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:
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.
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.
Thanks for setting me straight on so much. You apparently didn't bother to read the full article. If you had, you would have known that Escobar discusses the possibility of a UAV being used and the possibility of missiles sinking the ship. He doesn't discount them but instead suggests that we don't know for sure exactly what happened.
In future I'll know to turn to you for the truth, rather than to people like the prominent UK general who testified to their parliament that if they had to resist the Russian military they'd be totally destroyed in about a week.
The sinking of the Maine, whatever the cause, gave America an occasion to do something it already wanted to do, namely expel Spain from Cuba and have a splendid little war. As it stands, claiming we sank the Moskva could give Russia a justification for expanding the war to NATO...if that's something they want to do.
"How in the world can we believe anything when we have been led into war after war or police action if you prefer, by flimsy facts?"
A reasonable question, but the fact that the American government has provably and frequently lied is not evidence that the Russian government tells the truth.
(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.
I think I made it clear in my comment that I just think it’s good to know what the other side (which for me in this case means the Permanent War crowd) is thinking and saying. But in case I wasn’t being clear, hopefully I am now. If nothing else, when they show so nakedly just how committed they are to the narrative of “Russia delenda est,” it makes it pretty obvious (given this crowd’s history going back many years) they will go to crazy lengths to keep that narrative alive. I can see almost no trick, hoax or otherwise dastardly deed these people wouldn’t dream up and carry out to make it so. (Again, going off what we’ve seen perpetrated over the last several years.)
I think this is the key: "they will go to crazy lengths". What's going on is truly crazy. Actually, I should say, sick, because of what they're doing to Ukraine.
So said Gen Sir Richard Barrons, head of Joint Forces Command from 2013-16, before the UK parliamentary defence committee.
"Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence committee, asked the general whether Britain had the necessary defence systems to protect itself in the event of Russian attacks. Gen Barrons replied: “We absolutely do not.”
"He also said: “I don't think many people in the UK have given any thought to the consequences of Russian cruise missiles arriving in London ... they exist and we simply don't have the means to deal with them in anything above tiny numbers.”
"And if Britain was required to defend another Nato country from Russia – the example given was Estonia – its forces would be destroyed in “about a week” by Russia's air force, he said."
“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 ?
The fact that the Russians have not jumped to any conclusions suggests that they know that there are a number of possibilities. Their original statement, I believe, was along the lines you suggest.
Mark, through my retired Navy colleagues, I've received a multi-page ppt, an analysis of the Moskva attack, prepared by someone with professional awareness of ships, damage control, etc. He actually toured Miskva's sister ship. It's useful, imo, and perhaps even informative, but certainly not definitive. Happy to send it over for your consideration if you'd like. If so, do you have a dead-drop email addy?
I don't know whether a fire could do that, and you would think that there would be all sorts of safeguards to prevent fire from reaching ammunition stores. One way or another, the external appearance indicates intense internal heat. Interestingly, the article indicates mixed signals coming from the Ukrainian side--one guy says 'we hit it with a missile' another guy high up says 'we don't know what caused it.'
Comments are great but when we're talking about strictly technical issues like this I, for one, Forbes, would appreciate you showing your work-- give us a cite or link or some indication of where youre getting your information. Mark has taken the time to provide links to just about everything he writes, so we should all avoid where possible vague allusions like "I read somewhere. " It muddies the water when we are in need of reliable sources.
What I read previously is that anti-ship missiles don't strike below the water line. The article I cited for that showed photos of missile hits on both US and UK ships as evidence. I have no knowledge of my own.
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.
Thanks for setting me straight on so much. You apparently didn't bother to read the full article. If you had, you would have known that Escobar discusses the possibility of a UAV being used and the possibility of missiles sinking the ship. He doesn't discount them but instead suggests that we don't know for sure exactly what happened.
In future I'll know to turn to you for the truth, rather than to people like the prominent UK general who testified to their parliament that if they had to resist the Russian military they'd be totally destroyed in about a week.
