Very Briefly Noted: More NATO Unity; The Moskva Mystery
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.
Just gonna throw out there as one example among many of how the permanent-war-loving crowd sees things. This will be a long quote from a pair of retired Army officers in some publication called "Defense One." (defenseone.com/ideas/2022/04/ukraine-endgame-putins-bad-options/365842/)
(You'll of course note there isn't a hint of any consideration of what the eventual consequences of this Destroy Russia At All Costs mission will have on the U.S. and the world as a whole, but then again neither could you possibly have expected there wold be such a thing.)
At any rate, here we go with the quote:
_____________________
As Putin comes to terms with his looming defeat, he is now left with three bad, but not equally bad, options. The least bad Russian option is to sue for peace on the most favorable terms Ukraine will grant and end this pointless and reckless war. A worse option would be to go on the defensive in Eastern Ukraine and vainly hope for a more favorable correlation of forces in the future. The worst option of all would be for Russia to attempt another offensive, gambling the entire army in Ukraine on one last thrust with no hope of success. The West, in considering its responses to these actions, would do well to remember Napoleon’s advice (more or less): “Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself.”
Russia has not only lost the war in Ukraine, but is at risk of creating the very encirclement this war aimed to prevent. The United States and other NATO allies are pouring guns and money into Ukraine at breakneck speed. Ukraine is more fully integrated in the West than ever before. NATO is moving to strengthen its eastern flank, and many NATO members, most notably Germany, have committed to substantial increases in defense spending, Finland and Sweden are considering applying for NATO membership. Economic sanctions on Russia are not only holding, but growing: the European Union is considering banning Russian oil imports.
...
No matter which option Putin chooses, the Western response should be the same: aid the Ukrainian military, relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian people, maintain the unity of the NATO alliance, and increase the military and economic costs of Russia’s continued aggression. The only elements that need to vary are the emphasis and pace of those efforts. If Putin opts for peace, the West must maintain diplomatic, economic, and military solidarity to ensure Ukraine receives the most favorable settlement possible. If he opts for defense, the West must continue its efforts to strengthen Ukraine and isolate Russia to reveal the futility of playing for time. Finally, if he opts for offense, the West must surge every form of support to Ukraine to discredit Russia’s imperial delusions fully and finally.
In his recent démarche to the U.S. demanding an end to military support for Ukraine, Putin has helpfully provided a list of those capabilities Russia most fears. The U.S. should treat this message not as a Russian ultimatum but rather as a Ukrainian shopping list. When Russia launches artillery strikes at civilian populations, the West should send Ukraine Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and counter battery radars. When Russia uses aircraft in a reckless and vain offensive, the West should redouble shipments of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and add the Patriot Surface-to-Air Missile System to the mix. When Russia dispatches its remaining tanks on a final, suicidal attack, the West should not only further accelerate shipment of Javelin and Switchblade anti-tank systems, but also begin arming Ukraine with M1 Abrams main battle tanks and other maneuver capabilities to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil once and for all. These weapons shipments are the clearest form of diplomacy, communicating to Putin that we can do this all day.
Vladimir Putin is in the process of destroying himself, and every day that passes, and every arms shipment that arrives in Ukraine, makes that outcome more inevitable.
____________________
The contrast between this sort of view and that of, for example, Douglas McGregor, couldn't be more stark. At least one of the two sides is living in fantasyland. It will be interesting, and more than a little consequential, to see which of the two is the party more guilty of that charge.
“Asymmetrical” or maybe worse? I wonder how many of the over two million who have “entered” the US since Brandon took over, are not here to find a new home ?