The myth of NATO unity remains on full display this morning. What is NATO unity without France and Germany? Essentially, it’s the Anglosphere, the US and the UK. That is certainly the case when dealing with Russia. So here we have the UK openly attacking France and Germany for arms dealing with NATO’s main enemy, the enemy whose threat is the entire reason for NATO’s existence. And the secret arms dealing was in contravention of an arms embargo. It amounts to what, at the personal level, we would call treason. Some unity:
Of course, one wonders just how secret this really was. Exactly who was fooled—beyond the public? Further, if EU/NATO countries of this stature ignored the arms embargo, what reason is there to suppose that they will adhere strictly to the latest sanctions?
I’ve written in the past, briefly, about the sinking of the Moskva. I’m no expert, but there appear to be credible reasons to doubt the official narrative of Neptune missiles launched from Ukraine being used to sink the ship. Pepe Escobar has an article at The Saker today that offers more reasons for casting doubt on that narrative, while offering no explanation for what happened. According to Escobar, the significance of the sinking was that it opened up—at least for a time—an avenue to transfer military aircraft from Romania to the Carpathian region of extreme SW Ukraine. In the meantime, Russia is attempting to determine with specificity the causes for the sinking (separately, I’ve read that submarines specialized for that purpose have been dispatched to the site of the underwater wreck.). Here’s a link to Escobar’s interesting article:
Toward the end of the article Escobar quotes Andrei Martyanov, an acknowledged expert on Russian military and naval matters. In what follows I’ve added a link. The “NSM refers to a joint US/Norwegian design, the Naval Strike Missile:
As a direct consequence of hitting the Moskva, NATO managed to reopen an air corridor for the transfer of aircraft to the airfields of Chernivtsi, Transcarpathian and Ivano-Frankivsk regions.
In parallel, after the destruction of the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet, according to the source, “no longer seems to have a ship equipped with a long-range anti-aircraft missile system”. Of course a three-band radar Sky-M system remains in play in Crimea, capable of tracking all air targets at a range of up to 600 km. One wonders whether this is enough for all Russian purposes.
Of course, Russia doubtless has such systems located to the north of Ukraine, and possibly in Belarus, as well.
So what do we really have here? Fantasy or reality? There was only one way to know.
I ran the info past the inestimable Andrei Martyanov, …
Martyanov, once again, was the consummate professional, stressing no one, at this stage, really knows what happened. But he made some crucial points: “Per NSM (if we accept this version), even with its Low Observability and GPS guidance under normal (that is sea up to state 5-6) and normal radio-permeability, even the Moskva’s old frigate radar would have seen those missiles in distances of tens of kilometers, somewhere between 15-20 for sure. NSM, as any NATO anti-shipping missile, are subsonic, with their velocity roughly 300 meters per second. That leaves, even in a 15 kilometer range, 45 seconds to detect track and develop a firing solution for whatever ‘on duty’ AD complex. More than enough reaction time.”
Martyanov also stresses, “it is impossible to hide the external impact of the anti-shipping missile – one will immediately know what hit the ship. Moreover, to hit and sink such a target as the Moskva one has to launch a salvo and not only two missiles, likely 3-4 at least. In this case, Russia would know who attacked Moskva. Does NATO know? I am positive this event has NATO written all over it, if it is not an internal sabotage which absolutely cannot be excluded at this stage. I am sure if Nebo was operational it would have seen the salvo.”
Which brings us to the inevitable clincher: “If NATO was involved, I am sure we will see some retaliation, after all, as I am on record all the time, US bases in Middle East and elsewhere are nothing more than fat prestigious targets.”
So get ready: something lethally “asymmetrical” may be about to pop up.
In unrelated vote of confidence from a another, key US military "ally," the Israeli central bank today bought Chinese yuan for the very first time in history, reducing its holdings of USD and Euro by 5.5% and 10%, respectively. Some of that reduction was made up of purchases of AUD and CAD, but I imagine that, since Anglosphere currencies generally track in similar directions, those purchases were made to allow Israel to shed them over time for yuan without a major news hit.
So much winning...might make sense to shore up our allies before going around threatening everyone in sight.
https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/israel-adds-chinas-yuan-for-the-first-time-ever-while-cutting-its-dollar-holdings-in-biggest-currency-reshuffle-in-a-decade/articleshow/90963017.cms
Mark, you need to be careful with sources like Pepe Escobar and The Saker.
I’ve read the Escobar piece. And frankly, it’s BS. A ship at the center of a well ordered battlegroup with a layered defense can be reasonably well protected against missile attack. A ship alone, or at the outer edge of a battlegroup, can be quite vulnerable. HMS Sheffield and USS Stark are both examples of what can happen.
First, the reports I’ve seen suggest that a UAV was involved. For anyone to sink the Moskva, they first had to find her. Given Russian air superiority, this was unlikely to have been done by a a plane or a helicopter. I’ve seen reports that this was done by a UAV. The UAV most likely knew where to look by following electronic emissions either from the Moskva herself or these oil platforms that Escobar mentions. And yes, turning on your radar to warn of an enemy’s approach gives away your position. Modern naval warfare is like that.
Once they found her, they killed her, and it seems to me that there are two ways this could have been done.
1.) An antiship missile, like the Neptune
2.) A smaller missile. More on that in a moment.
An ASM would likely cause a BIG hole above the waterline. The pictures I’ve seen don’t seem to show that, but they are blurred and don’t show the whole ship. However, note that the Exocet that struck the Sheffield reportedly failed to detonate. Unexpended rocket fuel started a catastrophic fire that totaled the ship. In the pictures I’ve seen, the ship appears to have burned, and what appears to be fire can be seen amidships.
UAVs cannot, to my knowledge carry ASMs, but they can carry antitank missiles such as the Hellfire. Russian ships sometimes have missile tubes on the deck, and other things that don’t react well to high explosives. Moskva had sixteen big missile tubes up forward, plus antisubmarine mortars and ten torpedo tubes. That’s a LOT of high explosive and fuel all over the deck. A hit from an ATGM could have caused secondary explosions and fire that got out of hand.
Loss of the Moskva is a major embarrassment to the Russians, who have, frankly, lied their asses off about the sorry performance of their military. It does not require NATO to sink a major warship. The Ukies did it all on their lonesome.
Note: Although Escobar’s piece is an obvious tissue of lies, the Russians may have decided that NATO support for Ukraine now requires expanding the war, and may have decided to use this as a casus belli. Recall what happened with the USS Maine.