The sinking of the Maine, whatever the cause, gave America an occasion to do something it already wanted to do, namely expel Spain from Cuba and have a splendid little war. As it stands, claiming we sank the Moskva could give Russia a justification for expanding the war to NATO...if that's something they want to do.
"How in the world can we believe anything when we have been led into war after war or police action if you prefer, by flimsy facts?"
A reasonable question, but the fact that the American government has provably and frequently lied is not evidence that the Russian government tells the truth.
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.
To obtain a greater insight into the "thinking" of the pair of retired army officers that authored the above quoted drivel, see more absolute drivel: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/06/dear-mr-secretary-you-can-rename-army-bases-right-now/166025/
written by the obviously woke:
Colonel Michael Jason, U.S. Army (Retired)
Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, U.S. Army (Retired)
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, U.S. Army (Retired)
Thanks, just gave it a look. So many weaklings in so many positions of power, past and present.
I think I made it clear in my comment that I just think it’s good to know what the other side (which for me in this case means the Permanent War crowd) is thinking and saying. But in case I wasn’t being clear, hopefully I am now. If nothing else, when they show so nakedly just how committed they are to the narrative of “Russia delenda est,” it makes it pretty obvious (given this crowd’s history going back many years) they will go to crazy lengths to keep that narrative alive. I can see almost no trick, hoax or otherwise dastardly deed these people wouldn’t dream up and carry out to make it so. (Again, going off what we’ve seen perpetrated over the last several years.)
I think this is the key: "they will go to crazy lengths". What's going on is truly crazy. Actually, I should say, sick, because of what they're doing to Ukraine.
I mean our Neocons, not the Russians.
LOL. I knew who you meant :)
Nato isn’t ready for war with Russia, warns UK general
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-war-nato-ukraine-b2061001.html
So said Gen Sir Richard Barrons, head of Joint Forces Command from 2013-16, before the UK parliamentary defence committee.
"Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence committee, asked the general whether Britain had the necessary defence systems to protect itself in the event of Russian attacks. Gen Barrons replied: “We absolutely do not.”
"He also said: “I don't think many people in the UK have given any thought to the consequences of Russian cruise missiles arriving in London ... they exist and we simply don't have the means to deal with them in anything above tiny numbers.”
"And if Britain was required to defend another Nato country from Russia – the example given was Estonia – its forces would be destroyed in “about a week” by Russia's air force, he said."
“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 ?
The fact that the Russians have not jumped to any conclusions suggests that they know that there are a number of possibilities. Their original statement, I believe, was along the lines you suggest.
Mark, through my retired Navy colleagues, I've received a multi-page ppt, an analysis of the Moskva attack, prepared by someone with professional awareness of ships, damage control, etc. He actually toured Miskva's sister ship. It's useful, imo, and perhaps even informative, but certainly not definitive. Happy to send it over for your consideration if you'd like. If so, do you have a dead-drop email addy?
The substack email address here is mark.wauck@protonmail.com.
The original Russian explanation was this:
"Russia says damage caused by ammunition detonating ‘as a result of a fire’; Ukraine says it targeted the vessel with missile strikes."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/14/russian-flagship-seriously-damaged-as-moscow-threatens-assault
I don't know whether a fire could do that, and you would think that there would be all sorts of safeguards to prevent fire from reaching ammunition stores. One way or another, the external appearance indicates intense internal heat. Interestingly, the article indicates mixed signals coming from the Ukrainian side--one guy says 'we hit it with a missile' another guy high up says 'we don't know what caused it.'
Comments are great but when we're talking about strictly technical issues like this I, for one, Forbes, would appreciate you showing your work-- give us a cite or link or some indication of where youre getting your information. Mark has taken the time to provide links to just about everything he writes, so we should all avoid where possible vague allusions like "I read somewhere. " It muddies the water when we are in need of reliable sources.
What I read previously is that anti-ship missiles don't strike below the water line. The article I cited for that showed photos of missile hits on both US and UK ships as evidence. I have no knowledge of my own.