Ukraine claims it hit Moscow with missiles, causing it to sink. Russia has insisted that the cause of the sinking was a fire. On Friday, the United States backed Ukraine’s account, with a senior defense official saying he believed two Ukrainian Neptune missiles had hit a Russian warship in the Black Sea.
It remains debatable whether the ship lay at the bottom of the sea as a victim of Ukrainian missiles, Russian incompetence, bad luck or a combination of the three. What is certain, however, is that the greatest military loss of a naval ship in 40 years will raise concerns not only for Moscow but also for military planners around the world.
The ship sank off the coast of Ukraine in the Black Sea on Thursday. Ukraine claims that it hit “Moscow” with anti-ship cruise missiles and that they caused the fire that blew up the ammunition.
Russia has released its own version of events: Russia’s Defense Ministry says a fire of unknown origin detonated the ship’s stored ammunition and the resulting explosions have left Moscow with structural damage. It says the warship then sank in stormy seas while being towed to a nearby port.
According to a report by the Russian state news agency TASS, citing an unnamed source, the ship’s crew was delivered to the Crimean port of Sevastopol. TASS did not provide any further details on the number of rescued crew members from the ship.
“Moscow” was armed with a number of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as torpedoes, naval guns and missile defense systems, which means that there would be huge quantities of explosives on board.
U.S. intelligence officials do not believe the ship was carrying nuclear weapons during the sinking, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the latest U.S. intelligence assessment told CNN.
When was the last time a ship of this size was lost in a war?
The Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror on May 2, 1982 during the Falkland Islands War.
“General Belgrano” and “Moscow” were the same size – each about 600 feet (182 meters) long and 12,000 tons in displacement – although the crew of about 1,100 people aboard the General Belgrano was more than twice the size of Moscow’s crew of about 500.
Russia has not disclosed the death toll from the Moscow fire and subsequent sinking. A total of 323 crews died when General Belgrano fell.
What does the loss of Moscow mean for Russian military efforts?
It can have the greatest effect on Russian morality. As the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Moscow was one of its most visible assets in the war in Ukraine. Although Moscow is carefully managing the news of Russia’s war, it will be difficult to hide the sudden absence of such a large ship.
And its loss will cast doubt on Russia’s military capabilities, whether due to enemy action or an accident.
“Both explanations for the sinking of Moscow show possible Russian shortcomings – either poor air defenses or incredibly weak procedures for safety and damage control of the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet,” analysts Mason Clark, Katerina Stepanenko and George Barros of the Institute for Study of War writes in its daily military briefing.
Carl Schuster, a former captain of the US Navy, said the suspicions reached as far as the Kremlin.
“This raises questions about naval competence 10 years after (Russian President Vladimir) Putin announced his intention to restore the navy’s capabilities, morale and professionalism,” Schuster said.
“He seems to have failed to deliver on any of his promises for any of Russia’s military services,” Schuster said, noting that Russia had also failed on land.
But analysts are divided over the impact of the sinking on the Russian invasion.
ISW analysts see this as a relatively light strike, saying the ship was used primarily for cruise missile strikes on Ukrainian logistics centers and airports. Russia has ground systems and strike planes that can do the same, they said.
However, they added that if a Ukrainian missile had indeed led to the sinking, the Russian navy would have to rethink its operations, possibly moving ships away from Ukrainian territory and adjusting its air defenses.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Moscow’s main mission was air defense for Russian forces in the Black Sea.
“This will affect this ability, for sure in the near future,” Kirby told reporters.
A lesson for China?
Analysts say the sinking will be carefully studied in East Asia, especially if it is confirmed that Ukrainian missiles hit the warship.
In particular, analysts will seek any insight it has to offer for any potential military conflict involving Taiwan, a democratically governed island that the ruling Communist Party of Beijing claims is part of its territory. Beijing has not ruled out the use of force to gain control of Taiwan, sparking tensions with the United States, which is committed to providing the island with defense weapons.
Timothy Heath, a senior international defense researcher at the RAND Corp. think tank, said the strike on Moscow would underscore for both China and the United States the “vulnerability of surface ships” in any potential military confrontation.
Heath said in such a scenario, the US Navy would like to keep its surface ships out of range of anti-ship missiles that Beijing has accumulated in mainland China.
China, on the other hand, would be aware that Taiwan has acquired cheap anti-ship missiles, similar to those Ukraine claims to have hit Moscow, Heath and others said.
Therefore, “any potential (Chinese) invasion of Taiwan remains an extremely high-risk mission,” Heath said.
However, some analysts said the sinking of Moscow was of limited significance to the situation in East Asia.
Thomas Schugart, a former commander of a U.S. Navy submarine who is now an analyst at the Center for a New American Security, said there were too many differences between the situations.
Moscow’s air defense systems are not in the same league as the more modern Aegis systems of US Navy destroyers, and Ukrainian anti-ship missiles are not as good as China’s, Shugart said.
And Soviet-era warships like the Moscow are usually “known for their offensive strike, not their defense systems or damage control,” Shugart said.
CNN’s Nathan Hodge, Ulyana Pavlova and Jim Scuto contributed to the reports.
Add Comment