Europe at War

[71 dB]

Yeah, the Russians would build a warship which couldn't stand rough weather. Sure, I believe that!

Due to the changes in political climate, Russian army is experiencing unexpected "extreme weather conditions" caused by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

[drogulus]

     

That raises some questions, see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61103927

The Slava-class cruiser was the third largest vessel in Russia's active fleet and one of its most heavily defended assets, naval expert Jonathan Bentham from the International Institute for Strategic Studies told the BBC.

The cruiser was equipped with a triple-tiered air defence system that if operating properly should have given it three opportunities to defend itself from a Neptune missile attack.

In addition to medium- and short-range defences, it could engage six short-range close-in weapon systems (CIWS) as a last resort.

Mr Bentham said Moskva should have had 360-degree anti-air defence coverage.

"The CIWS system can fire 5,000 rounds in a minute, essentially creating a wall of flak around the cruiser, its last line of defence," he said.

If the strike is proven to have come from a missile it "raises questions over the capabilities of the modernisation of the Russian surface fleet: whether it had enough ammunition, whether it had engineering issues".

"Essentially, you'd have thought that with that three-tiered anti-air defence system it would be very hard to hit," the military expert added.

     This is very good information about the Moskva, which was designed to sink a US aircraft carrier with it's Sandbox supersonic cruise missiles, and for fleet defense against air and missile attack. I suspect the Ukes found a way to jam the radars, possibly with the assistance of a country that is good at stuff like that, and has people on the ground that are simultaneously not there.
     

[Karl Henning]

Russia last night used some of its remaining cruise missiles to hit a factory in Kyiv that produces anti-ship missiles in apparent retaliation for the accidental fire that sank their flagship.

Darn that stormy weather, anyway!

[drogulus]

     Cap is shocked by what happened to the Moskva.

     https://www.youtube.com/v/Bxwh6MGLJNc&t

     

[LKB]

It is possible that the proximate cause of Moskva's sinking really was the weather, even if the ultimate cause was Ukrainian fire.

Any vessel with significant battle damage will require ongoing damage control until it can reach a safe haven. The fact that the crew was mostly evacuated suggests that the Russian naval command decided the vessel was doomed, and decided to let the sea take her. That way, they save face just a bit.

[MusicTurner]

Pentagon now confirming the two missiles causing it to sink story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/

From what I've seen, there was not much wind (14 km/h) at the time of the alleged going down. Haven't checked myself though. Also, apparently there was a storm at the time of the attack (like in Drogulus' video, that however doesn't deal with the drone decoy theories).

Stories about possible nuclear missiles on board have receded, it seems.

[Herman]

Still I see no reason for open glee at these humiliations of Russia prowess.

The more they fail the harder they will bomb.

[Karl Henning]

Still I see no reason for open glee at these humiliations of Russia prowess.

The more they fail the harder they will bomb.

I see it, rather, as exultation in Ukrainian success. Not sure what your objection there would be.

if we take that to [one] logical conclusion, Putin deploying nukes is just a matter of time, if Ukraine continues to resist successfully.

So, what would you prefer? What do you suggest instead?

[drogulus]

     The captain of the Moskva, who was the commander of the Russian Black Sea fleet, was killed during the explosion and fire on the ship.

[Herman]

I see it, rather, as exultation in Ukrainian success. Not sure what your objection there would be.

if we take that to [one] logical conclusion, Putin deploying nukes is just a matter of time, if Ukraine continues to resist successfully.

So, what would you prefer? What do you suggest instead?

My suggestion is keep winning without globally humiliating Putin / Russia.

[Que]

My suggestion is keep winning without globally humiliating Putin / Russia.

You seem to assume Ukraine can win without Putin feeling deeply humiliated. I personally doubt if there is a "safe" level of humiliation. And yes, that raises the important question what Putin is going to do when he has to acknowledge that defeat is inevitable. A dangerous moment.

Some commentators doubt the military necessity of sinking the Moskva, others point out that the flagship of the Black Sea fleet was its command centre and that without it a (successful) amphibious assault on Odessa is now very unlikely.

Also, the sinking of the ship and the loss of a large part of its crew was impossible to hide from the Russian public. Which IMO is a significant win in the information war. Note that the new recruits - canon fodder - for the renewed attack on Ukraine are purposely drawn from areas as far away from the European part of Russia as possible. For obvious reasons...

I'm not a military strategist, but it seems to me that if Ukraine wants to win in the south - the more damage to the Russian fleet, the better.

[Madiel]

You seem to assume Ukraine can win without Putin feeling deeply humiliated. I personally doubt if there is a "safe" level of humiliation.

Agreed. We are arguably already at the point where the win is not as easy as Russia anticipated. An outright failure would be pretty disastrous.

[Que]

Finland and Sweden take major step towards joining Nato


Russia Warns of 'Consequences' if Finland, Sweden Join NATO


So, should Sweden and Finland be kept out of NATO as not to aggrivate Putin any further?

[Madiel]

A better question would be: should Putin stop scaring countries into joining NATO by mounting invasions?

[Que]

Russia has even hinted at an increased presence of tactical nuclear weapons in the Baltic Sea area as a response.

Even though some will argue against it, I think Finland and Sweden are on a fast track to NATO membership. A very fast track actually, with conformation on the NATO summit in June.

At this point in time it seems that all hope to reach some kind of settlement with Putin is out of the window. 
A long term total rupture in relations between the West and Russia seems inevitable, including a total trade ban. Even Germany seems to be aware of that now.

[milk]

I wonder if others in Russia would trade Putin for some type of negotiated "peace with honor." Maybe Finland doesn't join NATO and maybe the Russians agree to withdraw from most of Ukraine with a further settlement to be discussed. They could avoid having the gas pump turned off too. Someone's got to realize there are some losses to cut. Once the world finds other ways to power itself, it won't reverse.

[steve ridgway]

Now might be a good time to join NATO though while Russian forces are stretched in Ukraine.

[Florestan]

At this point in time it seems that all hope to reach some kind of settlement with Putin is out of the window. 
A long term total rupture in relations between the West and Russia seems inevitable, including a total trade ban. Even Germany seems to be aware of that now.

Indeed. Time and again, time and again, Russia proves itself a rogue state, a tyrannic state, an oppressive state and a repressive state. Except a brief and chaotic interlude in 1917-18, they have always been like that and I'm afraid there is no chance in any foreseeable future they will ever be otherwise.

[steve ridgway]

Yeah, I don't think the rulers ever got the idea that the country might work better for everyone with a proper democracy.

[Todd]

So, should Sweden and Finland be kept out of NATO as not to aggrivate Putin any further?

Sweden and Finland should be kept out of NATO to reduce the likelihood of unnecessarily antagonizing Russia, whether led by Putin or someone else.  (Putin will die one day, and Russia will remain, the Eurasian behemoth poised to cause harm, for centuries to come.)  Better yet, NATO should be scaled back to 1991 membership.  Best case, NATO should be dissolved.  The supreme strategic objective of the US should be the avoidance of great power war, and a military alliance against Russia - and all alliances are against something - does not achieve that aim and continues to place far too great an emphasis on Europe when European significance, like American significance, is declining in the world.  European nations should provide for their own security.

Of course, while it is very possible that Sweden and Finland can be kept out of NATO by one of several different less Russophobic members, or their full integration slow walked after a hasty and very poorly conceived expansion, in any event once the current hostilities are over and whatever show trials that may occur are complete, bold talk will fade into memory and increased European defense budgets will dwindle, and European states will revert to relying primarily on American security guarantees.  Ukraine may even be fully under the control of Kyiv.  Or not.