Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 430 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,641
3,181
136
Side note on Moskva: this really is embarrassing for Russian Navy, how they spin it domestically will be interesting.

If in fact it was hit by 2 Neptune missiles, that is an epic failure ~ the Moskva is specifically designed as an anti-air, anti-cruise missile defense platform, just as much as it is an offensive missile platform. 64 S-300's to intercept cruise missiles (or aircraft), 6 CIWS point defense guns, plus short range air defense missiles.

Edit: Picture with armament highlighted, thanks wiki
1649892820390.png
"4" are the AK-630 - 30mm "fully automatic" point defense cannons (CIWS)
"5" are the S-300 launchers (8! launchers, 64 missile inventory)
"6" is short range OSA-M SAM
 
Last edited:

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,619
43,728
136
iu


Soviet designers liked to put a lot of stuff that goes boom on the deck

 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,257
8,191
136
You can start by reading article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty


Military dispute resolutions are possible, see Article 5. It is just that military resolutions should be the last resort or for defense, not the first resort for offense. Article 5 is how NATO justified the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a defense against the 911 attacks. Although that was a historically sketchy decision, that is the decision they made in less than one day from the first 911 attack. When you are in the middle of an attack, you don't get the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

To say they were "sketchy" is putting it mildly. Especially with respect to Iraq, the justification for which was beyond "sketchy" and had nothing to do with 911. Then there's Kosovo and Libya (the latter of which was ostensibly a "no fly zone" but in reality involved providing air support for one side in a civil war - leaving the country in ruins)

Besides, there's not exactly a shortage of examples of NATO member states individually invading sovereign countries (the US in Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, or Turkey in Cyprus and Kurdistan) , as opposed to NATO as a collective entity - so I just don't see how it can be claimed that a habit of "invading sovereign countries" is some sort of insurmountable barrier to NATO membership.

(The UK and France were NATO members at the time of the Suez debacle, come to that.)

Anyway, it doesn't change the unjustified nature of this war, but that argument for not allowing Russia in NATO just doesn't stand up.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,764
8,309
136
Yep, Project 1164 missile cruiser "Moskva" is the current flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

Edit: I searched but couldn't find any cost information on it as I was curious. For comparison, the US Ticonderoga class is about 1/3 smaller, with a unit cost of about $1 billion ~ but that was of course at inflated US shipbuilding costs. So maybe ending up in same ballpark given the extra tonnage.

Although I've read both of the remaining 2 Project 1164 "Slava"-class cruisers were also moved either into or near the Black Sea before invasion (at very least to the Med - to counter US fleet). Russia only has 3 of these cruisers in service. "The Moskva is the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and Marshal Ustinov is the flagship of the Russian Northern Fleet. Varyag is the flagship of the Russian Pacific Fleet."

Such a shame their naval assets aren't taking the same beating the land ones are. This is a nice first step, but it would be fulfilling to see some of their vaunted sea power disappear as well.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,607
34,396
136
No, it is too late. The last Soviet battleship retired in 1956 ;) Which is how these 3 2 "Slava"-class missile cruisers are all fleet flagships now.

Curses and incoherent screaming certainly emanating from the Kremlin right now.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,764
8,309
136
I don't think Iraq was under Article 5. Bush used WMDs excuse to go after Iraq not links of Al-Qaeda. The legal aspect of it came through the UN SC.

Correct. Article 5 has only ever been invoked as a result of 9/11. Iraq was a UN action the first time (liberating Kuwait). Was just "lets go get WMDs" the 2nd.
 

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,641
3,181
136
Side note: Although I think the other 2 Slava cruisers are in the Med, they shouldn't be allowed to go to Black Sea - as that is not their home port. Assuming Turkey sticks to the letter of the Montreux Convention that they have officially earlier invoked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Leeea

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,179
3,598
126
I don't think Iraq was under Article 5. Bush used WMDs excuse to go after Iraq not links of Al-Qaeda. The legal aspect of it came through the UN SC.
According to NATO it did.
  • NATO invoked its collective defence clause (Article 5) for the first and only time in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the United States
  • NATO trains, advises and assists Iraqi security forces and institutions through NATO Mission Iraq and is a member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS
The judgement that Article 5 was to be implemented was made on the day of the Sept 11 attacks. That meant Article 5 was in effect almost a month BEFORE Bush falsely used WMDs as excuses.
 

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,641
3,181
136
In just as important of news:
Inability to insure (at reasonable cost) any shipping from Russia, combined with EU sanctions that only allow "strictly necessary" energy purchases from Russia, leading to many traders backing away from Russian oil as soon as existing contracts expire.

IEA estimates Russian crude sales could be reduced by 3 million barrels per day starting in May.

And even when Russia is selling crude, the price is getting... ugly - extra $30/bbl discount to sell Russian crude hurts just as much as that 3 million barrel per day potential lost sales volume.
1649896165473.png
Datasource: Thomson Reuters
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,388
3,118
146
According to NATO it did.

The judgement that Article 5 was to be implemented was made on the day of the Sept 11 attacks. That meant Article 5 was in effect almost a month BEFORE Bush falsely used WMDs as excuses.

Iraq was separate from Afghanistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thump553

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,679
5,412
136

The Russians have confirmed an ammunition explosion.

If it rolled over on its side after being struck, they are mostly dead. Heavy storm, winter seas, no chance at all.

This ship had a massive S300 - S400 equivalent anti-air craft battery on board, covering much of southern Ukraine. This is very good news for Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD and Dave_5k
Nov 17, 2019
11,205
6,677
136
"It has been confirmed that the missile cruiser Moskva today went exactly where the border guards on Snake Island told it to go," he said in an online post. Ukraine's defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment.



TeeHee-TeeHee