Russia Decides to Blame NATO for Sinking the Moskva

This kind of messaging could be used to pre-justify any activities Russia might take against NATO countries.

By
50

Late last Wednesday night or early Thursday morning,  two Ukrainian R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles struck the Moskva, an Atlant-class cruiser that was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The ship eventually sank because of the damage. There are still numerous conflicting reports about exactly what happened: whether Ukraine distracted the Moskva with drones before attacking it with missiles, questions about how many of the crew died and the circumstances of the final sinking, etc. What is crystal clear is that the Moskva is at the bottom of the Black Sea, that the Ukrainians put it there, and therefore that Russia has suffered an embarrassing naval defeat against a country that, in effect, no longer has a fleet. The reaction of some Russian propagandists to the sinking also provides an interesting example of how they are increasingly blaming Russia’s military failures on NATO, rather than on Ukrainian resistance.

The significance of the sinking of the Moskva to the current fighting is mostly on the symbolism/morale front. The main armament of the Moskva were anti-ship missiles, which are not relevant while the Ukrainian navy is out of action. (The Ukrainian navy has lost at least one ship out on patrol, and the Ukrainian naval base at Odesa has probably been struck multiple times and destroyed their capabilities further. The Ukrainian ships that remain lack the weaponry to take on the Russian fleet.) The loss of the anti-aircraft/anti-missile capabilities of the Moskva might be a technical blow to the Russian Black Sea fleet (it carried an S-300 AA system), but its significance is unclear. (Any air defense systems it had were obviously not sufficient to defend the ship itself, or perhaps they were switched off.) According to retired Ukrainian naval Capt. Andrii Ryzhenko, the Russian Black Sea fleet has three main tasks: 1) blockade Ukrainian ports, 2) neutralize the Ukrainian navy, and 3) conduct a landing operation if needed. The Moskva is not needed to blockade Ukrainian ports, the Ukrainian fleet is unfortunately already ineffective as its remaining ships have inadequate armament to pose a serious threat to Russian ships, and a naval landing near Odesa would make sense only as part of the three-pronged attack from the Russian base in Transnistria (a Russian proxy enclave in Moldova), Mykolaiv, and the sea, something which does not appear to be in the cards as the Ukrainians have turned back the Russian assault on Mykolaiv.

The main thing the Russians lost was not any specific capability but their flagship, one that had already become internationally emblematic early in the war. On February 24, the first day of Putin’s expanded war, it was the Moskva that demanded the surrender of the Ukrainians defending Zmiinyi Island (aka Snake island). A Ukrainian defender delivered the memorable reply “Russian warship, go f— yourself.” The Moskva then opened fire with its twin 130mm deck guns and, with the help of at least one other Russian warship, forced the Ukrainian defenders to surrender. The incident became a famous symbol of Ukrainian resistance. Last week the Ukrainian postal service even issued a stamp depicting one of the Ukrainian defenders on Snake Island giving the Moskva the finger. 

A photoshopped “updated” stamp showing the Moskva sinking is now floating around social media. Russian media are trying to contain the embarrassment and minimize the sense of disaster. Over the weekend the main Russian news show devoted just 30 seconds to the sinking. The TV channel of the Russian Ministry of Defense broadcast a video of an inspection of the crew of the Moskva by the commander. This video was probably partly motivated by a Russian desire to contradict reports of massive crew casualties and the death of the Moskva’s commander. Even so, the loss of a large ship with a crew of about 450 can’t just be ignored or dismissed. One prominent Russian propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, expressed outrage at this disaster on his live show over the weekend:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
50
By
Comments (50)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    My gut reaction is to go check Glenn Greenwald’s site to see if he’s blaming NATO for the sinking of the Moskva yet.

    Collapse
  2. Brendan Bossard

    When you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, damn the torpedoes and do the right thing. The right thing, in this case, is to help Ukraine to win her war.
    I remember being bullied in elementary school. I kept going to the school faculty, who did nothing. I finally pushed back. The bully fell and broke his arm. The next day he showed me his cast and petulantly said, "You broke my arm!" He blamed me! Unfortunately he did not learn his lesson. Some time later that year he started pushing me again. I pushed back again, and he fell again and broke his arm again! He never bullied me again. This is the only way to teach people like Putin, who will always blame the victim.

    Collapse
  3. Ingenero.lux

    There’s always an excuse when it comes to Russia - they couldn’t possibly have screwed up to an epic degree, it must be a secret conspiracy! The same thing led to innumerable executions in the USSR - collective farming not working? The military horribly outfitted? Must be the evil capitalist pig dogs disguised as peasants with two cows rather than one!

