K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,237
- 43,458
- 136
It cannot be overstated what an embarrassment losing a Slava class is for the Russian navy. They are super super proud of these. Humiliations galore.
You can start by reading article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty
The North Atlantic Treaty
www.nato.int
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.
No, it is too late. The last Soviet battleship retired in 1956Is it too early for "FUCK YOU RUSSIA BATTLESHIP!" ?
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."
No, it is too late. The last Soviet battleship retired in 1956Which is how these
32 "Slava"-class missile cruisers are all fleet flagships now.
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.
Slava Ukraini!
Warsaw town hall officials had this painted in giant letters in front of Russian embassy. This is now an official "modern art gallery" apparently
According to NATO it did.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.
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.
- 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
According to NATO it did.
![]()
Countering terrorism
Terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and to international stability and prosperity. It is a persistent global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion, and is a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO will...www.nato.int
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.
If the SS-N-12s cooked off I am positive the crew was not completely evacuated.Moskva severe fire/damage now confirmed by Moscow. Although their explanation may be soldiers smoking in the missile bay...
Edit: Moscow also states that "the crew was completely evacuated"