The problem with this "flag ship" sinking is that it doesn't add up. The Moskva was commissioned in 1982. This means it was 40 years old. Nothing has really changed in naval history regarding the life expectancy of a naval vessel. There's no getting around a ship at the end of its life cycle and 40 years service is an obvious indicator it is ready to be moth-balled.
A "flag ship" simply means the admiral of the fleet resides there. If the admiral moves to another ship it becomes the flag ship.
The entire incident is very perplexing. A flag ship is one that is not at the tip of the spear when it comes to the battle ground. Instead, it would normally be at the rear and at a safe distance from the battle front. Why this ship was 30 km from hostilities is mind-blowing.
I tend to believe this was a FF to rally and galvanize the Russian people to the war effort in Ukraine. It was Russia's 'Pearl Harbor'.
Whether the U.S. provided "intelligence" to help Ukraine sink the Moskva is questionable. With all the other lies coming out of the Pentagon, I don't necessarily believe it. No, there's something more to this story.
The question needing to be asked is -- 'cui bono'; who really benefited from this incident? It certainly hasn't changed one iota of Ukraine's war situation. Nothing from this incident has really helped Ukraine. Instead, we see the Russian's are slowly, but methodically taking village after village in positional battles that Ukraine has consistently been losing. The sinking of the Moskva on the other hand has helped Russia's war effort by obtaining a better than 85% approval rating from its people. This incident has completely galvanized and united the Russian people in this war effort.
Whatever the merits of placing the Moskva near Odessa, the missile hit was an unplanned event. What I recall reading was that the intel / targeting information was provided by a P-8 Poseidon aircraft. They can say they were not involved in the decision to attack, but if you give someone targeting data (potentially better than navigational data) that is tantamount to giving them a green light.
So the Moskva was hit. It probably had internal explosions and resulting fires, not too surprising under the circumstances. The explosions probably penetrated the hull. I saw a photo of the ship post-hit, and it was listing, I think to port. It was under tow and presumably got caught in a storm. The Caspian Sea is noted for sudden and deadly squalls. High seas, listing, taking on water...it was no terrific surprise that it should sink under those conditions.
And the Russian public took umbrage, which is well and good. I don't think any of this was a False Flag. The Moskva was like an old pet dog. Too much fondness to simply shoot it. But the Lord works in mysterious ways.
It's a plausible comment, except this occurred in the Black Sea. The Caspian Sea is far from Ukraine. The Caspian Sea is landlocked, east of the Caucasian mountains, and north of the Iranian Elburz Mountains.
If it was listing and then under tow, this raises more questions. Towing a sinking ship doesn't make any sense at all. Before any vessel is towed, extensive damage control must be done first. This means each undamaged compartment is secured for water tight integrity. The damaged compartments are 'sealed' off to prevent further flooding. Apparently, this didn't occur because the vessel sank.
A sinking vessel is an endangerment to the vessel towing it. The damaged vessel must be secured against further flooding before a tug (or other ship) would tow it. There's too many questions about this extremely old vessel to know what actually happened.
My error. I meant to say the Black Sea. Thanks for the correction. (Reached for the wrong item on my mental shelf.)
The ship might have been tractable in calm seas. In a higher sea state, who knows? It could have taken on water from waves over the deck. That could have aggravated a list into a capsize. Just not a nice scenario.
The problem with this "flag ship" sinking is that it doesn't add up. The Moskva was commissioned in 1982. This means it was 40 years old. Nothing has really changed in naval history regarding the life expectancy of a naval vessel. There's no getting around a ship at the end of its life cycle and 40 years service is an obvious indicator it is ready to be moth-balled.
A "flag ship" simply means the admiral of the fleet resides there. If the admiral moves to another ship it becomes the flag ship.
The entire incident is very perplexing. A flag ship is one that is not at the tip of the spear when it comes to the battle ground. Instead, it would normally be at the rear and at a safe distance from the battle front. Why this ship was 30 km from hostilities is mind-blowing.
I tend to believe this was a FF to rally and galvanize the Russian people to the war effort in Ukraine. It was Russia's 'Pearl Harbor'.
Whether the U.S. provided "intelligence" to help Ukraine sink the Moskva is questionable. With all the other lies coming out of the Pentagon, I don't necessarily believe it. No, there's something more to this story.
The question needing to be asked is -- 'cui bono'; who really benefited from this incident? It certainly hasn't changed one iota of Ukraine's war situation. Nothing from this incident has really helped Ukraine. Instead, we see the Russian's are slowly, but methodically taking village after village in positional battles that Ukraine has consistently been losing. The sinking of the Moskva on the other hand has helped Russia's war effort by obtaining a better than 85% approval rating from its people. This incident has completely galvanized and united the Russian people in this war effort.
Whatever the merits of placing the Moskva near Odessa, the missile hit was an unplanned event. What I recall reading was that the intel / targeting information was provided by a P-8 Poseidon aircraft. They can say they were not involved in the decision to attack, but if you give someone targeting data (potentially better than navigational data) that is tantamount to giving them a green light.
So the Moskva was hit. It probably had internal explosions and resulting fires, not too surprising under the circumstances. The explosions probably penetrated the hull. I saw a photo of the ship post-hit, and it was listing, I think to port. It was under tow and presumably got caught in a storm. The Caspian Sea is noted for sudden and deadly squalls. High seas, listing, taking on water...it was no terrific surprise that it should sink under those conditions.
And the Russian public took umbrage, which is well and good. I don't think any of this was a False Flag. The Moskva was like an old pet dog. Too much fondness to simply shoot it. But the Lord works in mysterious ways.
It's a plausible comment, except this occurred in the Black Sea. The Caspian Sea is far from Ukraine. The Caspian Sea is landlocked, east of the Caucasian mountains, and north of the Iranian Elburz Mountains.
If it was listing and then under tow, this raises more questions. Towing a sinking ship doesn't make any sense at all. Before any vessel is towed, extensive damage control must be done first. This means each undamaged compartment is secured for water tight integrity. The damaged compartments are 'sealed' off to prevent further flooding. Apparently, this didn't occur because the vessel sank.
A sinking vessel is an endangerment to the vessel towing it. The damaged vessel must be secured against further flooding before a tug (or other ship) would tow it. There's too many questions about this extremely old vessel to know what actually happened.
My error. I meant to say the Black Sea. Thanks for the correction. (Reached for the wrong item on my mental shelf.)
The ship might have been tractable in calm seas. In a higher sea state, who knows? It could have taken on water from waves over the deck. That could have aggravated a list into a capsize. Just not a nice scenario.
Thanks. High seas suck. I've literally walked on the bulkheads to avoid the wretched vomit of high seas. Good analysis.