2000 during which the Russian submarine Kursk exploded and sank, resulting in the loss of that submarine and all 118 sailors and officers on board. Despite the conclusions of independent forensic inquiries and the eventual corroborating admission by the Russian Navy that the explosion was triggered by a faulty torpedo on board the Kursk, various conspiracy theories posit that Kursk was actually sunk by one of the US or British submarines. This may partly stem from the Russian Navy's initial attempts to shunt away criticism of its failed efforts to rescue the surviving crew members from the ocean floor and of the generally poor condition of its own equipment, which was eventually found to be the cause of both the sinking and the failure of the Russian rescue attempts. In the days immediately after the explosion, Russia suggested that the cause of the disaster was a collision with one of the US or British submarines present. Though the accusation proved to be unfounded, conspiracy theorists have picked up on and elaborated it in various directions over time.
  • In short, while it is suggested that western submarines caused these incidents, the reality is somewhat more complex and/or different.

for what?
You have a childlike mind) These notes nobody cares, they are made to "show", which would then show on TV in the United States or the Russian Federation.

Indeed, it is better as the Swedes, screaming like a stuck pig all over the world, that they swim in the waters of the submarine.
And then it turns out that there was not a submarine.
This is a very professionally.
Or as the French, to detect a submarine in the Bay of Biscay, although it is at that time was based. Very, very professionally.

Oh really. Look, there is no need for personal insults. You either discuss maturely or get reported. I've been polite. So can you be.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

for what?
You have a childlike mind) These notes nobody cares, they are made to "show", which would then show on TV in the United States or the Russian Federation.


Indeed, it is better as the Swedes, screaming like a stuck pig all over the world, that they swim in the waters of the submarine.
And then it turns out that there was not a submarine.
This is a very professionally.
Or as the French, to detect a submarine in the Bay of Biscay, although it is at that time was based. Very, very professionally.

Nope, we found enough evidence to show that a submarine was there, including tracks on the sea floor,
and also sensor data of various kinds.
Several of the sightings was shown to have other explanations.

The previous incident of course was harder to explain away by the U.S.S.R.
Pity, the crew was so drunk, so they didn't notice Sweden in front of them,
until the sub was stuck on top of a small island.

 

[Freyja]

Pity, the crew was so drunk, so they didn't notice Sweden in front of them.

This happens to every Norwegian at least once... a week.

So I'm kind of sympathetic to the Russian submariners.

Several of the sightings was shown to have other explanations.

Didn't the search also turn up a Som-Class submarine that'd sunk in 1916?

*Som is the Russian version of the US Plunger Class.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

This happens to every Norwegian at least once... a week.

So I'm kind of sympathetic to the Russian submariners.



Didn't the search also turn up a Som-Class submarine that'd sunk in 1916?

*Som is the Russian version of the US Plunger Class.

Yes, that as well but that did not cause any diplomatic activity, after it was identified, LOL.

 

[Penguin]

Other accounts of the 2014 incident, in English, from Russian media:
https://www.rt.com/news/179216-us-submarine-russian-waters/
https://02varvara.wordpress.com/tag/hms-splendid/
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20140...rces-US-Submarine-Out-of-Boundary-Waters.html

Interesting related reads:
http://iainballantyne.com/hunter-killer-submarines-iceberg-collision-is-a-case-of-deja-vu/
http://www.skeptictank.org/treasure/GP5/SOVNUK.TXT

The previous incident of course was harder to explain away by the U.S.S.R.
Pity, the crew was so drunk, so they didn't notice Sweden in front of them,
until the sub was stuck on top of a small island.

View attachment 301401

Whisky on the Rocks!

Russian: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Swede: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Russian: This is the Captain of a Red Fleet ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Swede: No. I say again, YOU divert YOUR course.
Russian: This is the submarine S-363. We are accompanied by two destroyers, a frigate and two missile corvettes. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Swede: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

 

[Penguin]

Russia: U.S. warship in Baltic waters a military provocation
By Ed Adamczyk

| April 21, 2016

BRUSSELS, April 21 (UPI) -- A Russian diplomat was critical of the presence of a U.S. warship in the Baltic Sea, which he said provoked flyovers by Russian military aircraft last week.

After a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday between NATO and Russian representatives -- the first in nearly two years -- Alexander Grushko, Russian ambassador to NATO, referred to the presence of the destroyer USS Donald Cook in waters near Kaliningrad as a provocation. Kaliningrad is a non-contiguous enclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania and the site of several Russian military bases.

"First and foremost, I'd like to stress the full compliance with international law of the actions of Russian fighter jets. Still, the key issue is what the Donald Cook was doing so close to Kaliningrad. Could anyone possibly suppose that a destroyer fitted out with 2,500-kilometer [1,553-mile] range cruise missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads, might be cruising in the waters off New York? This wasn't military activity proper but rather an attempt to exert pressure on Russia," Grushko said.

The same thing can be asked of the two russian Kilo submarines and single Lada submarine (all equipped with - or at least capable of launching - the 1,500–2,500 km 3M14K cruise missile that we've come to know so well from being fired from the Caspian Sea at Syria recently, which can have either a 500 kg conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead) that are part of the Baltic Fleet.

Essentially, the implication would be that the USN can't visit e.g. Kiel (Germany, member of NATO, EU), Copenhagen (Denmark, member of NATO, EU), Gdansk (Poland, member of NATO, EU), Malmo or Stockholm (Sweden, member of EU), Vasa or Helsinki (Finland, member of EU), Tallin (Estonia, member of NATO, EU), and Riga (Latvia, member of NATO, EU) with anything but its smallest main surface combattants, the LCSs, since these aren't capable of launching Tomahawks.

Moreover, it would mean the US also couldn't sail a Burke or Tico e.g. off the Atlantic coast of Norway, in the Norwegian Sea and large parts of the Barentz Sea and the North Sea. It would also rules out large swaths of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea as well as the Persian Gulf. Not to mention the Bering Sea and the Arctic Sea / Chukchi Sea, both off Alaska.

There simply is no legal basis for this.

Incidentally, there is no way the Russians can determine from the outside whether a Burke or a Ticonderoga actually has Tomahawks in its Mk41 VLUs, or whether these happen to be nuclear armed. If indeed the USN still retains nuclear warhead equipped Tomahawks (as is suggested, but contrary to public information).

Tomahawk variants:

• BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Nuclear (TLAM-A) with a W80 thermonuclear weapon. Retired from service sometime between 2010 and 2013
  
• RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s.
• BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Conventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead. This was initially a modified Bullpup warhead.
• BGM-109D Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Dispenser (TLAM-D) with cluster munitions.
• RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM Block IV) – improved version of the TLAM-C.
• BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) – with a W84 nuclear warhead; withdrawn from service in 1991.
• AGM-109H/L Medium Range Air to Surface Missile (MRASM) – a shorter range, turbojet powered ASM with cluster munitions ; never entered service, cost US$569,000 (1999).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Variants

BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile in nuclear submarine-, surface ship-, and ground-launched models, nuclear models out of service but warheads kept in reserve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#United_States

In short: no nuclear tipped cruise missiles on any Burke or Ticonderoga, while Russia itself operates 3M14K from its ships and submarines.

In sum: a load of cow manure!