    And now Moscow’s at the bottom of the ocean - a fitting metaphor for this entire debacle. We keep transliterating Москва to Moskva rather than simply giving the ship its translated name: Moscow. It may be technically correct, but it misses the ironic humor of the whole thing. Moscow’s at the bottom of the ocean, I just wish Putin went down with it.

    Collapse
  4. Howard Hall

    News reports today indicated 2/3rds of Russia’s ground forces are now in Ukraine.

    Where can Ukraine bury so many?

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      Next to the RTS Moscow, of course. Plenty of room at the bottom of the sea.

      Collapse
  5. Boatbody

    As a former USN swabbie, any ship that ugly should be sunk! By its own crew.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    This was a fine essay, Mr. Fink, and very informative!

    My only quibble is with your final sentence: Crazy ideas from Russian disinformation actually affecting Russian behavior does threaten an expanded war in Europe, and I think you've supported that argument very well. You have not, however, established that giving Ukraine "enough weapons to resist Russian attacks" can't also threaten an expanded war in Europe. I suspect that Russian crazy ideas are the greater of the two threats, and I support the arms and other aid that western countries, including but importantly not limited to the U.S. and its NATO allies, are providing to Ukraine. But let's not deny that our support of any sort carries its own risks of escalation; let's instead look at and compare all such risks carefully, including in ways that factor in the Russian crazies.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jon H

    Russia is blaming NATO to save face, I doubt they are dumb enough to embarrass themselves more. Also they are not wrong to shift some blame to NATO, we supply the weapons and tell them where the targets are. Which I support, but they are trying to scare us a little while driving a propaganda message at home.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      L Bernard

      Point of order: the Moskva was sank by a Ukraine missile built in a Ukraine factory.

      Though to be fair the missile didn't actually sink it, a storm and Russian incompetence did.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    Thank you, Mr. Fink, for yet another very informative report. You are making a great contribution to our understanding of this conflict.

    Collapse
  9. Raincheck

    Russia is used to talking to its own citizens. Patriots who are fed much propaganda and few facts. When they talk to the outside world, they have no idea how ridiculous they sound.

    But they still have a lot missiles, and tanks, and soldiers (whose lives they value very lightly). This next phase of the war will be disastrous for Ukraine, even if they win. The new Russian strategy will be to create dozens of Mariopols. Whoever gets Ukraine in the end will be getting a shell of a country. I don’t see how Ukraine can hold out if Russia wants to win at any cost. Remember, Russia itself is taking no fire in this war. The destruction is one sided, and will be accelerated.

    Russia’s war is as clumsy as it’s disinformation. But it is massively and tragically destructive.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Matt J

      There's no evidence I've seen that Russia can win in Ukraine, even at any cost. From a tactical sense, the missiles they fire at civilians are essentially wasted - they're not degrading the Ukrainian military's capacity to fight, but they are making them more willing to keep fighting. They can barely afford to have the one Mariupol they have now - it's a drain on their resources right as they're trying to catch a second wind.
      The Pentagon's latest estimate is that Russia has lost a full 25% of the combat force they committed to Ukraine. Even targeting half as much territory now as they once did, the cracks are showing. By the time their latest push is over, they may barely have any army left to speak of.
      Half of Ukraine is already spared. The fight for the Donbas will be brutal, but it will also be a culmination of what they can do. Win or lose, they're screwed.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      “I don’t see how Ukraine can hold out if Russia wants to win at any cost.”
      My usual Churchill fallback:
      “Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those who surrendered tamely were finished.”
      Winston Churchill

      Collapse
      1. Brendan Bossard

        I am reading his history of World War II right now. I am halfway through "Their Finest Hour." With apologies to any French people reading this, the French experience during 1940 dramatically illustrates the debilitating effect of hopeless leadership on a nations fighting spirit. Disorganization, delays, miscommunication, and ultimately surrender resulted. Germany did not win that campaign; France lost it. (The British Expeditionary Force was under French command.)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          There was a unit from a French military academy that performed very well, under Degaulle.

          Collapse
          1. Brendan Bossard

            Absolutely. In fact, Churchill states that the French fought very well in a forlorn cause after the Germans started moving south. It was too late by then. The problem was in the top ranks, not the soldiers. This is a fascinating study.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    A conflict with NATO will doom the Russian military. I have to assume that Putin knows this. In 1940 and 1941 the US was supplying England with all manner of weaponry and even protecting convoys part way across the Atlantic. Hitler knew this but wanted no part of a war with the US. He allowed himself to be dragged into the war because of Japan. Putin has no other reason to allow the conflict to widen
    The question then becomes what is his motivation (even if he is unbalanced there is a motivation).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mike B

      I believe the motivation is to save face.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        If NATO, with the US, becomes involved, there is no face to save. It would seem that ratcheting up the rhetoric is a strategy employed based on a perceived weakness of the west, specifically President Biden.

        Collapse
Load More